world

AP picture of mortally wounded Marine sparks debate

41 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

RIP, young man. Should never have been there. That being said, I'm not against the photos being published, in fact, for every enemy/civilian death published there should be an equal amount of 'one's own'. People need to understand that war is not a game and it's not only an unknown, unseen enemy that get killed (aside from propaganda photos, of course), but that war is a useless, meaningless waste of the most precious resource of all -- life. Worse than these photos being out is the denial that they exist and their subsequent 'burying'.

I do feel sorry for the parents, honestly, and DO think that if a person has direct family that wishes the photos not be published that more care is put into it.

Anyway, if you ultimately don't want your kids to die, don't send them off to war (including voting for presidents who start said wars).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A real waste.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“There was no question that the photo had news value,” he said. “But we also were very aware the family wished for the picture not to be seen. That created a difficult choice between our job to document the war and our respect for the suffering of the corporal’s family.”

Well then why not wait for a family who gives permission before printing the photo? Surely there's a family out there who has lost someone who would agree that showing the horrors of war has some benefit. Why force that upon an unwilling family?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan

I do feel sorry for the parents, honestly, and DO think that if a person has direct family that wishes the photos not be published that more care is put into it.

So what exactly do you mean by 'more care put into it'? The way I see it it's an all-or-nothing decision. The parents said please don't publish the photo and AP disregarded their wish (regardless of how much deliberating or soul-searching AP did) and did so anyway. Either you think AP's decision and rationale was completely justified or you think it wasn't. I don't have a problem with AP printing similar horrifying photos if the dead's next-of-kin don't object to their family member's death being used to show the public the gruesome nature of war, but I do have a problem when the victim is positively identified and has immediate family who specifically don't want any such photos of their dead family use for such a cause, or any cause regardless of how ostensibly noble it may be. AP was simply heartless in doing what they did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Surely there's a family out there who has lost someone who would agree that showing the horrors of war has some benefit. Why force that upon an unwilling family?

I agree. Whether AP's intentions were noble or not, they should have asked permission first. It would have been the right thing to do. Now that the photograph is in public domain, I pray that no one will abuse it in any way. Rest in Peace Lance Cpl, Bernard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The AP did the right thing. War needs to be depicted and recorded fully, with all of its horrors and trauma exposed. This story, and the powerful images that tell it, cannot be hidden away.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Right or wrong, you have to remember that neither the Pentagon nor the AP are honest in their motivations.

Support for the Afghan mission is at an all time low so the Pentagon don't need this, and the AP want to sell news.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So what should the AP publish? Rosey images of flowers and rainbows?

There is a war, people die, and unless the public gets somesort of wakeup call of whats actually happen, not many are going to care.

War is hell.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAinJapan2: "Either you think AP's decision and rationale was completely justified or you think it wasn't."

Not at all. There are degrees. I haven't seen the photos, but my guess is the soldier is quite easy to identify. What I meant by 'put more care into it' is that if the parents did not wish their child be shown in his/her gruesome final moments, more could have been done to shield the identity. Sure, anyone really caring to could find out the identity with some digging, but the face could have been blanked out, etc., and it would still be a US soldier dead and still send a message (perhaps minus a bit of impact).

All that said, if you're suggesting I need to take some kind of side on this than I'm on the side of AP, regardless of feeling some mild contempt for their methods (as I said, there are degrees). Also as I said this is not some kind of one-sided video game where the Pentagon can allow certain video footage or pics of enemy combatants dead and express disgust when it's an American. The public needs to see the whole truth of it, and war for the bloody waste it is.

Badge: "So what should the AP publish? Rosey images of flowers and rainbows?"

Nah... images of US troops shooting flowers and rainbows at 'dirty Islamists' and changing them into good people. Sarcasm over, I agree with what you say. It stinks, but that's the truth of it. I would rather not see war at all and NO dead on the news or in pics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

War is not pretty. People get blown, shot up, sliced and diced. WTF are Americans expecting? I do feel sorry for the immediate family, but Americans can not have their cake and it it too. War is war, we are in foreign countries, the Taliban, Alqaeda etc..just want the USA army out, that is their right, imagine a bunch of Arabs landing in Idaho?? In Mississippi? Would Americans like to have foreigners making bases in their own country? Hell no! Why are we surprised when others want to kill our troops? RIP young marine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pictures of war at afghanistan should be shown. USA should not isolate itself from these pictures/audio visual informations depicting war/war casualties.

