[CWyatt]

Pentagon bars release of photos allegedly showing detainee abuse - CNN.com

Also see story on Gates:
Secretary Of Defence Takes Offence at AP -- D-Photo and The Photographer's Mail - photography news and reviews, digital cameras and tutorials

After promising 'transparency', the Obama Administration is now attempting to block the publishing of photos showing abuse of prisoners in US military custody. Only a few weeks ago, Robert Gates, Secretary of Defence, also had a go at AP for publishing a photo showing a dying marine in Afghanistan.

There's just no way governments can be trusted to voluntarily respect civil liberties or press freedoms. Any control of information by a government is almost always for their own ends. They are less interested in freedom of information than in securing their own goals, even though those goals are twisted by secretive or freedom-infringing means.

---

Last edited by CWyatt; 11-15-2009 at 05:42 PM.

[65535]

was anyone ever even doubting that this was going on?

edit:
Correction IS going on

[Class A]

After promising 'transparency', the Obama Administration is now attempting to block the publishing of photos showing abuse of prisoners in US military custody.

That's disappointing.

I always thought it is ironic how the USA claimed superiority over other countries because the latter had issues with censorship, invasion of other countries, creating social injustice, all things the USA are pretty good at themselves.

[Wheatfield]

This may be viewed as a wrong by the administration, but GWB and his band of merry mad bombers tried to do the same thing with soldiers coming home in body bags.
Consider that if their are atrocities that have been committed by American soldiers and these atrocities have been recorded, how they would be used by the people promoting terrorism as a tool to foment even more hatred towards the west in general, and the USA in particular.
I am not a proponent of censorship, but the argument in favour of not releasing images because of national security issues is a strong one.
It's too bad that these alleged images apparently exist because it does call to task the righteousness of what America is doing.

[seacapt]

I am not a proponent of censorship, but the argument in favour of not releasing images because of national security issues is a strong one.
.

Well we do agree on something! Also photo's that are inflametory or would cause grief for the family of the subject deserve some consideration before publishing .

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, I was always galled that photographers on American soil weren't allowed to photograph the return of caskets, otherwise sanitizing the war.

It seems the policy on what was done during the previous administration regarding mistreatment of prisoners, we need to be more transparent about what happens after we *stop* it than we do to put inflammatory images of what *previously* happened out there.

Cause it's not 'last year' that will suffer for that, but rather the cause of *fixing the problems it caused in the first place.* I can see Obama not bucking the Pentagon just yet on this one, at least until any criminal charges are resolved. The policy in general has been one of 'moving on,' which isn't exactly the most satisfying, but there we are. It's another mess that we've been left sitting on, but for now it's *evidence.* For now, I'm more concerned that it *stops.* And we'd better be able to see that it has.

As for combat photos, this one's a bit tougher, since the families of the troops aren't used to seeing photos of dead soldiers, for decades, now, and military families tend to oppose it. Consider the idea lurid. There, I just think it's part of the pain of war, and sanitizing it doesn't help.

[CWyatt]

Well we do agree on something! Also photo's that are inflametory or would cause grief for the family of the subject deserve some consideration before publishing .

In the case of AP, this is one of the world's biggest produces of photojournalism. It is, realistically, a decision between the hurt caused to a family by a photo, and showing billions of people visually what is happening. It's sad for the family, but the son is already dead, and it's not because of a photographer. The photographer is doing us the service of risking their own life to show people the results of policies like those of Robert Gates.

Personally I think it's very weak to be at least partially responsible for sending soldiers overseas to be killed, then lash out at photographers for showing people the reality of war.

As soon as the Government starts controlling information that comes out of one of their most controversial policies - and the US Government already does to some extent - it's very, very dangerous territory for press freedom.

If officials are worried it's 'inflammetory' or 'would cause grief' - look at the reality, not the pictures. If these things didn't happen they wouldn't get photographed. I'm glad AP stayed strong and published the photo of the dying soldier. Be interesting to see how the ACLU goes in the torture photos case.

[Class A]

Consider that if their are atrocities that have been committed by American soldiers and these atrocities have been recorded, how they would be used by the people promoting terrorism as a tool to foment even more hatred towards the west in general, and the USA in particular.

I see your point, but I think we also agree that it would be better to stop the atrocities from occurring rather than stop them from being reported. While the reporting has the disadvantages you mention, it also seems inevitable to do the reporting in order to make the atrocities stop.

[Ratmagiclady]

I see your point, but I think we also agree that it would be better to stop the atrocities from occurring rather than stop them from being reported. While the reporting has the disadvantages you mention, it also seems inevitable to do the reporting in order to make the atrocities stop.

Would be, yes. The shutting off of transparency should not have happened to begin with.

Now that it *has,* though. And considering the general agenda of acting like things done by the aberrant Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rummy machine suddenly appeared when Obama took office, it does little good to claim Obama's doing something new by not opening files on active cases *now,* will do anything but allow more transference of blame while agitating situations we're trying to fix.

