Judge orders release of Iraq, Afghanistan detainee photos

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

Judge orders release of Iraq, Afghanistan detainee photos
By Ralph Ellis, CNN
Updated 9:12 PM ET, Sat March 21, 2015

(CNN)A federal judge has ordered the Defense Department to release photos that allegedly show detainees being abused in detention centers in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration.

The photos won't be made public right away. In an order issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York granted the government 60 days to appeal.

The ACLU sued the Defense Department in 2003 to have the photos made public. It's not clear how many photos are involved or where the pictures were taken, but in an August opinion Hellerstein said the government acknowledged having at least 29 pictures from at least seven different locations in Afghanistan and Iraq and may have hundreds or thousands more.

Hellerstein said the government failed to prove its argument that releasing the photos would endanger American soldiers or civilians overseas.

Some of the photos may have come from the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

In 2004, photos became public that showed American soldiers abusing Abu Ghraib detainees and putting them into humiliating sexual positions. People in the Mideast and Americans were outraged and shocked by the photos, which added to the national debate on the use of torture in the war on terror.

In July 2011, the judge blocked release of the photos at the urging of the secretary of defense because U.S. troops were still fighting in Iraq, Hellerstein said in an August order. By December 2011, most U.S. ground troops had withdrawn from Iraq, the judge wrote, and he didn't know whether release of the photos would affect military operations.

"Three years is a long time in war, the news cycle and the international debate over how to respond to terrorism," he wrote.

The judge also said the government failed to convince him a collective review of the photos met the requirements of the Protected National Security Documents Act. The ACLU argued the Defense Department must individually review each photo and explain why its release would put Americans in danger.

Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director, said in a statement that the photos are "the best evidence of what took place in the military's detention centers, and their disclosure would help the public better understand the implications of some of the Bush administration's policies."

A response by the Pentagon to the judge's decision was not immediately available.

American policy on the use of torture changed. Congressional hearings were held and 11 U.S. soldiers were convicted of crimes relating to the scandal.

The government fought release of those photos until they were published on the Internet by a third party, Hellerstein noted in the August order.

The Pentagon has refused to release the photos requested by the ACLU, saying publication could endanger American soldiers and civilians overseas.

Several U.S. military leaders who saw some of the pictures made that argument in a December 19 filing in the lawsuit.

They pointed to public demonstrations in Mideast countries that followed reports of Quran burnings, the release of the video "Innocence of the Muslims" and the 2012 release of a video that showed Americans soldiers urinating on dead enemy combatants.

Navy Rear Adm. Sinclair Harris of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Islamist extremist groups like ISIS use "imagery associated with United States detention practices" as part of their recruiting efforts.

The ACLU responded by saying the military leaders didn't see all the photos, just a sampling selected by an army lawyer.

The ACLU also said the leaders didn't explain how the DOD photos were "similarly inflammatory." Their prediction of anti-American violence was only speculation, the ACLU said.

"To allow the government to suppress any image that might provoke someone, somewhere, to violence would be to give the government sweeping power to suppress evidence of its own agents' misconduct," Jaffer of the ACLU said.

I think the pictures should be released, personally. I think the American people have the right to know what was done in their name and on their dime; and I also find the "we can't show people what we did because they would get really mad" argument to be... uncompelling.

**Bromsy**

Ouze wrote:
Judge orders release of Iraq, Afghanistan detainee photos
By Ralph Ellis, CNN
Updated 9:12 PM ET, Sat March 21, 2015

(CNN)A federal judge has ordered the Defense Department to release photos that allegedly show detainees being abused in detention centers in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration.

The photos won't be made public right away. In an order issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York granted the government 60 days to appeal.

The ACLU sued the Defense Department in 2003 to have the photos made public. It's not clear how many photos are involved or where the pictures were taken, but in an August opinion Hellerstein said the government acknowledged having at least 29 pictures from at least seven different locations in Afghanistan and Iraq and may have hundreds or thousands more.

Hellerstein said the government failed to prove its argument that releasing the photos would endanger American soldiers or civilians overseas.

