Were the photos necassary?

[RandFan]

There was an investigation. The investigation was announced in January. Were the photos necassary? And if you believe that they led to the death of Berg would you choose not to have had the photos released?

[Sundog]

Well, duh.

Of COURSE they were necessary. Thank Grid for the media, or we still wouldn't know.

The truth must always come out. Always.

I don't see how you can even question this. It's things like this that make me really wonder where on Earth you're coming from.

[DanishDynamite]

Is a free press really necessary?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Well, duh.

Of COURSE they were necessary. Thank Grid for the media, or we still wouldn't know.

The truth must always come out. Always.

I don't see how you can even question this. It's things like this that make me really wonder where on Earth you're coming from. The truth was coming out. What purpose did it serve for all of it to come out now? I can understand the political importance for the pictures to come out. But since there was an investigation and since the abuse was anounced in Januar I don't see the importance beyond the political.

US probes abuse of Iraqi prisoners Saturday, January 17, 2004. 11:50am (AEDT)

The US military has opened an investigation into "serious reports" of abuse of prisoners by US troops at a coalition detention facility in Iraq.

Larry DiRita, special assistant to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, says the abuses were reported within military channels and involved incidents on more than one day at a detention facility in Baghdad.

"These are serious, serious reports. They are taken seriously - commanders have indicated that they take them seriously, and intend to pursue them," he said.

He says the reports came to light "very recently" and have been referred to the Army's Criminal Investigations Division for investigation.

The military withheld details of the alleged abuse on grounds that disclosure could hinder the investigation.

"An investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a coalition forces detention facility," the US Central Command said in a statement.

A senior defence official, who asked not to be identified, said the alleged abuses were of such a serious nature "that it would be criminal activity if true".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Is a free press really necessary? Absolutely, that is why there was a press conference (see above).

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Is a free press really necessary?

No one is speaking out against free press. It's a simple question of do you need graphic content to make the story count.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
Absolutely, that is why there was a press conference (see above). You don't seem to understand the concept of a free press. Or why they are necessary. Or why they are enshrined in your constitution.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Grammatron


No one is speaking out against free press. It's a simple question of do you need graphic content to make the story count. Of course Randfan is speaking out against the free press. He is asking whether their posting of pictures was really "necessary". Necessary according to what critiria? Whose critiria?

He is indirectly expressing a wish to control what the free press publish.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
You don't seem to understand the concept of a free press. Or why they are necessary. Or why they are enshrined in your constitution. Non sequitur.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
Non sequitur. Non-answer.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
The truth was coming out. What purpose did it serve for all of it to come out now? I can understand the political importance for the pictures to come out. But since there was an investigation and since the abuse was anounced in Januar I don't see the importance beyond the political.



Wow.

I guess I just don't have an answer for that. You and I really think differently.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Of course Randfan is speaking out against the free press. He is asking whether their posting of pictures was really "necessary". Necessary according to what critiria? Whose critiria?

He is indirectly expressing a wish to control what the free press publish. Not at all. You are puting words in my mouth. I'm wondering if the pictures were necassary. The answer is yes or no. The answer would not dictate what I would or would not do to control the press.

I am fanatically pro freedom of the press. I would gladly fight for the rights of the press to print what they deemed appropriate. I'm simply asking if the pictures were necassary. Just because information is available does not mean that it is necassary.

I can think of lots of instances where the press might choose not to print something because the harm would be worse than any value. Which raises the question, were the photos necassary.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Non sequitur.

There's no non-sequitur here at all. He's put his finger precisely on the problem. You really don't understand what a free press is for, and how it has just magnificently proven its worth once again.

A free press is based on the idea that nothing is better hidden.

Oh, but excuse me. I know your many years of research has eliminated the possibility that you might be off base.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Wow.

I guess I just don't have an answer for that. You and I really think differently. I don't understand your response. Could you clarify?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't understand your response. Could you clarify?

I really doubt it. Oh well.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Non-answer. No, it was an answer. Your conclusion does not follow from my statement. It is a non sequitur. But thanks anyway.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
There's no non-sequitur here at all. He's put his finger precisely on the problem. You really don't understand what a free press is for, and how it has just magnificently proven its worth once again.

A free press is based on the idea that nothing is better hidden. So if the press could have given secrets to hitler about operation overlord or any millitary operation they should have because "nothing is better hidden".

Oh, but excuse me. I know your many years of research has eliminated the possibility that you might be off base. The cocnlusion by danish is demonstraby wrong on its face.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
Not at all. You are puting words in my mouth. I'm wondering if the pictures were necassary. The answer is yes or no. The answer would not dictate what I would or would not do to control the press.The answer is not yes or no. The answer is "what are you talking about"? The free press doesn't (hopefully) and certainly shouldn't feel inhibited by someone's concept of "necessary".
I am fanatically pro freedom of the press. I would gladly fight for the rights of the press to print what they deemed appropriate. I'm simply asking if the pictures were necassary. Just because information is available does not mean that it is necassary.In which case I simply don't understand the question.
I can think of lots of instances where the press might choose not to print something because the harm would be worse than any value. Which raises the question, were the photos necassary. I can't think of such instances. Could you give an example? And remember, the free press includes people of every possible political stance, from the KKK to the anarchists.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
So if the press could have given secrets to hitler about operation overlord or any millitary operation they should because "nothing is better hidden"



Yawn, the old "take it to extremes" ploy. It's silly games like this that make me wonder if your intention is really to communicate. You know perfectly well what I mean.

Edited to add:

If your point is that these photos were military secrets on the order of Operation Overlord, that's just too silly a point to address, sorry.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, it was an answer. Your conclusion does not follow from my statement. It is a non sequitur. But thanks anyway. I didn't have any conclusion. I only had questions.

It was a non-answer.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
So if the press could have given secrets to hitler about operation overlord or any millitary operation they should have because "nothing is better hidden".That would presumably be viewed as treasonous. In wich case I doubt they would do it.

What is your point? Are you saying that those pictures were treasonous?
The cocnlusion by danish is demonstraby wrong on its face. I'm slow. Please show me your work.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The answer is not yes or no. The answer is "what are you talking about"? The free press doesn't (hopefully) and certainly shouldn't feel inhibited by someone's concept of "necessary". I'm asking a philosophical question. I'm not making any claims as to what the press should or should not print. The press does make decisions all of the time as to the probative value of information. Just because they have information does not mean that they should print it.

In which case I simply don't understand the question.
I can't think of such instances. Could you give an example? And remember, the free press includes people of every possible political stance, from the KKK to the anarchists. If the press knew the whereabouts of someone that was targeted for death they should not print the information.

If the press knew the identity of an undercover CIA operative they should not print it.

The press should not print any information that would "unnecessarily" put our country at risk. Again, the important word is "unnecessarily". If the information is deemed necessary then I say print it.

[geni]

Originally posted by RandFan
So if the press could have given secrets to hitler about operation overlord or any millitary operation they should have because "nothing is better hidden".

It might have escaped your notice but there was no free press at that time

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Of course Randfan is speaking out against the free press. He is asking whether their posting of pictures was really "necessary". Necessary according to what critiria? Whose critiria?

He is indirectly expressing a wish to control what the free press publish.

Let me give you a for example:

Kobe Bryant (Basketball player for the Lakers) currently on trial on rape charges. The details regarding the alleged incident are freely available and although the gag order has been issues one can find out the victims name, picture, address, phone number, etc. Now let's say there was a videotape and/or pictures of the alleged incident. Should the media show them; does the media need to show them?

[Bjorn]

Rumsfeld, according to NY Times Saturday:

Mr. Rumsfeld revealed that while he had known of the existence of the photographs, he had not until Thursday night viewed any but those broadcast by television or printed in newspapers and magazines.

"It is the photographs that gives one the vivid realization of what actually took place," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Words don't do it. The words that there were abuses, that it was cruel, that it was inhumane, all of which is true, that it was blatant, you read that and it's one thing. You see the photographs, and you get a sense of it, and you cannot help but be outraged."I guess he sums it up pretty well why we needed to see them ... :(

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I didn't have any conclusion. I only had questions.

It was a non-answer. No, it was a conclusion.

