Military Destroys AP Journalists Photos and Video

[Tiger Al 0]

For all of you who are wringing your hands because John Edwards is 'censoring' the media, you evidently don't understand what that means. Anyway, if that upsets you, then this should really work you into a frenzy:

U.S. Military Defends Erasing Journalists' Footage of Afghanistan Attack

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The U.S. military asserted that an American soldier was justified in erasing journalists' footage of the aftermath of a homicide 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 U.S.-based news agency 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 Associated Press disputed the assertions.

"That is not a reasonable justification for erasing images from our cameras," said AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll in New York. "AP's journalists in Afghanistan are trained, accredited professionals working at an appropriate distance from the bombing scene. In democratic societies, legitimate journalists are allowed to work without having their equipment seized and their images deleted."

Afghan witnesses and gunshot victims said U.S. forces fired on civilians in cars and on foot along at least a six-mile stretch of road from Barikaw following the homicide attack against the Marine convoy. The U.S. military said insurgents also fired on American forces during the attack. One Marine was wounded.

A U.S. soldier deleted the AP journalists' footage that showed a civilian four-wheel drive vehicle in which three Afghans were shot to death about 100 yards from the homicide bombing. The journalists had met requests from the military to not move any closer to the bomb site.

Other Afghan journalists said the military also deleted their footage.

Petrenko said that if people who are not part of the investigation entered such a "secured area" they could disturb evidence and other clues, "potentially fouling the conclusions of the investigation."

Petrenko said that taking pictures could also misrepresent what had happened in the incident.

"When untrained people take photographs or video, there is a very real risk that the images or videography will capture visual details that are not as they originally were," he said. "If such visual media are subsequently used as part of the public record to document an event like this, then public conclusions about such a serious event can be falsely made."

The AP also raised concerns about the military's efforts to restrict its coverage of the Feb. 15 crash of a U.S. helicopter in southern Zabul province in which eight soldiers were killed and 14 wounded. Two AP journalists and their vehicle were searched extensively in an effort to prevent footage of the wreckage getting out.

Petrenko justified that action on the grounds of "operational security" exercised when "equipment, aircraft or component parts are classified."

He maintained that the U.S. military had no intention of curbing freedom of the press in Afghanistan.

"We are completely committed to a free and independent press, and we hope that we can help encourage this tradition in places where new and free governments are taking root," Petrenko said.

"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."

LINK

[AURaptor 1,126]

I'm totally in favor of the military destroying 'some' vidoe/photos, where the situation warrents such action. War zones are fluid situations where a isolated image or piece of footage could easily convey , especially to a completely removed observer to the incident, a false or limited view of what was happening. This isn't to say I'm blindly accepting of everything the military does, but there has to be a line which allows for both coverage of the war and for the situation to be held in check. Allowing 'every' image to get out could put lives of our soldiers and other civilian needlessly in danger.

The press can't cry 'wolf' every single time they don't get their way.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

For all of you who are wringing your hands because John Edwards is 'censoring' the media, you evidently don't understand what that means. Anyway, if that upsets you, then this should really work you into a frenzy:

U.S. Military Defends Erasing Journalists' Footage of Afghanistan Attack

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The U.S. military asserted that an American soldier was justified in erasing journalists' footage of the aftermath of a homicide 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 U.S.-based news agency 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 Associated Press disputed the assertions.

"That is not a reasonable justification for erasing images from our cameras," said AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll in New York. "AP's journalists in Afghanistan are trained, accredited professionals working at an appropriate distance from the bombing scene. In democratic societies, legitimate journalists are allowed to work without having their equipment seized and their images deleted."

Afghan witnesses and gunshot victims said U.S. forces fired on civilians in cars and on foot along at least a six-mile stretch of road from Barikaw following the homicide attack against the Marine convoy. The U.S. military said insurgents also fired on American forces during the attack. One Marine was wounded.

A U.S. soldier deleted the AP journalists' footage that showed a civilian four-wheel drive vehicle in which three Afghans were shot to death about 100 yards from the homicide bombing. The journalists had met requests from the military to not move any closer to the bomb site.

Other Afghan journalists said the military also deleted their footage.

Petrenko said that if people who are not part of the investigation entered such a "secured area" they could disturb evidence and other clues, "potentially fouling the conclusions of the investigation."

Petrenko said that taking pictures could also misrepresent what had happened in the incident.

