U.S. military: Censorship was justified (incident in Afghanistan)

[maddezmom]

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The U.S. military asserted that an American soldier was justified in erasing journalists' footage of the aftermath of a suicide bombing and shooting in Afghanistan last week, saying publication could have compromised a military investigation and led to false public conclusions.

The comments came Friday in response to an Associated Press protest that a U.S. soldier had forced two freelance journalists working for the AP to delete photos and video at the scene of violence March 4 in Barikaw, eastern Afghanistan. At least eight Afghans were killed and 34 wounded.

"Investigative integrity is one circumstance when civil and military authorities will reluctantly exercise the right to control what a journalist is permitted to document," Col. Victor Petrenko, chief of staff to the top U.S. commander in eastern Afghanistan, said in a letter Friday.

He added that photographs or video taken by "untrained people" might "capture visual details that are not as they originally were."

The AP disputed the assertions.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070310/ap_on_re_as/afghan_us_censorship

[wicket]

1. Unreal

K & R

:kick:

[saigon68]

13. I conclude

There are still a lot of thugs and hoodlums in uniform

[MGKrebs]

2. I don't like it, but I don't know where we should draw the line.

I don't think that any old "freelance photographer" has an automatic right to photograph a crime scene, even in this country. So there must be some control of the scene, and if "freelance photographers" are selling provocative pics to certain groups who then use them to inflame extremist passions, well, maybe we should intervene.

On the other hand, we do not want to cretae the impression that we have things to hide. That's just as bad.

Are some going to say that once a freelance photographer gets a picture, it's theirs no matter what?

[bluerum]

3. Why don't they have that right? Or is that "right" reserved for government

photographers who will only take and release approved images?

[MGKrebs]

6. OK, who should have the right? Anybody?

Credentialed professionals? Who gets credentials? Who approves them? How do you control the scene so that paramedics, security, etc. can do their jobs?

[bluerum]

7. The constitution is fairly clear on the right of free speech. I believe that

right has been understood to include creative writings and art including photography. The issue of disrupting a crime or accident scene is something else.

I agree that there does need to be some management of access in certain cases, but I am more strongly in favor of a transparent process so that the press and civil rights groups can do their jobs.

OK - forget the press. They have proven themselves to be mouthpieces of late. But I do advocate for civil responsibility. If we don't stand up for our rights they will be taken away.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. i think all this talk of rights is overblown

the simple answer is, we don't have any rights anymore. The Patriot Act, executive signing orders, torture, Gitmo, extraordinary renditions, and conveniently lost evidence in the Padilla matter? America is doomed. We are the wrongdoers, we are the invaders, we are the cause of trouble around the world. Worse yet, our own citizens are now under attack by OUR GOVERNMENT.

[pinniped]

4. Let's see their fucking version then.

He added that photographs or video taken by "untrained people" might "capture visual details that are not as they originally were."

[Lerkfish]

5. "false public conclusions"....yeah, right.

the public always comes to false conclusions unless actual evidence is destroyed outright.

doublespeak strikes again.

[Demeter]

8. Followed By Mindwipes and Brainwashing?

Evidence is evidence, and instant photos are more likely accurate than witness memories.

Destruction of evidence is a no-go in science, law, and any other fact-based endeavor.

[UpInArms]

9. reminds me of the

sort-of joke about the husband being caught in bed with another woman by his wife. He looks at her and denies that he is doing anything and tells her not to believe her lying eyes.

[carla]

10. This is bullsh*t...

"Investigative integrity is one circumstance when civil and military authorities will reluctantly exercise the right to control what a journalist is permitted to document,"


How does taking photos of the aftermath of an attack constitute a violation of investigative integrity? The photograph does NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER ANY OF THE EVIDENCE. As usual, the removal of a right is justified by a level of sophistry and deception that in no way stands up to scrutiny. It is the same logic that argues that "ones' soul" is captured by the camera. Superstition is one thing that is easily understood culturally while being invalid logically. The military is trying to cover up an embarassing incident in which the "enemy" had successfully attacked and killed soldiers from the occupying army. And the price that is the rewriting of history. SNAFU, that is the military anagram for this practice. Shame on Col. Victor Petrenko for spouting such nonsense. Shame on Americans for accepting this lie as acceptable censorship...I wonder what is next for you poor people.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. false conclusions from VIDEOTAPE?

yeah, like we didn't deliberately target civilians, they appeared like magic after we pulled the trigger.

what bullshit.

"capture visual details that are not as they originally were?" Pay no attention to the man behind the current.

[bobthedrummer]

12. "untrained people"=BFEE programmed robots, not journalists working for AP eom

[robinlynne]

15. interestingly enough, photographs tend to capture visual details AS THEY ARE.

But things as they are don't cut it anymore in Amerika, do they?

[Pachamama]

16. Yeah, just like they did to the 9/11 Pentagon video tapes....for our protection!

:eyes:

[Richard Steele]

17. Yes, because photos LIE if the wrong people take them, right? Unbelievable.

[cyberpj]

18. Putin is accused of killing his journalists - do you think the US hasn't done the same? AND

Did you notice that word 'CIVIL'?

".....when civil and military authorities will reluctantly exercise the right to control what a journalist is permitted to document"

[youngdem]

19. Orwell would be proud of this line....

"untrained people" might "capture visual details that are not as they originally were."

[stonebone]

20. Shrub does have his little minions in the military

[HuffleClaw]

21. might "capture visual details that are not as they originally were."

WTF?????

like WHAT? wow, what a load of bollocks. as for 'reluctantly exercise...' that is a steaming load too. i wonder WHO gave the order. "It so happens that on these two recent occasions, military operational or security requirements were compelling interests that overrode the otherwise protected rights of the press." hmmmmmmmmm.

[frylock]

22. cover-up

:kick: