Is this censorship? - Rumsfeld

uberwolf

The contents of this article discusses the ban on some photography equipment within US army ranks. It occurs to me that this ban may not impact upon the private contractors carrying out a lot of work in Iraq, but are the implications that one response to abuse be that it shouldn't be as easy for reports and evidence of it to come out?

I believe that this kind of action is a direct movement against any kind of transparency within the Iraq conflict, although it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

halkar

Bush and co said they will stop the abuse. Credit to them they are keeping their word Now we won't find out what is going on. I am sure for the contarctors they will have few changes on their contracts too.

seamus

Yep. Blatantly an attempt to curb the publishing of photographs, i.e. allow the US military to cover up any further allegations and deal with them in secret.

No doubt they'll say that the existence of photographic equipment was an incitement to do these things, i.e. if the cameras weren't there then there wouldn't have been the desire to do these things for the camera. :rolleyes:

bonkey

I can't believe that.

No, really. I can't.

If it is true, then just how insincere is this man trying to at the very least appear to be???

jc

Hobbes

If he had done it when the photos where not shown to the world then they could justify it by stopping spying.

But now it sounds like blantant covering their asses.

btw, new generation of phones will have built in camera jammers that stop your camera from shooting if a jammer is nearby.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by uberwolf
I believe that this kind of action is a direct movement against any kind of transparency within the Iraq conflict, although it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Transparancy? Was this ever something military organisations even pretended to aspire to?

I don't for one minute condone torturing prisoners by the US, but the fact that pictures were taken and circulated and eventually leaked to the media is something that any military would seek to curb even if the pictures were not of such extreme barbarity.

It was good that the pictures did come out because there is a chance that the practices may stop, but expecting transparancy of an organisation dependent on secrecy is a little unrealistic.

uberwolf

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Transparancy? Was this ever something military organisations even pretended to aspire to?

It was good that the pictures did come out because there is a chance that the practices may stop, but expecting transparancy of an organisation dependent on secrecy is a little unrealistic.

I don't expect transparency(from the military). However after evidence of practices of torture comes to light in all likelihood due solely to the indiscretion of soldiers who were present (and possibly participating) in the torture. Without the cameras the world would still be none the wiser. I'd imagine the case for the benefits of the camera's need not be made however. What concerns me though Rumsfeld claims to have been appalled by the actions of men he commands yet one of his most publicised responses to the abuse is to take steps to prevent the circulation of further evidence now and in the future.

Whats more as this war saw the phenomen of 'embedded' reporters for the first time on large scale the article includes mention of a probable future ban within the military as a whole (as distinct from installations) what does this hold for future war reporting? Will embedded reporters continue to exist? Will they now rely solely on footage supplied by the military?

This ban has the capacity to extend beyond exposing further Abu Gharibs and change the face of war time reporting...

SkepticOne

Originally posted by uberwolf
Whats more as this war saw the phenomen of 'embedded' reporters for the first time on large scale the article includes mention of a probable future ban within the military as a whole (as distinct from installations) what does this hold for future war reporting? Will embedded reporters continue to exist? Will they now rely solely on footage supplied by the military?

This ban has the capacity to extend beyond exposing further Abu Gharibs and change the face of war time reporting...

I don't think it will end embedding. Embedded reporters can be easily controlled. They only see what the US military wants them to see. Embedded reporters are great PR for the military as they usually enter into a bond with unit in which they are placed.

Sand

Hes got to go - this guy is just more and more of a liability. The banning of camera phones is just awesome in its stupidty given the fall out from the atrocities at Abu Gharib. This should be a time when the US military should be doing everything its power to convince people of the oversight and transparency of its detention facilities, rather than banning what has provided evidence of atrocities. If the photos hadnt been around, whose to say how long it would have taken for the incompetent in command to cop on that her soldiers at the prison were engaged in torture?

On the other hand, the banning of camera phones doesnt lend any credence to the conspiracy theory floating around that the abuse was part of a secret pentagon program, with the photos being part of the program by acting as blackmail. Not that makes any sense in the first place in a world where a photo can be scanned and emailed before you can say public relations apocolypse.

Hobbes

Secret Program? Psyops are a well known branch of the military and it is exactly the sort of stuff they do. The photos were not of Camera phone quality.

I would say the phone ban is stop anyone else getting shots off, for example the one which shows a group of US military and lists them by name. (you can see on http://www.thememoryhole.org/ which is getting hammered at the moment. Not work safe).

I have also heard that the pictures that are only coming out now have been known about from at least last november.

Btw on another note Re:Censorship, it appears Disney are trying to stop Michael Moore from releasing his movie. Also his website is down since the oscars.

sceptre

Originally posted by Hobbes
Also his website is down since the oscars.

No it isn't. And by the looks of things it's hosted here. Glitch in Hobbes-land.

bonkey

Hmmm.

Interesting article in TheRegister this morning / last night, which puts a case forward that this was yet another case of misreporting.....which, in this case wouldn't be terribly surprising.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by sceptre
No it isn't. And by the looks of things it's hosted here. Glitch in Hobbes-land.

Actually it was. Appears to be back now but it has been knocked out since the oscars.

sceptre

Originally posted by Hobbes
Actually it was. Appears to be back now but it has been knocked out since the oscars.

Ah, apologies. I was pretty sure I'd looked at it in the last few months but it could actually be as long ago as before the Oscars.

bonkey

There's been an entire thread about Moore's most recent movie which frequently referred to his site.

It has not been down "since the Oscars", unless you mean that "at some point since the Oscars, for some length of time, it was down".

jc