by hilzoy
A few days ago I linked to a New York Times article that said that the Department of Defense had defied a court order to release the rest of the photos from Abu Ghraib. Anderson (in comments) points me to this correction by the Times:
“An article on Saturday about a federal judge’s order regarding photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal misstated a deadline and the response by Defense Department lawyers. 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.”
The original article had the headline: “Government Defies an Order to Release Iraq Abuse Photos”. Its first paragraph read: “Lawyers for the Defense Department are refusing to cooperate with a federal judge’s order to release secret photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.” This correction doesn’t signal some minor mistake; it means that the reporter, Kate Zernike, basically got the entire story wrong. Sheesh.
In any case, I wanted to note the correction, and retract anything I wrote that relied on this story. I still want the photos to be released, however. And it would be nice to see someone — anyone other than Kate Zernike — explain what, exactly, is happening in the convoluted proceedings about their release.
Amazingly stupid reporting. The reason for the error — you have to assume a “gotcha” bias (which liberal and conservative media both engage in — it would be nice if the “liberal media bias” crowd were self-aware as to the same trend in their favored conservative media; which, as in the case of Murdoch media, rarely runs any corrections).
How could you so completely get a story wrong? I assume the judge’s order is in the docket, written in English for all to read, even though some aspects of the case are under seal.
This is the sort of cartoonishly bad reporting that undermmines every legitimate effort of the MSM to shed light on the administration.
I don’t understand why the ACLU got it wrong, though, as they’re parties to the lawsuit:
(a href=”http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18817&c=280″>link here. That link also has more information about allegations of physical abuse at Guantanamo, and the warden at Abu Ghraib
They seem to understand that it was about turning over the redacted photos, not releasing them, but to say that the DoD refused to comply. So what the hell is going on here? Neither the original nor the correction is well sourced enough. (I mean, I’m sure she had sources, but the articles are written too opaquely to tell who the sources are.)
In other news, this should surprise no one who has been paying attention, but:
I believe he was testifying only as a witness, not as a defendant; if so that increases his credibility.
Hey, you found a link! I was just coming over because Sifu at Poorman had the text of the correction.
Didn’t corrections use to say “It was a reporter’s error” or “It was an editor’s error” at the end? Or do they still? If the latter, then isn’t the implication of neither’s being there “we were given bad info”?
My assumption about how the error happened is that the reporter was using a press release from the Center for Constitutional Rights, and/or another from the ACLU (which I can’t find anymore). The CCR one, and (if memory serves) the ACLU one, both described the Bush admin. move as an 11th hour attempt to block release of the photos, and while, going back, it’s possible to read them as saying only that the DoD had just ‘refused to turn over’ the photos, they certainly left the impression that the photos were supposed to be made public on the 22nd.
None of that begins to imply that the reporter shouldn’t have nailed the story down before running with it, though.
When I saw the correction in a comment yesterday, I took a quick look at the docket — on the theory that the terms of the order would be unambiguous. As near as I could tell, the clerk’s office is several days behind in filing stuff. There was no order directing anything for July 22, nor was there a copy of the emergency filing.*
I did notice that one source of the government’s delay was that it needed to get security clearances for its lawyers. You’d think they could have done that a year ago, when the case started.
* In New York there is a practice of doing business with the court by letter, rather than by motion or pleading. In nearly every other jurisdiction I’ve appeared, this is not permitted: if you have something to say, you put it on the record in a pleading/motion/notice. Especially in mandatory ECF jurisdictions. I guess the New Yorkers are having trouble letting go . . .
CharleyCarp: The order should be more than a few days old. here is the original court order (June 1) telling the DoD to redact the photos (but, oddly, not to do anything else with them). They had their July 22 extension by June 30, the last time I checked on this. And the CCR describes this extension as having been granted “in June”:
I wish I knew how to look these things up (though I am already very pleased with myself for having mastered the arcane art of finding actual statutes online; can court filings be far behind?)
Hilzoy:
Federal court filings are readily accessable under PACER
. You have to register and then pay per download. You also already have to have case number/name info — I don’t recall if it has a search feature, but I think not.
I assume CharleCarp was using this per his reference in his comment, but maybe he’s also got something better.
It does have a search feature — if you have names of the parties, you’re in good shape.
Cool!
Got any comments on the CAFTA-DR passage, hilzoy?
The case is ACLU v. DOD, 04 Civ. 4151, if that helps.
There’s an order on the docket sheet dated today in which Judge Hellerstein permits the DOD to file (as soon as possible) a redacted version of its 7/22 submission for public consumption, but permitting the ACLU to move to have it unredacted.
