AP picture of wounded Marine sparks debate

[WillowTree]

and why doesn't shit head bring the troops home like he promised in his messianic campaign speeches?

Because your shithead got US involved to the point we can't just pull them out today.

What and asshole.

Well, I didn't make the "promises" did I asshole?

 

[rayboyusmc]

I still find it interesting that only right uses words like: "messianic" etc to describe Obama.

I guess you do stand in awe of him.

 

[goldcatt]

Why does every thread eventually degenerate into the same Bush was an asshole vs Obama is evil argument?

 

[strollingbones]

i would like to point out....drudge has had the picture in question on his site for days now...what does that say about the mouthpiece for the "right"?

 

[goldcatt]

i would like to point out....drudge has had the picture in question on his site for days now...what does that say about the mouthpiece for the "right"?

Left or right makes no difference. Anyone who published that photo without the family's consent is dishonorable. Drudge is using that Marine's death as propaganda against his family's (and most likely his) wishes, just for a different POV. Disgusting.

 

[strollingbones]

i just see some irony in drudge bitching about ap and publishing the same pic

 

[goldcatt]

i just see some irony in drudge bitching about ap and publishing the same pic

Trusting, of course, that its loyal following will be immune to the irony and blind to the fact that using the image of a dying Marine to bash the "liberal media" is just as disgusting as using him to bash "Bush's war".
Where's the respect? Respecting the men and women who put on the uniform isn't a partisan issue, no matter how much some of the hacks want to spin it that way. Liberals, conservatives and independents all put on that uniform and put their lives on the line and they all bleed the same red. Whatever anybody thinks of the politicians who told them where to go do it, they represent all of us and do their jobs for all of us. Not just one "side", but all of us. And when in death they are disrespected by any "side" and used for cheap partisan games, it diminishes us all.
I don't get really, really pissed off at much, but this kind of thing gets me every time.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What agenda?

Does supporting the troops consist entirely of writing letters and sending cookies. That's apathy. Seeing that they die is the truth. Why shroud the truth? GI-Government Issue. Not showing the truth supports a more heinous agenda IMO, that they don't matter and stats in print of their loss don't upset the taxpayers or potential enlistees.

We had video footage of death and dying in WW2 and Viet Nam. Artists drew it in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Death and maiming are facts of war. Where one decides to come down on policy doesn't change those facts.

Oh yeah... death and dying are a fact of war... And that is no secret; and it's not something which needs to be advertised or used as propaganda which serves the interests which that Marine was FIGHTING AGAINST!

Propaganda is a force multiplier... where it serves the enemy, that doesn't change.

American troops simply need to understand that MSM reporters are their enemy; and they need to treat them as such. When more reporters who go out on patrol with American troops don't come back, they'll be fewer reporters who are willing to travel to wars zones to report on American troops only to return home to betray them.

That's not going to happen, PI. You see, the troops actually have honor and respect. If they're told to bring that reporter home alive, they'll do it or die trying. That's the difference, and one BIG reason why they deserve respect from the vultures whose asses they take care of.

Well, that's the thing about Honor, Integrity and Respect tho' friend... It's a critically necessary trait of a sustainable culture... but it is not an end unto itself; Those traits are a function of the immutable rights on which a sustainable culture rests....

What you're missing, is that it is the duty of every individual to hold their neighbor accountable for their individual responsibilty to not exercise their rights to the detriment of others... where the Press fails to adhere to their responsibility, they forfeit their own rights... Killing the reporters who betray them, is no less their responsibility than is their duty to kill their terrorist enemy.

You 'feel' that the authority to kill that enemy comes from the CinC... but you fail to recognize that the CinCs authority rests on the SAME immutable rights...

When I say that the MSM Reporter is their enemy, Sir... I am not mouthing a sarcasm... I am not engaging in an over-statement to make a point. I am stating a FACT! Those who snapped that photograph and those who authorized that photograph to be published, were through THEIR ACTIONS... adhering to the interests of the enemy.

The act of publishing that photograph serves the interests of our enemy... it bolsters their INTERESTS in demonstrating a visual witness to their having injured US... That image serves to bolster THE ENEMIES FIGHTER'S; thus rendering them aid and comfort; and the photo serves to give pause to our fighters... and it is an act of treason; as defined in the US Constitution; and this without regard to the numerous rationalizations which have sought to undermine that definition, over the centuries...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Needless to say, the act has been witnessed by orders of magnitude beyond the requirement of TWO...

 

[goldcatt]

Oh yeah... death and dying are a fact of war... And that is no secret; and it's not something which needs to be advertised or used as propaganda which serves the interests which that Marine was FIGHTING AGAINST!

Propaganda is a force multiplier... where it serves the enemy, that doesn't change.

American troops simply need to understand that MSM reporters are their enemy; and they need to treat them as such. When more reporters who go out on patrol with American troops don't come back, they'll be fewer reporters who are willing to travel to wars zones to report on American troops only to return home to betray them.

That's not going to happen, PI. You see, the troops actually have honor and respect. If they're told to bring that reporter home alive, they'll do it or die trying. That's the difference, and one BIG reason why they deserve respect from the vultures whose asses they take care of.

Well, that's the thing about Honor, Integrity and Respect tho' friend... It's a critically necessary trait of a sustainable culture... but it is not an end unto itself; Those traits are a function of the immutable rights on which a sustainable culture rests....

What you're missing, is that it is the duty of every individual to hold their neighbor accountable for their individual responsibilty to not exercise their rights to the detriment of others... where the Press fails to adhere to their responsibility, they forfeit their own rights... Killing the reporters who betray them, is no less their responsibility than is their duty to kill their terrorist enemy.

You 'feel' that the authority to kill that enemy comes from the CinC... but you fail to recognize that the CinCs authority rests on the SAME immutable rights...

When I say that the MSM Reporter is their enemy, Sir... I am not mouthing a sarcasm... I am not engaging in an over-statement to make a point. I am stating a FACT! Those who snapped that photograph and those who authorized that photograph to be published, were through THEIR ACTIONS... adhering to the interests of the enemy.

The act of publishing that photograph serves the interests of our enemy... it bolsters their INTERESTS in demonstrating a visual witness to their having injured US... That image serves to bolster THE ENEMIES FIGHTER'S; thus rendering them aid and comfort; and the photo serves to give pause to our fighters... and it is an act of treason; as defined in the US Constitution; and this without regard to the numerous rationalizations which have sought to undermine that definition, over the centuries...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Needless to say, the act has been witnessed by orders of magnitude beyond the requirement of TWO...

PI, are you honestly arguing that elements of the military should, under its own authority and outside its chain of command, take it upon itself to become judge, jury and executioner for people you and a few others on the extreme fringes proclaim to be traitors?

 

[manifold]

Jesus tapdancing Christ people. If you really believe that our military fights to preserve our freedoms, then that includes freedom of the press. Just because you might have first hand experience which makes you emotional and non-objective about it, doesn't mean it's not newsworthy.

Deal.

 

[del]

Jesus tapdancing Christ people. If you really believe that our military fights to preserve our freedoms, then that includes freedom of the press. Just because you might have first hand experience which makes you emotional and non-objective about it, doesn't mean it's not newsworthy.

Deal.

although AP certainly has the right to publish the photo, they should have respected the family's wishes, imo.

 

[WillowTree]

Jesus tapdancing Christ people. If you really believe that our military fights to preserve our freedoms, then that includes freedom of the press. Just because you might have first hand experience which makes you emotional and non-objective about it, doesn't mean it's not newsworthy.

Deal.

Yes and our first amendment rights allow us to call them DUchebags for doing it against family wishes.

 

[manifold]

Jesus tapdancing Christ people. If you really believe that our military fights to preserve our freedoms, then that includes freedom of the press. Just because you might have first hand experience which makes you emotional and non-objective about it, doesn't mean it's not newsworthy.

Deal.

although AP certainly has the right to publish the photo, they should have respected the family's wishes, imo.

Why?

If it were the scorched remains of a suicide bomber, and his family asked the AP not to print the photo, should they respect their wishes too?

 

[manifold]

Jesus tapdancing Christ people. If you really believe that our military fights to preserve our freedoms, then that includes freedom of the press. Just because you might have first hand experience which makes you emotional and non-objective about it, doesn't mean it's not newsworthy.

Deal.

Yes and our first amendment rights allow us to call them DUchebags for doing it against family wishes.

And mine to in turn to call you a hypersensitive slave to political correctness.

 

[del]

Jesus tapdancing Christ people. If you really believe that our military fights to preserve our freedoms, then that includes freedom of the press. Just because you might have first hand experience which makes you emotional and non-objective about it, doesn't mean it's not newsworthy.

Deal.

although AP certainly has the right to publish the photo, they should have respected the family's wishes, imo.

Why?

If it were the scorched remains of a suicide bomber, and his family asked the AP not to print the photo, should they respect their wishes too?

yes.

edit- i can think of no reason for either the actual or the hypothetical photo's publication that would supercede the family's desire for it not to be published.

why inflict pain intentionally in this way? what purpose is served?

 

[manifold]

i can think of no reason for either the actual or the hypothetical photo's publication that would supercede the family's desire for it not to be published.

Can you explain specifically, the variables that must be satisfied before you apply this standard? I'd be surprised if you think Britney Spears' mother's desires should not be superceded, in regards to a panty-less crotch shot of her drunk daughter getting out of a car.

 

[eots]

I find the picture far less offensive than the Nancy grace and her fallen hero schtick she does....private john brown...loved chicken mcnuggets and his mom...dead from a roadside bomb.. just 19 yrs old..an American hero

 

[manifold]

i can think of no reason for either the actual or the hypothetical photo's publication that would supercede the family's desire for it not to be published.

Can you explain specifically, the variables that must be satisfied before you apply this standard? I'd be surprised if you think Britney Spears' mother's desires should not be superceded, in regards to a panty-less crotch shot of her drunk daughter getting out of a car.

bump

 

[del]

i can think of no reason for either the actual or the hypothetical photo's publication that would supercede the family's desire for it not to be published.

Can you explain specifically, the variables that must be satisfied before you apply this standard? I'd be surprised if you think Britney Spears' mother's desires should not be superceded, in regards to a panty-less crotch shot of her drunk daughter getting out of a car.

the death of a family member. having been through it, i may be overly sensitive, but i see no purpose served by publishing this photo except profit for AP.
i'm not disputing their right to publish it, but i do think they're wrong for doing so.

 

[veritas]

Photographers have to eat and pay rent too. Some of the most moving pictures we have ever seen are war pictures. Somebody's got to take them. Not showing this picture is not going to make it cease to exist. It is now in the AP's portfolio and will come out when we are in a mood of reminiscense. It's ok if we go to war and kill people and have our people be killed but we shouldn't have to look at it and own our decision. No one family owns the death, we all do. War is a public affair.