Freedom of info flow should go up in world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Marine's family personally asked the editors not to publish the photo. Gates himself begged them not to, specifically telling them that it would cause the family more agony. They went ahead and did it. I call callous sensationalizm. I hope every embedded journalist gets the boot over this betrayal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

elbudamexicano: Taliban, Alqaeda etc..just want the USA army out, that is their right

Um, sorry, what right is that? The right to rule your country as a terrorist training ground and attack Western nations without possibility of consequence?

imagine a bunch of Arabs landing in Idaho?? In Mississippi?

...or a bunch of Mexicans living in California?? In Arizona?

Would Americans like to have foreigners making bases in their own country?

Last I checked, people in Idaho and Mississippi weren't getting together in groups and blowing up office buildings in the Middle East. If we ever reach that point, then perhaps your point would make more sense. But if you're so sensitive about other people living in other lands, perhaps you can work on the problem of Mexicans coming into the US and draining our health care and education resources.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Should never have been there."

What makes you think that?

"So what should the AP publish? Rosey images of flowers and rainbows?"

They can show buildings destroyed, people with horrific injuries, combantants engaged in battle, airstrikes etc.

The issue here is that AP distributed a photograph of a marine with his leg blown off right before he died against the wishes of his parents, no one is questioning the AP reporter for even taking the photograph or anything like that, the issue again is them distributing a photograph that the family doesn't want to be distributed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Alqaeda etc..just want the USA army out, that is their right, imagine a bunch of Arabs landing in Idaho??"

How is that Al qaeda's right? They are not a nationalist group nor are they afghani's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"). Also as I said this is not some kind of one-sided video game where the Pentagon can allow certain video footage or pics of enemy combatants dead and express disgust when it's an American"

Ah I'm not aware of pentagdon showing pictures of enemy combatants slain except for maybe AQI leader and saddams sons being killed and even then the body was cleaned up and only the head was shown. The video footage is pretty much thermal there is really no way you can identify just from looking at the footage nor can you see from the footage any detailed injuries.

Why do you think people think its a video game?

The reason why the pentagon expressed disgust was because the family made contact with gates after there efforts failed to prevent the AP from distributing the photograph and asked for their help in trying to convince AP from distributing the photograph.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man there really needs to be an edit button for spelling errors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib: "Last I checked, people in Idaho and Mississippi weren't getting together in groups and blowing up office buildings in the Middle East."

Um... they are actually blowing up lots of stuff in the Middle East, including innocent people, small children and a whole lot of other stuff. Or does what the American military blow up not count in your mind? Knowing you from your posts, I'm going to have to say it doesn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sure, and cops shoot people too, just like murderers. The end result is the same, right? ;)

The original poster said that Al Queda and the Taliban have the right to live in their country in peace. And that's fine. But when they used their land to intentionally kill innocents in foreign countries then I can't imagine any sane person would claim that they have "the right" be to be left alone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sure, and cops shoot people too, just like murderers. The end result is the same, right? ;)

Except no one has appointed the US as the "global cop". In fact the US is acting very much in the same way every wacko mass murderer ever did: as a self-appointed "crusader" to impose self-concocted "values" on the rest of the planet, "values" which just so happen, purely "accidentally", to impart vast power and wealth to some US-based business and military elites. A completely disingenuous and duplicitous attitude, which a majority of the planet's population finds entirely transparent. And which comes as a surprise to many Americans who cannot understand how come all the hostility. The "Why are they attacking us?! (Gasp! Shock!)" shtick is only likely to work on another deeply self-obsessed and coddled American.

Incidentally, the same mentality is exhibited by the members of the Al-Queda, who wish their self-centred "values" imposed on everyone else. The main difference is the logistical abilities to make it happen.

But to be entirely objective, Al-Queda and Taliban combined, throughout their entire history in the whole Middle East, killed far less people (including 9/11) than US in Iraq alone. This alone should be a hint.

This very "debate" about the AP reporting war footage is the perfect example of the deep desire of Americans to live in utter denial. They wish all the mayhem, killing, pillaging, rape, torture and what not done in their name to others, for power and wealth, as well as the resulting cost in human life and treasure to the US mercenary forces incurred when the "ungrateful natives" fight back, to be completely hidden from their tender sensibilities. In the immortal words of Barbara Bush: "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

Beautiful American minds indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Technically no one has to ignomax, just like no one appointed the UN to be the global gov. that the US has to follow.

"This very "debate" about the AP reporting war footage is the perfect example of the deep desire of Americans to live in utter denial. They wish all the mayhem, killing, pillaging, rape, torture and what not done in their name to others, for power and wealth, as well as the resulting cost in human life and treasure to the US mercenary forces incurred when the "ungrateful natives" fight back, to be completely hidden from their tender sensibilities. "

The debate is whether or not the AP should have followed the families wishes nothing more. It has nothing to do with denial.