Does it define redaction? That is, by redacted, does it mean no faces, or no pictures at all?
No, the 7/28 order says that the DOD can file a redacted version of its 7/22 motion to redact the actual photos; it doesn’t say anything about the ultimate redaction of the photos. The redacted parts of the 7/28 motion apparently include “specific descriptions of the images whose release is sought” and some supposedly security-sensitive stuff.
Oddly, it seems that while the version of the 7/22 motion to be publicly filed redacts both sorts of information, the version of the 7/22 motion provided to the ACLU redacts the descriptions of the photos, but not the security-sensitive stuff. Nice priorities.
Slarti: as per my post on CAFTA, I didn’t like it, despite being, in general, pro free trade if it comes with environmental and labor standards. That said, it’s a much bigger deal for the other countries concerned than for us, and I hope they derive some benefit from it, and that our companies at least have the decency not to sue tiny poor countries if they pass environmental laws.
I have no idea what I meant by the “nice priorities” dig. It makes perfect sense, now I think about it.
Yes, I used my pacer account. Guess I was a day early. In the DDC, when you file a sealed pleading, you must nonetheless file a public notice of having done so in the ECF system. The SDNY apparently doesn’t even require that an unsealed letter requesting an extension — like the June 16 letter about security clearances — go through the ECF system.
I just filed a short brief in the DC Circuit in my Gitmo case — we’ve moved to dismiss the government’s appeal of the order requiring 30 days notice of rendition — and we have to file first with the court security officer, who will then clear the thing for public filing.
The jurisdictional question, for you lawyers, is kind of interesting. The government requested and got a stay of our case pending resolution of the Boumediene and al-Odah appeals. The court added, as a condition of the stay, the requirement that the government give us 30 days notice before transferring (ie rendering) our clients. The government has appealed the notice requirement, but we don’t think it’s an injunction, or an otherwise appealable order. This was our reply brief, so I’d expect a ruling fairly soon. Anyone care to venture a prediction?
Thanks, hilzoy. I thought I remembered your opposition, and I just noticed the vote division was being subjected to a wee bit of demagoguery.
The judge imposed the notice requirement as a condition of granting the stay? So the Government is essentially trying to appeal the court’s refusal to grant their stay no-strings-attached – in other words, they’re appealing the denial of a motion to stay? Can’t do that, surely?
Slarti: I think there are a bunch of Democrats who think it’s just a bad treaty, period, not a reflection of any general views on free trade, let alone the DLC. Actually, one of the things that bothered me about the arguments for CAFTA was that they tended to turn on claims like: voting CAFTA down will send a bad signal about our commitment to free trade. Personally, I don’t think we should sign binding treaties that have the force of law to send signals.
I was thinking more along the lines that noting a party-line vote amongst the opposition cuts both ways, most times.
Why would the court set a deadline for the redaction but no deadline for release?
I remain confused, but hopeful.
“This correction doesn’t signal some minor mistake; it means that the reporter, Kate Zernike, basically got the entire story wrong.”
I see that several other commenters equally leaped in to bash “bad reporting.”
But this is unfair. We have absolutely no way to know whether the reporter deserves full blame, or whether the story was rewritten by copyeditor or other editor, and thus whether the reporter alternatively deserves only some blame or no blame (or, indeed, all the blame). This is the nature of the newswriting/editing system, and it’s unwise to simply assume the reporter, whose name you happen to know, is to blame, and not an editor, whose name you don’t. (Look what happened to Phil Carter’s NY Times piece a few weeks ago, for example.)
Hi, Gary. Nice to see you!
(And I think you’re being fair and right, here. If Zernike skews badly another couple of articles, then maybe bad reporting.)
This sounds like a bit of spin to me.
I saw a note on the ACLU website about 2 months ago saying that the release of the photos was overdue and further court rulings would be required to get them to comply.
At that time it said what was to be released was a very small selection of what was possessed. Either way we will find out soon enough.
Question for CharleyCarp and other lawyers here: When is it reasonable to expect to hear next from Judge Hellerstein? Not until he rules on the latest Defense Dept. motion, or are there other natural procedural opportunities for him to clarify what’s ahead?
On the question of the reporting quality… Sure could be clearer, but I don’t feel as if the responsibility is all with this NYT piece.
Coverage of the initial ruling, back in early June, was that it was an order to release, within the month. That sounded so absolute (and is so much what many of us wanted to hear) that this little DoD ‘gotcha’ of editing deadline vs. release deadline was overlooked — even though it was an element in the Boston Globe’s coverage of the first ruling and a Hearst piece on the extension to July 22.