Some of the photos may have come from the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

In 2004, photos became public that showed American soldiers abusing Abu Ghraib detainees and putting them into humiliating sexual positions. People in the Mideast and Americans were outraged and shocked by the photos, which added to the national debate on the use of torture in the war on terror.

In July 2011, the judge blocked release of the photos at the urging of the secretary of defense because U.S. troops were still fighting in Iraq, Hellerstein said in an August order. By December 2011, most U.S. ground troops had withdrawn from Iraq, the judge wrote, and he didn't know whether release of the photos would affect military operations.

"Three years is a long time in war, the news cycle and the international debate over how to respond to terrorism," he wrote.

The judge also said the government failed to convince him a collective review of the photos met the requirements of the Protected National Security Documents Act. The ACLU argued the Defense Department must individually review each photo and explain why its release would put Americans in danger.

Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director, said in a statement that the photos are "the best evidence of what took place in the military's detention centers, and their disclosure would help the public better understand the implications of some of the Bush administration's policies."

A response by the Pentagon to the judge's decision was not immediately available.

American policy on the use of torture changed. Congressional hearings were held and 11 U.S. soldiers were convicted of crimes relating to the scandal.

The government fought release of those photos until they were published on the Internet by a third party, Hellerstein noted in the August order.

The Pentagon has refused to release the photos requested by the ACLU, saying publication could endanger American soldiers and civilians overseas.

Several U.S. military leaders who saw some of the pictures made that argument in a December 19 filing in the lawsuit.

They pointed to public demonstrations in Mideast countries that followed reports of Quran burnings, the release of the video "Innocence of the Muslims" and the 2012 release of a video that showed Americans soldiers urinating on dead enemy combatants.

Navy Rear Adm. Sinclair Harris of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Islamist extremist groups like ISIS use "imagery associated with United States detention practices" as part of their recruiting efforts.

The ACLU responded by saying the military leaders didn't see all the photos, just a sampling selected by an army lawyer.

The ACLU also said the leaders didn't explain how the DOD photos were "similarly inflammatory." Their prediction of anti-American violence was only speculation, the ACLU said.

"To allow the government to suppress any image that might provoke someone, somewhere, to violence would be to give the government sweeping power to suppress evidence of its own agents' misconduct," Jaffer of the ACLU said.

I think the pictures should be released, personally. I think the American people have the right to know what was done in their name and on their dime; and I also find the "we can't show people what we did because they would get really mad" argument to be... uncompelling.

I am of two minds about this.

But that's what happens when you are a Gemini!

**Jihadin**

This ought to be fun, enlightening, and going to draw out the best of posters in the thread

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Bromsy wrote:
But that's what happens when you are a Gemini!

Spoiler:

Also, I say release the pictures.

**Bromsy**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
But that's what happens when you are a Gemini!

Spoiler:

Also, I say release the pictures.

Effectively 100% of the time when I use exclamation points it denotes sarcasm.

**Peregrine**

It must be nice to have the ability to say "this might be bad for me" and get evidence suppressed.

**Hordini**

Peregrine wrote:
It must be nice to have the ability to say "this might be bad for me" and get evidence suppressed.

I don't really care about how it might be bad for politicians. I do have some concerns about how it might be bad for our military personnel who are deployed abroad.

**Laughing Man**

Hordini wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
It must be nice to have the ability to say "this might be bad for me" and get evidence suppressed.

I don't really care about how it might be bad for politicians. I do have some concerns about how it might be bad for our military personnel who are deployed abroad.

If something's bad for our military personnel, then maybe they shouldn't have tortured folks in the first place?

**Hordini**

Laughing Man wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
It must be nice to have the ability to say "this might be bad for me" and get evidence suppressed.

I don't really care about how it might be bad for politicians. I do have some concerns about how it might be bad for our military personnel who are deployed abroad.

If something's bad for our military personnel, then maybe they shouldn't have tortured folks in the first place?

The ones who might suffer for it today are most likely not the ones who committed the acts in the photos in question taken during the Bush administration.

**Ouze**

Hordini wrote:
I do have some concerns about how it might be bad for our military personnel who are deployed abroad.