And how many people have been killed by US forces in Iraq alone? Are you just going to throw the lancet study out as evidence and claim everyone of those was killed by a US munition?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

UN to be the global gov. that the US has to follow.

The US has never followed the UN. The US has always merely used the UN. The UN is a tool established by the greatest powers at the end of WWII in order to impose their will on all the rest of nations, while trying to create a veneer of legitimacy to their rule (that is why the utterly undemocratic "security council" cabal is the driving force in the UN). Thus the US invokes the UN as an "authority" only when it suits the US agenda, and ignores (and generally holds in deep disdain) the UN at all other times. Case in point, up to year 2000 the UN has issued 69 resolutions dealing with Iraq (the US: "The most profound issue of international justice in our time! Everyone listen to UN!") and 138 dealing with Israel, nearly all by the General Assembly, thus bypassing the "security council" (the US: "Phhht! A bunch of Arab-loving losers! Who do they think they are? World government?! No one tells US and Israel what to do! We are the Masters of The Universe. Ignore those UN clowns!").

Needles to say, this attitude did not exactly go unnoticed around the world.

The debate is whether or not the AP should have followed the families wishes nothing more. It has nothing to do with denial.

Yes it has everything to do with denial. If all war footage were to be subject to "family wishes", nothing would ever get published. Those who wish to hide the war do not simply come out and say "we want keep everyone ignorant", they search for excuses to "justify" their manipulations. "Family wishes", "national security", "protecting our troops", etc etc are excuses to stop war coverage, to stem the flow of inconvenient and damning information. It was the primary lesson that the US establishment (and others as well) learnt from the Vietnam war.

And how many people have been killed by US forces in Iraq alone? Are you just going to throw the lancet study out as evidence and claim everyone of those was killed by a US munition?

Even the most conservative estimate computed based on individual news reports of casualties (we have "estimates" incidentally because, as part of the very same denial manufacturing tactic I just mentioned, the US forces made sure that no truly accurate tally can be computed by purposefully forbidding the troops from keeping and publishing numbers of their killed adversaries) are still into 90+ thousand people, all a direct result of the invasion (i.e. these people would not have died in the same way at the same time if it were not for the invasion).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Was in very bad taste for AP to go against the families wishes concerning their son. I would think that DOD would consider pulling all AP embedded reporters as an appropriate response.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sharky1

Was in very bad taste for AP to go against the families wishes concerning their son. 

As opposed to wishes of tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis who lost their kids, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters and any other loved ones you can think of to American bombs and bullets who wished for their loved ones not to die or be maimed ...

Not to mention families of all those being "interrogated" in Abu Graib and Bagram who, I am quite sure, wished for their loved ones not to stand on boxes with wires attached to their testicles.

But their wishes are worth apparently squat because they are not American.

I would think that DOD would consider pulling all AP embedded reporters as an appropriate response.

Why stop there? Total blackout on inconvenient news from the war! The public needs not to worry their collective pretty heads about these awful things! Just trust that Daddy Government is doing The Right Thing, and everything will turn out just peachy! Oh and don't forget to shop, cheer at sports games and follow the latest celebrity scandal! Nothing can possibly go wrong in the world if you just make sure you are sufficiently ignorant about it!

And all those "war journalists" and "war reporters"? Enemies all! Just shoot them. Because every Good American knows that a "journalist" is a fashionably dressed person sitting in a trendy, posh studio while pontificating about the "legacy" of Michael Jackson and there is just no way that such a "journalist" would have ever ended up in a war zone, even totally "embedded" in the US troops so that he or she can be "protected" from all the harmful information! Why, if the US would finally put end to that menace of "war journalism", no one would have ever found out about Abu Gharib. Aren't those damn "war journalists" and their damn photos just a menace to Beautiful American Minds?

In fact, what are you doing here? Isn't the latest "reality" TV show on? Aren't you overdue to check who is being voted off the island and who slept with whom?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The US has never followed the UN. The US has always merely used the UN."

Wow you really didn't get it did you? I always known that, the point was that europeans, south americans, fellow north americans, africans and asians have all complained about how the US doesn't follow the UN because they feel that the UN is international law and thus the international government and as a result they are the worlds cop.

"Yes it has everything to do with denial. If all war footage were to be subject to "family wishes", nothing would ever get published."

But it isn't, the only thing that isn't published is the pictures of a soldier that is dead in a coffin coming off of an airplane when the family disapproves of it, and several families have allowed that. Plus I have yet to hear of a single family complain of the media printing a photograph of one of their relatives with injuries, I have yet to hear the pentagon complain of it. Or a family complaining of photographs being printed of the destruction one of their family members have created.

"published. Those who wish to hide the war do not simply come out and say "we want keep everyone ignorant", they search for excuses to "justify" their manipulations. "Family wishes", "national security", "protecting our troops", etc etc are excuses to stop war coverage, to stem the flow of inconvenient and damning information. It was the primary lesson that the US establishment (and others as well) learnt from the Vietnam war."

Wow you really are starting to get off topic dude, we are talking about the family wishes here and nothing else. I don't believe the family who son has died wants people to not know of the place he died in so that they can find some justification for their manipulations. Do you get it now man we are talking about the family here and its wishes and nothing else.

"90+ thousand people, all a direct result of the invasion (i.e. these people would not have died in the same way at the same time if it were not for the invasion)."

Very good but can you prove that all of them were killed by a US munition?

I understand your point but I disagree with it because you could argue that all those killed in the afghanistan war are of AQ/Taliban responsibility because all those that died would have died a different way at a different time in a different place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the point was that europeans, south americans, fellow north americans, africans and asians have all complained about how the US doesn't follow the UN because they feel that the UN is international law and thus the international government and as a result they are the worlds cop.

This is only because UN is essentially all we've got that even resembles (however remotely) something like an international law institution, warts and all. Note that the US pointedly decided not to participate in the International Criminal Court, a body specifically designed to address UN's shortcomings regarding enforcement of some most basic rules of civilized behaviour between nations.

But it isn't, the only thing that isn't published is the pictures of a soldier that is dead in a coffin coming off of an airplane when the family disapproves of it, and several families have allowed that. Plus I have yet to hear of a single family complain of the media printing a photograph of one of their relatives with injuries, I have yet to hear the pentagon complain of it. Or a family complaining of photographs being printed of the destruction one of their family members have created.

Err, this very family is complaining about the pictures of war carnage involving their son, long before the coffin made it back. In fact there are all sorts of "complaints" from families about all of the other things, particularly including the photos of the destruction caused by their boys and girls. Publishing which is apparently a give-away sign of "not supporting the troops". The wishes of the families of US troops were given as the chief reason for Obama's administration backtracking on the release of the rest of Abu Graib photos...

Wow you really are starting to get off topic dude, we are talking about the family wishes here and nothing else

In the context of the war in Afghanistan! There is no such thing as "just the family wishes" in that context! Even photos of car accidents shot by passers by do not enjoy that sort of level of protection, never you mind war footage!

I don't believe the family who son has died wants people to not know of the place he died in so that they can find some justification for their manipulations. Do you get it now man we are talking about the family here and its wishes and nothing else.

There is a profound difference between graphic visuals and a dry 2-line note in the obituaries. Those who wish to "sanitize" the war are quite happy with the 2-line version, preferably in small print, on page 11, next to the classifieds.

I understand your point but I disagree with it because you could argue that all those killed in the afghanistan war are of AQ/Taliban responsibility because all those that died would have died a different way at a different time in a different place.

The situation is different between Iraq and Afghanistan. Taliban-supported Al-Queda attacked the US on 9/11 and therefore the Afghanistan war is the direct responsibility of Taliban and Al-Queda. The controversy about Afghanistan is all in the nature of Taliban, which was not capable of running a legitimate national government and only total dysfunction of that country allowed such a group to pretend to be one.

No such claim can be made for Iraq, where the entire responsibility for the rush to war, the WMD fabrications and associated hysteria, the failed attempts to "legitimize" the thing in UN, and all the responsibility for everything associated with the war belongs squarely to the US, whose ideologues had an appetite for Iraq for a very long time and persisted in attempting to harass and bully the tin-pot dictatorship of Saddam into conflict which they could use to "justify" the invasion, up to and including proposals for false-flag operations involving "UN" planes.

This crucial difference is why many countries originally supported the US in Afghanistan, even its "enemies" such as Iran which closed its borders with it and hunted down Al-Queda and Taliban members trying to escape the international forces.

And yes, the ultimate responsibility for the dead French in WWII all belonged to the Nazis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"This is only because UN is essentially all we've got that even resembles (however remotely) something like an international law institution, warts and all."

Exactly but it still isn't the worlds police now is it?

"Note that the US pointedly decided not to participate in the International Criminal Court, a body specifically designed to address UN's shortcomings regarding enforcement of some most basic rules of civilized behaviour between nations."

And so what? Nearly half the world has not joined that court anyways. Why does the US have to join that court?

"Err, this very family is complaining about the pictures of war carnage involving their son, long before the coffin made it back. In fact there are all sorts of "complaints" from families about all of the other things, particularly including the photos of the destruction caused by their boys and girls. Publishing which is apparently a give-away sign of "not supporting the troops". The wishes of the families of US troops were given as the chief reason for Obama's administration backtracking on the release of the rest of Abu Graib photos..."

Err what? I already know why the family is mad. Yes exactly this very family which is exactly what this story/issue is about. This family, it isn't about anything else. They are upset with AP for distributing a photo of their son right before he died that they didn't want to be distributed and they made it known to AP before it was distributed and still went on with it.

Really there are all sorts of complaints? Can you prove them to me? Do you have evidence of families mad at a newspaper for showing a photo of their son or daughter destroying a vehicle or blowing something up or for shooting at someone?

Are you sure it was one of the reasons why obama backtracked? So you have evidence of the families involved in that scandal wrote to obama saying don't release them? Becaues my understanding was that they didn't want to release the photo because mullen, gates, petraeus were against it because everyone already knows what happend there and have seen the photos, what would be the point again of just releasing more photos which would cause more anger and that anger would be used to create violence that would cause coalition along with iraqi casualties over an issue that has pretty much been settled. The world already knows what happenend, there is already photos showing what happen. What purpose does it serve was there question?

"In the context of the war in Afghanistan! There is no such thing as "just the family wishes" in that context! Even photos of car accidents shot by passers by do not enjoy that sort of level of protection, never you mind war footage!"

Ya actually there is. Ya car accidents do seem enjoy such level of protection from media outlets we are not talking about the average citizens now are we? Have you ever noticed that on the news or in the newspaper they don't show the bodies of those car accidents they just show the emergency vehciles or the wrecked cars and blood? They don't actually show the body or body parts?

"There is a profound difference between graphic visuals and a dry 2-line note in the obituaries. Those who wish to "sanitize" the war are quite happy with the 2-line version, preferably in small print, on page 11, next to the classifieds."

Yes there is, and you can find all the violence in the mass media, the mass media in america constantly shows videos of gun battles going on in Afghanistan now and as in the past in Iraq, but they don't show the dead bodies from either side of the conflict. NBC aired a report several months ago of US forces staging an ambush and then them launching mortars that hit their own forces and you can hear the US forces moaning in pain in the distance and the family never made a fuss about it. I don't believe the family wants to "sanitize" the war I just think they don't want a photograph of their son right before he dies being distributed, they had no objection to all the other photographs of him engaged in combat.

"The situation is different between Iraq and Afghanistan. Taliban-supported Al-Queda attacked the US on 9/11 and therefore the Afghanistan war is the direct responsibility of Taliban and Al-Queda. The controversy about Afghanistan is all in the nature of Taliban, which was not capable of running a legitimate national government and only total dysfunction of that country allowed such a group to pretend to be one."

It doesn't matter if they are different, if US forces kill civilians in Afghanistan that isn't taliban or AQ fault, that is the US. The US isn't responsible for civilians killed by insurgent or terrorist forces in Iraq.

"And yes, the ultimate responsibility for the dead French in WWII all belonged to the Nazis."

Oh give me a break you really believe the Allied forces are not responsible for the civilians they killed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

IgnoMax: And all those "war journalists" and "war reporters"? Enemies all! Just shoot them.

I think that one sentence sums up the credibility of your arguments, which are so emotional that you are no longer an effective messenger. Enjoy screaming with the radical right. You guys belong on the fringe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"But to be entirely objective, Al-Queda and Taliban combined, throughout their entire history in the whole Middle East, killed far less people (including 9/11) than US in Iraq alone. This alone should be a hint." says ignoMax.

This makes no sense. AlQaeda was drawn to Iraq after US forces entered the country and deposed Saddam Hussein.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This makes no sense. AlQaeda was drawn to Iraq after US forces entered the country and deposed Saddam Hussein.

Which part does not make sense? Are you trying to count Iraqi casualties as being somehow the fault of Al-Qaeda? If the US did not invade, they would have not been there in the first place, Al-Queda being sworn enemies of Saddam and having no access to Iraq under his control. Taliban is a Pakistani/Afghanistani entity and was never present in Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think that one sentence sums up the credibility of your arguments, which are so emotional that you are no longer an effective messenger. Enjoy screaming with the radical right. You guys belong on the fringe.

If you cannot tell a bit of sarcasm from an actual argument, you have no business talking about credibility at all.

I also note that you failed to provide any arguments of your own, other than an attempt to kill the messenger by proclaiming that the message is somehow "ineffective" and "screaming", following which you insinuate yourself as the implicit holder of the balanced, calm and well-reasoned centre opinion, as opposed to the despicable "fringe" to which - naturally - all your opponents must belong by definition.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Are you trying to count Iraqi casualties as being somehow the fault of Al-Qaeda?" asks ignomax.

