There’s something quite misleading in that headline. The same little trick is pulled in the story‘s lede.
The US government is trying to stop fresh images of prisoner abuse in Iraq being made public, claiming they will aid the insurgency, court papers show.
So what is so misleading? Well, only that there is absolutely nothing “fresh” about these images. Tucked away late in the story, in the fifteenth of sixteen paragraphs to be specific, is the following tidbit:
The images at the centre of the fresh legal battle are believed to have been taken by the same soldier as the original set.
Ah, there we have it — the images are old, but now the legal battle is fresh. Or is it? The BBC keeps using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.