Dealing with what happened in the *past* administration, ...well, I'd like to see 'heads roll' but part of the point of the Roveian politics was to make the mess too messy to take apart.

I want transparency from the moment the SOBs were *out of there*

And for good.

As for what happened before, now's not the time to throw it all out there when there's a D after the President's name. It's actually important that the world know that something *has* changed, rather than see a bunch of Republicans storming about 'defending' it and trying to give the impression, 'This story broke on Obama's watch, be of short attention span!'

Wrong was done. Crimes, I think, even. They should be treated as such, not just another distraction. That means a lot of this stuff is *evidence.* And should also be treated as such. Not as just more fodder to inflame things with, when people were told all that Unconstitutional stuff was right and necessary. *First* priority is to make sure it doesn't happen *now,* and if we want transparency, hand me the Tri-X.

That's disappointing.

I always thought it is ironic how the USA claimed superiority over other countries because the latter had issues with censorship, invasion of other countries, creating social injustice, all things the USA are pretty good at themselves.

There was a time when the USA could legitimately claim superiority over other countries in matters such as that. Just as Britain could once legitimately use the word 'Great' in ti's title.
Now in the case of both nations, it's just a habit with no substance in truth.

[Ratmagiclady]

There was a time when the USA could legitimately claim superiority over other countries in matters such as that. Just as Britain could once legitimately use the word 'Great' in ti's title.
Now in the case of both nations, it's just a habit with no substance in truth.

Well, as for the idea of 'moral superiority,' too much was done in the name of, 'We're America, what we do, whatever we do, must be 'morally-superior.'

Then we spent seven years of the GOP claiming that dishonor was just playing 'hardball.' And covering up crimes, even trying to *redefine the law* to 'make it legal.'

All the constant notions of 'Jack Bauer and a ticking time bomb' and how 'The American Way's not good enough for that. Legitimize this thing we're not doing but insist we would be right to do and euphemize anyway. Therefore, by opposing what we're *not* doing but want to retroactively-legalize, anyway, 'Liberals' are 'soft on terror.' '

Much was made of what fictional Jack Bauer would do against fictional enemies if a fictional clock was ticking about a fictional bomb and a fictional choice.

If it was real, Jack Bauer's answer should be simple. "I just committed a crime. Cause I thought it would save a lot of people from a ticing bomb. I should now be prosecuted for breaking the law, and I accept that."

For years, things have been turned backwards to claim that what tough choices might possibly happen to come about in (fictional) extremis should be made *policy.*

It's not *meant* to be easy to clean up.

[Rupert]

No photos, no trials for war crimes, no accountability......just "let's move on". We see it throughout America, and it starts at the top. I don't see where Obama is making any difference in world opinion, or in setting an example in America with his "it's in the past" mentality. Will there soon come a time when 911 itself will be "forbidden talk"? We already see where the holocaust is heading in that direction......Why can't we just provide justice, wherever it may fall? It would go a long way in encouraging change.
Regards

[Ratmagiclady]

No photos, no trials for war crimes, no accountability......just "let's move on". We see it throughout America, and it starts at the top. I don't see where Obama is making any difference in world opinion, or in setting an example in America with his "it's in the past" mentality. Will there soon come a time when 911 itself will be "forbidden talk"? We already see where the holocaust is heading in that direction......Why can't we just provide justice, wherever it may fall? It would go a long way in encouraging change.
Regards

People refused to push for accountability before Obama, now they want to blame him for the past, is a big part of the problem. I want to see some accountability, too, but not in the name of a circus to transfer the blame when it's actually kind of important we concentrate on in fact *doing* things differently, rather than having another case of mass-media-induced retrograde amnesia about whose 'watch' things happened on.

[Rupert]

So you are saying the past does not involve accountable atrocities? Maybe I can see that in a retrospect of several decades, but these offences are still dripping with fresh blood. I think the base of the Democratic party is not going to blame Obama for the "past", they are going to blame him for letting it slide by without consequence. I hear it often, and it is not a cry for retribution, it is a cry for justice. Is that out of fashion now too?
Regards

[Ratmagiclady]

Err, no. That's not what I said.

More like it's kind of lame for the previous administration to have been covering it up, so as to continue to do it, and then have the present one be blamed for not throwing the same stuff to the circus *now* when the point is to actually do things *differently* rather than defend the indefensible against the media's exploiting America's short attention span.

I said, I want to see transparency about what happens *now,* and in the case of what happened in the last administration, I said I want to see charges brought where applicable.

So I want those images used as *evidence,* not thrown out there for media fodder all of a sudden, as if they are something the present administration was responsible for, or is happening *now,* which is the message some are intended to get, however it undermines the process of actually *fixing the mess.*

I want to see *trials.*