DD

You don't seem to understand the concept of a free press. This does not follow from my statement.

[Sundog]

I can't parse your secret agenda here. All I know is that of COURSE the photos are necessary, and OBVIOUSLY so.

Why? Because we are Americans! We are different! We don't do things in shadowy backrooms. Our refuge must always be in honesty, forthrightness, and openness. End of argument.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Yawn, the old "take it to extremes" ploy. It's silly games like this that make me wonder if your intention is really to communicate. You know perfectly well what I mean. It's called argument. Would you agree that there are instances where the press should not print information.

If your point is that these photos were military secrets on the order of Operation Overlord, that's just too silly a point to address, sorry. No, I have made no such claims. I'm trying to get you to admit that there are times when the press should not divulge information.

Do you agree?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Rumsfeld, according to NY Times Saturday:

I guess he sums it up pretty well why we needed to see them ... :(

I disagree. I do not think he is saying everyone should be viewing them just they needed to be seen as they provide a clear picture of what went on and perhaps make it easier to prosecute those responsible.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
That would presumably be viewed as treasonous. In wich case I doubt they would do it.

What is your point? Are you saying that those pictures were treasonous? NO! I'm saying that there are times when it is not appropriate for the press to divulge information.

Do you think that it is appropriate for the press to divulge the identity of undercover CIA operatives.

I'm slow. Please show me your work. Been there done that.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
[B] I'm asking a philosophical question. I'm not making any claims as to what the press should or should not print. The press does make decisions all of the time as to the probative value of information. Just because they have information does not mean that they should print it.Yes, the press decides what it wants to print. Luckily, not all of the members are agreed as to what they should print. Even luckier, they have each have free hands to decide.
If the press knew the whereabouts of someone that was targeted for death they should not print the information.

If the press knew the identity of an undercover CIA operative they should not print it.Is the above explicitly illegal? If so, no they should not print it. If not, they should do what they please.
The press should not print any information that would "unnecessarily" put our country at risk. Again, the important word is "unnecessarily". If the information is deemed necessary then I say print it. The press should print whatever it is legal to print.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
It's called argument. Would you agree that there are instances where the press should not print information.

No, I have made no such claims. I'm trying to get you to admit that there are times when the press should not divulge information.

Do you agree?

BOOOO-RING.

Well, yes, of course. But as I said above, if your point is that these pictures fall in that category, that argument is downright goofy and shows that you really don't understand the true role and importance of a free press.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Let me give you a for example:

Kobe Bryant (Basketball player for the Lakers) currently on trial on rape charges. The details regarding the alleged incident are freely available and although the gag order has been issues one can find out the victims name, picture, address, phone number, etc. Now let's say there was a videotape and/or pictures of the alleged incident. Should the media show them; does the media need to show them? The media should print whatever they wish to their heart's desire, as long as such is not illegal.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, it was a conclusion.

This does not follow from my statement. Whatever.

I expected better.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
I can't parse your secret agenda here. All I know is that of COURSE the photos are necessary, and OBVIOUSLY so.

Why? Because we are Americans! We are different! We don't do things in shadowy backrooms. Our refuge must always be in honesty, forthrightness, and openness. End of argument. This is not an argument. It is just rhetoric.[list=1] Is it appropriate for the press to divulge the identity of CIA operatives?

Are there times when the press should not divulge informations?

Do the pictures advance justice in a way that the investigation would not have?

What is that?

Is it worth the lives of our soldiers?

Is asking questions wrong?[/list=1]

[Sundog]

To get right down to it, YES, the photos were VERY important because it forced those idiots Bush and Rumsfeld to PAY ATTENTION to the issue! They hadn't even read the report!

I really don't get you. Everything I am, the way I was raised, everything I believe tells me that it is an obvious good thing that the photos came out. I really don't understand you. I find that very depressing.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Yes, the press decides what it wants to print. Luckily, not all of the members are agreed as to what they should print. Even luckier, they have each have free hands to decide. I couldn't agree more.

Is the above explicitly illegal? If so, no they should not print it. If not, they should do what they please. I'm not asking what they should do. I'm asking if the above is necassary?

The press should print whatever it is legal to print. No argument. This has nothing what so ever to do with my question.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
NO! I'm saying that there are times when it is not appropriate for the press to divulge information.

Do you think that it is appropriate for the press to divulge the identity of undercover CIA operatives.I don't give two hoots about what you or anyone thinks is "appropriate". We can all make arguments about what we think is appropriate.

Luckily, these arguments are ignored.
Been there done that. You refuse to show why I'm wrong "on the face of it"?

I hope you realize this is the same as saying you have no counter-argument.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
BOOOO-RING.

Well, yes, of course. But as I said above, if your point is that these pictures fall in that category, that argument is downright goofy and shows that you really don't understand the true role and importance of a free press. If you find the subject boring then go away. I am for a free press and you are acting inapropriatly to suggest that I don't. I have only asked a question, Were the photos necassary? I have not called on any changes to law or requesten any one call his or her representatives.

Please don't put words in my mouth or make assumptions that are not warranted.

Can you answer the questions? If you don't want to then please go away.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
If you find the subject boring then go away. I am for a free press and you are acting inapropriatly to suggest that I don't. I have only asked a question, Were the photos necassary? I have not called on any changes to law or requesten any one call his or her representatives.

Please don't put words in my mouth or make assumptions that are not warranted.

Can you answer the questions? If you don't want to then please go away.


**** you.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I disagree. I do not think he is saying everyone should be viewing them just they needed to be seen as they provide a clear picture of what went on and perhaps make it easier to prosecute those responsible. you read that and it's one thing. You see the photographs, and you get a sense of it, and you cannot help but be outragedIt seems to me he is clearly stating that he wasn't outraged before he saw the pictures - they made him 'get a sense of it'.

And we all reacted the same way. Which we should.

Do you remember the discussion about how some of the pictures from Vietnam made a life-long impression on many of us? Some of these pictures will be remembered just as long.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
I couldn't agree more.I'm glad to hear it.
I'm not asking what they should do. I'm asking if the above is necassary?And as I've said before, I don't understand your question. Necessary according to what criteria? According to whose criteria?
No argument. This has nothing what so ever to do with my question. Okay. The legality has nothing to do with your question.

What does your question have to do with?

[corplinx]

This is the question I have been trying to pose calmly and rationally only to be baited by raving bush haters on this forum with things like "why do you believe in suppression?" "Why do you not want the truth to come out?".

These pictures have turned some of the more thoughtful antibush people on this forum into raving lunatics. If anything, its further evidence of why they shouldn't have ever been shown to anyone not related to the military justice system.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
To get right down to it, YES, the photos were VERY important because it forced those idiots Bush and Rumsfeld to PAY ATTENTION to the issue! They hadn't even read the report! Will it have changed the outcome?

I really don't get you. Everything I am, the way I was raised, everything I believe tells me that it is an obvious good thing that the photos came out. I really don't understand you. I find that very depressing. I'm a skeptic. I don't just accept things because I was raised a certain way. I don't allow myself to get bullied into accepting conventional wisdom. I think questions are the way to get answers and to break through the crap that many of us have filled our lives believing. All of the woo-woos that believe in unicorns and invisible men in the sky give the EXACT same answer as you. I don't want you to understand me. I WANT to get you to think and not just accept your own held beliefs. I didn't come here to make friends. I came here seeking knowledge and to challenge people's thinking.

There is nothing wrong with questioning conventional wisdom.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by corplinx
This is the question I have been trying to pose calmly and rationally only to be baited by raving bush haters on this forum with things like "why do you believe in suppression?" "Why do you not want the truth to come out?".

These pictures have turned some of the more thoughtful antibush people on this forum into raving lunatics. If anything, its further evidence of why they shouldn't have ever been shown to anyone not related to the military justice system. If anything, your response is further evidence that having a free press is essential.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bjorn
It seems to me he is clearly stating that he wasn't outraged before he saw the pictures - they made him 'get a sense of it'.

And we all reacted the same way. Which we should.

Do you remember the discussion about how some of the pictures from Vietnam made a life-long impression on many of us? Some of these pictures will be remembered just as long. Thank you Bjorn,

A reasonable voice in a cocophany of bullying. Sundog, see how simple and powerful Bjorn's statement was?

