So, what ever happened to the release of the Abu Ghraib photos?

[Horse with no Name]

You know, the ones that were ORDERED by the court to be released?
I am sure the new court-ordered cessation of the NSA wiretapping will fall on the same deaf ears.
This administration isn't going to be forced by anyone to do anything it doesn't want to.
That is it in a nutshell.

[Benhurst]

1. Recommended: #2 Does anyone out there know? NT

:shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

2. All that I hear is crickets churping.

It's nice to see you Ben.

[BlooInBloo]

3. They (pics & videos) have been up on Salon.com for-like-ever...

where "for-like-ever" means mebbe 6 months or so.

[Horse with no Name]

5. All of them?

including the women and children being raped?
Or just the ones that Bushco would LET us see?

[BlooInBloo]

6. I'm supposed to know the answer to that, how exactly?

EDIT: You could just go look yourself for whatever it is that would satisfy you - the link is on their front page, has been for some time... Let me know if that's what you were looking for...

[Horse with no Name]

12. Well since you are so informed and condescending and a know-it-all

about the subject, OF COURSE you were aware that there was an initial set that was released--the dog collars, bodies being stacked naked, etc that were released, but then there was ANOTHER set that Rumsfeld and Bushco claimed would intensify hostility toward our military if they were shown.
These particular photos show Muslim women and children being raped repeatedly by our military. Bushco REFUSED to release them even after being ordered to.
My question was...were THOSE photos ever released--because the court ordered Bushco to do it and they kept refusing even after being ordered to do so.

[BlooInBloo]

Amazing - so many words that didn't appear in the original question...

.... and yet STILL that's what you claim your original question was.

LOL!

Where precisely did I convey the impression that my knowledge extended beyond the fact that Salon had "the pictures"? If I didn't so convey, then your charge of "know-it-all" would seem to be deficient.

[Horse with no Name]

18. Actually the words were there

The photos THAT WERE ORDERED BY THE COURT to be released.
The others were leaked, therefore not ordered to be released.

[Poll_Blind]

10. No, not all of them- see reply #8. n/t

PB

[Solly Mack]

11. Please see my post below

They have not all been released

[Lars39]

4. K&R

[Imagevision]

7. Katrina happened and the story disappeared...

[Poll_Blind]

8. Yeah, but you're not going to like it. (From what I recall)

This is it "in a nut shell"- sometime in the last year Salon magazine received a CD purportedly containing the "Darby pictures". They published them- about 250 or so. I believe in the full set there were something like 400-500 so it would not appear that they had the full contents- and if I recall I checked the pdf by the guy who did the investigation in the first place (which covered all abuses at Abu Ghraib) for the total number. So, the Boosh Administration said they'd release the photographs but they never- ever did. What they did was send people from the DOJ to "authenticate" the pictures that Salon had.

  What this implies to me, based on my own research into the matter, is that only some percentage of the Abu Ghraib photos were really leaked to Salon and that the government pulled a Mulligan by their "authentication" of the pictures that were out there without actually releasing anything.

  I remember suspecting at the time that the government were the ones who actually handed the CD over to Salon, so Salon could "break" the story, and the government could get off scott free going "Ok, you got me! Those ARE Abu Ghraib photos!" and omitting all reference to the rest of the photographic evidence gathered.

  At the time I called Salon, the ACLU, etc to get more information but I couldn't get any more details out of them.

If anyone has any more information, or contradictory information, please share it!

PB

[Solly Mack]

9. Some links that might help

February 15, 2006 ACLU Press Release regarding photos
http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/24165prs20060215.html

Above ACLU Press Release refers to photos released on the Australian show "Dateline"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/15/abughraib.photos/

* ACLU Torture File for full documentation of legal process
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/torturefoia.html

March 28, 2006 DOD Appeal Dropped
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/pentagon-agrees-to-release-more-abu.php

April 11, 2006 News story on a new photo released
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/04/new-abu-ghraib-photo-handed-over-by.php

Salon Magazine Abu Ghraib Files referenced in above article
http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/index.html

All the photos have not been released.

[Horse with no Name]

13. Just what I figured

Can you imagine the OUTRAGE if Clinton refused to release something of this magnitude?

[Usrename]

20. I think they were introduced as evidence in a trial..

what I think happened last year.. those photos were introduced as evidence in a Courts-Martial somewhere.. and then the trial record was sealed..

I don't have any links or anything, I just remember discussing it and getting really frustrated. This would have been after the court ordered the release of the pictures. At least that is what I remember happening.

[LSK]

14. wow, its been a year hasnt it

:shrug:

[Jacobin]

15. Silly DUer. The junta doesn't obey court orders!!!

[Horse with no Name]

16. Precisely my point

Which is why the NSA wiretapping story doesn't give me any hope at all.:(

[Rex]

17. Good question! Whatever happened to finding WMDs?

Whatever happen to Osama Bin Laden? Why are we not looking for him? Why did the FBI not charge OBL with 911? Why do Senators now say they were lied to by officials about 911? Why are we still waiting for closure on the 911 Commission? Why is the report still not done and not even close to finished?

[bobbolink]

19. Perfect question!

I envy you for having a memory...

:hi: