Robert Gates protests AP decision as 'appalling'

[El Supremo]

Source: Politico

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is objecting “in the strongest terms” to an Associated Press decision to transmit a photograph showing a mortally wounded 21-year-old Marine in his final moments of life, calling the decision “appalling” and a breach of “common decency.”

The AP reported that the Marine’s father had asked – in an interview and in a follow-up phone call — that the image, taken by an embedded photographer, not be published.

The AP reported in a story that it decided to make the image public anyway because it “conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.”

The photo shows Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard of New Portland, Maine, who was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush Aug. 14 in Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, according to The AP.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26759.html

---

Here is the photo:

http://nbm.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b8c069e20120a5483a0f970b-pi

[theoldman]

1. I have mixed emotions about this.

While I agree with the father I think we have been too isolated from the wars in the Middle East. Most people have no idea of the suffering and sacrifice endured by our military and the civilians.

[No Elephants]

124. I agree: mixed feelings. We are too isolated from the war, but should we demand

that the media report on it daily, as it has through all American Wars before Dummya, or should we publish a single troop's dying moments against the will of his family? Or both?

I am just po'd as I can be about the AP's partisanship though.

[BlueIdaho]

2. The death of one soldier

diminishes us all. I wish the media had larger interests at heart, but I suspect this was just another case of "if it bleeds it leads" big media capitalism.

I say follow the family's wishes - he was their son not ours.

[JDPriestly]

22. We see morgue and murder scenes with their blood and gashes

and pale bodies on TV all the time. They are ugly. They are not real. And they are not necessary. But only a minority objects.

Now Gates wants to stop publication of this picture of a dying war hero even though the hero and his suffering are real. As a free people, we have not only the right but the responsibility, to see that dying hero, to know and remember the moment of his death.

I support the AP. It is time for Americans to grow up and accept responsibility for the deaths of our brave young men and women in the military.

Maybe after we Americans have seen a few of these pictures, we will ask ourselves as Cindy Sheehan did: For what noble cause, Mr. President?

[BlueIdaho]

30. Its not Gates

Its this soldiers family. You can hardly compare the real death of a real American citizen to an actor playing a part for pay. If this is your son - you get to decide, if its not - you don't - and neither does the AP.

As a citizen of a free society you have an obligation to respect the rights of the family. They alone can decide how the death of their son is handled by the media. In your zeal to end this war do not forget the rights of the family to grieve in the manor the believe honors their son best.

edit = typo.

[robo50]

42. Bravo!!! well stated...no American citizen should be

humiliated, or made to see his son's death made part of the media quest for rating$.


AP has been in the Tank with Butcher Bush and the Rethuglicans for years.

It's time AP was shown for what it is, a biased insensitive news source.

AP would have NEVER gone against the wishes of the Bush administration. This is so obviously political.

[No Elephants]

126. +1. as far as AP being purely political. Still undecided about the family getting a veto, though.

[ljm2002]

85. As much as I sympathize with the father...

...in my opinion he does not get the final say as to whether this picture is published. Not legally, morally, or ethically.

His son was fighting a war in all of our name. His demise occurred outside, while armed and pursuing American foreign policy; not in a hospital or at home, where privacy is expected. It is way past time that we stop coddling ourselves by avoiding the wretched results of actual warfare. Of course the family is not going to like it. It is one of the tradeoffs of living in a free(ish) society IMO.

[BlueIdaho]

91. Obviously you've never lost a son or a daughter.

Its always easier to take a tough stand with other peoples' children isn't it?

[NoSheep]

203. I'd have to ask, upon reading your opinion, what stand you have taken to insure the child's safety?

He is the child of ONE family, but he is also a representative of the American people who have paid to have him killed against their will for absolutely no reason other than the profit of the military industrial complex. I care about that.

If his dying body can convince one complacent soul of their crimes against their countrymen by sitting around and being snarky on a message board instead of fighting to bring these soldiers home then I say show his picture. His father could be an absolute bastard who didn't care one whit for his son's future or the consequences of his vote.

So. Can you agree with that idea? You don't know anything about the so-called family that birthed that child. I have known most foot soldiers' families to be brainwashed at best and stone ignorant in the worst case. Sorry. Maybe you've never see real life and it's easy for you to take a tough stand from a bourgeoisie armchair.

Or...maybe you know what I'm talking about and can help me better understand your point of view because if you DO get mine, then you should be able to see why yours may not have some across so well.

[TwilightGardener]

133. Being a soldier doesn't mean he gives up the right to privacy, doesn't

matter if he dies with a roof over his head or out on the street. His family had one last chance to protect him, keep his final moments from being exploited, and the AP kicked them in the teeth. I feel awful for them, having to even witness the photo, let alone watch it get published for curious prying eyes.

[primavera]

182. Unfortunately, we don't have a right to privacy in this country

Only a doctrine of privacy extrapolated mostly from the fourth amendment regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. As such, it's very much tied to location - whether the intrusion upon privacy occurs within one's home, one's mail, etc.. If an event transpires in public, in front of many other people, the law does not provide a right to privacy. In Europe, it's different: there, a right to privacy is written into most countries' constitutions and into the European Convention on Human Rights, so the starting point for any analysis is that citizens have an innate right to privacy. Here, the starting point is that we do not have a right to privacy, except in very specific instances vis a vis state actors, where to object is really not protecting an individual's privacy, but rather curtailing excesses of state power.

[ArcticFox]

141. No veto for the family

The sent the young man off to kill and to die, but they're upset about a people seeing a photo showing the truth? That's insane. And the right to privacy dies with the person who might claim it. (see, e.g. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ea_1242437825 ). The right is not held by the family.

Instead of sympathizing with the family, can't you people here start to understand this family and the others sending their sons and daughters off to war are feeding the problem? Don't they see they're only pawns?

Here's the solution in the future: DON'T SEND YOUR CHILDREN OFF TO WAR. DON'T LET THEM JOIN THE MILITARY.

[Thothmes]

165. Once that person reaches the age of 18 years

a family has absolutely no means of stopping one of their children from enlisting in the armed services.

[No Elephants]

123. Where was the AP during Bush's ban on photos of even flag draped coffins, though? The GOP supported

the Iraq War under Bush, but opposes the Afghan War under Obama.

Problem is, the whole embedding bit stinks. If war correspondents want to go over there on their bosses' dime or on their own, fine. Let them go and report whatever they want. That's how it was in all the wars until Bush. The embedding is just ridiculous. It ceases to be a free press corps and becomes the propaganda corps.

Also, it's about freakin' time that some of the richer Democrats step up and start buying up news media, as the Republicans have been doing for years.

[24601]

79. Agree n/t

[No Elephants]

125. I suspect it was AP's support of the GOP agenda. During Dummya's administration, they

faithfully obeyed the ban on photos, even of anonymous coffins neatly draped in flags. Now that the GOP is opposing Obama and Afghanistan, the AP invades an individual troop's dying moments without his consent and against the wishes of his family, as well as of the policy of leaving these decisions to the family.

I am torn between my love of the First Amendment and peace, on the one hand, and, on the other, my contempt for the shilling for the GOP's agenda.

[robcon]

3. I will not open that link.

I honor the wishes of his family.

[enlightenment]

4. It was inappropriate because they asked the family and the family

requested that they NOT publish the photo.

If this were a photo of a young man moments from death because he had drunkenly wrapped his car around a tree, and the AP were to publish the photo with the same type of justification, many people would be outraged at the breach of privacy and the added grief that the publication caused to the family. The argument that the photo was necessary to convey the dangers of drink driving would be considered specious in the extreme.

The fact that this young man died in war doesn't alter that fact. The AP needs to learn how to use words to convey an image - the way reporters used to do; salacious photos are not a viable replacement for decent reporting.

And worse, this image is sad, but not 'grim' enough to bring home the message they hoped to convey . . . not in an age where people see far worse on TV dramas and films. All the publication will do is stir up anger on the right - and publicize the grief of a family that has already lost their child.

[Deadpan]

8. I somewhat agree

But you have to keep in mind what all journalists know - that a picture is worth a thousand words. While it is a journalist's job to create imagery, you have to realize that a good picture will describe a situation better than any amount of words, and far more accurately, because a picture cannot be warped by a viewer's biases and ideas.

That said, I understand and sympathize with the family of the young man, and wish them all the condolences in the world. Their son made a noble sacrifice, and perhaps it's effect can go farther now that this image is displayed for the world, and specifically the populous of the United States, to see.

[Igel]

37. A picture can't be warped by the viewer's biases and ideas?

You've got to be kidding.

Here's a possible photo: A black boy on the ground, bleeding; two white boys standing over him, profile view so that their expressions aren't clearly visible.

What is it a picture of? Two white boys after having beaten the black boy because they hate blacks? Two white boys who caught up to one of the guys who hit their friend over the head with a 2x4 and beat the crap out of him? Two white boys who found a friend hurt and are waiting for the ambulance to arrive? Two indifferent white boys who ran across a black boy and are trying to decide what to do--steal his stuff, kick him, or call for help?

This picture, the one of the soldier bleeding while waiting for transport. Is it an imperialist aggressoron foreign soil who got what he deserves? A statement on how horrible war is, so we should leave at once--peace first? A statement on how much our boys are enduring, so we should close ranks behind them--support the troops, America first? A statement that kufr aggressors will be dealt with harshly by a Muslim army who, inshallah, shall be victorious--and then destroy America in Allah's name?

After all, some militant Islamist sites routinely post photos of their own, dead, to arouse hatred of the Westerners (granted, the dead died valiantly fighting, but killing one of them is always wrong); and photos of American dead, the gristlier the better, to arouse a sense of victory, that 'we' will kill them all in a most humiliating fashion. Now, if you reversed that and posted them on a very "patriotic" American site, you'd get the reverse impressions. But, of course, not because of the viewer's biases and ideas. A photo is always objective--the less context, the better. :think:

[bejamin wood]

14. We own the boy not his father

That's what happens when you sign up for active duty. You are no longer a citizen, you are a soldier. I want to know what happens. I want to know the burden on us all.

[Posteritatis]

31. This may come as a surprise to you, but soldiers are still citizens. (nt)

[Psephos]

38. I cannot believe I just saw someone on a prog board claim ownership of other humans

scratch that, I guess I can

there are too many progressives these days who think the state (which is nothing more than a political corporation) is more important than the person

gimme that good old-time liberalism any day

:thumbsdown:

[Anakin Skywalker]

120. He Was Being Sarcastic?

[24601]

81. Not all Soldiers are US Citizens; however the overwhelming

majority who are - are indeed citizens in every respect.

Mr. Wood, owning people is repugnant. The family doesn't own a child either, but their wishes should be respected, period.

[TwilightGardener]

131. Idiot. That's one of the dumbest things I ever read on DU.

[TankLV]

146. dumbest post I've read here so far THIS YEAR!!!

[Dr Fate]

17. I paid good money for this war, so I should be "allowed" to see pictures of what I'm paying for.

If the family wants to pay for my share of the war, or pay for my healthcare (the healthcare reform I probably wont get largely BECAUSE of this shit war), I'll reconsider.

[TwilightGardener]

139. You're sick in the head.

[Pretty_in_CodePink]

21. I agree. It's not a very good photograph

But I would like to see the media showing more of the consequences. Also why ask for the family's permission if unwilling to honor their preference?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. Absolutely correct.

[LisaM]

5. That's interesting

because I find endless war without cause appalling.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Kind of ironic, where was the AP during the Cheney/Bush years

of this war?

During that time even flag draped coffins with anonymous bodies were considered too disturbing for the corporate media.

[DCKit]

7. If the peoples can't handle the tragedy of war, we shouldn't be engaging in war.

Gates remembers what happened with Vietnam because the MSM (in print, radio and TV) reported the deaths daily, and would prevent that at any cost.

Dog forbid the people come to realize the true cost of our aggression.

[Critters2]

94. + 1. nt

[JonQ]

186. If people can't handle the true cost of . . .

Insert any other cause in here: drunk driving, then why not show the dead and dying victims of drunk drivers even if it's against the will of their family?

Smoking: we could show a bunch of kids dying from cancer contracted from 2nd hand smoke, who cares what they or their parents want.

In fact your rights should only exist so long as they don't get in the way of the cause of the day.

[truthisfreedom]

9. It's not a good photograph.

It doesn't convey anything to me in particular. I've seen heart-wrenching war photos, and this is not one of them.

They should have respected the father's wishes.

[LibDemAlways]

10. Since the Marine's father specifically asked that the

photo not be published, AP should have honored his request. However, in general I see nothing wrong with graphic depictions of the consequences of war - as a reminder of the ugliness and brutality of armed conflict.

[mike_c]

11. it is perfectly appropriate to publish images of ongoing events...

...including the deaths of individuals killed as a consequence. To do otherwise is censorship. Even good intentioned censorship is anathema to a free society when the information is vital to understanding events-- and certainly exposing the ugliness of unnecessary death in immoral wars is needed to help us all understand the human cost of sending young men and women to die for nothing.

[Mari333]

12. +1

[tocqueville]

15. then show a pedophile raping a baby...

just to show the horror... the absolute freedom of expression is a myth.

[Dr Fate]

18. My tax money does not pay for the acts of pedophiles. My tax dollars pay for this shit war.

If we were funding such a thing,and such a thing was costing us BILLIONS, then yeah, I suppose we should be confronted with it. We dont. Bad metaphor.

I'd love to have photgraphs of Health care reform at work instead, but I'm told that we "can't afford it."

[Mari333]

19. +1

lot of people stay in denial. out of sight, out of mind.

[WriteDown]

34. Your tax money funds many secret operations including

military and research. Should you have access to all that info?

[Dr Fate]

46. Are these "operations", based on lies, costing us BILLIONS and keeping me from getting healthcare?

If so, then sure- I'm for anything that might work to end such operations.

I oppose this shit war, and I support using 1st Amendment rights in an effort expose it for what it is.

[WriteDown]

49. That's up for debate....

Depending on which conspiracy-theory you take a shine towards. Fortunately, the 1st amendment is not a free-for-all.

[Dr Fate]

53. Well, then go debate your wild conspiracy theories with someone. That's not my topic.

These wars that we are in are not "theories" or exercises in politeness.

Yes-the 1st Amendment is not a "free for all"- I'm aware of the limitations on the 1st Amendment.

What exception to the 1st Amendment are you saying this proposed censorship falls under?

[WriteDown]

72. So what exactly should we be able to see?

If its anything we "pay" for then that covers a wide spectrum. I think you are arguing that YOU should be able to see whatever YOU deem worthy.

[Dr Fate]

74. Anything that the 1st Amendment allows the press to report on. n/t

n/t

[WriteDown]

77. Okay...

Then all secret gov't facilities are fair game. We should get some interesting info.

[Dr Fate]

83. LOL! WRONG. Shows that you do not even understand the 1st Amendment.

"Then all secret gov't facilities are fair game. We should get some interesting info."

Secret govt. facilites are state secrets- this generally an exception to the 1st- I said that I wanted access to all the 1st Amendment allows.

Like I already said twice- I'm not the one who needed to comapare state secrtets to this photo to bolster my argument.

Turns out that your use of this comparison does not even bolster your own argument.

I'm almost gone for the holiday- so if I'm not here when you respond, the last word is yours...

[WriteDown]

86. Where does it say that?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." :)

[Dr Fate]

88. LOL! LOL! LOL! You do know that SCOTUS reviews, interprets and incorporates the BOR,right?

SCOTUS has found several exceptions to 1st Amendment rights- state secrets being one of them.

If I wanted to help you out, I'd tell you to argue that this photo is "obscene" under certain community standards. This argument would still fail b/c of it's historical, political & educational value.

Sounds like you need to skip the bar and head to a library. ;)

[WriteDown]

97. Two things....

So if Obama decided to make military casualties state secrets then that pretty much settles the issue? What if Obama decided to make all news of the war state secret? There is also that pesky right to privacy that you probably do not care for.

[sabrina 1]

122. I see you've bought into the 'unitary executive'

theory. Obama is 'the executive branch'. He doesn't legislate. Fyi, Congress is the branch of government that makes law. So, unless he wants to make himself king, as the previous resident of the WH tried to do, there is no danger that your theory will come to pass.

There is no law forbidding the press from publishing war news and/or war photos. There never has been. Bush has confused you.

The people have a right to know what their government is up to. The last administration covered up its crimes in Iraq. While the families of soldiers may express their feelings about the publication of such photos, the press should not be influenced by that.

If the American people prefer the sanitized version of war we have become accustomed to because their sensibilities are too delicate to look at the reality of war, that is too bad. They allowed themselves to be lied into a war. They showed no such sensitivity towards the slaughter of Iraqis nor did they howl in horror that there were pictures of babies blown-to-bits by US bombs, disfigured by WP and DU nor did I hear Gates or anyone of the rest of them rail about how the parents of THOSE victims of war might have felt.

Quite frankly, the US will find very little sympathy for its delicate feelings regarding pictures of the consequences of war when it comes to their soldiers, anywhere in the world.

If you don't want to see war pictures, don't go to war but if you support these wars, then quit whining when you come face to face with what it really means. It isn't a video game.

[WriteDown]

136. You may want to brush up on history

http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/editordetail.php?id=410

FDR did it right?

[sabrina 1]

143. And you might want to read more carefully.

The photo was taken in Papua New Guinea, February 1943, but Life magazine, like all other media outlets during WWII, was required to wait as part of complying with U.S. government censorship for wartime reportage.

The press cooperated with the censorship. Show me a law that made it necessary for them to do so. That would have taken an act of Congress as I already said. And the reason why that has never happened is because it would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Any Congress foolish enough to even try it, would see it go to the Supreme Court almost instantly.

Clearly the AP has decided not to 'cooperate' anymore, just as the press should have always done. And that is the problem, isn't it? The the US press is censored. It is not LEGALLY required to cooperate, but the government has ways of punishing those who do not. Were the entire media to refuse to succumb to such pressure, the American people would have facts, rather than myth to base their decisions on.

The invoking of 'National Security' is an old trick and the fear of being called a traitor has a powerful effect on people, but there is no law, as you imply, that prevents the press from publishing photos from warzones. If that day ever comes, this country may as well burn what's left of the Constitution.

[WriteDown]

145. Wonder why they jumped to comply with blatant censorship?

Sounds unethical. And I also wonder why press can't go into hospitals and film/photograph terminal patients without their consent? A puzzler.

[sabrina 1]

147. I already explained why. Being called a traitor

is a powerful incentive to remain quiet. Also well-known now is the fact that the press was infiltrated, and yes I can provide proof. Now it is even more blatant, they simply hire 'information warriors' or 'perception managers' to funnel 'proper' information to major news media such as the NYT. Groups such as the Rendon Group. Little by little we have been acclimatized to the press being nothing more than an arm of the government especially when it comes to war. And that is a real threat to this democracy.

But the 1st Amendment has not been challenged by any law requiring the press to be censored that I am aware of. That would not work. So they find ways around it, sometimes skirting the law such as using the media to funnel false information to (false WMD info funneled by the Rendon Group to Judith Miller eg) co-operative reporters.

As for the press not going into hospitals, you are talking about private issues. The 1st Amendment doesn't encourage intrusion into the lives of private citizens without their consent. Not a puzzler. However if the press did decide to cover such a story, it is very possible, so long as it could be claimed to have some benefit to the public interest, that their right to do so would be upheld. It's possible.