"When untrained people take photographs or video, there is a very real risk that the images or videography will capture visual details that are not as they originally were," he said. "If such visual media are subsequently used as part of the public record to document an event like this, then public conclusions about such a serious event can be falsely made."

The AP also raised concerns about the military's efforts to restrict its coverage of the Feb. 15 crash of a U.S. helicopter in southern Zabul province in which eight soldiers were killed and 14 wounded. Two AP journalists and their vehicle were searched extensively in an effort to prevent footage of the wreckage getting out.

Petrenko justified that action on the grounds of "operational security" exercised when "equipment, aircraft or component parts are classified."

He maintained that the U.S. military had no intention of curbing freedom of the press in Afghanistan.

"We are completely committed to a free and independent press, and we hope that we can help encourage this tradition in places where new and free governments are taking root," Petrenko said.

"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."

LINK

John Edwards is not "censoring" the media. He's made a selective decision to not appear on a certain network. It's a curious campaign move if you ask me because it limits getting his message out to potential voters. Who knows why -- maybe he's more interested in people seeing his hairspayed image?

On the military in Afghanistan: it's not censorship either, especially if they are protecting an investigation like they said. Authorities do the same thing in this country. Try to get in close to a murder scene or arson site and start snapping pictures as a free-lance Joe Sixpack and see how many you can take before your camera is confiscated.

[drewau02 0]

I don't think TigerAl could have lived through an FDR Presidency during WWII.

You think the miltary's bad with censorship today? They pale in comparison to some of the things that FDR did in limiting what the media could or could not print during WWII.

I can imagine Geraldo Rivera giving away troop movements during the Normandy invasion. FDR would have had his a** and he would have spent the rest of his natural born life in prison for treason.

Rightfully so or not, FDR censored and controlled the media with an iron fist during WWII. Just a historical note I thought I should share with you.

[Tigermike 3,055]

John Edwards is not "censoring" the media. He's made a selective decision to not appear on a certain network. It's a curious campaign move if you ask me because it limits getting his message out to potential voters. Who knows why -- maybe he's more interested in people seeing his hairspayed image?

Here is why Edwards made the decision to not appear on FOX NEWS. He is appealing to those like Al who get their marching orders and talking points from moveon & kos.

http://civ.moveon.org/foxdebate/

[Tiger Al 0]

John Edwards is not "censoring" the media. He's made a selective decision to not appear on a certain network. It's a curious campaign move if you ask me because it limits getting his message out to potential voters. Who knows why -- maybe he's more interested in people seeing his hairspayed image?

Here is why Edwards made the decision to not appear on FOX NEWS. He is appealing to those like Al who get their marching orders and talking points from moveon & kos.

http://civ.moveon.org/foxdebate/

I realize this is bait, but, I'll comment anyway.

Until you post something from MoveOn or make mention of it, I have absolutely no idea what's going on there or at many, if not most, of the liberal sites you seem to be so familiar with and hold in such high esteem.

Sorry.

[Tiger Al 0]

I don't think TigerAl could have lived through an FDR Presidency during WWII.

You think the miltary's bad with censorship today? They pale in comparison to some of the things that FDR did in limiting what the media could or could not print during WWII.

I can imagine Geraldo Rivera giving away troop movements during the Normandy invasion. FDR would have had his a** and he would have spent the rest of his natural born life in prison for treason.

Rightfully so or not, FDR censored and controlled the media with an iron fist during WWII. Just a historical note I thought I should share with you.

Comparing this to a secret Normandy invasion falls pathetically short, a historical note you should've known. Apples/oranges.

[Tiger Al 0]

John Edwards is not "censoring" the media. He's made a selective decision to not appear on a certain network. It's a curious campaign move if you ask me because it limits getting his message out to potential voters. Who knows why -- maybe he's more interested in people seeing his hairspayed image?

On the military in Afghanistan: it's not censorship either, especially if they are protecting an investigation like they said. Authorities do the same thing in this country. Try to get in close to a murder scene or arson site and start snapping pictures as a free-lance Joe Sixpack and see how many you can take before your camera is confiscated.

These journalists weren't "free-lance Joe Sixpacks", though. Couldn't the photos/video have potentially aided the investigation? If so, why destroy evidence?

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

These journalists weren't "free-lance Joe Sixpacks", though. Couldn't the photos/video have potentially aided the investigation? If so, why destroy evidence?