I don't feel like this is an adequate trump card to cover up any scandal, ever, which is sort of what it's becoming.

**Hordini**

Ouze wrote:
Hordini wrote:
I do have some concerns about how it might be bad for our military personnel who are deployed abroad.

I don't feel like this is an adequate trump card to cover up any scandal, ever, which is sort of what it's becoming.

I'm not saying I don't think they should be released, just that I am concerned about it. I agree that it's not enough to justify covering up a scandal, but I do think it should be taken into account. We already know that there were some serious abuses that went on, so it's not surprising that there are other photos out there. That said, I also think we should be careful when releasing things that could provide another recruiting tool to our enemies.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

Release of the photos might also encourage proper prosecution and punishment of any of those engaged in illegal activity,

especially as doing so would tend to smooth troubled waters in terms of public opinion in the Arab world.

It was clear that part of the reason (along with 'we can't be the bad guys, we're American') that prosecutions were not sought initially was that doing so would have revealed the scope of the abuses that occured

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
Judge orders release of Iraq, Afghanistan detainee photos
By Ralph Ellis, CNN
Updated 9:12 PM ET, Sat March 21, 2015

(CNN)A federal judge has ordered the Defense Department to release photos that allegedly show detainees being abused in detention centers in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration.

The photos won't be made public right away. In an order issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York granted the government 60 days to appeal.

The ACLU sued the Defense Department in 2003 to have the photos made public. It's not clear how many photos are involved or where the pictures were taken, but in an August opinion Hellerstein said the government acknowledged having at least 29 pictures from at least seven different locations in Afghanistan and Iraq and may have hundreds or thousands more.

Hellerstein said the government failed to prove its argument that releasing the photos would endanger American soldiers or civilians overseas.

Some of the photos may have come from the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

In 2004, photos became public that showed American soldiers abusing Abu Ghraib detainees and putting them into humiliating sexual positions. People in the Mideast and Americans were outraged and shocked by the photos, which added to the national debate on the use of torture in the war on terror.

In July 2011, the judge blocked release of the photos at the urging of the secretary of defense because U.S. troops were still fighting in Iraq, Hellerstein said in an August order. By December 2011, most U.S. ground troops had withdrawn from Iraq, the judge wrote, and he didn't know whether release of the photos would affect military operations.

"Three years is a long time in war, the news cycle and the international debate over how to respond to terrorism," he wrote.

The judge also said the government failed to convince him a collective review of the photos met the requirements of the Protected National Security Documents Act. The ACLU argued the Defense Department must individually review each photo and explain why its release would put Americans in danger.

Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director, said in a statement that the photos are "the best evidence of what took place in the military's detention centers, and their disclosure would help the public better understand the implications of some of the Bush administration's policies."

A response by the Pentagon to the judge's decision was not immediately available.

American policy on the use of torture changed. Congressional hearings were held and 11 U.S. soldiers were convicted of crimes relating to the scandal.

The government fought release of those photos until they were published on the Internet by a third party, Hellerstein noted in the August order.

The Pentagon has refused to release the photos requested by the ACLU, saying publication could endanger American soldiers and civilians overseas.

Several U.S. military leaders who saw some of the pictures made that argument in a December 19 filing in the lawsuit.

They pointed to public demonstrations in Mideast countries that followed reports of Quran burnings, the release of the video "Innocence of the Muslims" and the 2012 release of a video that showed Americans soldiers urinating on dead enemy combatants.

Navy Rear Adm. Sinclair Harris of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Islamist extremist groups like ISIS use "imagery associated with United States detention practices" as part of their recruiting efforts.

The ACLU responded by saying the military leaders didn't see all the photos, just a sampling selected by an army lawyer.

The ACLU also said the leaders didn't explain how the DOD photos were "similarly inflammatory." Their prediction of anti-American violence was only speculation, the ACLU said.

"To allow the government to suppress any image that might provoke someone, somewhere, to violence would be to give the government sweeping power to suppress evidence of its own agents' misconduct," Jaffer of the ACLU said.