How do you think tabloids get away with what they do? It is sometimes reprehensible and some have been successfully sued when they crossed the line I mentioned, but there is no law forbidding them to do what they do no matter how morally questionable it may be. Larry Flint won a SC case based on just that. What is reprehensible to some, is still not illegal and is protected by the 1st Amendment.

But tax-payer funded wars fall clearly under the press' 1st Amendment rights, and its duty to the people. Congress is supposed to keep the people informed about how their money is spent. And in the case of war, they are supposed to review every two years I believe, whether the goals have been accomplished (see Bush on Iraq in 2003) after which they are obligated to stop funding them. This was to ensure that the US did not engage in unnecessary and protracted wars. The press' duty is to report on all of it.

I like that system, it has checks and balances. Even when I don't like some of what is published.

Why do you think Gates chose the media to express his 'feelings' about this? If he thought he had a chance, he would have taken them to court or at least threatened to do so. He's just wrong and attempting to hide facts from the people using emotional blackmail to do so. And for some here, it is apparently working.

[WriteDown]

149. So when you become a soldier, you lose the right to privacy?

What other rights to do you lose?

[sabrina 1]

151. Changing the subject again?? Not a good tactic

Soldiers do lose certain rights when in uniform. Look it up. But that is totally irrelevant to this topic, the press' right to publish a photo after death. No citizen who dies on a public road, eg, has the right to not have a picture of that tragedy published in the newspaper. Worse than that, no civilian who dies on a public road, has the right to have their family refuse an autopsy. They simply have no say in it.

Soldiers or civilians, when the story is newsworthy, the press has the right to publish photos and other facts of interest to the general public.

Thanks to laws passed to benefit insurance companies (big surprise) dead people do not have rights. The right of the Insurance company to try to minimize its liability, supercedes the right of the dead person not to have an autopsy. Autopsies after accidents on public roads are done to determine if the person was drinking or under the influence of drugs. And the family has no right to refuse it on their behalf.

By contrast, if the person survives an accident, s/he can not be forced to submit to any kind of test as it would be a violation of their right not to incriminate themselves. Those rights do not apply to the dead, whether they are a soldier or a civilian. And every day people see photos of dead loved ones in the newspaper, and worse, find out that their loved one will be further mutilated for the benefit of some insurance company.

Trying to claim that someone only loses rights because they are a soldier, presumably to elicit some kind of emotional response, just doesn't work.

The dead have no rights regardless of whether they are a civilian or a soldier.

[WriteDown]

154. Nonsense....

So if someone dies on a public university, the press is free to take pictures of the dead or dying body and publish it on the the front page? :rofl:

[sabrina 1]

155. I guesss you forgot about this:

And this:



On the front page of almost every publication when it happened. Google it. As I already pointed out to you, the public interest supercedes the right to privacy when it comes to the press.

[WriteDown]

158. And you think no consent forms were signed?

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

161. Do you really believe that before publishing

newsworthy stories the press has to get a consent form from the families? Talk about :rofl:

I can tell you that when a photo of a member of our family, close to death, was published, no one asked for a consent form. And when they were told how upsetting it was to the family, they were 'understanding' but stated the fact that it was news and they were obliged to cover it. We didn't like it, but there was not a thing we could have done, as they were right.

A friend of mine who is a reporter, has covered accidents, and taken pictures at the scenes of many. Whether they appear in the newspaper or not, is an editor's decision as to whether the photos add something to the story or not. Most editors, unless they are tabloid sensationalists, are not interested in causing grief to a family. But when a story is big enough, such as a war story, and a photo is judged to be necessary, a family's objection will have no legal standing. I'd like to see Gates challenge these photos in court. But he won't, he knows better.

Do you just like to see yourself talk?

[WriteDown]

162. Yes, that is how it works....

Here is just ONE example

http://www.uky.edu/PR/For_UK_Personnel/photo-image_form_faqs.html

[sabrina 1]

163. No, that's not how it works. That article is not relevant at all

to this discussion. First, this does not apply to News StoriePhoto Jouralism. It is in refererence to private individuals, not newsworthy and whose images might be used for 'commercial or marketing' purposes. Second, it is about a library promotional leaflet. That is not news in the general public's interest. And third, it is from the UK where the laws are somewhat different. I am not familiar with their laws.

Here is a case that was ruled on in the US and the decision not challenged by the SC which IS relevant. You could say it is an extreme case as it involved the use of photos of dead fetuses, definitely abhorrent to many people, including me. However, we can not pick and choose what the 1st Amendment applies to and sometimes, as in this case, we are not going to like what is protected by it. But weighing the implications of a ruling that would have forbidden the use of those photos, I am glad the court sided with the 1st Amendment.

Caution: Rightwing fundy pro-life site:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86024

The 9th Circuit opinion, left as the prevailing opinion by the Supreme Court action, was written by Judge Harry Pregerson, considered one of the most liberal judges in the 9th Circuit. The decision was supported by Judges William A. Fletcher and Marsha S. Berzon.

The judges found "the government cannot silence messages simply because they cause discomfort, fear, or even anger."

No consent forms needed. That would make photo-journalism impossible. If that were to happen, that photo-journalists were required to get consent forms for every photo they publish, the courts would be busy for decades. People can always sue if they believe their photo has been used wrongfully by the press, but they would most like lose, as in this case, unless the photo is used for commercial or malicious purposes.

[WriteDown]

167. So aborted fetuses are entitled to the same rights as people?

Are you sure you're in the right place?

Just google "photo consent form."

Here's your homework. Why are they needed? The AP is about to be sued for a TON of money.

[sabrina 1]

168. Wow, you really do have a problem understanding

simple Engilsh. The ruling was for fetuses? A fetus petitioned the court, that's what you got out of that article? The ruling was on behalf of those claiming they had a right to use obnoxious or disturbing photos, such as the dead fetus photos after a claim that they could not. The content of the photos is irrelevant, it is the right of the people to use photos to illustrate their stories, that was in question. Nothing to do with fetuses or their rights.

I have googled 'photo consent form' and you couldn't be more wrong. Again, you cannot differentiate between a photo that has news value and that contributes to the public's right to a free and open press and the gratuitous use of a photo that has no news value.

What would NOT fit that category and would open a news agency up to a lawsuit, would be a photo that is used in a deceptive way intending to mislead the public. A photo that is used for commercial value, without the consent of the individual being used. A photo of a minor not part of a news story and without the parents' consent.

But photos that are an intrinsic part of a news story need no consent form. Do newspapers call Congress, the WH, movie stars, sports players, murder victims, cops, military personel, audiences at protests or political rallies, the Presidential Inauguration, members of rock groups, symphony orchestras etc. and send out millions of consent forms before reporting the news every day?

Really, you're making a ridiculous claim. How come there are not millions of lawsuits every day over the use of photos in the news? :rofl:

As far as the AP being sued, you've completely misunderstood that lawsuit also. That suit is about copyright issues and has nothing to do with freedom of the press regarding publishing photos. The AP was threatening to sue the artist, who they claim, STOLE THEIR PHOTO of Obama and transformed it without their permission, into a work of art.

No one is objecting the AP's use of the photo, the objection was FROM the AP. They claim they own it. The photo was taken by a free-lance reporter who is also claiming ownership. The artist decided to pre-emptively sue the AP before they might sue him. The question central to the case is: Can people steal news photos for their own use? Was the artist's use of the photo, which he admits he got 'on the internet' covered by the 'Fair Use' law. He claims it was, the AP claims it was not.

This case does not support your claim as it has nothing to do with what you are arguing for. It is a copyright case.

[WriteDown]

170. You seem to be a little confused....

the ruling concerned the use of images. If you spot a dog walking down the road, you can take its picture and post it on page one. If you spot a person working in their yard and take a portrait, you need a photo consent form. Its called the right to privacy. Are you following this?

[sabrina 1]

171. Seriously, you're not making sense anymore

The AP case is about stealing photos from a news organization. The question is, was it 'fair use' for the artist to take it and transform it. It is a copyright case. Nothing to do with 'consent'. The photo was of Obama taken by a free-lance journalist for the AP. The AP claims they own it, that's all. The artist claims he has a right under the 'Fair Use' doctrine, to use it and transform it. This has zero to do with the point you are trying to make. It's not even related.

If you take a photo of a person on their front lawn just for kicks and it has nothing to do with a news story and put it on page one, you might get sued.

If there is a disaster in the area and you take a photo of someone on their front lawn and it is relevant to the news story, you need no consent.

Tell me this, all those photos of people during Hurricane Katrina, on rooftops, on their porches, in boats. Did the media get consent forms to publish them? Worldwide news outlets published photos of those people. Same with the Tsunami. How many consent forms were signed for thousands of news agencies by tens of thousands of people whose photos were used by news agencies? And how many lawsuits were filed by the thousands of people whose photos were published?

[WriteDown]

173. Just google photo consent lawsuit....

Why do you think they exist? Could it be the "right to privacy" that you don't believe soldiers should have? AP is going make those parents millionaires. I'm sure its little solace for them, but at least its something.

[sabrina 1]

174. I am not doing your homework for you

Provide a link to your claims, as everyone else does. You have provided nothing but hyperbole, you duck and dodge every fact that is placed before you. If you are talking about a different AP suit, I have zero interest in supplying the research for you. Post a link or I will assume the issue has already been addressed.

I didn't think you would answer any questions, as it has been noted, you never do. You just duck and run and then throw out another meaningless piece of diversionary diatribe with nothing to back it up.

So, I ask you again, where are the consent forms from the hundreds of thousands of people photographed during major disasters, major political rallies, political conventions etc.? With links please. And you if cannot find consent forms from all those people, link to the tens of thousands of lawsuits that surely must have resulted from such media violations of the law.

I will take another dodge of the question as confirmation that you cannot provide such evidence to support your claims, because it doesn't exist.

