What is Digg?111 Comments
- cindylauper, on 11/27/2007, -14/+87American...home of the cowardly and corrupt...when are "the masses" going to demand something better...makes me sick
- syowr, on 11/27/2007, -3/+46The writer is president and chief executive of the Associated Press.
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -11/+37Vhere are your paperz?
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -13/+37Wow. You sure do pretend like you have information that you don't have.
No reputable source has reported WHY he's being held, but a lot of right wing extremist sites have offered guesses like yours.
If he was to be charged with bomb making, why can't the US just come out and say it? Because then they are on the hook for lying about it when they can't produce proof.
I'm sure the right wingers will be proud of you for pushing this unsubstantiated rumor, but c'mon, get a clue. - coyoteblue, on 11/27/2007, -8/+29that's not the issue. regardless of whether the man in guilty, the issue here is that they won't tell him what he's being charged with or even when his trail is, which is in stark contrast to the democratic society that america hoped to instill in iraq.
- etx313, on 11/27/2007, -1/+21I gotta get out of this ***** up country. I feel like a terrorist myself just paying taxes to support this *****.
- rulesaremyenemy, on 11/27/2007, -1/+19So let me get this straight. The U.S. will shield Blackwater employees who may have killed innocent iraqi citizens from their courts, but let Pulitzer Prize winning photographers be subjected to it?
- melance, on 11/27/2007, -9/+26I like how everyone screams about censorship and then buries the two comments that point out that the article is filled with speculation by the author.
- SuckMyDigg, on 11/27/2007, -5/+20Step #9 towards fascist take over. When journalists and lawyers are afraid of what could happen to them, the descent into fascism gathers speed and it becomes nearly impossible to stop.
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -11/+25fascist bastards.
- freezeout, on 11/27/2007, -1/+13when? Right after the season finale of American Idol
- Lowrads, on 11/27/2007, -1/+9Anyone notice that the effect of media has become completely impotent, even when unfiltered information gets through? It's not the media that's been reduced to entertainment and spectacle, it's our whole civil society. Outrage is worthless, just another easily contrasted spectacle to consume.
The other problem I have with this article is that it does not name names. By not naming tarheels and lowly goosesteppers, it silently endorses the strategy of passing responsibility, and revolving power, to the top of the administration. That makes it easier for them to get away with it - a lesson in practical banality from the Nuremburg trials I suppose. You'll notice the popular spectacle of the impeachment crowd. All their animus is localized harmlessly to a lame duck figure instead of focused on the powers extended to an office that will be passed on in due time. It's like watching civilization go out, not with a sputter, but simply a befuddled melancholy.
I shall call it social alzheimers. - FredFredrickson, on 11/27/2007, -0/+7Er... In mein andere hosen, Führer!
- Matthew720, on 11/27/2007, -6/+13I'm waiting for someone to file an "inaccurate information" report with Digg just because they don't like the truth they're reading.
It doesn't take a genius to conclude WHY the U.S. military has put the photographer through all this. Hiding the truth from the world and the American public has been the modus operandi of fascists in the government since Vietnam up until today. Heck, even when the truth is easily found they lie about it (see Rove's rewriting of history during his recent interview with Charlie Rose as one example). - MiDri, on 11/27/2007, -0/+6Are you kidding? Then theres a whole new season to speculate about after that! It's going to be a wile.
- Matthew720, on 11/27/2007, -2/+8Ever heard of deductive reasoning?
- MXracer250f, on 11/27/2007, -8/+13This country is on the path towards destruction, and at this point I doubt anything short of total leadership change could alter that.
- 00Dan, on 11/27/2007, -8/+12possessing materials used to make roadside bombs - A length of pipe?
insurgent propaganda/surveillance photo of a coalition installation - He's a photographer, not surprising that he snapped a photo of something the US would have preferred he didn't. Same goes for the "propaganda"
I picked up a couple of those fliers hookers in Vegas use. Doesn't mean I hired one. - Wargalas, on 11/27/2007, -6/+10Is this a "reputable" source? MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21915732/
FTFA:
The military has said in the past that Hussein was detained for possessing materials used to make roadside bombs, insurgent propaganda, and a surveillance photo of a coalition installation. - nomadxx7, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5Hey Rightie... keep putting labels on everyone and all we get is the blame game. Left or right it doesn't matter. We are all American regardless of how people want to label us.
- jgzman, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4Yea, that is not the second amendment. The second ALLOWS, but does not REQUIRE.
- Wargalas, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5You don't see anywhere that is says "a length of pipe", you're guessing. Sure, I'm curious too about the evidence against him, but the parent comments is insinuating that there's absolutely no evidence from anyone and I'm saying there is.
- djetaine, on 11/27/2007, -5/+9I'm very confused as to why you are being dugg down for stating the obvious. The author of the article is basing his claim on pure speculation, at least that's how the article comes out. If he has proof of these "photos" then he should come out with them.
- tyme, on 11/27/2007, -3/+7I believe the issue is that people who are screaming "censorship" are, in melance's view, censoring others by burying their comments. It's not so much about the article but about the apparent hypocrisy. You must, of course, first believe that burying a comment is censorship - which is a bet of a stretch IMHO.
- nomadxx7, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3I think a lot of people really want to know what happened. But unfortunately it doesn't mean you will get the truth or anything even resembling the truth.
Look at the guy that was put on a terrorist watch list (guy from Canada) who was taken to Syria and tortured. He wanted the truth and our courts would not allow it because of state secrets. The truth is out there but you or I be damned if we could find it. - badfishmedia, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4How ridiculous. This guy was a *shop keeper and cell phone salesman* until the AP hired him to be a helper! He was hired by them because he knew the area, not for his photography skills. He then started showing up with photos of the conflict no one else was getting--including AP guys with 20 years under their belt!!
He then started showing up with these "great pictures" of insurgents firing on the US or executing prisoners that looked more like pictures from a JC Penny catalog than the shots the rest of the AP team was getting. His shots looked staged and fake, the rest of the AP are getting shots that look like they are being taken by people fearing for their lives.
This guy "coincidentally" kept being the first photographer to show up when the US got attacked or ambushed, then when they arrested him, there was a cache of weapons in the house!!
Wake up and get the whole story before you believe this biased, brainwashed moron from the AP. - Jexie, on 11/27/2007, -3/+6Speaking of speculation the government has provided no evidence or even official charges - and you can always read the comments of someone who is dugg down, they are not being censored, only labeled idiots.
- ThePortlander, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4I am not sure how diggers will treat this but I think if you read between the lines here you can see what is actually happening. He was taking pictures most likely of insurgents attacking US soldiers and when detained would not reveal how or who let him do this within the insurgent forces.
- Sinay, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3I wonder what US would become if these people in charge in Washington were the founders of this country. Iraq may be?
- Matthew720, on 11/27/2007, -2/+5What are you going to do? Ask the super ultra secretive cronies in power WHY he was jailed? They'll either brush you off and tell you "it's secret", or they'll claim he was a terrorist. Did you really expect the Pentagon to come out and say, "he was taking pictures we don't want the American public to see.". Do you really? Are you that naive?
- corvairkid, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3I suspect all of these will have to be met first.
- All reality TV shows canceled.
- All televised sports canceled.
- All alcohol & tobacco products banned.
- Wal-Mart goes out of business.
- Everyone is required by law to own a gun and know how to use it. (2nd amendment if I'm not mistaken.)
So yeah, never going to happen. - redmonkey, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4People who digg we down missing very important point. This photographer had information about future attack on American Army and did not give sh$$t about life of American soldiers.Hi has blood of American on his hand. If you know about terrorist attack and don't warn authority your guilt is the same as terrorists.
- roystgnr, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4"But the military won't tell us what the charges are, what evidence it will be submitting or even when the hearing will be held."
It's sort of like how, after World War II, Pacific island cults would wear wood headphones, build straw airplanes, and paint military insignia on themselves in an effort to convince their ancestral deities to return the gift of Cargo. Except, instead of pretending to rebuild airports we're pretending to reinstitute fair trials, and instead of trying to trick gods who don't exist we're trying to trick voters who don't care. - SuckMyDigg, on 11/27/2007, -4/+6I don't know why you're being buried. You have a valid point.
- jellygraph, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3I think we should all be so fortunate to be detailed by the US military and given an unfair trial. It is a wonderful process and one could only feel blessed to be given the opportunity to sit in a jail cell for the rest of our life, for something which we never did.
- Jexie, on 11/27/2007, -2/+4Considering he's being held with no charge, his own lawyer and the public will likely never be allowed to see any of the evidence against him if charges even are pressed - a guess from someone who knows him is a lot more info than what the government will ever put out there to base a decision on. Being an American these days is very analogous to the old story of the frog in the slow heating pot of water vs. boiling water.
- Matthew720, on 11/27/2007, -4/+6The assumption, of course, is that the photographer was the one who moved the body. You DON'T know that for sure, do you? Pure speculation on your part and the blogger's part too.
- bono4u, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2i have the paperz you have the dope?
- bono4u, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2nor would a jurisdiction hold back facts about the reasons for imprisonment, would they?
- jimbabb, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Lincoln did it. Hitler did it. So why not Bush?
- FredFredrickson, on 11/27/2007, -2/+4Whether the claims are legit or not, the fact that the military actually does filter what can and can't be shown to the people back at home is true, and that isn't right. This war would be over now if we could see the atrocities our men and women have inflicted upon a largely innocent Iraq citizenry.
- ruhk, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2You are correct. I don't know this, but photojournalism is meant to tell a story. The provided series of shots leaves out the all important "who moved the bodies" answer to the question. Sure, he may not have moved the bodies himself, but he sure profited (not necessarily monetarily) from the moving of the bodies.
- MrKobie, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Well then you could also argue that he's profiting from the entire war - since he that's what he was photographing. There are clearly bodies of men who died violently, there are clearly children there - indicating that this is an area in which people try and live (relatively) ordinary lives. The photograph is what it is, it doesn't pretend to tell the whole story - there's no reason why it should say who moved the bodies (presuming it wasn't the photographer - innocent until proven guilty) any more than it should say who killed them, or who they were, or if they were insurgents, where their weapons went. It shows a single place in a single point in time, no more.
- Dougman82, on 11/27/2007, -10/+12How about we never again refer to a photographer as a "photog"...
- finickyEater, on 11/27/2007, -3/+5That's because he's in an Iraqi court, not a US court. Things work different over there...
"In the Iraqi court system, we don't have to show our specific evidence until after we file the complaint with the court. "
The prosecution, whos job it is to convict people, doesn't have to tell anyone what the evidence is because it will give the other team (defense) an better advantage.
"The Iraqi judge who hears the evidence is the one who decides what charges will be filed."
Prosecution can't say what the charges are because it doesn't work like the US system. The judge determines what the charges are so prosecution doesn't know. - badfishmedia, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1You may not be getting what I am saying. He knew about ambushes in advance and showed up moments after the fighting stopped to get his pictures. Also, he is not some seasoned reporter. He was a shop keeper until a few years ago. He has prior knowledge of insurgent attacks against US troops and he uses that knowledge to get his pictures for which he is paid. In wartime, the US has a right to hold him.
- bono4u, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1come and get me :) dadadaa you won't get me.
- bono4u, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1but the point is, he believes, the jurisdiction does neither believe nor has any facts, so wtf
- bono4u, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1who did what?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is