Now don't get me wrong. I still have questions and would still like to discuss it but can't we discuss it using logic and not personal attacks?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I don't give two hoots about what you or anyone thinks is "appropriate". We can all make arguments about what we think is appropriate.

Luckily, these arguments are ignored.
You refuse to show why I'm wrong "on the face of it"? I'm trying to have a philosophical discussion about the probative value of the pictures. I'm not trying to ham string the press. I'm not trying to change any laws. I'm not trying to do anything but discuss the value of printing the photos.

I hope you realize this is the same as saying you have no counter-argument. I hope you realize that I have already shown why the statement is a non-sequitur.

You are putting meaning on a question. Hint: It DOESN'T follow!

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
Thank you Bjorn,

A reasonable voice in a cocophany of bullying. Sundog, see how simple and powerful Bjorn's statement was?

Now don't get me wrong. I still have questions and would still like to discuss it but can't we discuss it using logic and not personal attacks? I'm glad you like Bjorn's answer.

I don't see how it deviates from answers from me or Sundog, though. Perhaps you can enlighten?

[Nasarius]

I'm a skeptic. I don't just accept things because I was raised a certain way.

I think Sundog is pointing out a fundamental difference in thinking; it's what makes some people liberal and others conservative. It has absolutely nothing to do with skepticism. No one is entirely objective; everyone has their thought processes shaped by genetics and environment.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
And as I've said before, I don't understand your question. Then slow down. Take a deep breath.

Necessary according to what criteria? According to whose criteria? Choose one. Were the pictures necassary? Yes, NO, why, why not.

Bjorn came up with an example of why they might be necassary. It did not take any great leaps of understanding. If you think they are necassary why can't you say so and why. Why don't you define the criteria, any criteria, are they necassary?

What does your question have to do with? Your opinion.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm trying to have a philosophical discussion about the probative value of the pictures. I'm not trying to ham string the press. I'm not trying to change any laws. I'm not trying to do anything but discuss the value of printing the photos.Okay.

Perhaps you should have made this clear at the beginning.

So, you would like to debate whether the pictures were necessary. Can I ask by what or by whose critreria we should judge whether they were necessary?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I don't see how it deviates from answers from me or Sundog, though. Perhaps you can enlighten? AFAIK you never answered the question as to why the pictures were necassary. You seemed more intent on deriding the question and my charachter and understanding of a free press rather than dealing with my question.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
Then slow down. Take a deep breath.I've just read your previous response saying you were not trying to change current laws, but were just interested in a philosophical discussion.

I'm now slowing down.
Choose one. Were the pictures necassary? Yes, NO, why, why not.I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I don't understand the question. Whose criteria are you refering to?
Bjorn came up with an example of why they might be necassary. It did not take any great leaps of understanding. If you think they are necassary why can't you say so and why. Why don't you define the criteria, any criteria, are they necassary?You want me to define my own criteria for judging your vague question? OK.

"I personally don't see any reason for the press to not publish anything they wan't as long as it is not in contravention of current law"

Is that clear enough?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Nasarius
I think Sundog is pointing out a fundamental difference in thinking; it's what makes some people liberal and others conservative. It has absolutely nothing to do with skepticism. No one is entirely objective; everyone has their thought processes shaped by genetics and environment. If you look at his post he is belittling my understanding of the free press. And yes, it has everything to do with skepticism. We should all be willing to question our intuitions and held beliefs. Otherwise how will we know if we are wrong.

I asked a question and was attacked for asking the question. This is a skeptics forum. If I can't ask such a simple question without being accused of not understanding the bill of rights then there is a problem. And it is NOT with me.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
So, you would like to debate whether the pictures were necessary. Can I ask by what or by whose critreria we should judge whether they were necessary? Pick one, I'm only interested in your opinion and not any of my preconcived notions. Political, practical, individual, etc. Why do YOU think the printing of the photos is necassary?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
"I personally don't see any reason for the press to not publish anything they wan't as long as it is not in contravention of current law"

Is that clear enough? Yes, I understand you. If it would harm someone and not serve any purpose whatsoever except to make the paper money that is ok with you? Correct? If so then fine. I accept that. I don't think others here woud agree but I do understand.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
Pick one, I'm only interested in your opinion and not any of my preconcived notions. Political, practical, individual, etc. Why do YOU think the printing of the photos is necassary? I'm sorry Randfan, but i guess my mind is closed.

I really, really don't know how you expect me to answer this question.

The pictures were necessary to print because they were evidence of the truth and weren't illegal to publish.

That would have to be my answer.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
[B]Yes, I understand you. If it would harm someone and not serve any purpose whatsoever except to make the paper money that is ok with you? Correct? If so then fine. I accept that. I don't think others here woud agree but I do understand. I could begin spouting logical fallacies like you.

(Fallacy of the excluded middle.)

But I won't. My answer remains as it was before. The press should print anything they want as long as it isn't illegal.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I'm sorry Randfan, but i guess my mind is closed.

I really, really don't know how you expect me to answer this question.

The pictures were necessary to print because they were evidence of the truth and weren't illegal to publish.

That would have to be my answer. I understand and I accept that. I thank you for your response.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I could begin spouting logical fallacies like you.

(Fallacy of the excluded middle.)

But I won't. My answer remains as it was before. The press should print anything they want as long as it isn't illegal. I'm sorry if I made a fallacious argument.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm sorry if I made a fallacious argument. You didn't necessarily make a fallacious argument. I just hate people trying to avoid a good fight by referring to such. :)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
You didn't necessarily make a fallacious argument. I just hate people trying to avoid a good fight by referring to such. :) That is cool. I will try and make that claim a bit slower in the future.

[Aoidoi]

The photos certainly prevent any sort of "sweeping it under the rug." It brought abuses to the public in a way written statements wouldn't have.

On the other hand, they incite anti-American feeling across the Mid-East, make it potentially more difficult to prosecute the offenders in a just manner, and generally make the situation in Iraq to be more of a mess than it already is.

Frankly, the mid-East already isn't fond of us, prosecuting members of the military for their conduct is probably easier than civilians, and if the situation is a mess it started long before these prison incidents. Seems like publishing them was the way to go. I don't think the US goverment gets the right operate without supervision from it's citizenry, they shouldn't get a free ride on anything that happens under their watch.

Were the photos necessary? No. Was the press right in releasing them? I believe so.

(As an aside, it's somewhat interesting to note that the captives in the photos I have seen are hooded, so their identities are not being made public by the release of the photos. On the other hand, at least one woman in the US forces has achieved considerable notoriety as a result. So a potential abuser is identified, but the prisoners are not. I'd be more concerned about the photos if they identified the prisoners.)

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan
That is cool. I will try and make that claim a bit slower in the future. ( I should be in bed)

Anyway, Randfan, I just wanted to say that it has been a joy to debate with you. I'm sorry if I haven't furthered your true inquisitivness, but the topic of freedom of the press is fairly touchy with me.

Best wishes.

[Ed]

I think that even a casual reading of the GC shows that publishing these photos is a violation.

I find it odd that photos of Saddam were deplored and these are welcomed. Odd, but not surprising.

[Ladewig]

1. Is it appropriate for the press to divulge the identity of CIA operatives?

No, for the same reason White House staff should not call half a dozen reporters divulging the identity of a CIA operative; it is illegal. I might even take it a step further and say there may be a time when it is appropriate to publish such an identity, perhaps if an active CIA agent is committing an enormous crime (something as large as Iran-Contra, for instance).

2. Are there times when the press should not divulge informations?

Yes. All media refuses to name their confidential sources; even when the confidential source is breaking the law (CIA story above, for example). Some papers voluntarily withhold the names or photos of rape victims.

3. Do the pictures advance justice in a way that
the investigation without the pictures being public would not have?

I am assuming that is what you are asking. If not, please clarify.

Yes.

4. What is that?

Because the photos were in so many different hands, it would have been only a matter of time before one or more would have shown up in a Middle-eastern media outlet. It is slightly better for the U.S. press to break the graphicness of the story.