[WriteDown]

176. I'm talking about the case from the OP...

As for pictures of crowds, or audiences, consent forms are not needed for them. If you'd read some of the legal links, I supplied you'd know that. Brush up on the "right to privacy" and get back to me.

[sabrina 1]

177. Someone is suing over the

photo the AP published of the soldier? Pleases provide a link.

Suing the press is a very risky thing to do as courts are very reluctant to infringe on the freedom of the press and give great latitude to the press realizing the importance of their role in a free society.

I've already provided you with proof of that, a ruling on exactly this issue. I'll remind you again of that ruling, which was allowed to stand by the SC:

The judges found "the government cannot silence messages simply because they cause discomfort, fear, or even anger."

That pretty much ends this discussion as it applies directly to the case in the OP. Anyone who would waste their time trying to sue over that photo, knowing that this ruling already exists, would be a fool.

And I see you've changed your mind about photos of crowds now which is progress I suppose.

[WriteDown]

179. Jjust google "photo consent lawsuit"

or explain why photo consent forms are used by the press. :eyes:

[sabrina 1]

184. No, you provide the link you claim exists

and you explain when and under what circumstances a consent form is used by the press according to YOU. I have given you links, explained why you are wrong and when consent is necessary. Provided you with the court's ruling on the issue and so far you have provided nothing.

It's clear you think that if you keep posting nonsense, you will 'win'. The facts are all against you and your inability to provide evidence of your claim, does not change by your demand that someone 'google photo consent' lawsuit. Fyi, btw, I have certainly done that as I would not get involved in a discussion and make claims I cannot back up.

So, either you provide the evidence to support your claim, or this discussion is over.

[WriteDown]

190. I have provided evidence including actual cases...

legal websites, etc. Its obvious that you feel that soldiers are entitled to certain rights as you've stated clearly upthread. I am not one to unceremoniously remove rights from US citizens. Sad to see how little soldiers rights are worth to some.

[sabrina 1]

191. So, you cannot back up your claims.

I felt certain you could not. A link to a library in the UK discussing whether a promotional brochure with photos might be used for marketing purposes and need a consent form, as you were already told, for so many obvious reasons, doesn't relate in any way to the issues being discussed here.

And you resort to using the troops as a last ditch effort to try to cover for your failure to deal with the issue, which is US law on the right to a free press.

So, I'll repeat what I already said. There is no legal difference between soldiers' and civilians' rights after death. So your ad hom passive aggressive attack is meaningless. There is some difference, which soldiers agree to when they sign up, while they are living and in uniform.

Do I have to post the court's reasoning again as to why they ruled against restrictions on the publication of photos even when they are offensive, anger-inducing or disturbing?

[WriteDown]

198. Looks like you're wrong with Paulsby too...

Not a surprise.

[sabrina 1]

200. No links? Didn't expect any.

Bringing a friend along to divert attention from you ability to prove your claims now? I'll check back to see if you have provided any linds, if not I'll take that as an admission that you were wrong It's not a crime to be wrong, but it does diminish your credibility when you claim to be right but fail to prove it.

[WriteDown]

205. I've provided plenty...

And that fact that you think Paulsby is a friend of mine shows a little paranoia. May want to have that looked at. :)

[paulsby]

178. get real!

"Autopsies after accidents on public roads are done to determine if the person was drinking or under the influence of drugs."

um,no . drug toxicology tests do not require autopsies. autopsies are relatively rare after fatal accidents. i know. i have investigated MANY collisions, and a fair # of fatal ones.

fwiw, autopsies, at least in my jurisdiction are rare even in unattended death, if the responding officer does an investigation and doesn't see inconsistencies with a "natural death", the ME is simply contacted by phone,he interviews the officer (takes about 5 minutes), and he issues a NJA number (which releases jurisdiction, so the family can take custody of the body and call a funeral home).

most drug toxicology reports in auto collisions rely on blood samples.

[sabrina 1]

183. If a legal autority orders an autopsy

the family has no say in it, other than, possibly, for religious purposes. If that is not the case, then our family was lied to by the Coroner, the local police, our own attorney and a friend who is a NYC Police Captain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopsy

An autopsy is frequently performed in cases of sudden death, where a doctor is not able to write a death certificate, or when death is believed to be due to an unnatural cause. These examinations are performed under a legal authority (Medical Examiner or Coroner or Procurator Fiscal) and do not require the consent of relatives of the deceased.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127111143.htm

All states are required by law to perform an autopsy in cases of sudden and unexplained deaths. Of the 8,000 such deaths referred to the chief medical examiner of the state of Maryland last year, approximately one-half required full autopsy.

And considering we were told by the police that the accident was a 'non-alcohol related' accident, I can assure our family tried to stop the autopsy, but to no avail. We were told later that it was done for 'insurance purposes'.

[paulsby]

192. that's completely nonresponsive to what i said

what i said was that an autopsy was not necessary for a DRUG TOXICOLOGY report

which countered the previous post that equated toxicology reports with autopsies.

so, what you say is nice, but i stand by statement

[sabrina 1]

193. I did not say that the law stated the autopsy

was for a Drug or Toxicology report. I said that families cannot stop an autopsy when the death occurs as a result of an accident.

Autopsies ARE equated with toxicology reports, whether they are supposed to be or not, even if that is not the reason given. The result from the autopsy I mentioned, related to alcohol content. There was no apparent reason to look for that and there was no need for an autopsy as the doctor did know and document the cause of death.

So, from all the information I received from lawyers and police officers, while the pretext is to determine the cause of death, insurance companies, once there has been an autopsy, have access to it. If there is even a minimal amount of alcohol in the victim's system, and the family files a lawsuit, that will be used to minimize the damages.

I am not going to re-do the research we did on this at the time. But airc, Insurance Cos. were instrumental in getting these laws passed and it has been controversial for obvious reasons. Victims' families are often shocked when told there will be an autopsy, as we were and assume it is a mistake as we did. We were told we had no say in it as it was the law. Most people are unaware that this can be done without the family's consent. I can attest to the fact that it causes immense additional shock and grief to already grieving families. We and everyone else knew the cause of death. There was only one reason for that autopsy, and it was to try place blame on the victim in case there was a lawsuit. I don't know how often that happens, but I know for a fact that it does, sadly.

[paulsby]

194. this is what you said. two falsehoods

"Autopsies after accidents on public roads are done to determine if the person was drinking or under the influence of drugs"

that is simply false. autopsies are done for lots of other reasons. in almost all cases where the only thing required is TOXICOLOGY DATA, no autopsy is required.

so sorry. FAIL.

you also claimed that if a person survives an accident, they cannot be FORCED to submit to this type of test.

quoted here: "By contrast, if the person survives an accident, s/he can not be forced to submit to any kind of test as it would be a violation of their right not to incriminate themselves."

this is also false. for example, in WA state, if you are in a collision AND cause serious bodily injury, you will get taken to the hospital for a blood draw AGAINST your consent. i have done several of these PERSONALLY and in two cases the person had to be tied down but they still had no choice.

so, you need to retract that statement as well. i can cite the relevant RCW if you refuse to.
also note that you don't understand that part about protection against self-incrimination. courts have ruled that this is limited to TESTIMONIAL evidence, not physical evidence. blood tests are physical, NOT testimonial.

the law cannot force you to SAY stuff, they can force you to submit to tests (in most cases w/a warrant, and in some cases as mentioned - w/o one).

you are simply WRONG on the facts and WRONG on the law

i will stand by to see if you have the intellectual honesty to respond honestly to these corrections

[sabrina 1]

196. Generally I don't engage with people who

resort to nastiness.

You have in fact, by quoting me, proven me to be correct.

"Autopsies after accidents on public roads are done to determine if the person was drinking or under the influence of drugs" sabrina just in case there's any confusion.

My opinion, which I stand by from personal experience and from expert opinions from people who know what they are talking about. However, I deliberately did NOT say that this was what the law said, as is clear from that quote. Thank you for saving me the trouble.

this is also false. for example, in WA state, if you are in a collision AND cause serious bodily injury, you will get taken to the hospital for a blood draw AGAINST your consent. i have done several of these PERSONALLY and in two cases the person had to be tied down but they still had no choice.

Oh yes, they can claim that the person was unable to give consent or whatever. But when that happens, if the person survives, they can sue on the basis that it is a violation of their 5th amendment rights. Even in a DUI stop, no matter how drunk the person appears to be, a cop has to ask him/her to agree to a blood alcohol test. They can also refuse a breathylizer. True, they may forfeit their license, but they can refuse those tests.

so, you need to retract that statement as well. i can cite the relevant RCW if you refuse to.

'If I refuse to' :rofl: Actually, no I don't. I'm sure there's a law somewhere that allows people on internet boards, even when they are wrong, to refuse to admit it. See your friend 'write down'. But where did you get that idea? You're quite an authoritarian, aren't you? See above as to why you are wrong about the rights of a person to refuse to give blood samples or any other physical evidence that might incriminate them. Good defense attorneys love it when their clients' rights are violated in this way, without their consent.

Your rage and anger over a disagreement on an internet board is a little disturbing frankly. Unless you can control it, I would prefer not to continue any discussion with you.