No need to try.AlQaeda representatives made the declarations on tape and video.They repeatedly said Iraq is the central battleground.Like the Taliban they kill anyone who they think cooperates with opponents of their Islamist worldview. It was called the Anbar Awakening because the shieks and their tribes,sick of the killing and the brutality, rose up against ALQaeda.Not American forces.

You have some very peculiar ideas.And superlib called you on them in his 10:54 post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Exactly but it still isn't the worlds police now is it?

No it is not. Which is exactly the point I was making in response to the SuperLib, who pretended an equivalence between "cops" and the US. I never argued that the US is, or should be, the "world's police". Quite opposite in fact. I pointed out that no one selected the US as the "cop" and thus any argument about "cops" in reference to mayhem that US is responsible for is utterly illogical.

And so what? Nearly half the world has not joined that court anyways. Why does the US have to join that court?

Because every other nation even pretending to any sort of respect for international law did. Notable absences include all nations recently engaged in atrocities and those whose respect for human rights is somewhat lower than that for sewage. Places like China, Russia along a whole list of Middle Eastern dictatorship and the like. By ducking it, the US has simply demonstrated once again that it is in the same category, vast amounts of propaganda and lip-service to "human rights" and "law" notwithstanding.

This family, it isn't about anything else. They are upset with AP for distributing a photo of their son right before he died that they didn't want to be distributed and they made it known to AP before it was distributed and still went on with it.

AP did as they should have done! Which part of not responding to pressure from any quarter to silence the reporting don't you understand?! If AP lets any family control their reporting of photos, based on their arbitrary sensibilities, than anyone with any remotely legitimate stake in the war also could. All the other families, extended families, people with financial interests, girlfriends, boyfriends, old school buddies, Young Republicans (because it "hurts the troops image"), etc and so on. Either everyone with any sort of claim gets to tell AP to hide stuff on command or no one does. Why is it so hard for you to get this simple fact?!

Really there are all sorts of complaints? Can you prove them to me? Do you have evidence of families mad at a newspaper for showing a photo of their son or daughter destroying a vehicle or blowing something up or for shooting at someone?

I clearly stated what I meant, and that was that Obama administration reported that "concern from families" was one of the main reasons for withholding the Abu Graib photos. I am sure there are other instances, but I do not have to provide them to you, because it only takes one case to demonstrate your original assertion false, an assertion that you haven't heard of "a family complaining of photographs being printed of the destruction one of their family members have created". The goings on at Abu-Grahib definitely count as "destruction", in more ways than one.

Are you sure it was one of the reasons why Obama backtracked? So you have evidence of the families involved in that scandal wrote to obama saying don't release them?

I am not privy to letters being written to Obama. But we know what went on indirectly because of these kinds of statements, in addition to the White House staff yapping on TV:

'Military Families United, an advocacy organization, released a statement praising Obama's decision: "The president today chose to put the safety of our troops before the demands of an activist agenda. These photographs serve no purpose other than to embolden the enemy with propaganda to use in their recruitment of future jihadists, hinder our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan and risk the lives of our troops."'

These people speak for many of the families and it only stands to reason that they lobbied actively before hand so that the decision would go in the way that they could "praise".

Becaues my understanding was that they didn't want to release the photo because mullen, gates, petraeus were against it because everyone already knows what happend there and have seen the photos, what would be the point again of just releasing more photos which would cause more anger and that anger would be used to create violence that would cause coalition along with iraqi casualties over an issue that has pretty much been settled. The world already knows what happenend, there is already photos showing what happen. What purpose does it serve was there question?

Apparently your understanding was wrong. See above.

Ya car accidents do seem enjoy such level of protection from media outlets we are not talking about the average citizens now are we?

There is no difference anymore, due to this thing called the Internet. Ever hear of it?

Have you ever noticed that on the news or in the newspaper they don't show the bodies of those car accidents they just show the emergency vehciles or the wrecked cars and blood? They don't actually show the body or body parts?

The TV news are usually meant for general audience, this involving children and what not. That is why "graphic" footage is usually reserved for in-depth reports, which are given appropriate parental warnings before broadcast. And you get to see all the gore there. Or at least you used to, before the US news industry became sycophantic "infotainment" industry.

Yes there is, and you can find all the violence in the mass media, the mass media in america constantly shows videos of gun battles going on in Afghanistan now and as in the past in Iraq, but they don't show the dead bodies from either side of the conflict.

This is markedly different from Vietnam coverage and serves to create an impression of war as a PG-13 "video game", where casualties are bloodless. Which is precisely what "sanitizing" a war is.

I don't believe the family wants to "sanitize" the war I just think they don't want a photograph of their son right before he dies being distributed, they had no objection to all the other photographs of him engaged in combat.

