Dept. of Correction on I-Told-You-So Post

|

Yesterday I linked to a New York Times article saying that the Defense Department blew a July 23 deadline to cough up Abu Ghraib images to a federal judge. Now the Times has issued a correction, saying:

The government was given until Friday to black out some identifying details in the material, not to release it. Defense Department lawyers met that deadline, but asked the court to block the public release of the materials. They did not refuse to cooperate with an order for the materials' release.

So now, if I understand things correctly (always a longshot), the decision over whether we'll ever see the images belongs to the judiciary, not the Executive Branch. Thanks to reader Patrick Reagan for the heads-up.

Advertisement

NEXT: Uprooting the Turd Blossom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In other words Matt, the New York Times made a tiny one paragraph mid-week correction to their Sunday (biggest circulation day) story. This was a correction that basically said that entire premise of the original story was wrong. However, the NY Times did not feel it necessary to mention in that little correction that the original premise of the story was now incorrect. My confidence in the honesty and fairness of the editors of the New York Times grows by the second.

  2. Matt,
    What are the next steps in the process of release of the photos, and who makes the next few decisions?

    Also, what do you think the chances are we’ll ever get to see these pictures?

  3. Swampleg — This would be a case arguing for explaining exactly *how* an error got made. (Not that *I* do that, of course.) Meaning, did this happen because that was the mis-understanding of one of the litigants (the ACLU, for example), and then the Times didn’t quite check it out so closely with everyone else? Did the reporter simply write down “Friday: deadline!”, then rush to a story? It doesn’t matter hugely in the scheme of things, but in my ideal anal world a big newspaper would let us know.

  4. in my ideal anal world

    Is this a Santorum reference?

  5. The more I read about what those photos portray, the less likely I think it is that we’ll ever see them. And I really hope to be proven wroong. I want those frat-hazing apologists to explain why it was good for Americans to use objects to rape an underage boy while his mom watched. I want to know why our national security requires us to videotape the rape of a young boy while his screams echo through the room. I want to know why we have to murder people in cold blood. And why it’s good for detainees to get such severe dog bites that they require stitches.

    If even RUMSFELD described the pictures as portraying acts of sadism, then you know it’s some seriously bad stuff going on in our name.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.