[paulsby]

197. you are still wrong. cites provided. will wait to see if intellectual honesty happens or not

it has nothing to do with not being able to give consent, it has to do with

wait for it...

we can MAKE them submit to the test, even if conscious and perfectly able to not give consent, because it's

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

***not***

Testimonial evidence.

the right against self-incrimination ( i can supply you with the case law, but i suggest you will keep evading) refers to (under the federal case law, and most states) TESTIMONIAL evidence, NOT physical evidence

again, i will wait for you to correct yourself.

i have gotten warrants in MANY cases to get physical evidence, including breath samples (for felony dui's that refused to blow. ), and for other offenses. with probable cause, one can do them AGAINST somebody's will/consent.

period. warrants are required unless statutorily otherwise authorized OR exigency exists


here;s one example

RCW 46.20.308 (3)

If an individual is unconscious ***or** is under arrest for the crime of vehicular homicide as provided in RCW 46.61.520 or vehicular assault as provided in RCW 46.61.522, or if an individual is under arrest for the crime of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs as provided in RCW 46.61.502, which arrest results from an accident in which there has been serious bodily injury to another person, a breath or blood test may be administered without the consent of the individual so arrested.


see. for example If you are under arrest for vehicular assault (RCW 46.61.522) and the arrest results from an accident in which there has been SERIOUS BODILY INJURY to ANOTHER PERSON (this is one we have to slam into recruit's heads, because if the only serious injury is the person's OWN injuries, then it cannot be FORCED under this section w.o consent. injury has to be serious AND to another person) a (WAIT FOR IT) BREATH OR BLOOD TEST MAY BE ADMINISTERED ***WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL SO ARRESTED***

i have also applied for and received court orders to make people submit to handwriting examplars, voice analysis, and other sorts of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE gathering AGAINST THEIR (and their lawyers) will and consent.

why? because, you are wrong, people can be compelled to provide such evidence AGAINST their will. there is no right against self-incrimination in regards to PHYSICAL evidence. Miranda, for example, references TESTIMONIAL evidence, NOT direct/physical evidence.

waiting...

[sabrina 1]

201. 'You are still wrong'

Wrong about what? I think you jumped into a discussion (to help your friend?) without knowing what it was about. The issue at that point in the discussion was the difference between the rights of the living as opposed to the the rights of the dead. That was it, period. This is what I said:

By contrast, if the person survives an accident, s/he can not be forced to submit to any kind of test as it would be a violation of their right not to incriminate themselves.

Nothing about that person being the cause of a fatal accident. Where did you get that?

An accident is not always a crime. Nor are accidents always fatal. The statement 'if the person survives' iow 'is alive' as opposed to 'is dead' was made in the context of the discussion which you appear not to have followed, to point out that the living have more rights than the dead.

Are you disputing the fact that a living person does NOT have the right to refuse to provide self incriminating evidence, such as a BAC test? No Constitutional right against self-incrimination? I hope not.

I will repeat what the discussion you jumped into was about, to help you stay on topic. A dead person does not, nor does his/her family have the right to refuse an autopsy after a fatal accident. I have already provided you with evidence of that. I notice you backed away from your original claim regarding the existence of that law.

Instead, you moved the goal posts and changed the topic to a discussion of a crime scene and the collection of physical evidence. Nice move, but it isn't relevant to the discussion at all.

But back to the topic. I'll ask you again, are you claiming that a living person does NOT have the right to refuse to take a BAC or a Breathalizer?

And try to stay on topic. If you want a discussion about the collection of physical evidence at the scene of a fatal accident, that's a whole other topic. I am well aware of the laws regarding fatal accidents, trust me, all too familiar with the whole subject. But that was not the subject here.

[paulsby]

202. evasions and intellectual dishonesty noted

like so many people on the internet, you simply cannot say "i was wrong."

you said: By contrast, if the person survives an accident, s/he can not be forced to submit to any kind of test as it would be a violation of their right not to incriminate themselves.

that is demonstrably wrong, and i demonstrated several ways it is wrong (such as a person can be forced to submit to a breath or blood test if they are arrested for vehicular assault and the other party has serious injuries)

a person who has been arrested for vehicular assault CAN be forced to submit, and that is one type of PERSON who has SURVIVED an accident...

so, that is just ONE counterexample of many, that disproves your false statement. it is an EXACT example, supported by a cite of case law, that directly refutes your statement.

fwiw, i had this EXACT same disagreement with somebody several years ago who ALSO thought what you thought. the difference was they were adult enough to admit they were wrong.

either way, you learned something, even if you won't admit it. so, there is something good that comes out of your dishonesty

i could give several more, but i have no tolerance for liars and people who simply refuse to ever admit they are wrong.

i really feel that's the most important distinction. some do, some don't

you are clearly more interested in arguing, than in accepting legal fact.

sad.

[sabrina 1]

204. And like so many people on the internet

you resort to name-calling when someone disputes your self described superior knowledge. No surprise there.

You refuse to admit that the discussion you would LIKE to have, was not part of the discussion you jumped into. Intellectual dishonesty noted.

that is demonstrably wrong, and i demonstrated several ways it is wrong (such as a person can be forced to submit to a breath or blood test if they are arrested for vehicular assault and the other party has serious injuries)

....a person who has been arrested for vehicular assault CAN be forced to submit, and that is one type of PERSON who has SURVIVED an accident.

'One type of person' ~ but NOT the 'type of person' described by me when discussing the difference between the rights of the living as opposed to the rights of the dead, was it? Nor was the person described by me, to make the point that was central to the discussion, 'arrested for vehicular assault' where the 'other party has serious injuries'.

The person described by me was 'alive' as opposed to 'dead'. S/he could have been the one injured, or no one might have been injured in my example. I did not discuss those issues. The point was that 'that living person had more rights than a dead person'. That was all. That living person had the right to refuse to incriminate him or herself. Had that person died, those rights would no longer have existed as an autopsy could have been ordered without consent. Already proven by me.


Because I am familiar with the relatively recent laws in most states regarding that scenario, I deliberately did not do as you, falsely, claim, use as my example, a person who was responsible for a fatality or a serious injury to another. That simply was not part of the scenario created by me to illustrate my point. That was a scenario introduced by YOU.

You have avoided staying with the topic and answering the question which was the central issue under discussion. That a living person can refuse to incriminate him or herself while a dead person or their family, cannot.

It IS sad that people, on the internet and elsewhere, are so invested in 'winning' an argument, that they refuse to accept that they made a mistake, or may have deliberately ignored the facts staring them in the face in order to create a scenario they wish was the topic, just so they can 'win'. On that we agree, which is something I suppose.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. What lie is the war in Afghanistan based on?

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

68. I'm told it's a necessity. I'm told we can "win" it. I'm told we can afford it.

And if your argument is that the Cheny & Bush were telling me 100% truth about either of these wars, including Afghanistan, that would be a hard sell.

But, you are correct if you are indicating that the Iraq lies are "bigger" and more apparent. The same censorship arguments made here are being made for photos taken in Iraq too.

Hell- even if I KNEW that there were no lies told about Afghanistan, I'd still want to end it, and I'd still want the press to use the 1st Amemdment to let people know the consequences of it.

[sabrina 1]

148. That we went there to 'smoke Bin Ladin out of his cave'.

When the truth is we went there to build an oil pipeline and to facilitate the building of military bases in countries like Azerbaijan, so that we, the US would have control of a main route to the world's last oil reserves.

We could have spent all that money on developing alternative energy and freeing ourselves from this dependence on oil. But the country is under the control of Corporatists and the MIC, and war and oil rule.

So, they lied, again. And appealed to the emotions aroused by 9/11. How lucky they were to have that happen just when they were ready to put their plans into effect. And people say there are 'no coincidences'.

[go west young man]

152. Your on the money with your data my friend.

That same pipeline is why there is a blackout on Sibel Edmonds in the MSM. It amazes me that on DU we go round and round on the small stuff while the rest of the world know how "The Great Game" really works.

[sabrina 1]

156. True, especially regarding the rest of the world

knowing what Americans do not. That is because they have more access to real news. The US media consists of blond women with short skirts and lots of make-up, or men with incredible hair and white teeth interviewing Birthers and Tea-baggers, (but never 'truthers') and asking them such deep questions as 'Can you tell our viewers why YOU BELIEVE PRES OBAMA IS NOT A CITIZEN OF THE US! With emphasis on their message which guarantees that viewers will remember it.

Hours and hours of valuable media news-time is taken up with stories of missing blonds and celebrity deaths and marriages. There is no coverage of the wars we are engaged in, nothing about the lies told to get us there, and definitely no photos. No reporting on the numbers of Iraqis we've killed, and you will never see an Iraqi presented as a human being, unless for propaganda purposes (purple fingers).

As a result, a majority of Americans really do think we went to Afghanistan to 'get Bin Ladin' and have no clue about how busy we've been over there securing the area for bases and the pipeline. Or how much money has been spent, bribing other dictators like Karamov in Uzbekistan eg, while railing against Saddam Hussein.They don't even know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

I mentioned, on DU a few months ago that the women of Afghanistan were in many ways, worse off since we invaded the country than before, or at least there have been no improvements. FIVE PEOPLE, on a democratic board went after me for that factual statement. Because even democrats fell for the Laura Bush photo ops with a few women there. Even they, who have access to the internet, did not take the time to read what the women of Afghanistan themselves have to say.

We will get nowhere until we get a free press started in this country. The press we have is way too compromised, owned and infiltrated to even begin to fix it.

And there is support, even here, for the continued censorship of reporting on these wars out of 'consideration for the families' an excuse that always works. But meantime while people are busy fighting over a photo of a soldier we can no longer help, they are ignoring the fact that each day others are being killed and seeing a few photos of these awful facts, facing the truth about war, just might help end it and eliminate the need for any photos at all.

[clixtox]

134. Yup!!!!! We shouldn't be doing anything to be embarrassed about... N/T

[JonQ]

188. Should we likewise televise executions?

How about the lives of people on social security or welfare? We pay for those.

What about the doctor visits of those on medicare/medicaid? We're fronting the bill for those things, shouldn't we all have the right to watch them?

Or cameras in individual prison cells hooked up to 24/7 internet feeds.

[Mari333]

13. and I find Robert Gates appalling, that sack of shite. nt

[Dr Fate]

16. I get to pay for this shit war instead of having a public option- so I should see pictures of it.

I OWN the damn war, so I should be "allowed" see some damn pictures of it.

[BlueIdaho]

32. The lack of a public option has nothing to do with this war.

If You think ending this war will get you a public option - you are seriously kidding yourself. You lack a public option because your congress members like lobbyist money more than they like serving you. Don't confuse the issue.

edit = typo.