If there were two confidential investigations that reported abuse and the abuse continued, then perhaps the graphicness of the photos were what was necessary to generate changes in the system. If the photos had never been released (and could be contained), then the DoD's request for a closed door hearing based on national security grounds probably would have been granted because it really is a national security issue. I am not convinced that a closed-door investigation would have resulted in justice. If the photos were merely described in the press, then there might not have been enough pressure on Congress to push for something stronger than punishing only the PFC's. After all, some people who have seen the photos have made comments comparing the acts to fraternity hazing (Rush Limbaugh, for example). Opinions like that would sound much stronger if only descriptions were available.

At that point the question becomes is justice in this case more important than the lives that it will cost? (there is an assumption that more lives will be lost from showing the photos, but I believe it is a valid assumption).

5. Is it worth the lives of our soldiers and the civilians who may become the victims of domestic terrorist attacks? (If I may expand on your question)

I say yes. However, I will need some time to articulate my opinion.


6. Is asking questions wrong?

No. Here's one more. If it against the law to take photos of major bridges in this country, why were so many cameras floating around a military prison at the front?

[Nasarius]

I find it odd that photos of Saddam were deplored and these are welcomed. Odd, but not surprising.

Not odd at all. The purpose of releasing the photos is completely different.
You'll also notice that the faces of the prisoners are consistently blurred or hidden. *cough*

[Hand Bent Spoon]

I myself am anti-Bush. However, it greatly concerns me when others who hold this view become so tunnel-visioned, they end up criticizing Bush and never the real enemy: Al Qaeda.

Also embarrassing to me is the rabid, emotional stance most people in the anti-Bush crowd seem to harbor. In this very debate, they were the ones to descend to name-calling first.

Bush was wrong about WMDs, he had us go to war over this incorrect issue, and for that he should lose the presidency. It's that simple. The extremely emotional, anti-intellectual Bush trashing makes me very uncomfortable in my stance. For me, it is a simple matter of responsibility, vitriol not being appropriate or useful.

My definition of a free press? A press that can publish facts without needing approval from the government do to so, but also a press that takes the responsibility to ask itself the really tough questions: do we need to publish this? Is it news worthy? Will it do more harm than good? Are we just pandering to curiosity? etc. A free press most certainly is not a press that will publish anything and everything that won't get them hauled into criminal court.

The photos? Let's put it this way: all those prisoners only lost their pride. Al Qaeda's prisoners lose their heads. So you'll excuse me if I maintain the photos in question aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be. Certainly not compared to Al Qaeda's publications.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The media should print whatever they wish to their heart's desire, as long as such is not illegal.

So the media can put up troop movements, mission reports, which groups we are getting close to, etc?

[RPG Advocate]

I think it was absolutely necessary to release those photos. Why?

This thread.

No, really! I'm not joking! There's not going to be one shared opinion on the probabitve value of those photos. The press shouldn't be so arrogant as to decide for us. Some will think the photos have no value whatsoever, while others will think they have great value. If those photos hadn't been released, we wouldn't be here discussing this. These discussions lead to an informed citizenry. An informed citizenry is more capable of making decisions that keep the nation strong.

Now, if the photos don't tell the whole story, or tell a biased story, the correct response is for those who disagree to make a counter-argument. This could lead to the publication of even more information, and more discussion, which again means we are more informed and have more complete information with which to form an opinion, which leads to more threads on boards like this, and the cycle continues.

You really can't separate this specific philosophical question from the larger context of the free press, because saying "No, it wasn't necessary to publish those photos" is another way of saying "The public is incapable of deciding for itself what is and is not relevant".

A press that feels the need to restrain itself--even voluntarily--isn't really free.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Bjorn
It seems to me he is clearly stating that he wasn't outraged before he saw the pictures - they made him 'get a sense of it'.

And we all reacted the same way. Which we should.

Do you remember the discussion about how some of the pictures from Vietnam made a life-long impression on many of us? Some of these pictures will be remembered just as long.

Yes but these are not the same pictures dealing with different problems. The pictures of Vietnams were a visual representation of "war is hell." Something people did not see before broadcasted so frequently everywhere. These pictures are "horrible incident happened" and it was being dealt with; investigation was in progress. How did you benefit from seeing them vs. you reading about it?

[Nasarius]

The photos? Let's put it this way: all those prisoners only lost their pride. Al Qaeda's prisoners lose their heads. So you'll excuse me if I maintain the photos in question aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be. Certainly not compared to Al Qaeda's publications.

Excuse me?

"The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here..we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."

[RandFan]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate
I think it was absolutely necessary to release those photos. Why?

This thread.

No, really! I'm not joking! There's not going to be one shared opinion on the probabitve value of those photos. The press shouldn't be so arrogant as to decide for us. Some will think the photos have no value whatsoever, while others will think they have great value. If those photos hadn't been released, we wouldn't be here discussing this. These discussions lead to an informed citizenry. An informed citizenry is more capable of making decisions that keep the nation strong.

Now, if the photos don't tell the whole story, or tell a biased story, the correct response is for those who disagree to make a counter-argument. This could lead to the publication of even more information, and more discussion, which again means we are more informed and have more complete information with which to form an opinion, which leads to more threads on boards like this, and the cycle continues.

You really can't separate this specific philosophical question from the larger context of the free press, because saying "No, it wasn't necessary to publish those photos" is another way of saying "The public is incapable of deciding for itself what is and is not relevant".

A press that feels the need to restrain itself--even voluntarily--isn't really free. Thank you for the response. Damn good post. While I dont' necassarily agree completly I understand your argument and I think you have a valid point.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Yes but these are not the same pictures dealing with different problems. The pictures of Vietnams were a visual representation of "war is hell." Something people did not see before broadcasted so frequently everywhere. These pictures are "horrible incident happened" and it was being dealt with; investigation was in progress. The pictures of 'war is hell' were a million times stronger than an article about the same topic. Just like now.

How did you benefit from seeing them vs. you reading about it? Again, I can only agree with Rumsfeld here: The pictures showed what was going on, something people (at least Rumsfeld and myself) did not see before (the pictures were) broadcasted so frequently everywhere.

Seeing is believing.

Rumors of abuse were around since last year. Reports of investigations of 'alleged abuse' were around since January. The pictures made the world (and Rumsfeld) see the incredible things that were going on.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
I myself am anti-Bush. However, it greatly concerns me when others who hold this view become so tunnel-visioned, they end up criticizing Bush and never the real enemy: Al Qaeda.

Also embarrassing to me is the rabid, emotional stance most people in the anti-Bush crowd seem to harbor. In this very debate, they were the ones to descend to name-calling first.

Bush was wrong about WMDs, he had us go to war over this incorrect issue, and for that he should lose the presidency. It's that simple. The extremely emotional, anti-intellectual Bush trashing makes me very uncomfortable in my stance. For me, it is a simple matter of responsibility, vitriol not being appropriate or useful.

My definition of a free press? A press that can publish facts without needing approval from the government do to so, but also a press that takes the responsibility to ask itself the really tough questions: do we need to publish this? Is it news worthy? Will it do more harm than good? Are we just pandering to curiosity? etc. A free press most certainly is not a press that will publish anything and everything that won't get them hauled into criminal court.

The photos? Let's put it this way: all those prisoners only lost their pride. Al Qaeda's prisoners lose their heads. So you'll excuse me if I maintain the photos in question aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be. Certainly not compared to Al Qaeda's publications. Again, great post. If anyone had any question as to the purpose of this thread it is this and the posts by RPG advocate and Bjorn.

I didn't start the thread to stroke my ego. I started it as a basis for discussion. I appreciate those who are willing to discuss without assuming that they are by default correct.

A note of appology. While the thread seemed clear to me it is obvious that it wasn't to everyone. For that I am sorry.

RandFan.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ladewig
1. Is it appropriate for the press to divulge the identity of CIA operatives?

No, for the same reason White House staff should not call half a dozen reporters divulging the identity of a CIA operative; it is illegal. I might even take it a step further and say there may be a time when it is appropriate to publish such an identity, perhaps if an active CIA agent is committing an enormous crime (something as large as Iran-Contra, for instance).

2. Are there times when the press should not divulge informations?

Yes. All media refuses to name their confidential sources; even when the confidential source is breaking the law (CIA story above, for example). Some papers voluntarily withhold the names or photos of rape victims.