I think the pictures should be released, personally. I think the American people have the right to know what was done in their name and on their dime; and I also find the "we can't show people what we did because they would get really mad" argument to be... uncompelling.

You may find it uncompelling. I'll let you know if I start seeing an uptick in mortar attacks.

I honestly don't see what good can come from it. Sure, it's information being made public. Ok, sure. Prosecution angle? Doesn't need to be made public to do that. Safety angle? Well, we know that making these public isn't going to make people over there calm, so it's likely to increase the risk of threat that we (service members in theatre) will face. General knowledge angle? If you want humiliation porn, go to reddit.

**Sigvatr**

Why should they be released? For what good purpose? They will just be used by anti-war people who know nothing about war and mispresent it to push their agenda.

**Ouze**

djones520 wrote:
You may find it uncompelling. I'll let you know if I start seeing an uptick in mortar attacks.

Are you complaining you might not be safe after you volunteered to join the military?

You should talk to this guy.

djones520 wrote:
We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
djones520 wrote:
You may find it uncompelling. I'll let you know if I start seeing an uptick in mortar attacks.

Are you complaining you might not be safe after you volunteered to join the military?

You should talk to this guy.

djones520 wrote:
We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.

I started typing out snarky response to you... but I'm just going to call you an donkey-cave instead. I mean, you literally said I should be perfectly fine with letting folks paint an even bigger target on my back. Accepting that there will be risks to my life with this job is one thing. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit there and say "Thank you, may I have another." though when things are going to make the risk of me being hurt more likely, especially when I can see no real compelling reasons for it.

**Ouze**

djones520 wrote:
but I'm just going to call you an donkey-cave instead.

It's a fair rap.

djones520 wrote:
I honestly don't see what good can come from it.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think Lynndie England & co acted on their own initiative, or do you believe they had been ordered to do what they did?

**Squidmanlolz**

Sigvatr wrote:
Why should they be released? For what good purpose? They will just be used by anti-war people who know nothing about war and mispresent it to push their agenda.

Because Americans deserve a transparent government. Our military needs to be held accountable, otherwise what motivation do they have to avoid doing this again in the future?

**Da Boss**

Plus, you know, maybe the pictures aren't as bad as what I'm imagining and I'm being unfair to the american military!

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
djones520 wrote:
but I'm just going to call you an donkey-cave instead.

It's a fair rap.

djones520 wrote:
I honestly don't see what good can come from it.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think Lynndie England & co acted on their own initiative, or do you believe they had been ordered to do what they did?

No clue. Let me ask you a question. Do you think the local Taliban recruiting agent is going to help us find out?

Look, I get keeping information under wraps can be seen as bad. But when warfare is underway, sometimes it happens. Hell, lets look back to WW2 and the Greatest Generation. There was an actual Office of Censorship in our government. It's sole purpose was to control information that we saw, that our enemies saw, etc... People view FDR as one of the greatest, but he was probably the most despotic Pres we ever had. Some of his actions were necessary though.

If we want increased prosecution on these things, then awesome, lets push for it. I have no problem with that. Wrong was done, it should be punished. We don't need these images in the hands of the recruiters of we are fighting though. It's no different then if we'd gone back to WW2, and just handed photos of dead German prisoners to a bunch of SS public affairs folks. Folks would have been in an uproar about the idea of doing that. Yet people are pushing for it today.

**TheSilo**

Squidmanlolz wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Why should they be released? For what good purpose? They will just be used by anti-war people who know nothing about war and mispresent it to push their agenda.

Because Americans deserve a transparent government. Our military needs to be held accountable, otherwise what motivation do they have to avoid doing this again in the future?

+1, that's the long and short of it.

**Ouze**

djones520 wrote:
No clue. Let me ask you a question. Do you think the local Taliban recruiting agent is going to help us find out?