[Dr Fate]

47. Tell that to the Blue Dogs/Republicans who say "we cant afford it!!!!"

Yet dont blink when the pentagon asks for another billion or two.

I dont think ending this war will automatically get me a public option- I think that conservatives keep us at war so they dont have to consider domestic issues.

In any event, I own this war- and unless you are talking state secrets, etc, I should be "allowed" to see what I'm paying for.

[BlueIdaho]

58. Your rights end

Where this young soldiers family's rights begin. You show yourself to be insensitive to the suffering of real human beings just to forward your cause. This "end justifies the means" thinking is exactly what allows republicans to call our president "Hitler" and string him up burn him in effigy. Personally, I would defend and protect any family who wants to use their son's death for a greater cause - but its their suffering not yours. When your son or daughter dies in combat - you get to make the call - until then, a little humility and compassion will serve you well.

By the way - if you believe these blue dogs and republicans mean what they say you are far more innocent than I. These same folks have had no problem voting for a wide range of bills that are not revenue neutral during these long and terrible years. They don't give a shit about war spending - they just want what they want and they want it now. What they want now is more money from insurance company lobbyists - plain and simple.

[Dr Fate]

62. What 1st Amendment Supreme court case are you referencing?

Is there some ruling that says families of a dead soldier have more sway over what gets reported than reporters or the press? There may be, but I'm not aware of it.

LOL! I'm not the one who is being insensitive to real human beings- the bastards who sent these guys off to war are the ones doing that.

Sure- I'm now equated with lying tea-baggers b/c I want more people to see factual photographs. Sure.

We basically agree about Blue Dogs- but my intention is to continue to remind people that we spend BILLIONS on these wars, while we are told we cant afford other things. You can do what ever you want.

[BlueIdaho]

67. Don't disagree with you premise

or your logic - just think a little compassion for a father and a mother pleading with the AP not use a photo of their dying son as a money maker is in order. This is America - you are welcome to be as extreme in your tactics and beliefs as you wish. I will continue to see the human tragedy of each soldiers death as just that, and when a family begs for room to grieve, to not have to see their dying son's image before their eyes in countless publicans on newsstands across America I will always take their side.

I do not flinch at the photos - I've seen war - I flinch at exploitation.

edit = typo

[Dr Fate]

69. I dont find too much too butt heads with you over either.

I might even agree with you if I was not so sick of the lying, hiding the ball and de jure & de facto censorship to begin with.

[BlueIdaho]

90. If I still drank - I'd buy you a beer

We got suckered into two unnecessary wars and our young people are paying the price. We need to get out now and we need to remember the dignity of each individual as we work to make that happen.

You're ok in my book - thanks for the conversation.

[WriteDown]

35. And Area 51!

Let's see what's really inside. No more gov't secrets! :eyes:

[Dr Fate]

50. So you equate oppostion to this shit war with a belief in aliens? You need a reality check.

This war is real, photos or no.

It's no secret that people are killed & maimed in this shit war- it's just that most people tend to let that drop off their radars.

[WriteDown]

If your argument is that you should be able to see what...

you are paying towards, then Area 51 is fair game. And I don't believe I mentioned aliens. What do you know that we don't??? :)

[Dr Fate]

54. You are the one who is comparing this to state secrets, not me. n/t

n/t

[WriteDown]

71. You said we should see what we are paying for...

Yet you are selective in what we should be able to see?

[Dr Fate]

75. YOU needed to compare this photo to state secrets to bolster your argument, not me.

But you are right- I did say that I'm paying for this war, so outside of legit state secrets, I should be able to get factual info about it.

I stand by that, and I see no need to follow down your path where all apples = oranges.

[WriteDown]

78. Nope, we're definitely in the apples to apples range. nt

[Dr Fate]

84. If you are a tea bagger who thinks the "War of Terror" = WWII, that is. n/t

n/t

[WriteDown]

51. If your argument is that you should be able to see what...

you are paying towards, then Area 51 is fair game. And I don't believe I mentioned aliens. What do you know that we don't??? :)

[Dr Fate]

55. If your argument is that this photo should be a state secret, I'd like to see you back that up. n/t

n/t

[npk]

175. Go fuck yourself you stupid douche bag.

[CreekDog]

20. It's not like AP has steller coverage and impeccable credentials to uphold

that they feel bound to publish this based on integrity.

:thumbsdown:

[Diane R]

23. Why didn't they do this during Bush's term? I do think the father's wishes should be honored.

[Beetwasher]

24. They Would NEVER HAVE DONE THIS WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT

The family also asked them not to. Fuckers.

I understand the argument that we should see this, however, this is nothing more than poltics on the part of the AP now that a Dem is president. They are NOT doing this for the correct reasons, they are doing this to harm the administration. Plain and simple. They would NEVER have released a similar photograph during Bush's term, and the evidence for this claim is, they NEVER DID.

[treestar]

61. My first thought too

NOW they want everyone to see the costs of war.

[depakid]

25. What's appalling is the way that Americans sanitize their wars

[murdoch]

96. and what's appalling is the US invasion of Afghanistan

When the USSR went into Afghanistan the US pundits flipped out, talking about Soviet imperialism. Even though the Afghan government (installed by a shaky coup) invited the Soviet army to set up bases to fight against CIA-funded insurgents. Insurgents like Osama bin Laden, funded by the USA.

Dozens of civilians were just killed by a NATO bomb. That's appalling. Even the Afghan insurgents killed is appalling.

As long as the murder, Abu Ghraib tortures etc. can go on without middle class suburban people having to deal with the reality of it, it is a nice clean war that doesn't even exist.

This soldier is dead, and if there is any tragedy it is that, not a photo of it.

Frankly, a look at the photo doesn't show a he, a soldier and a person, but just a dead piece of meat. It's not a he any more, its an it. This war transformed that person into that dead meat. It is unpleasant and horrible but that is what imperialist wars are.

The sensitivities of the family? What are the sensitivities of the kids who will be killed tomorrow in Afghanistan? The tragedy for his family is he was killed, not the photo showing the reality of it. He did not die an honorable death, he is a bleeding piece of meat. That is the truth, which is why the truth and reality of the photograph has to be hidden to continue the lie of this war.

[MaineDem]

26. Local tv isn't showing it

They talked about it but won't show it.

[davidwparker]

27. I feel for the person and family. However, let's not hide the effects of

war. If we are involved in one, show it. Then, maybe there will be unanimous consent to GET OUT.

[WriteDown]

36. FDR would have NEVER allowed this....

Even reporting on the # of casualties of WWII was disallowed until well after the war.

[David__77]

28. Out of Afghanistan!

I agree totally.

[thereismore]

29. The breach of decency is this fucking war! nt

[xocet]

33. All photos....

All the photos of torture and death should be released. The pro-war people need to see what torture and death look like, so that they can think about what they have caused with their blind faith and jingoistic stupidity.

[harmonicon]

39. the wars would stop if we saw these images every day (nt)

[WriteDown]

40. WWII would have also stopped if FDR hadn't had such

a tight grip on information.

[Dr Fate]

56. This is not WWII. Are we back to that Rush Limbaugh/Fox News comparison again?

Besides- I've seen plenty of graphic WWII footage that was culled from old news reels- much more than I've ever seen for our current wars.

[WriteDown]

60. And you think that was shown during the war?

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[Dr Fate]

66. And you agree with Bush & Tea baggers that this BS is "like WWII"?

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:



And yes, news reels of battle footage was shown DURING WII. The general public was shown much more footage than we have seen in this war so far.

I'm not one of those dumbasses who thinks these wars are "just like WWII." Stop listening to tea baggers and using their arguments.

If we have to stretch everything to compare apples & oranges, it's closer to Vietnam- and thank God we were "allowed" to see footage of that.

Again- I'm not comapring the current situation to WWII- you, tea baggers, Rush , Bush etc are the ones who do that.

[WriteDown]

70. All wars are the same....

Some still argue the legitimacy of WWII as well. I trust Obama to run this war as I would've trusted FDR to run WWII as well. Considering that the # of US casualties wasn't revealed until well after WWII was over, it seems that your assertions are off though.

[Dr Fate]

73. You are the one who needs to compare this shit war to WWII to bolster your case, not me.

When you, tea baggers, Rush, the GOP, Blue Dogs, etc, brought in the WWII comparisons, that was when the assertions were off base.

[WriteDown]

76. A war is a war.....

Most wars are won in the same way. If you deny that, then you deny history and you put very little faith in Obama.

[Dr Fate]

80. I refuse to compare the "War on terror" with the popular WWII, yet I'm the one denying history?

With all due respect, I don't think I'm the one who is in denial here.

My guess is that we agree on many things, but not on this.

I'm outta here soon- so I hope you have a great Labor day! If I'm gone by the time you respond, consider it me giving you the last word...

[WriteDown]

82. You too man....

Have a great holiday! I'm hitting the bar in an hour, so we'll have to continue this another time. :)

[Thothmes]

95. The first published photographs of American dead

were in January of 1943. They were bodies of American soldiers killed on the beach at Buna during the New Guinea campaign.

[WriteDown]

137. Yep...

And they were approved for a purpose.

http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/editordetail.php?id=410

[ShortnFiery]

41. WE, the USA etc., just killed dozens of civilians in an air-strike, why don't they show

the maimed and dismembered bodies of foreigners instead? That way we can claim that all these women and babies + a couple of goats on the side were really "The enemy."

I'm and Army Veteran and although I feel great sadness for the family, WE MUST SEE OUR SOLDIERS "killing and dying" lest we forget how HORRIBLE WAR IS and how we should always choose it as the last resort.

The public has a right to know although I do have mixed feelings, I would rather error on the side of disclosure.