But they were free-lance journalists. 'Joe Sixpack' is my way of saying your average person and besides, even veteran photo journalists wouldn't be able to get into a crime scene & take pictures.

Yes, I suppose the photos/video evidence they took could have aided the investigation. However, the people who are trained in investigation will certainly photograph the evidence themselves and focus their efforts on documenting their findings. The investigator's purpose will not be to scoop the media opposition & get the photos up on the internet as quickly as possible. Destroying the evidence ensures this from happening. Kudos to the quick thinking soldier.

[drewau02 0]

I don't think TigerAl could have lived through an FDR Presidency during WWII.

You think the miltary's bad with censorship today? They pale in comparison to some of the things that FDR did in limiting what the media could or could not print during WWII.

I can imagine Geraldo Rivera giving away troop movements during the Normandy invasion. FDR would have had his a** and he would have spent the rest of his natural born life in prison for treason.

Rightfully so or not, FDR censored and controlled the media with an iron fist during WWII. Just a historical note I thought I should share with you.

Comparing this to a secret Normandy invasion falls pathetically short, a historical note you should've known. Apples/oranges.

I was actually making a joke about the whole Normandy and Geraldo Rivera deal. I was referring to his giving away troop positions during the initial invasion of Iraq back in 2003.

FDR had a stranglehold on the media throughout WWII. If you don't believe this, then you don't believe any history book you've ever read. How do you think he got away with putting Japanese Americans in internment camps during the war? What about all those secret meetings with Churchill that he told the media not to report? These examples are not apples and oranges. They really happened and it just illustrates how more powerful the media is today than it was back in the 1940's. I'm surprised the Army was able to silence these "freelance" writers in this case.

Can you imagine American news outlets showing footage of an enemy sniper killing an American soldier under FDR's watch? Please.

All I'm saying is that if you're pissed at the army over this case, then an FDR Administration would not have gone over too well with you. Just my opinion.

[Tiger Al 0]

I don't think TigerAl could have lived through an FDR Presidency during WWII.

You think the miltary's bad with censorship today? They pale in comparison to some of the things that FDR did in limiting what the media could or could not print during WWII.

I can imagine Geraldo Rivera giving away troop movements during the Normandy invasion. FDR would have had his a** and he would have spent the rest of his natural born life in prison for treason.

Rightfully so or not, FDR censored and controlled the media with an iron fist during WWII. Just a historical note I thought I should share with you.

Comparing this to a secret Normandy invasion falls pathetically short, a historical note you should've known. Apples/oranges.

I was actually making a joke about the whole Normandy and Geraldo Rivera deal. I was referring to his giving away troop positions during the initial invasion of Iraq back in 2003.

FDR had a stranglehold on the media throughout WWII. If you don't believe this, then you don't believe any history book you've ever read. How do you think he got away with putting Japanese Americans in internment camps during the war? What about all those secret meetings with Churchill that he told the media not to report? These examples are not apples and oranges. They really happened and it just illustrates how more powerful the media is today than it was back in the 1940's. I'm surprised the Army was able to silence these "freelance" writers in this case.

Can you imagine American news outlets showing footage of an enemy sniper killing an American soldier under FDR's watch? Please.

All I'm saying is that if you're pissed at the army over this case, then an FDR Administration would not have gone over too well with you. Just my opinion.

Ahhh...I get it now. Everything with you is simply a matter of degrees. When confronted with an inconvenient truth, you merely look back into history, find an event that was taken to a greater degree than the one confronting you and then everything's all better.

[drewau02 0]

I don't think TigerAl could have lived through an FDR Presidency during WWII.

You think the miltary's bad with censorship today? They pale in comparison to some of the things that FDR did in limiting what the media could or could not print during WWII.

I can imagine Geraldo Rivera giving away troop movements during the Normandy invasion. FDR would have had his a** and he would have spent the rest of his natural born life in prison for treason.

Rightfully so or not, FDR censored and controlled the media with an iron fist during WWII. Just a historical note I thought I should share with you.

Comparing this to a secret Normandy invasion falls pathetically short, a historical note you should've known. Apples/oranges.

I was actually making a joke about the whole Normandy and Geraldo Rivera deal. I was referring to his giving away troop positions during the initial invasion of Iraq back in 2003.