3. Do the pictures advance justice in a way that
the investigation without the pictures being public would not have?

I am assuming that is what you are asking. If not, please clarify.

Yes.

4. What is that?

Because the photos were in so many different hands, it would have been only a matter of time before one or more would have shown up in a Middle-eastern media outlet. It is slightly better for the U.S. press to break the graphicness of the story.

If there were two confidential investigations that reported abuse and the abuse continued, then perhaps the graphicness of the photos were what was necessary to generate changes in the system. If the photos had never been released (and could be contained), then the DoD's request for a closed door hearing based on national security grounds probably would have been granted because it really is a national security issue. I am not convinced that a closed-door investigation would have resulted in justice. If the photos were merely described in the press, then there might not have been enough pressure on Congress to push for something stronger than punishing only the PFC's. After all, some people who have seen the photos have made comments comparing the acts to fraternity hazing (Rush Limbaugh, for example). Opinions like that would sound much stronger if only descriptions were available.

At that point the question becomes is justice in this case more important than the lives that it will cost? (there is an assumption that more lives will be lost from showing the photos, but I believe it is a valid assumption).

5. Is it worth the lives of our soldiers and the civilians who may become the victims of domestic terrorist attacks? (If I may expand on your question)

I say yes. However, I will need some time to articulate my opinion.


6. Is asking questions wrong?

No. Here's one more. If it against the law to take photos of major bridges in this country, why were so many cameras floating around a military prison at the front? Thanks Ladewig,

A resoned response and you specifically answered my questions.

Well done.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
The photos certainly prevent any sort of "sweeping it under the rug." It brought abuses to the public in a way written statements wouldn't have.

On the other hand, they incite anti-American feeling across the Mid-East, make it potentially more difficult to prosecute the offenders in a just manner, and generally make the situation in Iraq to be more of a mess than it already is.

Frankly, the mid-East already isn't fond of us, prosecuting members of the military for their conduct is probably easier than civilians, and if the situation is a mess it started long before these prison incidents. Seems like publishing them was the way to go. I don't think the US goverment gets the right operate without supervision from it's citizenry, they shouldn't get a free ride on anything that happens under their watch.

Were the photos necessary? No. Was the press right in releasing them? I believe so.

(As an aside, it's somewhat interesting to note that the captives in the photos I have seen are hooded, so their identities are not being made public by the release of the photos. On the other hand, at least one woman in the US forces has achieved considerable notoriety as a result. So a potential abuser is identified, but the prisoners are not. I'd be more concerned about the photos if they identified the prisoners.) Thank you. Sorry for thanking everyone personally but I was so frustrated with the thread at the begining that I felt compelled to do so.

I would like to respond to a number of issues but will wait until later. I need to digest some of the information and think about my response.

Again, thanks to all who responded.

RandFan

[Bjorn]

RandFan, thanks for compliments.

On topic: If we had been in a situation where we had 50 soldiers held hostages in Iraq, and the press postponed printing the pictures not to escalate the dangerous situation for them, I would be fine with that. '60 minutes' waited for weeks because they were asked to.

However, asking them is one thing - telling them is a totally different story. I can see situations where it could be sensibly argued, but not this one.

[Tmy]

Nothing happend until the pictures came out. Nothing would have happend if they did not come out. Public outarage = results.

Id rather the press be accused of releasing too much than too little.

When the govt complains about the press, you know the press is doing somthing right.

[shecky]

Seems to me that if you care about the professionalism and accountability of U.S. forces, then the photos were probably necessary to give any investigations a kick in the butt.

If you're worried about losing the war for hearts and minds, releasing the photos may very well have a great cost .

[Otther]

The press should print anything they want as long as it isn't illegal. The question would then seem to be, when is it necessary for the law to restrict the free press.

[subgenius]

Its all pin dancing. Doesn't matter if they were "necessary" (according to who's definition? and those who argue otherwise are in fact wanting others to censor what they see or perceive), they are there.

The debate is "next time should evil doers suppress the truth?".
Wanna bet recording devices of any kind will be severely restricted?
Can you wage war at all in the digital age?
Would any war have been waged had the people at home seen it for real?
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[subgenius]

The evil doers publicize their evil.
The hypocritical evil doers hide their evil.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tmy
Nothing happend until the pictures came out. Nothing would have happend if they did not come out. Public outarage = results. There was an ongoing investigation. I'm not sure that "nothing was happening".

When the govt complains about the press, you know the press is doing somthing right. When did the government complain.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Otther
The question would then seem to be, when is it necessary for the law to restrict the free press.
Clear and present danger is the only criteria under our constitution.
I anticipate those wanting their own liberty restricted to simple mindedly argue that publishing the photos would present a clear and present danger. They would be wrong legally and factually, but would also miss the point that the publication may prevent a clear and present danger as well.
I will never support a voluntary restriction of my established liberty, of any kind, voting, speech, expression, or whatever. I choose not to be sheep to the slaughter.
Interesting how far we've fallen from long established American principles since 9/11 in the name of 9/11.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
The evil doers publicize their evil.
The hypocritical evil doers hide their evil. Thank you for your involvement sub,

US probes abuse of Iraqi prisoners Saturday, January 17, 2004. 11:50am (AEDT)

The US military has opened an investigation into "serious reports" of abuse of prisoners by US troops at a coalition detention facility in Iraq.

Larry DiRita, special assistant to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, says the abuses were reported within military channels and involved incidents on more than one day at a detention facility in Baghdad.

"These are serious, serious reports. They are taken seriously - commanders have indicated that they take them seriously, and intend to pursue them," he said.

He says the reports came to light "very recently" and have been referred to the Army's Criminal Investigations Division for investigation.

The military withheld details of the alleged abuse on grounds that disclosure could hinder the investigation.

"An investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a coalition forces detention facility," the US Central Command said in a statement.

A senior defence official, who asked not to be identified, said the alleged abuses were of such a serious nature "that it would be criminal activity if true".That is a rather odd way of hidding it.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by RandFan
There was an ongoing investigation. I'm not sure that "nothing was happening".

When did the government complain.

Theres a parade of politicians and pundits bitching about the release of the photos.

As for the investigation. More has happened in the week since the public release than in the months of investigation and reporting. Coinsidence??

[subgenius]

And we only learned of it when the pics came out. There is a reason for civilian control of the military.
As some jerk said, "war is too important to be left to the generals."

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tmy
Theres a parade of politicians and pundits bitching about the release of the photos. I can think of a couple of politicians who have endevoured to put the photos in context. I don't think pundits constitute the government. Which politicians were bitching about the release of the photos?

As for the investigation. More has happened in the week since the public release than in the months of investigation and reporting. Coinsidence?? Do you know for a fact that the outcome will be different?

[DavidJames]

That is a rather odd way of hidding it That story is dated January 17th and what caused it to became front page news in May, 4 and 1/2 months later, requiring the attention of GWB and friends? Not any revelations from the investigation, it was the very pictures that you question needed to be shown.

spinning wheel, got to go round

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
And we only learned of it when the pics came out. There is a reason for civilian control of the military.
As some jerk said, "war is too important to be left to the generals." There were two press confrences to announce it.

US probes abuse of Iraqi prisoners Saturday, January 17, 2004. 11:50am (AEDT)

The US military has opened an investigation into "serious reports" of abuse of prisoners by US troops at a coalition detention facility in Iraq.

Larry DiRita, special assistant to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, says the abuses were reported within military channels and involved incidents on more than one day at a detention facility in Baghdad.

"These are serious, serious reports. They are taken seriously - commanders have indicated that they take them seriously, and intend to pursue them," he said.

He says the reports came to light "very recently" and have been referred to the Army's Criminal Investigations Division for investigation.

The military withheld details of the alleged abuse on grounds that disclosure could hinder the investigation.

"An investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a coalition forces detention facility," the US Central Command said in a statement.