[WriteDown]

142. Shouldn't the Germans be blamed for this airstrike? nt

[still_one]

43. The family requested the image not be published, fuck AP /nt

[Beacool]

44. I think is should be very simple.

If the family objects, then don't show the photos. I don't need to see a young man bleeding to death to know that people are dying in Afghanistan.

As someone who saw several people jumping out of the WTC, I don't ever want to see those images again. But, for some morbid reason, every anniversary of 9/11 some jackass decides to show them.

:(

[nvme]

45. Truth is Ugly

Having seen the photo and understanding the sacrifice this noble soldier made in accordance with his oath, I am appalled. The anguish of his family I am sure can not be measured. Unfortunately these negative images are necessary. Necessary in instilling the truth about war. It negatively reinforces. If you want the images to stop, cease engaging in war as a way of resolving disputes between nations. Had I been that soldier I would want my death to have meaning. His did. I hope his suffering wasn't too lingering. I hope that his families pain will be minimized. I doubt it will. I

[FarCenter]

48. The numbe of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is pretty small

About the same as 3 months of murders or 6 weeks of auto accidents in the US.

The major death toll is Iraqis and Afghanis.

The grimmer situation with respect to US soldiers is the number with devastating injuries that they never fully recover from.

These outnumber the dead by a large factor, and we should see more of them in the media.

[fascisthunter]

52. what's more appalling is how they hide the public from the war they financially fund

Gates: "We have no problem taking your money and using it for a war, but you just aren't allowed to see the ramifications of that war."

I swear, this government has us all captive like we all lived in the "Matrix".

[fbahrami]

57. IF

we saw more of what is being done to our soldiers, and more of what our soldiers are doing - as during the Vietnam war - we'd be more motivated to take steps to end the wars.

[Dr Fate]

59. That might keep us from being LIED into them in the first place too. n/t

n/t

[fascisthunter]

92. and that's why the government censors this occupation of ours

they (military industrial complex) learned a lesson during the Vietnam war.

[TacticalPeek]

63. If the photographer did not embed with that unit, she should publish whatever she wants.

But she did embed with the unit and signed an agreement to only "photograph casualties from a respectable distance and in such a way that the person is not identifiable". She was aware of the rules. She remained embedded with the unit and sought their protection on several occasions.

So, she's out of line. If she could not keep her AP bosses from respecting her agreement, then she should never have sent the images up the line.

It's not a particularly good picture anyway if you ask me, so AP putting it out there is really gratuitous.

If the media provide their own ride with their own guards etc, then they can make the rules they want. But I wonder if they did that, and one of their reporters, photographers or guards gets cut in half by an RPG, are they going to snap that and publish it?

However, I otherwise admire the photographer, Julie Jacobson, very much. These are her gripping journal entries for that day. (you might need to click past a welcome screen)

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2009/09/03/4354259.htm

[bemildred]

65. What is appalling is all these young liives being wasted to protect military bureaucrats careers. nt

[CBGLuthier]

87. I have seen one hell of a lot more appalling things from this war

than one dead american kid.

Like all the kids and I mean children with limbs removed courtesy of the american taxpayer.

That is what is appalling.

[Solly Mack]

89. That picture reflects the truth of war.

Choke on it.

I do every day.

[drdtroit]

99. Yep, no matter how hard I scrub ...

I can't get this fucking blood off of my hands! :cry:

[Octafish]

98. The family asked for privacy.

The AP should make a stand on... Freedom of Information, such as how the heck did Bush lie America into war?

The AP is right in that the American people need to see what goes on in our name in Iraq and Afghanistan and a whole lot more places we don't know about.

Gates is wrong in keeping these illegal, immoral and unnecessary wars going. So is Obama.

[DainBramaged]

100. AP Photo of Marine Sparks Controversy

Source: AOL

The Associated Press is distributing a photo of a Marine fatally wounded in battle, choosing after a period of reflection to make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.
Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, 21, of New Portland, Maine, was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush Aug. 14 in Helmand province of southern Afghanistan.

The image shows fellow Marines helping Bernard after he suffered severe leg injuries. He was evacuated to a field hospital where he died on the operating table.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates blasted AP for the move, noting the soldier's family had objected to the photo.
"Why your organization would purposefully defy the family's wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me," Gates wrote. He further called the release of the photo "appalling" and a breach of "common decency."
The picture was taken by Associated Press photographer Julie Jacobson, who accompanied Marines on the patrol and was in the midst of the ambush during which Bernard was wounded. She had photographed Bernard on patrol earlier, and subsequently covered the memorial service held by his fellow Marines after his death.



Read more: http://news.aol.com/article/ap-photo-of-lance-cpl-joshua-m-bernard/656039?icid=main

---

And AP would have NEVER done this under the Bush crime family. They are trying to put the war on Obama.

[rwheeler31]

101. These people are so low.

Nothing is beneath them.

[Mind_your_head]

102. People were against Vietnam b/c we watched these horror pictures on the teevee

every night while we (uneasily) ate our dinner....

These pictures of war need to be shown again and again.....it's not ANY different in any generation. Pain, grief, horror. loss, loss, more loss, depression.........

I'm very sorry if it violates this person's family. I would like the think that this soldier didn't die in vain. That more *thinking* people would be able to 'feel some of his pain' and STOP THIS MADNESS, that's called 'war'.

[berni_mccoy]

103. When the Republican pResident caused these wars was in office, they wouldn't even show pics

of flag draped coffins. Now they expose the gore of war against the families of these men in order to antagonize the Democratic President who is trying to fix the disasters the Republican pResident created.

[TwilightGardener]

104. I do find it odd that the AP is suddenly, after almost 9 years, now devoted to

showing the war "in all its brutality"--where were they the last 8 or so, in either war? If the family said "Don't publish pictures", then that's the end of it.

[ArcticFox]

110. Not really

The guy was a man, not a child. He was in Afganistan of his own choice. You sent him there. I sent him there. We all sent him there.

He is dead. The right to privacy does not survive death. (see, e.g. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ea_1242437825) Lately it seems our soldiers are there to do little more than get killed and to kill helpless civilians who happen to be unlucky enough to have been born in Afganistan. Its way past time to bring the rest of the soldiers home.

Its true the AP and all the MSM failed us the past 8 years. Just because it is up to Obama now to bring the boys back home doesn't change the fact that this kind of thing might just force that action.

[TwilightGardener]

130. No. The AP should have respected the wishes of the family, period.

They didn't want their boy's final moments of agony shared with the world--I can understand that, and it shouldn't have been released. Shame on the AP.

[ArcticFox]

135. I guess we disagree

So the family is ok with him going over to Afganistan to be blown to bits, but a picture of it is what is appalling? Sorry, the moment he enlisted, he was uncle sam's boy. They had to have known that going in.

[TwilightGardener]

138. This has nothing to do with joining the military, or fighting in a war--

this has to do with a family's terrible grief, and their urge to protect their son's privacy and dignity. Being in the military doesn't lower your humanity, make you less worthy of the same respect and privacy other citizens receive--we don't go to car wrecks and hospital rooms photographing people in their final awful moments. The AP took away the last small measure of control this family had, on how their son was portrayed to the world. Again, shame on them.

[proteus_lives]

105. God, that's awful.

RIP and Godspeed to Lance Cpl. Bernard.

:patriot:

[Mind_your_head]

106. Oh, that's "awful" alright.......

you can look down and wiggle your toes.....you can look down and see how ugly (or beautiful) your feet are. Toes wiggling! some people paint their toenails....Pretty!

What does it feel like to lose a toe? Or a foot? Or a leg?

Can you 'relate'? Can you even BEGIN to understand how horrifying/devastating that is/would be?

I don't like a little smiley face salute thingy with a flag in its false/made-up hand. That doesn't honor anyone.

[TwilightGardener]

107. That's the "patriot" smiley. I'm sure the poster used it sincerely to salute the fallen, as

I have in the past.

[proteus_lives]

108. I have a father who deals with wartime pain.

And I've been helping him for a long time. So I can relate in a indirect way.

Can you relate rude one?

"I don't like a little smiley face salute thingy with a flag in its false/made-up hand. That doesn't honor anyone."

You're wrong. He was a soldier and he paid the ultimate price. The salute and the flag are to honor him. We can't honor the conflict he was in but we damn well give him a moment's respect/thought/prayer. It's the least we can do.

[Mind_your_head]

112. Thanks for the service, but NO....he didn't pay the "ultimate price"

"Ultimate price" refers to dying in the line of duty.

Your father apparently is still alive, so although he is a casualty of war, he didn't pay the "ultimate price".

[proteus_lives]

113. The price and the icon is about Lance Cpl. Bernard.

He is the one who paid the ultimate price.

I wrote about my father in response to your "relate" accusations.

My original post still stands. RIP and Godspeed to Lance Cpl. Bernard. :patriot:

[Mind_your_head]

114. RIP Robb Miller.....my friend who died in Afghanistan too......

You can't understand how painful it is. That perhaps he died for NO GOOD REASON. And all of those Afghan citizens who died....oh Lord...... I can't salute. I can only :cry:

[proteus_lives]

117. I do a little.

RIP Kevin Landeck. He's a guy I went to college with and he died in Iraq. Perhaps they died for no good reason. And maybe I don't understand why they went but they did and they died. It's a sadness we the living have to carry with us and we must use it to bring a swift end to these conflicts and to enact a speedy return of our soldiers.

I salute because I grew up with a military man and I know it means something. I'm not asking you to or insulting you because you don't but please understand why I do.

[ArcticFox]

109. It's not the photo that's appalling, or even publishing it

What is appalling is the sending of our soldiers halfway around the world into a "war" they have no chance of winning. It is that we pretend we are patriotic because we "support the troops" without even understanding what the troops do. Without even understanding that they suffer. Without caring. Just so long as we can stick an american flag on our window and drive around town showing how "patriotic" we are.

