Supreme Court throws out ruling ordering release of detainee abuse photos, cites change in law

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has thrown out an appeals court ruling ordering the disclosure of photographs of detainees being abused by their U.S. captors.

In doing so Monday, the high court cited a recent change in federal law that allows the pictures to be withheld.

The justices issued a brief, and expected, order Monday directing the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to take another look at a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union to obtain the photos of detainee abuse. President Barack Obama at first didn't oppose the release, but he changed his mind, saying they could whip up anti-American sentiment overseas and endanger U.S. troops.

The administration appealed the matter to the Supreme Court, but also worked with Congress to give Defense Secretary Robert Gates the power to keep from the public all pictures of foreign detainees being abused.

Gates invoked his new authority in mid-November, saying widespread distribution of the pictures would endanger American soldiers.


Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-us-supreme-court-abuse-photos,0,5887301.story

[LynnTheDem]

1. It ain't the "widespread distribution" of torture PHOTOS that endangers our soldiers...

or anyone else...

Do ya REALLY think the world doesn't already KNOW how America TORTURES people???


So good, let's leave it all to the world's IMAGINATION about America's TORTURE being so bad, they have to hide the photos.

Yeah.

That'll keep us safe!!1!

[avalonofmists]

2. The WH got Congress to do its hiding work for them.

[bdamomma]

6. again keeping the american people sanitized

from the truth. They're afraid what the American people might do if those pictures came out, and what I see no convictions on the Bush Regime too.

[Soylent Brice]

3. didn't see anything on who voted which way, but Sotomayor was not a part of this decision.

the photos will get out. eventually.

[Zorra]

9. I couldn't find any info on what the vote was. Anybody know? n/t

[Soylent Brice]

10. here's this:

http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2009/2pet/7pet/2009-0160.pet.rep.html

http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2009/2pet/7pet/2009-0160.pet.aa.pdf

still sifting through trying to read through all the opinions while on lunch.

[midnight]

12. Good!

[ixion]

4. "cited a recent change in federal law that allows the pictures to be withheld"

ah, the Police State echo chamber in action.

Rule on whether it's constitutional, you nitwits, not whether there was a (bogus) change in the law. :eyes:

[Hissyspit]

5. Amazing, isn't it? Pretzel logic.

[Unvanguard]

20. It's not a constitutional issue, though, just a statutory one.

Freedom of Information Act, I believe. There is no constitutional requirement to have the photos released.

[Piewhacket]

7. I voted for Obama because he promised CHANGE I could believe in.

so WHERE IS IT?

[Thothmes]

26. If you believed that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[Piewhacket]

27. Uh huh... sure. And you voted for him because?

So doesn't that kinda put us both in the same boat?
You know... the proverbial ship of fools.

[Wizard777]

8. This is an ex post facto application of the new law.

This case has to be decided by the laws that were in place when the request was made. Because this involves war crimes. I will point out the concept of higher justice to the high court. The best way to keep photos of detainee abuses from being released to the world at large is to ensure there are no abuses to be photographed. That is the better way to go. But what Congress, the Executive Branch, and now SCOTUS are doing is conspiring to legalize the cover up of war crimes. That is a known corruption. That is not good behavior. Every Justice voting in favor of this should be impeached and removed from the court. Unfortunately for We The People. That would have to be done by the Justices partners in crime and corruption.

[paulsby]

25. not really, because it's administrative

not punitive. administrative rulings can be backwards looking. here's an example.

many years before the passage of the VAWA, many cops pled guilty to misdemeanor DV charges that let them keep their jobs. they figured it was better to plead to a minor charge, keep their job, then fight it in court and if convicted, lose their job.

years later, VAWA was passed. VAWA said that any person convicted of a domestic violence crime could not possess/carry a gun.

even though these pleadings had occurred YEARS before VAWA, those officers were stripped of their guns. the court ruled it constitutional because (this is ridiculous, but it's true) stripping the officers of their guns was not "punitive" even though it meant they had to be fired and could never work as a LEO again, it was "administrative"

[SoapBox]

11. Good Grief...

It's ANOTHER joke (and a very bad joke) on America, the World and those innocent individuals that were tortured (and now we know, tortured to death) by the Bush Regime.

Terrible, terrible, terrible decision.

[Thickasabrick]

13. Meet the new Bush - same as the old Bush nt.

[kpete]

14. Court sides with Gov't in detainee photo case

Source: Talking Points Memo

Court sides with Gov't in detainee photo case

Supreme Court throws out ruling ordering release of detainee abuse photos, cites change in law

Staff
AP News

Nov 30, 2009 10:16 EST

The Supreme Court has thrown out an appeals court ruling ordering the disclosure of photographs of detainees being abused by their U.S. captors.

In doing so Monday, the high court cited a recent change in federal law that allows the pictures to be withheld.

The justices issued a brief, and expected, order Monday directing the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to take another look at a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union to obtain the photos of detainee abuse. President Barack Obama at first didn't oppose the release, but he changed his mind, saying they could whip up anti-American sentiment overseas and endanger U.S. troops.

The administration appealed the matter to the Supreme Court, but also worked with Congress to give Defense Secretary Robert Gates the power to keep from the public all pictures of foreign detainees being abused.



Read more: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/11/court_sides_with_govt_in_detainee_photo_case.php

[FiveGoodMen]

15. Our government is no longer on our side at all.

America has already been stolen.

It's a done deal.

[niyad]

16. were you under the impression it ever was?

[niyad]

17. to what law are they referring?

[Solly Mack]

18. K/R

Sick country

[Doctor_J]

19. The most partisan, activist SCOTUS in history

this group is criminal in its disregard of the Constitution and justice.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Lieberman!

[alp227]

22. MORE censorshit

Wow, has the Supreme Court not known about the First Amendment lately?

First, they side with the FCC in censoring bad words and naked body parts from our TV sets. Even though they're obvious enough to anyone with half a brain.

Now even though torture has been common knowledge and photos of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib have surfaced and been published everywhere (but weren't they blurred for the media?) the Supreme Court won't dare release others. HYPOCRISY.

Worse is the fact that the new Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, didn't even participate in this decision. Por que?

[NYC Liberal]

24. Couple things:

-First Amendment has nothing to do with this.
-The fact that other photos were leaked does not obligate the government to officially release others. That it's known that the US has tortured is irrelevant.
-Sotomayor recused herself because she was serving on the 2nd Circuit when the case was heard there.

That doesn't mean I agree with the claim that the photos will "whip up" anti-American sentiment (how much more could there be?) or endanger troops. I think the photos should be released. But there's no constitutional issue here.

[TexasObserver]

23. Recommend ... more of the same from the crooked, GOP installed court majority.

And more of the same from the new boss, same as the old boss (at least on this topic).