Any reduction in graphic impact is precisely that, an attempt to make the war more palatable to the general public. The personal reasons behind such an action are irrelevant and if allowed would produce a never-ending stream of demands of all kind from all comers.

It doesn't matter if they are different, if US forces kill civilians in Afghanistan that isn't taliban or AQ fault, that is the US. The US isn't responsible for civilians killed by insurgent or terrorist forces in Iraq.

You are wrong. I stated it before in simple terms, because I thought that my line or reasoning was obvious. But it appears that you are having difficulty with this, so I will elaborate further: Responsibility is not a black/white, on/off binary affair, like so many authoritarians would like us to believe. "Good" or "evil", "black hats" or "white hats", nothing in between is the sort of illogic that causes untold harm everywhere. The US and Al Qaeda both bear responsibility in Afghanistan. US to a smaller degree because it is they who shoot cross-eyed with no regard for collateral damage. Al Qaeda's is the lion share because they started the whole mess in the first place by deciding to have their 9/11 spectacle. Al Queda is far the more culpable, their responsibility is the ultimate one because no 9/11 = no justification for Afghanistan invasion to go after them, and thus no trigger-happy US collateral damage.

The reverse is true for Iraq. Final responsibility belongs to the US, they are the ultimately culpable party, while Al Queda bears only partial responsibility for the casualties resulting from their idiotic, non-discriminating tactics.

This is a rather simple, straightforward and patently obvious analysis, no?

Oh give me a break you really believe the Allied forces are not responsible for the civilians they killed?

See above. They bore partial responsibility which was dwarfed by that of the Nazis. No Nazis: no war. No war: no casualties of Allied bombing, many of which were unavoidable given then current state of technology and the logistics of war. I don't know how more obvious and straightforward this can get.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

IgnoMax: No it is not. Which is exactly the point I was making in response to the SuperLib, who pretended an equivalence between "cops" and the US. I never argued that the US is, or should be, the "world's police". Quite opposite in fact. I pointed out that no one selected the US as the "cop" and thus any argument about "cops" in reference to mayhem that US is responsible for is utterly illogical.

Actually, you missed my point entirely, but please don't let that hold you up. I was talking about groups of terrorists blowing up office buildings in Western countries, and someone responded by saying the US military is essentially the same. I thought it was a silly comparison, so I made an equally silly analogy between cops and murderers to prove a point. That's way homicide can sometimes be called self defense, murder, manslaughter, etc. I think you actually supported my point by saying something about the US being "slightly less responsible" than Al Queda, acknowledging the fact that there is no intent to harm civilians, but to be honest with you your posts are quite long and boorish and I mostly just skimmed over them. Perhaps you didn't agree with me, I'm not 100% sure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On the shoot the reporters note, I think you took him out of context and he was being satirical about it. Though I think the discussion has gone really off topic from the discussion at hand, the discussion of the AP to publish the photo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They can show buildings destroyed, people with horrific injuries, combantants engaged in battle, airstrikes etc.

Except they can't show any dead US soldiers right? Which is the toll that those guys are paying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gates is justifiably angry.This is going to harm Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Because every other nation even pretending to any sort of respect for international law did."

The US doesn't need to join such a court to show if its following or having any respect for international law, there are others ways of doing that. If the US joined the court but didn't follow its rulings it would just be more lip service right?

"AP did as they should have done! Which part of not responding to pressure from any quarter to silence the reporting don't you understand?!"

No I understand what your saying but you can still report such things in different ways, it doesn't always have to be in photographs. They are not exactly trying to silence them as they were not trying to prevent them from reporting his death or injuries just the photograph.

"Either everyone with any sort of claim gets to tell AP to hide stuff on command or no one does. Why is it so hard for you to get this simple fact?!"

I get what your saying dude, I have been the entire time, but I disagree with your view.

"If AP lets any family control their reporting of photos, based on their arbitrary sensibilities, than anyone with any remotely legitimate stake in the war also could."

Or you could just do it where you draw the line at the immediate family, which is what the majority are advocating.

"I am not privy to letters being written to Obama. But we know what went on indirectly because of these kinds of statements, in addition to the White House staff yapping on TV: "

Then why did you make the claim that the soldiers who were personally involved in the scandal, their families wrote to obama to reconsider it then?

"These people speak for many of the families and it only stands to reason that they lobbied actively before hand so that the decision would go in the way that they could "praise"."

They do? So you have evidence that the families of the soldiers personally involved are in that group?

The statement sadly does not prove that they did any lobbying efforts, its just them making a statement on a situation they were following. For example I could be following Obama's envrionmental policy and not say anything until he announces something and then praise him for that decision.