A senior defence official, who asked not to be identified, said the alleged abuses were of such a serious nature "that it would be criminal activity if true". I don't know how you can continue to ignore that fact.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DavidJames
That story is dated January 17th and what caused it to became front page news in May, 4 and 1/2 months later, requiring the attention of GWB and friends? Not any revelations from the investigation, it was the very pictures that you question needed to be shown.

spinning wheel, got to go round Is that the fault of the government or us? The pictures were part of the investigation. I'm not faulting the press here but there was a reason for them not to be made public right away.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by DavidJames
That story is dated January 17th and what caused it to became front page news in May, 4 and 1/2 months later, requiring the attention of GWB and friends? Not any revelations from the investigation, it was the very pictures that you question needed to be shown.

spinning wheel, got to go round
Rummy didn't even look at the pics until the day before the Senate hearing.
Thankfully we have a free (so far) press that made him see the pics, even though his boss brags that he doesn't read the papers.
There would be a good reason not to read the papers if you were in his shoes wouldn't there?
Paging Sgt. Schultz.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
The photos? Let's put it this way: all those prisoners only lost their pride. Al Qaeda's prisoners lose their heads. So you'll excuse me if I maintain the photos in question aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be. Certainly not compared to Al Qaeda's publications.


There is a point of view that doesn't get much air.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Otther
The question would then seem to be, when is it necessary for the law to restrict the free press. Let me say that I am not at all comfortable with the law restricting the free press. I suppose that there are instances when it is warranted. I wouldn't pretend to know when or where.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
Let me say that I am not at all comfortable with the law restricting the free press. I suppose that there are instances when it is warranted. I wouldn't pretend to know when or where.
Clear and present danger.
Since it is at the heart and soul of the question you raised you would be wise to do a little research on the limits of one of our greatest freedoms. No sarcasm or offense intended. I think it would give you the answer to your own question.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Clear and present danger.
Since it is at the heart and soul of the question you raised you would be wise to do a little research on the limits of one of our greatest freedoms. No sarcasm or offense intended. I think it would give you the answer to your own question. I guess you missed the Harrison Ford movie of the same name.

Clear and present danger is understandable as a concept but the actual application is an entirely different matter. Who decides what is clear and present danger? How is that decision made?

And any and all questions could be "researched"? This response could be given to anyone who asks a question. Often I have an answer to someone's question and I know the answer is on-line. I don't tell them that it would be wise to do a little research.

I'm just guessing but isn't this the purpose of the James Randi Education Foundation? Perhaps there should be a disclaimer advising people to research questions before posting.

Better yet, dummies need not post. I love how you tell me that you mean no offence but then make the point that I am lacking in knowledge of one of "our greatest freedoms".

Thanks sub, I'm glad you meant no offence. With friends like you...

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by DavidJames
That story is dated January 17th and what caused it to became front page news in May, 4 and 1/2 months later, requiring the attention of GWB and friends? Not any revelations from the investigation, it was the very pictures that you question needed to be shown.

spinning wheel, got to go round

So the questions are:

1) Now that the pictures are known to the public, will the results of the investigation and subsequent punnishments be different than they would have been?

2) Will those differences be better or worse?

[Otther]

I anticipate those wanting their own liberty restricted to simple mindedly argue that publishing the photos would present a clear and present danger. They would be wrong legally and factually, but would also miss the point that the publication may prevent a clear and present danger as well. I'm actually pleased the photos got out, but simply to be contrary... do you not think that the release of these photos has increased the danger for our people in Iraq?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Otther
I'm actually pleased the photos got out, but simply to be contrary... do you not think that the release of these photos has increased the danger for our people in Iraq?
Absolutely. As did the actual torture itself. So who increased the risk the press or the torturers?
Or maybe the lack of pictures would have increase the risk by letting rumors and reports be in imagination, in excess of what really happened.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius

Absolutely. As did the actual torture itself. So who increased the risk the press or the torturers?
Or maybe the lack of pictures would have increase the risk by letting rumors and reports be in imagination, in excess of what really happened. Seems unlikely since no one cared before the pictures.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Otther
I'm actually pleased the photos got out, but simply to be contrary... do you not think that the release of these photos has increased the danger for our people in Iraq?

Doubtful. To paraphrase Tony and others on that thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40228), people who already hate the US forces don't need another excuse. More opinions may be swayed by this, but to the point of creating new "terrorists"? I don't know.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shecky
Seems to me that if you care about the professionalism and accountability of U.S. forces, then the photos were probably necessary to give any investigations a kick in the butt.

If you're worried about losing the war for hearts and minds, releasing the photos may very well have a great cost . From what we have been told, the pictures would have been out anyway. I think it would have looked a lot worse if the US reluctantly had been forced to admit that yes, they are real. :(

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
I guess you missed the Harrison Ford movie of the same name.

Clear and present danger is understandable as a concept but the actual application is an entirely different matter. Who decides what is clear and present danger? How is that decision made?

And any and all questions could be "researched"? This response could be given to anyone who asks a question. Often I have an answer to someone's question and I know the answer is on-line. I don't tell them that it would be wise to do a little research.

I'm just guessing but isn't this the purpose of the James Randi Education Foundation? Perhaps there should be a disclaimer advising people to research questions before posting.

Better yet, dummies need not post. I love how you tell me that you mean no offence but then make the point that I am lacking in knowledge of one of "our greatest freedoms".

Thanks sub, I'm glad you meant no offence. With friends like you...
It is your choice to take offense.
Sorry you would rather engage in a pissing match than do simple research that the internet makes so easy and painless.
This is a broad question involving fundamental American values that might warrant getting up to speed on before offering an opinion.
But of course you are now speaking on behalf of the purposes of JREF.
This place is not Google, in my opinion. Go there, get some facts, form an opinion, if you have enough, then post. Kinda simple really.
A conclusion is the place we got tired of thinking, because thinking is the hardest work of all.

We shall mutually agree to click the ignore buttons on the count of three. One, two.....

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by RandFan
Seems unlikely since no one cared before the pictures. But isn't this the point (at least for Rumsfeld and myself - Ed, how I like to join forces with him)?

No one cared before the pictures. I think we should care and be worried as hell. The pictures made us. In fact, the pictures made this one of the biggest news stories so far this year, and rightfully so.

[DavidJames]

1) Now that the pictures are known to the public, will the results of the investigation and subsequent punnishments be different than they would have been?

2) Will those differences be better or worse? I would hope the results of the investigation would be complete, fair and honest and would not be influenced by the release of the pictures. However, I suspect the investigation would not have produced the quantity of pictures we are (and will be) seeing. As a result, I think the public "outcry" will be greater with the pictures then would have been with only the investigation.

Regardless, I'm glad the pictures are out there. I hold our country to a higher standard than others, certainly to much higher standard then our "enemies". Having said that, I'm not calling for Rummy's resignation or Bush's head on a stick for this. I would prefer them to stand up and tell us it's a war, it's ugly, bloody and deadly, shut up and deal with it. Inside I think that's what they are thinking and I'd respect them for saying it. The problem is they would lose some votes so instead we will hear how sorry we are and we'll get the privates that caused the problem and we'll be back on course. We don't want to focus on bad pictures of the horrors of war, prisoners, flag draped coffins, nope it's mission accomplished, we'll get those evil doers, it's us against them and you're with us or against us.

Were the photo's necessary?
If you are interested in having the most information available when making any decisions about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, then I'd say yes. If you've already filled out your 2004 ballet with Bush's name circled, checked and punched, yeah, I guess then you might feel differently.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bjorn
But isn't this the point (at least for Rumsfeld and myself - Ed, how I like to join forces with him)?

No one cared before the pictures. I think we should care and be worried as hell. The pictures made us. In fact, the pictures made this one of the biggest news stories so far this year, and rightfully so. You make a valid argument. Thank you.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
It is your choice to take offense. So if I were to call you a jerk and said that I didn't intend for any offence then the choice would be for you to take or not take offence? It really doesn't wash sub, nice try though.

Sorry you would rather engage in a pissing match than do simple research that the Internet makes so easy and painless.Straw man. I'm not at all interested in a pissing match. I'm interested in a philosophical discussion about the merits of the freedom of the press and the extent that the freedom should go. This forum is precisely for that kind of discussion IMO. I suspect if you ask Randi he would agree.

This is a broad question involving fundamental American values that might warrant getting up to speed on before offering an opinion. You are being a world class jerk. Understand that I don't mean any offence. I took civics in high school and poly sci at the University of Utah. I'm not really the idiot that you would like to make me out to be.

