No, the photos are simply evidence of objective truth. They are evidence of government action. More importantly, they are evidence of government malfeasance. Thus they should not be kept secret.
The whole reason for the First Amendment is the belief that information is always good and that in the marketplace of ideas, good information will rise to the top and bad information will be debunked by good information. If you start interfering with the flow of information, you screw up the system and allow people with bad motives to monkey with you.
The American government has done a demonstrably bad thing. The only course of action is to release all information related to it, own up to it, punish those involved, and take steps to prevent re-occurrences. Any attempt to hide the complete truth or cover things up will only result in further disgrace.
Which would mean that the American military who took the pictures are anti-American. I think you could make a case for that, even though they would not see themselves as anti-American. But what are they doing, creating anti-American propaganda while on the payroll of Uncle Sam? And shouldn’t the American taxpayers know what’s being done with their money?
Or failing that, blame the liberals for bringing it to public attention, and then punish a couple of enlisted people as “a few bad apples”. Make no inquiry as to wether those in charge of the prision were handing down illegal orders or merely incompetant, either of which should be grounds for punishment.
That’s very, very interesting, considering that CFR is mainly a left-liberal issue (intended to address the disproportionate political power of the rich and business interests), and the ACLU is generally acknowledged to be a left-liberal organization, to the extent that it will endorse left-liberal positions many regard as anti-libertarian. (My libertarian brother dropped his ACLU membership because of the organization’s persistent support for affirmative action; and its position on gun control has already been discussed here.)
Yes, I’ve been writing software for about 15 years. My pitiful stabs at music, video, and other intellectual works have given me tremendous respect for the difficulty of creating them and the people who do it. I can see the appeal of having such control, but IMO everyone else’s natural right to freely share knowledge, experiences, and tools must come first - I have no right to tell anyone what bits they can or can’t copy. To say any more would be a hijack, but my views on copyright have been well documented in past threads if you want to search.
Please clarify what you mean by anti-American. Do you literally believe the ACLU to have the goal of causing harm to America, as opposed to simply having a different opinion than you as to what’s best?
Something need not be false to be propaganda. The photos are propaganda. They will be used as such by our enemies. This much is not in dispute by any reasonable person, including the ACLU and the Judge who made this fooish decision.
They are evidence malfeasance of some soldiers of the US military. To slap a label of “government” on it is misleading. The entire US government isn’t responsible for this any more than it’s responsible for any other improper act by a few members of it.
What’s a secret? Everybody knows what occured at Abu Ghraib. There isn’t any cover up or secret about it. Those responsible have already been punished. Now it’s simply a question of whether or not we want to hand over a bunch of propaganda to our enemies that does us no good whatsoever. No one is claiming that the photos show anything new. It’s the same sorts of pictures by the same people that we have already seen. There’s no reason to make them public so that our enemies can use them.
This is just not a first ammendment issue. Nobody’s speach is being restricted.
There are plenty of courses of action. We’re currently taking the correct one: Punish those responsible and make sure that it doesn’t happen again, but don’t needlessly supply our enemies with propaganda that will be used against us.
Perhaps the ACLU leadership the rights to free speech, privacy, due process, etc., are simply more important than the right to bare arms, or that more is gained by maximizing freedom in those areas, or that those rights are somehow more fundamental.
I grant you they aren’t fighting equally hard to maximize every right in the Bill of Rights, but I can’t see how this is much of a criticism. I don’t see anything particularly inconsistent in fighting to maximize those freedoms that they as an organization consider fundamental, while ennumerating those freedoms differently than is done in the Bill of Rights. I for one certainly consider my right to privacy in sexual matters more important than my right to own a gun. Just because the Framers of the Constitution may have disagreed doesn’t make my belief inconsistent.
Sure, I’ll clarify. (BTW, thanks for asking me, rather than going the route of elucidator and simply making this stuff up and attributing it to me.)
Of course they do not have the goal of causing harm to America, IMHO. They are doing what they think is right. But, what they are fighting for in this case does have an obvious and clear result: These pictures will be used by our enemies and is likely to result in the deaths of American citizens and soldiers. They are either too stupid to realize this or have a belief system so twisted that they don’t care about it. In either case, this makes their position on this issue anti-American and shameful.
This attempt to falsely conflate “military readiness” with conscription is either imbecilic (if the author really doesn’t know any better) or dishonest (if he does).
Er, that’s simply not correct. The Court’s ruling in Miller did not touch upon the question of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but rather was decided on the technical question of whether a specific type of firearm fell within the scope of the term “arms”. The Court considered the militia clause for guidance on the latter question.
We now return to our regularly scheduled topic, already in progress.
I should clarify that I wasn’t expressing any such sentiment, but rather positing a reductio ad absurdum example of what happens if “purpose” clauses are treated as if they were actual delimitations.
But if they feel that way, they should remove this sort of language from their website:
Or at the very least, put a little asterisk next to Bill of Rights, with a note that says, “Except for the Second Amendment - we’re not so wild about that one.”
I grant you they aren’t fighting equally hard to maximize every right in the Bill of Rights, but I can’t see how this is much of a criticism. I don’t see anything particularly inconsistent in fighting to maximize those freedoms that they as an organization consider fundamental, while ennumerating those freedoms differently than is done in the Bill of Rights. I for one certainly consider my right to privacy in sexual matters more important than my right to own a gun. Just because the Framers of the Constitution may have disagreed doesn’t make my belief inconsistent.
[/QUOTE]
The “purpose” clause attached to the Patents and Copyrights clause refers to “Progress of Science and useful Arts”. The fact that something is good enough for people to buy it doesn’t mean that it’s better than what existed before (it has to be different to qualify for a patent or copyright, of course, but we all know that “different” and “better” are not synonyms).
I’m afraid that your suggestion that “purpose” clauses are limitations on the scope of the attached legal grant still leaves you in a dubious position.
Then I find your using the term “anti-american” incorrect at best, and disinginuous at worst, since that’s an accusation of them being against America as an attitude and/or goal. If I try to fix my car and and accidentally make it worse, I’m not “anti-Toyota”.
I believe the recently common use of the term anti-American to accuse people who simply disagree politically is a reprehensible tactic, and I respectively ask you to not use it unless you specifically mean to accuse somebody of being actually against America.
There’s another thread about the pics, by the way:
I disagree very much with your opinion on releasing the pics, but since my arguments have been made already (mostly by others) in the existing thread I will refrain from repeating them here.