I didn't realize we were bros with them, currently, and that we need to placate them. That was snarky, so let me roll that back: aren't the guys that are inclined to attack US forces already super, super inclined to attack US forces? And wouldn't a better way to prevent those recruiting efforts be to not do all this awful gak in the first place? And wouldn't a good way to not do all this awful gak in the first place to have public awareness and outrage that they even happened?

djones520 wrote:
Look, I get keeping information under wraps can be seen as bad. But when warfare is underway, sometimes it happens. Hell, lets look back to WW2 and the Greatest Generation. There was an actual Office of Censorship in our government. It's sole purpose was to control information that we saw, that our enemies saw, etc... People view FDR as one of the greatest, but he was probably the most despotic Pres we ever had. Some of his actions were necessary though.

No argument there. There are very valid national security considerations to military operations. Secrecy for those things is totally reasonable. But if these actions we are discussing were unlawful, then they are clearly outside the scope of what should be classified, yes?

djones520 wrote:
If we want increased prosecution on these things, then awesome, lets push for it. I have no problem with that. Wrong was done, it should be punished.

I do very much want increased prosecution of those things. I believe Lynndie England when she said she was ordered to do what she did at Abu Ghraib.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to institutional failures such as this, and am extremely leery of the idea that we can use "people will be mad if they find out what we did" as some kind of giant broom to cover up unlawful acts that were done wearing the uniform of the United States.

**djones520**

But you're acting like sunlight hasn't been cast on it. We got a big dose of it about a decade ago. This is just trying to rehash that gak storm.

If there are other instances of it, then it can be handled. Let the prosecutions take place. Let the sentences be shouted out far and wide.

Do not hand propaganda to the enemy though. You don't think ISIS won't try to use it against us? "Hey, look what those American's did to your uncle, why don't you tell us what time you see that C-17 lands tomorrow."

**Ouze**

How likely is it that corruption is likely to be handled if no one knows about it?

I guess it's a moot point. President Obama has been pretty clear that there will be no prosecutions for anything that came before him, anyway, despite such flagrant gak as the CIA burning tapes they were ordered to preserve. In the face of that, it probably doesn't even matter.

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
How likely is it that corruption is likely to be handled if no one knows about it?

I guess it's a moot point. President Obama has been pretty clear that there will be no prosecutions for anything that came before him, anyway, despite such flagrant gak as the CIA burning tapes they were ordered to preserve. In the face of that, it probably doesn't even matter.

Probably setting the precedent to keep his ass out of the fire in a few years?

**d-usa**

The responsibility of any increased risk due to these picture lies purely at the feet of the service members committing these acts and those that authorized/tolerated/ordered them.

"Will there be more mortar fire" should not be a consideration for keeping these pictures hidden. But "will there be more mortar fire" should be a consideration when making the decisions that resulted in those pictures existing in the first place.

**Sigvatr**

Squidmanlolz wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Why should they be released? For what good purpose? They will just be used by anti-war people who know nothing about war and mispresent it to push their agenda.

Because Americans deserve a transparent government. Our military needs to be held accountable, otherwise what motivation do they have to avoid doing this again in the future?

And how many Americans can understand those pictures? 0.X%?

**Iron_Captain**

Sigvatr wrote:
Squidmanlolz wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Why should they be released? For what good purpose? They will just be used by anti-war people who know nothing about war and mispresent it to push their agenda.

Because Americans deserve a transparent government. Our military needs to be held accountable, otherwise what motivation do they have to avoid doing this again in the future?

And how many Americans can understand those pictures? 0.X%?

What is there to understand about pictures of people being tortured? Torture is torture and is bad no matter the situation.

**reds8n**

Whilst one appreciates that this is something of a thorny issue, it's best served without the name calling.

Thank you.

**Jihadin**

Sounds like pictures from GITMO/CIA mainly. If they throw pictures in from the Detention Centers Afghanistan that's totally run by ANA then that's a no issue being we do not run them. Also probably pictures of Iraq Detention centers after turn over to. Hell there's enough incidents already been committed in Afghanistan that pictures are not evening needed. Hell we throw puppies over cliffs to pissing on enemy dead combatants. Only thing not known is sexual abuse of a dead combatant (we did have a few with tags saying Necromancer as a religion). Of course people might scream out how we are not intended enemy wounded but we're only allowed to give them the meds we found in our AFIAK regardless of wounds.

DJ your in a debate that you cannot win. Roll with it.