[winyanstaz]

111. Stop all these endless wars NOW!!

If we really supported the troops..we wouldnt let them stay a moment longer in a war for oil or a war for drugs or for wars based on lies.
Bring them HOME!!!!!!

[provis99]

115. among the first photos ever made were of dead Confederate soldiers.

they were common in those days, because movement tended to ruin the photograph, and dead soldiers don't move. But even then there was censorship; the photographers were Union men, and weren't usually allowed to photograph dead Union soldiers, only dead rebels. Some of them were really graphic and gruesome too; grapeshot blows huge holes through a human's body and head.

[proteus_lives]

118. I've seen those in history books.

You're right, they are not easy to look at. I have to wonder what people thought of them back then.

[Anakin Skywalker]

116. The Photo(s) Is/Are Already Gone!

Can't find it/them anywhere on the WWW.

[ShortnFiery]

127. But we can find all sorts of photos of those "less than US" ... their parents don't matter

and/or are already dead from our illustrious God Almighty "pretty weapons."

Isn't it IRONIC that when we do it to OTHERS, it's righteous ... but when it happens to US, it's terrorism? :puke: :crazy:

[sabrina 1]

119. So Gates, war-monger extraordinaire

thinks a photo of a victim of war is 'breach of moral decency', but WAR IS NOT??

I am always astounded at war supporters who object to photos of their favorite activity being shown to the general public. If the American people supported this war, and they did, then they should be able to look at what they are supporting.

I doubt Gates cares one bit about that poor soldier's family. If he did, he would not be such a cheer-leader for what killed him.

Sorry, if we are going to be at war all the time, which it appears we are, then let the American people see what they are paying for.

Gates is upset because he is afraid his wars might become unpopular. None of them care about the soldiers, all they are is fodder to them.

Obama was wrong to escalate that war. He needs to change the policy there. Over and over they've been told to stop killing civilians in Afghanistan. Karzai went to DC and begged Bush to stop the bombings as they were killing mostly civilians which was causing the people to rise up against the government and completely destabilizing the country.

Drones. John Pilger was there, in Afghanistan on the ground and described what happens when a drone, sent from somewhere safe in the US, hits a village full of civilians. He described the grief, the heart-wrenching sorrow of the families of the victims, the shattered, literally and figuratively, lives of ordinary people whose babies and husbands and loved ones are ripped apart by our brave 'drones'.

It was the forgotten war until Obama revived it, but the tragedies that our presence there have caused, have been recorded by brave actual journalists like John Pilger and others and will be remembered for centuries.

America needs to get out of the Empire business. It's bankrupting this nation both financially and morally. We need to concentrate on being a Democracy again before it's too late.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

121. sorry to say this but i agree with Gates

If the media ASKS the family if they can use the photo and the family says no, then you bet yer arse i consider the use of the photo a 'breach of moral decency' amongst many other thigs

[ShortnFiery]

128. And if we're ANYTHING in the God Almighty USA it's *morally decent.*

:(

[sabrina 1]

129. Call it a casualty of war.

Iraqi and Afghan families begged that their country not be invaded, that their children not be tortured and killed. They were told that we were their friends, we were coming to 'liberate' them and bring them 'democracy'. People lie when it comes to war. The press lies, everyone lies, only the innocent suffer.

Sorry I can't get too excited about a photo (one of thousands I've seen of Gates & Co's wars) or the feelings of one family about the photo when I compare this to the massive breaches of moral decency that have occurred over the past decade. It's just one more, and relatively minor, incident that happens when you decide to start wars. A sort of collateral damage, I suppose you could say.

Gates, a longtime war-monger was also involved in the Iran Contra affair:

In 1984, as deputy director of CIA, Gates advocated that the U.S. initiate a bombing campaign against Nicaragua and that the U.S. do everything in its power short of direct military invasion of the country to remove the Sandinista government.

He's not so sensitive when it comes to the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people from Nicaragua to Iraq to Afghanistan. He has blood on his hands so it's hard to imagine him being humane enough to care about one family's loss. He's a liar, a deceiver, a former longtime member of the CIA, one of the most destructive and deceptive organizations on the planet.

He sacrificed his right to demand decency from anyone. He's pro-war and he cannot control ALL the consequences of war. I'd like to ask the families of a few of his victims how they feel about his sudden concern for moral decency ~

This will be the opinion of most people around the world. The US is not a country that can ask for sympathy anymore. Or pretend we have some moral authority. We don't. In the scheme of things, those things being two wars, this is a non-issue.

I used to feel differently. I wanted decency and morality. I didn't support these wars because I was able to imagine the consequences to so many people. But people like Gates dismissed those of us who naively thought we could make them listen. They were bound and determined to start some wars. War to him is decent and moral, but a record of it is not?

I did not cause that soldier's death, he and his fellow war-mongers are responsible for that. And he doesn't want people to see what they've done.

The US arrogantly swaggered its way into war, now they are whining because the press published a photo of one of their dead soldiers. It's ALMOST funny, in a tragic way, that he really thinks he can speak of morality and decency. That father is angry at the wrong people. The press is finally doing its job. The people he ought to be angry at are the ones who got his son killed and for what?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

144. most of what you have written above is irelevant to the case at hand

He is not doing it to 'defend' the US, he is bringing them to task in defense of the parents of the kid

I'd say the father is also mad at the right people since they asked and was refused, then did it anyway.

I find it sad that some people is willing to use any means to tout their cause

[sabrina 1]

157. I find it sad that some people are using

the families of dead soldiers to try to censor news the American people have been deprived of for eight years. Had they seen some of these photos starting eight years ago (as REAL journalist Ashley Banfield stated and then was instantly fired for describing the horror of war not seen behind the santized version she was forced to participate in) THIS soldier might still be alive.

Sad is NOT a photo, sad is so many dead young people and so many dead and tortured people in Afghanistan. And if showing photos of the carnage that is war, will save even one life, it is worth it.

The reason Gates et al do NOT want those photos shown is because they KNOW that when the people see the reality, not the video-game super-hero version, it WILL influence them to oppose our being there.

People agreeing with Gates are doing a good job of helping to continue these wars and ensuring there will be plenty more photos of dead soldiers to fight over.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

164. There is enough pictures of this war that it should not be a problem for the media to

accept the decision of the family when they said no after asking for permission

That you are willing to use this dead soldier to promote your dislike of Gates sits wrong with me on a number of levels. This has more to do with decency and respect for the family and the soldier then censorship

[sabrina 1]

166. And your position sits wrong with me on many levels.

I don't understand people who believe that only they have a right to be offended. I am offended by the carnage of these wars and I am offended by people who are more offended by a photo of the reality of war, than by the reality itself. I am offended that the photo was possible at all. You are offended at it being published and that the family is not happy about it. We are all offended. It's a given when there is a war that people will be offended. People I know who supported these wars had no idea what war is all about. They believed that the US was so powerful, only the 'ragheads' would die. It would be over in months, weeks. Because they were lied to.

There is nothing decent or respectful about war. People cannot be protected from that reality or they will continue to support it and there will be more dead soldiers and traumatized families. The best way to return to some semblance of decency is to end this Imperial quest for world dominance, and that will only happen when the American people set aside their sensibilities and demand it.

[TwilightGardener]

132. I agree with Gates too. Glad he's taking the AP to task in defense

of this soldier and his family.

[Spazito]

140. Appalling, absolutely appalling...

The wishes of the family should be honored. I am disgusted AP is doing this but I am not surprised. They are NOT doing it to show the horrors of war, they are doing it to pump up those who rah rah the 'war' in Afghanistan.

AP is not what it used to be, it is but another right-wing propaganda rag, imo.

[xxqqqzme]

150. We see the film clips of dead and dying soldiers on every

anniversary of D-Day

[jeanmarc]

153. We want a blood free war

Not showing victims, the aftermath, the maiming of limbs, the blood, it's all helpful to a warring nation.

Tough luck, Gates. I hope we see more of it, not because I'm some sort of sicko, but because when people see this sort of stuff, it tends to move them into rethinking support for stupid wars.

[Akoto]

159. In this case, I agree with Gates 100%.

If the family did not want the pictures shown, then they shouldn't have been shown. Period. It's appalling that the AP asked permission, was told no, and so decided to do it anyhow.

[humbled_opinion]

160. Why are we even still there?

This is an unwinnable war, there is no clear strategy sending more soldiers to the meat grinder in tora bora is not the answer. Just come home. Whole.

[lovuian]

169. Why are we still there

so that the Military Industry keeps getting money
and our days of being policeman of the world is coming to an end folks

[Political Heretic]

172. I gotta go with respecting family wishes on this one.

[brendan120678]

180. AP is a bunch of sensationalizing fuckers.

The Marine's father requested that the photo of his dying child not be published. They should have agreed to his request.

[samsingh]

181. the illegal war itself was appalling.

[Honeycombe8]

189. The Afghanistan war is legal. It was the Iraq War that was deemed illegal by some.

Even in that case, though, not everyone agreed that the IW was illegal. Bill Clinton, for one, said it was legal. (go figure)

[Mystayya]

185. If the family said "please do not publish" they should have respected that.

[Honeycombe8]

187. They should've respected the family's wishes for the time being.

They could always show the photo later.

[DFW]

195. He's right. It IS appalling

If you're going to send people into a war, this will happen to some of them.

If you don't like it, don't send them there. Too many Republicans (not necessarily
Gates, at least he served) who never volunteered to stand in harm's way have been
too quick to send other people's spouses and children to meet this fate. It's
about time that if we accept the necessity of sending our people into a shooting
war, that some of them will end up this way. The solution of how to avoid it is
rather obvious, if not always politically expedient.

[Owl]

199. Hey Gates, the "appalling" part is the young man dying in Afghanistan for another stupid war.

[MidwestRick]

206. Why did they bother to ask...

...permission from the father if they had no intention to follow his wishes? Not just once, but twice.

I have issues with that point.