A Legal Question About The Photos

Please indulge me, I was trained as an economist, not a man of the law.

How can the Department of Defense refuse to obey a Judge's order to make the photographs from Abu Ghraib public? How could the Department of Justice which won the concession of time, to alter the photos (blank out faces) in such as way as to protect identity's of Iraqis, now indicate that they never even began that process? Why is the person who made the decision not to release the photos not in jail right next the a Reporter who refused to answer to a lawful court?

It has always seemed to me that the last defense the people of the United States have against tyranny is the possibility of the Court acting in concert with the military. Is it now true that our own Military, presumably at some high level, is mutinous in that it is unwilling to obey the dictates of civilian law?

What options are now available to the Judge? Could Federal Marshals be sent to a military base to take control of material that should have been released? Does law count for anything anymore?

This old man would sure like to know.

Pretty scary indeed. They can even make the photos disappear. Our own military, acts on behalf of the Commander in Chief, who is a puppet controlled by Chaney and Rove. Need I say more?

My head is still spinning from the report
about the day Cheney was served a notice
to turn over the Energy Meeting minutes-
They threw the server off the White House property.
Law? What law indeed?
It's like the wild, wild west.
The craziest cowboy wins.
BHN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4178871

That's the exemption they are claiming...as well as "against the Geneva to show the pictures" (mind boggling, I know)

that allows them to ahem protect those involved in an invenstigation, in this case... rummy, wolfie, Fye, Bush, Chenney, Sanchez, Abizaid, and the rest of the gang

Somebody posted the section last night, suposed to protect Police Officers during an active investigation

I am not a lawyer either, but I think by playing the "national security" card they will get away with it. Look what they've been able to do with Colleen Rowley.

I suspect we are screwed again, the can appeal it up to the SC and then win just like they did in 2000.

videos as well. Why doesn't he release them just as he did with the first set?

that is why

He could release those, no?

but I have read that he saw them, not has them....

become familiar with. Apparently there are more pics on that disk that we haven't seen. In addition, after Hersh released the first pictures another soldier came to him with a second CD of pictures. What exactly he did with those and whether or not he kept a copy I do not know. I am sure he made some sort of agreement with the investigators not to publish the pictures at least until the case is resolved. If BushCo is found in contempt of court, then I think he should release whatever he has.

It's his duty to inform the world about the atrocities. If he has those pics, he MUST release them. The sooner the better.

I just can't remember which one.

How can they claim they weren't able to get to the redaction when they have had over 2 months? :shrug:

I'd like to know what the Judge who ordered this release thinks about the stall by the Pentagon....

Like it or not, the system is clearing up the legalities. I'm all for that--up, and until, they find for the government. Their case is shaky at best. Riddled with holes at worst.

As I recall the check against the Court is that Congress has the ability to change or enact law and in fact to change the Constitution if they disagree with the decisions of the court. The Executive still has to obey the god damned law, doesn't it? How could they not? Take this as an example:

What if Bush decreed tomorrow, or the Republican Congress, both houses, tomorrow passed a law that Bush had sworn to enforce, that required that as of Monday morning everyone would be required to be Christian publicly declare just that or to face criminal penalty.

Of course someone would go to court immediately and the Supreme Court could reasonable be expected to say that was inconsistent with the First Amendment and nullify the law or decree. But, what as if as in the current case, the executive (one of its Agency's) simply refused to comply and sent out the military to coordinate the ceremonies of declaration of new found faith?

Folks, if our military will not comply with lawful orders from the court we are all in very very serious trouble.

this whole refusal reminds me of the flag burning episode of Futurama when Lela reminds Nixon of the 1st amendment and he replies that he knows a place where the Constitution doesn't matter, the Supreme Court.

Ideally the judge's orders would be followed but I don't see that happening unless the public starts becoming vocal about them being released. Without public support no branch of the government is going to step in and assist the courts in this matter. They have too much to lose.