FDR had a stranglehold on the media throughout WWII. If you don't believe this, then you don't believe any history book you've ever read. How do you think he got away with putting Japanese Americans in internment camps during the war? What about all those secret meetings with Churchill that he told the media not to report? These examples are not apples and oranges. They really happened and it just illustrates how more powerful the media is today than it was back in the 1940's. I'm surprised the Army was able to silence these "freelance" writers in this case.

Can you imagine American news outlets showing footage of an enemy sniper killing an American soldier under FDR's watch? Please.

All I'm saying is that if you're pissed at the army over this case, then an FDR Administration would not have gone over too well with you. Just my opinion.

Ahhh...I get it now. Everything with you is simply a matter of degrees. When confronted with an inconvenient truth, you merely look back into history, find an event that was taken to a greater degree than the one confronting you and then everything's all better.

Whatever you say Al Gore. You argue degrees, I argue perspective. I merely pointed out that you wouldn't do well as a US citizen living in an FDR Administration.

You presented this case like it's the worst possible thing that has ever happened to the free press in this country. I'm just saying that it would be wise to take a step back, and see how far the free press in this country has come, especially when it comes to what they can and cannot cover during a war.

[Tiger Al 0]

Whatever you say Al Gore. You argue degrees, I argue perspective. I merely pointed out that you wouldn't do well as a US citizen living in an FDR Administration.

I really don't think I'll ever have to worry about doing anything as a citizen living in an FDR administration, so, it really is a moot point, if it qualifies as a point at all.

You presented this case like it's the worst possible thing that has ever happened to the free press in this country. I'm just saying that it would be wise to take a step back, and see how far the free press in this country has come, especially when it comes to what they can and cannot cover during a war.

There you go with degrees again. If it's not THE WORST then it doesn't even seem to rise to the level of a concern.

You're new in this forum (And, BTW, welcome to this forum) so I'll be nice. Carefully read my first post. Here, this is the key part:

"For all of you who are wringing your hands because John Edwards is "censoring" the media, you evidently don't understand what that means. Anyway, if that upsets you, then this should really work you into a frenzy:"

This is referring to those who felt that John Edwards declining to participate in Fox's Democratic debate was tantamount to censorship. It isn't. But, if, IF you think that it is, this incident comes a hell of a lot closer to censorship than that and would surely send the Edwards/censorship people into warp drive. At least, it should. If they truly believe that Edwards is, in fact, censoring the media. Which he isn't.

Now, I don't have to step back to see how far the press has come. I simply have to read the First Amendment to know my right to a free press is Constitutionally protected. When incidents like this happen, it concerns me and I'd hope it concerned everyone, too. Not because I dislike the military, but, because as Col. Petrenko said, this incident is under investigation and the military has destroyed potential evidence, perhaps exculpatory evidence. Secondly, if we're supposed to be teaching a burgeoning new democracy what freedom truly is, doesn't this conceivably send the wrong message?

[DKW 86 7,441]

Al, you are in the Army are you not? Are you saying that reporters with the Army are not subject to ANY reporting restictions? Ernie Pyle could report anything? REALLY? Geraldo's Troop movements reporting were beyond stoopid even to the most liberal numbskull on the planet. So a reporter is allowed by the Constitution to imperil the lives of servicemen?

Link demanded! I want to see this for myself. You are claiming something I have never heard of. I demand a link proving this...

Back to the original issue. I would have seized the video, but not destroyed it. Gotten someone to review and if okay return it to the freelancers.

[Ranger12 46]

I can't believe you even posted this Al, knowing that this is SOP for something like this. As it was pointed out, even in the civilian world, a crime scene is well protected from outside photography also.

[Tiger Al 0]

Have any of you even read the article or did you just read a line or two and stop there? You keep parroting "crime scene" and making an analogy with law enforcement, so , OK, I'll go in that vein for a moment. These photographers didn't just stumble along in the aftermath of a firefight and start taking pictures. They were there the whole time and recorded events as they happened. So, in keeping with the "crime scene" theme, that would've made these photographers potential 'George Hollidays.'

Again, I'm not going to jump to conclusions and say the soldiers did something wrong. It looks very suspicious, though, when the government destroys images like this, especially in light of the fact that reporters have been embedded with units, when tactical darkness would've been the highest priority.

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, you are in the Army are you not? Are you saying that reporters with the Army are not subject to ANY reporting restictions? Ernie Pyle could report anything? REALLY? Geraldo's Troop movements reporting were beyond stoopid even to the most liberal numbskull on the planet. So a reporter is allowed by the Constitution to imperil the lives of servicemen?