The source that you got that from also had this to say:

"The timing of the president's decision suggests that a key factor behind his switch of position could have been a desire to prevent the release of the photos before a speech that he's to give June 4 in Egypt aimed at convincing the world's Muslims that the United States isn't at war with them. The pictures' release shortly before the speech could have negated its goal and proved highly embarrassing. Even if courts ultimately reject Obama's new position, the time needed for their consideration could delay the photos' release until long after the speech."

It would suggest the primary reason has more to do with a speech.

"Gibbs denied that Obama was acting under pressure to change his position from military officials. However, lawmakers knew of concerns from Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Gen. Ray Odierno, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq; outgoing Afghanistan commander Gen. David McKiernan; and Gen. David Petraeus, the chief of U.S. Central Command.

"The timing could not be worse in terms of stirring things up," said a senior U.S. military official, who also asked not to be identified because he wasn't authorized to speak to the media. "You're in a very exposed position when you're building up, and even more so when you're withdrawing forces, and the last thing you want to do is poke the hornet's nest, which is what this (releasing the pictures) would do."

The senior military official said he hadn't seen the pictures. However, he added, "even if they're just more of the same,” like the already released Abu Ghraib photos, "that's not what we need.""

So it appears we are both wrong in terms of pressure.

"The TV news are usually meant for general audience, this involving children and what not. That is why "graphic" footage is usually reserved for in-depth reports, which are given appropriate parental warnings before broadcast. And you get to see all the gore there. Or at least you used to, before the US news industry became sycophantic "infotainment" industry."

And newspapers are not? Even the online ones of the printed ones?

"This is markedly different from Vietnam coverage and serves to create an impression of war as a PG-13 "video game", where casualties are bloodless. Which is precisely what "sanitizing" a war is."

Well since they show the injuries of people I would say they don't make it seem bloodless considering there is generally blood coming out of them and drenching their clothes with signs on their face of pain. Technically you will be hard press to find video games that do not include blood and body parts flying every where in which the genre contains physical violence.

"You are wrong. I stated it before in simple terms, because I thought that my line or reasoning was obvious. But it appears that you are having difficulty with this, so I will elaborate further: Responsibility is not a black/white, on/off binary affair, like so many authoritarians would like us to believe. "Good" or "evil", "black hats" or "white hats", nothing in between is the sort of illogic that causes untold harm everywhere. The US and Al Qaeda both bear responsibility in Afghanistan. US to a smaller degree because it is they who shoot cross-eyed with no regard for collateral damage. Al Qaeda's is the lion share because they started the whole mess in the first place by deciding to have their 9/11 spectacle. Al Queda is far the more culpable, their responsibility is the ultimate one because no 9/11 = no justification for Afghanistan invasion to go after them, and thus no trigger-happy US collateral damage.

The reverse is true for Iraq. Final responsibility belongs to the US, they are the ultimately culpable party, while Al Queda bears only partial responsibility for the casualties resulting from their idiotic, non-discriminating tactics.

This is a rather simple, straightforward and patently obvious analysis, no?"

No not really because your ICC would side with me on this one. I understand your point and have the entire time dude. When it comes to the war in general then yes the side that starts it holds the responsibility for the war, but when you start getting down to the individual casualties and the destruction the people/sides ultimately responsible are the ones who committed the casualty/destruction. In the afghan war, if US forces kill civilians they are ultimately responsible for that casualty and that is how the ICC has ruled on its past convictions. If US forces blow up a structure by accident during a gun battle they are ultimately responsible not AQ or Taliban.

"See above. They bore partial responsibility which was dwarfed by that of the Nazis. No Nazis: no war. No war: no casualties of Allied bombing, many of which were unavoidable given then current state of technology and the logistics of war. I don't know how more obvious and straightforward this can get."

Ah but allies are the ones who have control over the allied bombings, they are the only ones who control their actions. Just like how the nazi are the only in control of their actions. Actually many of the casualties were avoidable, for example the battle of caen is an example of a battle that should have never took place.

The Allied bombings purposely leveled entire towns, these were not missed targets the targets were the towns themselves. They droped leaflets before the bombings giving the civilians several hours to leave and a lot of them did via road which ended up being strafed by Allied aircraft anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You need to realize man that people who disagree with your views actually understand what your they just disagree with you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guess AP believes in the "I would not have believed unless I seen it with my own eyes" school.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The point being missed here is the issue of honoring the fallen. There is little that riles us up like ridiculous reporters thinking they are doing us or the country a service by showing us these pictures. They are doing one thing and one thing only and that is dishonoring the dead. It's the moral equivalent of peeing in someone's grave during the funeral.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites