AP Photographer: Jailed In Iraq For Two Years…

Some context would be useful here.

AP is self-serving. Bilal Hussein was released as part of a general amnesty.
He was captured by American troops in a raid, not on journalists, but on an al-Qaeda safe house. Tests detected explosives on his person.

He had a remarkable ability to capture photographs of al-Qaeda victims during or immediately after their execution.

Such as one of a Italian man shot in the back of the head...his body lying in the desert while his executioners posed over him triumphantly for Bilal to record the moment of insurgent heroism.

There was a high likelihood of Bilal being there while this man was executed. At the very least, he served the propaganda interests of al-Qaeda in Iraq...which is why he had such extraordinary access to scenes of al-Qaeda atrocities.

Of course, AP's defense was that Bilal "just happened" to be there...when insurgents murdered Iraqi election workers in the street...or he just happened to be wandering in the desert, and came up a couple of good old boys with a murdered man...who cheerily posed for a picture.

Interesting how AP does not display many of Bilal's more famous shots in celebrating his talent. M Malkin does however. A useful montage:

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/where-is-b...

Dead on target, marlowecan. But you forgot to mention he was with two known Al Qaeda members in that apartment when he was caught, and there was bomb-making equipment there, not just "trace" on his clothing.

RE: Marlowe and Tully

"AP is self-serving."

First: what does the AP mention have to do with Bilal Hussein's innocence? The AP conspiracy suggestions make you sound like Michelle Malkin. (Fitting that I now see you link to her later in the post. There is your first mistake.)

Bilal Hussein may be in Iraq, but "innocent until proven guilty" is not just a funny ideal for here in America.

"Bilal Hussein was released as part of a general amnesty."

Wrong. Bilal Hussein was released through judicial amnesty; an Iraqi judicial council found him effectively innocent of (or unsubstantiated in being charged with) all accusations:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/0...

"He was captured by American troops in a raid, not on journalists, but on an al-Qaeda safe house."

Wrong. Is this the kind of stuff that passes for justice these days?

Your statement does not even jive with official military statements: he wasn't "captured" in an "al Qaeda safe house," it was at his OWN house, which he voluntarily let U.S. military personnel use, wherein they found what was believed to be suspicious material. Again, for a source -- and not Michelle Malkin:

"Hussein, an Iraqi who lives in the western Anbar province city of Ramadi, has been held without charge by the U.S. military since April 2006, when bomb parts and insurgent propaganda were found in his house after the U.S. military asked to use it as an observation post during an operation."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/19/photo...

"but you forgot to mention he was with two known Al Qaeda members in that apartment when he was caught"

Again: an absolute fabrication. See above.

"He had a remarkable ability to capture photographs of al-Qaeda victims during or immediately after their execution."

...Out of Hussein's body of work, only 37 photos show insurgents or people who could be insurgents, Lyon said. "The vast majority of the 420 images show the aftermath or the results of the conflict -- blown up houses, wounded people, dead people, street scenes," he said.

Only four photos show the wreckage of still-burning U.S. military vehicles.
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/wn_...

"Of course, AP's defense was that Bilal "just happened" to be there..."

Are you sure that you are an American?

You're willing to lobby for the detention of a man for two+ years who has had no evidence presented against him and nothing but speculative statements such as these "incriminating" him.

The military no longer considers him a threat in any way (after more than two years in jail) and the best you can STILL do is to come here and propagate misinformation.

The guy might be guilty, but without a shred of evidence, and with a bunch of "quality" hearsay of the type that Marlowe and Tully are here trying to pawn off, it doesn't seem to matter if he is innocent until proven guilty. It seems people have already made up their mind.

And honestly, it almost sounds like you want him guilty because the pictures involved offend you.

Wow... Pyronite just threw down the gauntlet.

"Wrong. Bilal Hussein was released through judicial amnesty; an Iraqi judicial council found him effectively innocent of (or unsubstantiated in being charged with) all accusations:"

That is not what happened that's the spin his lawyer put on it. The offences that he was to be charged with are covered under the amnesty law. So it doesn't matter is he was guilty or not.


"An amnesty law was enacted in February as a step toward national reconciliation. Under the law, a grant of amnesty effectively closes a case and does not assume or determine guilt or innocence of the accused, unless he had been convicted. Hussein was never brought to trial."
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=172632&src...

The court that released him was an amnesty court that examined if charges fell under the new amnesty law, not guilt or innocence. That claim is pure propaganda and you couldn't and shouldn't get a "innocent" declaration from that court.

And to be fair Hussein has long been suspected of "staged" photos. Mind you it's a fine line, you can't ask them to pose but if they do on their own you can photograph it, and plenty of people living in a less conflicted situation have problems with where to draw the line.

Why is his lawyer's statement an automatic 'spin', but our official's an automatic 'truth'?

It's a rotten shame, but after Abu Graib and Gitmo, one can't tell who's spinnning most. The article linked to by EEllis, for example refers to dropping charges, but also says he was imprisoned on the basis of allegations. Allegations and foraml charges have totally different meanings legally, so which is it?
Your neighbor can allege that you're a spy, but for charges to be brought those allegtions would need substantiation.

At best, this is a confused story and just shows what a bad policy it is to just round up people. the innocent and guilty alike, and keep them locked up for years without a formal examinination of the allegations and documented conclusions.

PS Ellis is relying on a jounalist's version. Are journalists now our ultimate arbiters? Do we pit conflicting journalistic reports against one another. and may the best man(spinner) win?

We have a real problem in discovering sources that can be trusted.

Now, everyone can put theri own spin on it,

Are you nuts? It was an amnesty court, you get that right? Now why in the hell would they worry about guilt? Wouldn't that actually get in their way? Now what story makes sense? It's like one story saying the sky is blue the other green. If the second doesn't give me reason to believe, other than they say so, then I'm going to believe blue.