Link demanded! I want to see this for myself. You are claiming something I have never heard of. I demand a link proving this...

Back to the original issue. I would have seized the video, but not destroyed it. Gotten someone to review and if okay return it to the freelancers.

David, I can't provide a link to support the strawmen you've built. Take some Prozac and settle down. I sense one of your irrational rants coming on.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Al, you are in the Army are you not? Are you saying that reporters with the Army are not subject to ANY reporting restictions? Ernie Pyle could report anything? REALLY? Geraldo's Troop movements reporting were beyond stoopid even to the most liberal numbskull on the planet. So a reporter is allowed by the Constitution to imperil the lives of servicemen?

Link demanded! I want to see this for myself. You are claiming something I have never heard of. I demand a link proving this...

Back to the original issue. I would have seized the video, but not destroyed it. Gotten someone to review and if okay return it to the freelancers.

David, I can't provide a link to support the strawmen you've built. Take some Prozac and settle down. I sense one of your irrational rants coming on.

You are saying that the Army doesnt restrict any reporting. I want to see that in writing. Otherwise, what happened, while being out of the norm for handling the media, is just that OUT OF THE NORM.

[Tiger Al 0]

You are saying that the Army doesnt restrict any reporting. I want to see that in writing. Otherwise, what happened, while being out of the norm for handling the media, is just that OUT OF THE NORM.

No, David, YOU are the one saying that's what I'm said. I never said the Army doesn't restrict any reporting.

[DKW 86 7,441]

You are saying that the Army doesnt restrict any reporting. I want to see that in writing. Otherwise, what happened, while being out of the norm for handling the media, is just that OUT OF THE NORM.

No, David, YOU are the one saying that's what I'm said. I never said the Army doesn't restrict any reporting.

There you go with degrees again. If it's not THE WORST then it doesn't even seem to rise to the level of a concern. Any servicemen dying should make it a concern 100% of the time. Opinions as to the war in which they serve matters not, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc.

You're new in this forum (And, BTW, welcome to this forum) so I'll be nice. Carefully read my first post. Here, this is the key part:

"For all of you who are wringing your hands because John Edwards is "censoring" the media, you evidently don't understand what that means. Anyway, if that upsets you, then this should really work you into a frenzy:"

This is referring to those who felt that John Edwards declining to participate in Fox's Democratic debate was tantamount to censorship. It isn't. But, if, IF you think that it is, this incident comes a hell of a lot closer to censorship than that and would surely send the Edwards/censorship people into warp drive. At least, it should. If they truly believe that Edwards is, in fact, censoring the media. Which he isn't.

Now, I don't have to step back to see how far the press has come. I simply have to read the First Amendment to know my right to a free press is Constitutionally protected. (Who said or implied otherwise?) When incidents like this happen, it concerns me and I'd hope it concerned everyone, too. Not because I dislike the military, but, because as Col. Petrenko said, this incident is under investigation and the military has destroyed potential evidence, perhaps exculpatory evidence. Secondly, if we're supposed to be teaching a burgeoning new democracy what freedom truly is, doesn't this conceivably send the wrong message?

Apparently you havent stepped back at all to see that the press nor anyone else has a 100% unrestricted Right to Freedom of Speech, "Fire" in a moviehouse etc. There have always been restrictions with any reporter in the military. Always. I agree that the destroyed info was a bad move, 100% of the time. But the reporters do not have the RIGHT to print, broadcast, etc EVERYTHING. CNN made a huge public relations goof showing the snipers killing our folks. Geraldo, etc. blah blah blah. Your problem Al, is that you cant bring yourself to acknowledge even that though.

BTW, Al, the cheap shot that you stated that this WAR isnt as important as every other WAR, ie WWII is pretty lowdown. War is War period. Good men and women dying is as important as it gets 100% of the time. Someone's personal opinions on it dont matter one wit. There were peace activist moonbats back during WWII. It make the deaths of any servicemen any less relevant.

[Tiger Al 0]

You are saying that the Army doesnt restrict any reporting. I want to see that in writing. Otherwise, what happened, while being out of the norm for handling the media, is just that OUT OF THE NORM.

No, David, YOU are the one saying that's what I'm said. I never said the Army doesn't restrict any reporting.

There you go with degrees again. If it's not THE WORST then it doesn't even seem to rise to the level of a concern. Any servicemen dying should make it a concern 100% of the time. Opinions as to the war in which they serve matters not, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc.

