The Washington Post is reporting on "new" photos from the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

An Australian television channel today broadcast more photographs of abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad. The graphic images, which included naked, blood-soaked prisoners, were quickly picked up by Arabic television stations and Web sites around the world.

The abuse pictures were similar to or the same as the now-infamous images that came out in April 2004, sparking public outrage, a congressional investigation and the military trials of several U.S. soldiers. But their release could be significant because it comes at a time of already heightened tension between Muslim nations and the West over European newspaper cartoons satirizing the prophet Muhammad.

As the Post noted, the original photos came out almost 2 years ago, in April 2004. Legitimate outrage ensued, congessional investigations were held, military trials for the abusers were held. There's no news value to showing more photos of the same event two years later. The only reason to show them is to generate an emotional reaction to the graphic images, and ratings for the news outlets that show them. Too many people already substitute emotional reactions for thinking about issues as it is.

The Sister Toldjah blog contrasts the treatment of these photos with the alleged "need to show sensitivity to Muslims" regarding the Mohammed cartoons the Post would not show to their readers.

The editors of the Washington Post (and any other American news outlet that chooses to show these photos) should be compelled to explain why these photos, but not the Mohammed cartoons, should be shown. Unlike these photos, which add nothing to any story, the cartoons actually have news value, providing context for stories about Muslims rioting in response to seeing them.

Update: Michelle Malkin is asking the question. And Blackfive has some more Abu Ghraib photos, ones the MSM won't want to show.