This place is not Google, in my opinion. Go there, get some facts, form an opinion, if you have enough, then post. Kinda simple really. Hey, I've got an idea why don't you go f**k yourself. I hope you understand that I don't mean any offense by the way. And if you have a problem with me why don't you report me to the moderators. Other wise keep your smug smarmy opinion to yourself.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are being a world class jerk. Understand that I don't mean any offence.

Hey, I've got an idea why don't you go f**k yourself. I hope you understand that I don't mean any offense by the way.You certainly made your point. :p

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bjorn
You certainly made your point. :p Yeah, sub is taking the war stuff pretty hard. I don't blame him. The deaths and the potential for harm to our country is great. I think many of his points are valid. I just don't know why he has to be so condesending and rude. And then to have chutzpa to tell me not to take offence while he is patting me on the head just ticks me off to no end. I can take advice and even criticism but don't spit on me and then ask me not to take it personal.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
There was an investigation. The investigation was announced in January. Were the photos necassary? And if you believe that they led to the death of Berg would you choose not to have had the photos released?

Even now, with the photos released, people are either down-playing them or ignorant of their actual content. Imagine how much people would be ignoring the reality of what happened without the photos.

[The Fool]

Get real guys, things have changed in the world while you were asleep. If images exist they will become available throughout the world. The days of the supression of information "for all the right reasons" are long gone....get over it, you will have to think of other ways to try to control people's opinions.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Even now, with the photos released, people are either down-playing them or ignorant of their actual content. Imagine how much people would be ignoring the reality of what happened without the photos.

Imagine the holocaust deniers if they could have supressed images of the holocaust "for all the right reasons". What about the perception of Australians of thier own history if images of Aboriginals in chains could have been supressed "for all the right reasons" Or the Japanese facing thier own demons if images of war crimes in China and in POW camps could have been supressed "for all the right reasons" Maybe you people would have supported the supression of images of the world trade towers because it prejudices the fair trials of the terrorists? after all, what was to be gained by releasing them? we all know what happened......

pathetic...stupid and pathetic.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by RandFan Yeah, sub is taking the war stuff pretty hard. I don't blame him. The deaths and the potential for harm to our country is great. I think many of his points are valid. I just don't know why he has to be so condesending and rude. And then to have chutzpa to tell me not to take offence while he is patting me on the head just ticks me off to no end. I can take advice and even criticism but don't spit on me and then ask me not to take it personal.

If someone says to you "You are in need of a fresh shirt, a shower and some deodorant" then the correct response is "I'm sorry, I didn't realise, I'll go do that".

In the same way, when someone politely clues you in to the fact that you really should go Google for half an hour before speaking about a given topic, the correct response is "I'm sorry, I didn't realise, I'll go do that".

To do otherwise is childish.

[Tmy]

Pictures intensify a suituation.

If that beheading wasnt filmed, would the public reaction be as strong? Same goes for the burned bodies that were hung from the bridge.

I really believe that wh/o the release of the pictures this whole scandle wouldve been swept away. Maybe some minor punishments. Certainly there woudlnt have been super quick public court martials in the Baghdad convention center!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Even now, with the photos released, people are either down-playing them or ignorant of their actual content. Imagine how much people would be ignoring the reality of what happened without the photos. This does not answer the question of whether the investigation that was started before the pictures will have any different net effect now that the pictures are out.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
If someone says to you "You are in need of a fresh shirt, a shower and some deodorant" then the correct response is "I'm sorry, I didn't realise, I'll go do that".

In the same way, when someone politely clues you in to the fact that you really should go Google for half an hour before speaking about a given topic, the correct response is "I'm sorry, I didn't realise, I'll go do that".

To do otherwise is childish. It doesn't appear that you read my posts, why is that? I took civics in high school. I took poly sci at the university. I'm not an idiot. I'm trying to have a philosophical discussion about the merits of freedom of the press and the extent that that freedom should go. sub is just being patronizing because he is pissed at me. There was no need for me to google for an hour. And what for? I'm not looking for emperical evidence. I'm looking for people's opinion.

Now you have gotten your condesending little dig in and called me childish. Now you can go f**k yourself also. Christ, why do some of the people on this forum have to be such pr*cks.

I asked a valid question. A number of people responded and answered that question. There is an ongoing discussion. It is an important discussion. What we don't need are jerks like you and sub who don't care to discuss the issue and only wish to derail the thread and make ad hominem argument. If you don't have anything contsructive to add please go away. I don't come to your threads and insult you just to stroke my own ego.

[rikzilla]

Well I've just finished reading the thread and here's my opinion be it ever so humble,...for those that care.

Was it necessary for the pics to come out? No. These sadistic guards were relieved back in Dec, and active investigations have been on-going ever since. This is not an instance where the government was ignoring a crime or sweeping evidence under a thick rug. If they had we would either have never seen the pics,..or the current investigation would be as much an investigation of the cover-up as it is an investigation into the crimes themselves.

OTOH, is there something wrong with the press for publishing this stuff? No. That's their job. These pics do not rise to the level of operational/strategic secrets. Of course they are detrimental to the war effort...but you cannot rationally blame the messenger for the message. The fault is entirely with these troops and their incompetent chain of command, if they had not done these things there would be nothing for the press to report.

Will more Americans die because of these pics? Yes, but then again we are at war and these enemy have already done worse things than summary execution to our people. They will now derive a warped justification for more cruelties...but they really didn't need the justification in the first place. War is ugly, this is war....and remember it may actually get worse.

There will be no Al Qaeda legislature to investigate the murder of Mr. Berg. We are better than they are, and we now get to show the world the real difference between freedom and tyranny. In a free nation we have laws that no one is above...a tyrant is answerable only to himself. It seems like alot of tyrants are vying for power in Iraq,..the IGC is not perfect but it's not a tyranny and we have to be there to help the IGC guide Iraq into law and order and the freedom and prosperity that springs from justice. It may be a forlorn hope, but we have to try.

There is a silver lining here for those who choose to see it. The world will have the opportunity to see us address this crisis...they will see how the system works. Perhaps the more perceptive of our enemies in the middle east will see that we are not merely a country that can raise brutally flawed individuals...but that we can also correct those errors and bring our own people to justice when crimes are comitted. As long as we do a good job of openly investigating these crimes and are seen to be just...in other words, as long as the system is allowed to work, we just may come out of this with a shred of respectability.

-z

[RandFan]

Originally posted by rikzilla
There is a silver lining here for those who choose to see it. The world will have the opportunity to see us address this crisis...they will see how the system works. Perhaps the more perceptive of our enemies in the middle east will see that we are not merely a country that can raise brutally flawed individuals...but that we can also correct those errors and bring our own people to justice when crimes are comitted. As long as we do a good job of openly investigating these crimes and are seen to be just...in other words, as long as the system is allowed to work, we just may come out of this with a shred of respectability.

-z Thanks rik

Good post.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla
There is a silver lining here for those who choose to see it. The world will have the opportunity to see us address this crisis...they will see how the system works. Perhaps the more perceptive of our enemies in the middle east will see that we are not merely a country that can raise brutally flawed individuals...but that we can also correct those errors and bring our own people to justice when crimes are comitted. As long as we do a good job of openly investigating these crimes and are seen to be just...in other words, as long as the system is allowed to work, we just may come out of this with a shred of respectability.
This silver lining would not be possible without the release of the photos, of course.

Politicians are very skilled at hiding things in plain sight. Yes, there was a press release about the abuses - but no one really paid attention without the photos. Chances are, without the photos the investigation would be concluded, there would be a press release detailing whatever punishments are doled out, and it would be largely ignored. So, if you think that it is important that the American people (as well as others) know what actually happened over there, the photos are obviously necessary.

In other words, I am totally with Bjorn on this one.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz

This silver lining would not be possible without the release of the photos, of course.

Politicians are very skilled at hiding things in plain sight. Yes, there was a press release about the abuses - but no one really paid attention without the photos. Chances are, without the photos the investigation would be concluded, there would be a press release detailing whatever punishments are doled out, and it would be largely ignored. So, if you think that it is important that the American people (as well as others) know what actually happened over there, the photos are obviously necessary.