You're new in this forum (And, BTW, welcome to this forum) so I'll be nice. Carefully read my first post. Here, this is the key part:

"For all of you who are wringing your hands because John Edwards is "censoring" the media, you evidently don't understand what that means. Anyway, if that upsets you, then this should really work you into a frenzy:"

This is referring to those who felt that John Edwards declining to participate in Fox's Democratic debate was tantamount to censorship. It isn't. But, if, IF you think that it is, this incident comes a hell of a lot closer to censorship than that and would surely send the Edwards/censorship people into warp drive. At least, it should. If they truly believe that Edwards is, in fact, censoring the media. Which he isn't.

Now, I don't have to step back to see how far the press has come. I simply have to read the First Amendment to know my right to a free press is Constitutionally protected. (Who said or implied otherwise?) When incidents like this happen, it concerns me and I'd hope it concerned everyone, too. Not because I dislike the military, but, because as Col. Petrenko said, this incident is under investigation and the military has destroyed potential evidence, perhaps exculpatory evidence. Secondly, if we're supposed to be teaching a burgeoning new democracy what freedom truly is, doesn't this conceivably send the wrong message?

Apparently you havent stepped back at all to see that the press nor anyone else has a 100% unrestricted Right to Freedom of Speech, "Fire" in a moviehouse etc. There have always been restrictions with any reporter in the military. Always. I agree that the destroyed info was a bad move, 100% of the time. But the reporters do not have the RIGHT to print, broadcast, etc EVERYTHING. CNN made a huge public relations goof showing the snipers killing our folks. Geraldo, etc. blah blah blah. Your problem Al, is that you cant bring yourself to acknowledge even that though.

OK, I think this will be the third time I've told you that I never said the press has 100% unrestricted access. This is one of your famous "non-points" you love to invent and then go on a rant about. My words are all here. Show me where I said it.

BTW, Al, the cheap shot that you stated that this WAR isnt as important as every other WAR, ie WWII is pretty lowdown. War is War period. Good men and women dying is as important as it gets 100% of the time. Someone's personal opinions on it dont matter one wit. There were peace activist moonbats back during WWII. It make the deaths of any servicemen any less relevant.

I have no idea where you come up with this stuff.

[CCTAU 3,350]

These photographers didn't just stumble along in the aftermath of a firefight and start taking pictures. They were there the whole time and recorded events as they happened.

Therein lies the whole problem with this administrations lax control over this war. Every damn journalist shoudl be shipped out of Iraq and any caught there should be shot on site. Worst thing to happen to american soldiers. When the enemy is your own media, something needs to happen.

[Tiger Al 0]

These photographers didn't just stumble along in the aftermath of a firefight and start taking pictures. They were there the whole time and recorded events as they happened.

Therein lies the whole problem with this administrations lax control over this war. Every damn journalist shoudl be shipped out of Iraq and any caught there should be shot on site. Worst thing to happen to american soldiers. When the enemy is your own media, something needs to happen.

Uh oh...you've done it now. These guys are gonna be all over you:

Why are you for censorship? Don't you believe in free speech?

I'm glad to know you are for silencing a segment of the populations voice. I suggest you be a leader and start with yourself.

[CCTAU 3,350]

These photographers didn't just stumble along in the aftermath of a firefight and start taking pictures. They were there the whole time and recorded events as they happened.

Therein lies the whole problem with this administrations lax control over this war. Every damn journalist shoudl be shipped out of Iraq and any caught there should be shot on site. Worst thing to happen to american soldiers. When the enemy is your own media, something needs to happen.

Uh oh...you've done it now. These guys are gonna be all over you:

Why are you for censorship? Don't you believe in free speech?

I'm glad to know you are for silencing a segment of the populations voice. I suggest you be a leader and start with yourself.

Actually as far as the population goes, they have no voice in a war zone. The constitution does not exist for the country we are in. There is no freedom of speach for americans in a war zone. If an Iraqi newspaper under Iraqi control wants to report something, so be it. But as for jounalists with the soldiers, hell no. Soldiers have a tough enough job to do without second-guessing their job due to some pencil-necked geek trying to catch them in a mistake in order to sell a story. The media have proven to be untrustworthy and anti-war. Well we are at war, if you are anti war then you are not good for the war while in a war zone. At home, you an write what you want. Get the media out of the war.