Thanks - I was just reading decision and saw your post. The abuses shown in the 21 photos don't sound quite as severe as those at Abu Ghraib, according to the Second Circuit decision (quoted in the Daily Kos post): http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/legaldocuments/Order030909.pdf). It says the detainees "were clothed and generally not forced to pose."

There are more photos (in addition to the 21) that the administration had intended to release - 23 + a "substantial number of other images," according to a previous letter to the court: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/letter_singh_20090423.pdf

I haven't seen a description of the contents of those photos, yet.

The link to the Second Circuit court's decision is here: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/acluvdod_photodecision.pdf

"...broadcasting "unedited rape and sodomy of women and children" on public television where children might view it."

This is not what the ACLU has requested. They have requested that photographs be released (many of them redacted), not audio/video of the acts you describe above, which were purportedly in video from Abu Ghraib. We don't know what exactly is in the photographs in question.

He's being asked about the photos & torture now - House Judiciary hearing.

http://cspan.org/Watch/C-SPAN3_wm.aspx

There may be similar questions further on, though. Dan Lungren (R-CA) asked if waterboarding GIs during training is torture, Holder said no, due to intent and context.

The ACLU's Amrit Singh describes how we will gain:

The public value of these images is considerable. As visual records, they convey what words could not possibly communicate. As evidence of abuse at locations other than Abu Ghraib, they undermine the Bush administration’s claim that abuse was aberrational. The disclosure of these images is critical to help the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as the extent to which such abuse was caused by policy decisions. Disclosure is also crucial for assessing official responsibility for the abuse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amrit-singh/release-photos-of-other-a_b_173046.html

A Senate judiciary subcommittee released copies of two unclassified 2005 Bush administration anti-torture memos at a hearing on Wednesday. A third anti-torture memo, written by Philip Zelikow, a former aide to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is in the process of being declassified.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/05/highlights-bush-administrations-anti-torture-memos

The article summarizes the two memos, which are available here:

http://www.motherjones.com/files/Joint%20Paper.pdf

http://www.motherjones.com/files/July%202005%20Memo.pdf

Secrecy News has easier to read copies here: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/05/detainee_interrogation.html

This April 23 letter from the Obama DOJ to Judge Hellerstein notes that in addition to the 21 (of 29) photos to be released, an additional "23 photos previously identified as responsive...and a substantial number of other images contained in Army CID reports" would be released.

Government's Letter to Second Circuit Regarding Anticipated Release of Torture Photos (4/23/09) http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/letter_singh_20090423.pdf

I haven't spent much time looking for a description of the contents of these additional photos, but it may be in here somewhere - List of the ACLU v. Department of Defense FOIA legal documents: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/legaldocuments/index.html

DCLaw1 - I wondered if any of those destroyed tapes were those Hersch described, too.

Here's the original quote:

The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.

You have to guess. There's a hint in the quote itself, but here's another - purely hypothetical, of course: You are a US Government detainee. You will be tried with due process and the state will win or you will be tried with diminished due process and you will lose.

Answer @ sig.

My pleasure. Thank you for reminding me of it - I just dug it up and put it on my reading stack.

Yesterday...

Justice Dept. won't budge on wiretap document

The Obama administration rejected a San Francisco federal judge's demand Friday to let an Islamic organization's lawyers take another look at a classified document that holds the key to their challenge of former President George W. Bush's wiretapping program.

Justice Department attorneys issued a defiant response to last month's order by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker telling them to prepare a plan by Friday that would allow lawyers for the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation to examine the document under secure conditions. The lawyers need the document in order to show that the organization was secretly wiretapped and has the right to sue over the legality of the program.

"The government respectfully does not consent to the disclosure of classified information," Justice Department lawyers told Walker. They said they are in "fundamental disagreement" with his rulings that have allowed the case to proceed, and would insist on review by higher courts before agreeing to any disclosure....

Walker said last month that he would issue his own order allowing Al-Haramain to examine the classified document, with appropriate security measures, if the two sides could not agree on the conditions. Al-Haramain proposed a detailed order Friday, modeled on the government's procedures for sharing classified evidence with lawyers for prisoners at the Guantanamo Naval Base, but the Justice Department said it was unacceptable....

In Friday's filing, however, the Justice Department repeated its earlier position: that the administration, not the courts, controls access to classified material, and that the National Security Agency has determined that Al-Haramain has no legitimate need for the document.

The department did not renew its threat to remove the document from Walker's files if he planned to disclose it to Al-Haramain's lawyers. But government attorneys said they wanted advance notice of any disclosure so they could ask an appellate court to intervene.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/15/MNUH17LE4F.DTL

The DOJ filing is here: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/05/walkercrisis.pdf