In other words, I am totally with Bjorn on this one.

Well, ignored by the media does not equal case closed. These people would have been dealt justice regardless of whether the media spotlight was on the issue. In the same vein I think that Lacy Peterson would have justice even if the media ignored the case. (Actually this case is an object lesson in the fact that more media glare does not equal more justice.....in fact, the media there is actually hampering the mechanics of the justice system.)

But you do have a point about the silver lining portion of my post,...without intense media scrutiny of the evidence and investigations, the good example of a healthy justice system functioning as advertised would not be widely known.

Don't think, however, that the absence of wall to wall tv coverage means justice is not being done. 99.997%* of all criminal cases are dealt with in the shadows of media apathy.

-z

*The noted statistic was pulled directly from my arse and is what I like to call, "The straight poop", as such it's accuracy is unassailable!

[Bearguin]

First. Good post and I do repsect your opinion both in this thread and another I've read on the topic.

Originally posted by rikzilla
There will be no Al Qaeda legislature to investigate the murder of Mr. Berg. We are better than they are, and we now get to show the world the real difference between freedom and tyranny. In a free nation we have laws that no one is above...a tyrant is answerable only to himself.

I hope you are correct. I'm not sure the US will get much beyond the scapegoats and that those who allowed these actions will go unpunished. That is just the cynic in me.

Releasing the photos has certainly moved the investigation into high gear and I applaud the press for forcing the issue.

Moving away from these individual pictures, I do have a problem with the Freedom of the Press as implemented in the US. Specifically in terms of current court cases. This is one area where I think the press has done a disservice and should have thier ability to publish information restricted, or more accuratley, delayed. There have been several high profile cases in Canada where there has been a court ordered injunction that has been ignored by the US press. They feel they have a right to release all information right now and do so despite the injunction (which may not apply to US press). Our courts seem to like to avoid the whole circus surrounding high profile cases (M. Jackson, OJ Simpson) and give the defendant a right to a fair trial. They allow the reporters in to put their stories together and allow them to publish AFTER the case is settled. I much prefer this and with the US press worked under the same rules.

In short, in this case, yes the photos were necassary.

[Bearguin]

First. Good post and I do repsect your opinion both in this thread and another I've read on the topic.

Originally posted by rikzilla
There will be no Al Qaeda legislature to investigate the murder of Mr. Berg. We are better than they are, and we now get to show the world the real difference between freedom and tyranny. In a free nation we have laws that no one is above...a tyrant is answerable only to himself.

I hope you are correct. I'm not sure the US will get much beyond the scapegoats and that those who allowed these actions will go unpunished. That is just the cynic in me.

Releasing the photos has certainly moved the investigation into high gear and I applaud the press for forcing the issue.

Moving away from these individual pictures, I do have a problem with the Freedom of the Press as implemented in the US. Specifically in terms of current court cases. This is one area where I think the press has done a disservice and should have thier ability to publish information restricted, or more accuratley, delayed. There have been several high profile cases in Canada where there has been a court ordered injunction that has been ignored by the US press. They feel they have a right to release all information right now and do so despite the injunction (which may not apply to US press). Our courts seem to like to avoid the whole circus surrounding high profile cases (M. Jackson, OJ Simpson) and give the defendant a right to a fair trial. They allow the reporters in to put their stories together and allow them to publish AFTER the case is settled. I much prefer this and with the US press worked under the same rules.

In short, in this case, yes the photos were necassary.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Well, ignored by the media does not equal case closed. These people would have been dealt justice regardless of whether the media spotlight was on the issue. In the same vein I think that Lacy Peterson would have justice even if the media ignored the case. (Actually this case is an object lesson in the fact that more media glare does not equal more justice.....in fact, the media there is actually hampering the mechanics of the justice system.) There are a couple of different issues here. The first is whether appropriate sanctions are imposed upon the idividuals that were directly involved in this deplorable incident. On this issue I would agree whether the photos are in the public eye should have little impact on whether justice is done. I am assuming that the photos are available to whatever tribunal is adjudicating this. I would also agree that the intense media circus around cases like Peterson, OJ, Martha, JonBenet ca be quite counter-productive. I have let my opinion on the media's handling of things like this be known in the past.

The second issue is analyzing how such a thing could occur at all, and ensuring that the appropriate measures are taken against it happening again. You need to analyze why it occurred, and whether it is an instance of a few rogues or if there is a more systemic problem - like how the rogues got into that position of power in the first place. On this issue, having the photos public with all of hte extra scrutiny and outrage that goes with it can be quite beneficial. There is less of a chance that the direct offenders will be punished and the larger issues ignored - it forces the gov't to look at the larger issues.

Don't think, however, that the absence of wall to wall tv coverage means justice is not being done. 99.997%* of all criminal cases are dealt with in the shadows of media apathy. I harbour no such illusions. I am well aware that the majority of cases get no media attention. I feel, however, that the systemic issues that must be dealt with in the Iraqi prison incident make it a much different animal than your ordinary criminal case.

As an aside, I also think that even in a case where there is intense media coverage, there are times when a line must be drawn. One of the most famous case of at least the past 25 years in Canada dealt with the kidnapping, sexual abuse and murder of 2 teenage girls by a sick depraved man and his sick depraved wife. They videotaped all of the abuse with the exception of the murders. The only people allowed to see the tapes were those directly involved in the trial - no media, no public. I would say that this is one case where the photos (or video) were absolutely not necessary.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by RandFan
It doesn't appear that you read my posts, why is that? I took civics in high school. I took poly sci at the university. I'm not an idiot.

I'm not saying you are. I'm saying that maybe you needed to brush up on the highly specific issue under discussion, and maybe you take offence way too quickly.


I'm trying to have a philosophical discussion about the merits of freedom of the press and the extent that that freedom should go. sub is just being patronizing because he is pissed at me. There was no need for me to google for an hour. And what for? I'm not looking for emperical evidence. I'm looking for people's opinion.


Believe it or not, even on fuzzy issues like this one people have often done a lot of thinking and writing. They even come to sensible and well supported conclusions every now and then. So you can reinvent the wheel, or you can do an empty opinion poll, or you can go look at what has already been written. Your choice.

The thing is, if you don't look you'll never know if you are missing something.


Now you have gotten your condesending little dig in and called me childish. Now you can go f**k yourself also. Christ, why do some of the people on this forum have to be such pr*cks.

Is it remotely conceivable that you bring this kind of response on yourself somehow? I've noticed that other posters somehow avoid doing so.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I'm not saying you are. I'm saying that maybe you needed to brush up on the highly specific issue under discussion, and maybe you take offence way too quickly. And I'm saying that I don't need to brush up on it. The suggestion is just a put down.

Believe it or not, even on fuzzy issues like this one people have often done a lot of thinking and writing. Guess what, people do lots of thinking and writing on lots of subjects. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You are just being condescending.

They even come to sensible and well supported conclusions every now and then. So you can reinvent the wheel, or you can do an empty opinion poll, or you can go look at what has already been written. Your choice. This is so inane. Yes, this can be said about every subject on the forum. In fact there is so much information and other forums that one could argue that there is no need for the JREF.

The thing is, if you don't look you'll never know if you are missing something. Look, I wanted to have a philosophical discussion. There has been a philosophical discussion. You and sub have contributed nothing to that. Instead you are smarmy and patronizing. Advising me to seek my information in other places. Why don't you take your know it all attitude and go somewhere els?

Is it remotely conceivable that you bring this kind of response on yourself somehow? I've noticed that other posters somehow avoid doing so. Hey Kevin, here's a clue, I'm not other people. I'm not afraid to speak my mind. If someone is being an ********* I will call them on it. If you don't like that maybe you could put me on your ignore list. At the very least keep your condescending, patronizing, smarmy, elitist opinion to yourself. 'K?

Edited to add "elitist"

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by RandFan


Hey Kevin, here's a clue, I'm not other people. I'm not afraid to speak my mind. If someone is being an ********* I will call them on it. If you don't like that maybe you could put me on your ignore list. At the very least keep your condescending, patronizing, smarmy, elitist opinion to yourself. 'K?

Edited to add "elitist"

Tell it like it is brother,....tell it like it is! :D

-z