But a ‘free press’ means that you don’t decide that - the press decides that. The point of this thread is that the govt wishes to take that decision away from the free press.
Yes, the corpses might have meant something different in the public support of that war.
These are the breaks. Unless you are suggesting something outside of democracy.
Yes, I have a (potential) problem with it, in that there is no clear chain of command or accountability.
Who exactly do the mercenaries (or in your terms, ‘private security’) answer to, in the legal chain of command? Can you tell me that?
But you know what, let us not pretend that they are merely ‘security guards’ on the order of what you might encounter at your local bank or Wal-Mart. They are ex- special force US military, or mercenaries from other countries (i.e., South Africa, South America). Let us be real about what this means.
Do you really believe the US population would take kindly to the idea that a US city is being patrolled by such a force?
But there are exceptions: national security comes to mind. Not that I’m saying that showing corpses falls under this protection, only that the freedom is not absolute. We, the people of the democracy, can place restraints if we so desire.
Let’s look at it from the other side. Take abortion. I know that many people feel very strongly that abortions are murder and an atrocity and that they should be stopped. Do you think it would be wise to allow the bloody fetuses of every aborted child to grace the pages and news shows every day? (I know there is little risk of this happening, but I expect you’ll accept the hypothetical.) I don’t think the images would elevate the debate—meaning, increase the likelihood that we will arrive at a wise decision. We understand what life means , and death. We don’t need it in our face. I’d go as far as to say that it would be unhealthy for society. Ironically, I think it would, over time, inure us to the concept of death, stripping it of its power to control violence and humble us.
First, I agree that “security guard” also paints a skewed picture. As far as who they answer to, it depends on which category they fall into. Those hired by private individuals act as substitute or additional homeowners, empowered by the people who hired them to act in their interests. Legally, they are answerable to the same laws as any home or business owner, save for the ability to carry a weapon.
The other group, those hired by the state or city, I assume act as adjunct law-enforcement personnel. They would answer to whoever the authorities mandated they would be answerable to, whether it a Sargeant, Captain, or Police Commissioner; as needs would dictate.
As I said, I think that “security guard” is as misleading as “mercenary”. Would they be welcome patrolling a city. I think that depends on what the alternative is. If everything is normal and then one day these guys start patrolling, I’d be very uncomfortable. If, on the other hand, there was chaos, mayhem, or disorder, I’d be grateful those guys were there. Disorder and mob rule scare me more than anything.
I believe they used up the quota for that one already.
Why is abortion ‘the other side’???
In any case, I wouldn’t mind photos of real fetuses, rather than the faked pics usually on display at the so-called ‘pro-life’ rallies and protests. (What? Did you think those photos were the real thing? Time to do some research then, don’t you think?)
Well, here’s the problem - they are not answerable to the same laws as any home or business owner - because they are taking guns away from those people in New Orleans.
Aren’t hurricanes ‘normal’ in that area?
Something scares me more than the mere possibility of chaos, disorder, and mob rule. Can you guess what it is?
Then, would you agree to ban too pictures presenting a positive image of the war : say, GIs distibuting food to formerly oppressed civilians, or planting a flag on some pacific island?
Because these positive images are equally dangerous. They too can have an impact far beyond their importance in the grand scheme of things, may result in decisions made with emotion instead of sober deliberation, etc… For instance in support of an unjust war. You don’t want to play on emotions to gather support for an unjust war, do you?
So, you can’t rely on this argument except if you state that all pictures depicting a war, regardless of their nature, should be banned.
Can you yourself answer these exact same questions reversed in order to apply to depictions of positives events or to others appeals to emotion intended to gather support for the war? Is it dangerous to show Irakis applauding when a statue of Saddam is destroyed? To show a footage of a presidential “Don’t forget 9/11” speech or of some patriotic display extolling the american martial virtues? To show GIs liberating a concentration camp? Don’t you think that these too are intended to play on visceral emotions to support a policy that could be misguided?
Should they be banned?
I quickly phrased it that way because the stereotypical Left and Right would probabaly see each of these issue in the inverse. If you prefer, read “To look at another example”.
Please…I’m well aware that many of those photos are “enhanced”. When worked in Dallas just a block from a big hospital I saw these things almost daily. That fact is immaterial to our discussion. I’m sure that there are real photos that would be just as “convincing”.
As I said:
“Legally, they are answerable to the same laws as any home or business owner, save for the ability to carry a weapon.”
But to be honest, I’m not sure that a “security guard” hired by a homeowner is treated identically to a homeowner carry a weapon (when they were allowed to). Their licenses may give them more leeway. I don’t know.
Not with the severity of Katrina. But what is your point? It seems to me that regardless of how the situation got to the way it is, order has to be restored. Somehow they have to make up for the 500 or so police officers who didn’t report back for duty. (As per 60 Minutes, this weekend.)
Excellent points. And I would agree that it is absolutely possible to present a very skewed image of a particular war by using positive imagery. GIs handing out candy bars, raising the American flag, etc. But it would be more difficult. It would require much more reptition, because, the fact is, that there is no “positive” equivalent to the powerful “negative” pictures we are talking about.
The other distinction I would make is that once we are engaged in war, it is incumbent upon our armed forces and those we’ve elected to see that we are victorious. Once engaged, the government is, by definition, no longer neutral regarding the war’s outcome. They want to win. That is nothing to apologize for. And to the degree that support of the populace is necessary or helpful to that outcome, they should try to win that support
Now this doesn’t give them carte blanche to ban everything they don’t like and lie to us. I thiink they have a moral obligation to us to be truthful. And if they’re not we can and should boot them. But I don’t think that equates with the government having the responsibility of making the enemy’s case for them. Nor does it equate with giviing a full airing to domestic voices opposed to the war. Once we are engaged, from their standpoint, that arguement is moot.
I’d like to add that due to the sense of finality I place on the decision to go to war or not, I’d like the threshold for going to be higher than it’s been.
As far as a war being unjust, I don’t thiink it’s of any help to include that in our discussion. If a country chooses to fight they no doubt think their actions are just. And, I’d ask, of what relevance would be pictures of dead GIs be to the deabte of whether a particular war is just or not? It seems to me that if you think a war should not be fought—or be abandoned— because it is “unjust”, that your arguement needs to focus on that. The fact that young soldiers die adds nothing to the debate of whether a war is just or not. Soldiers die in battle. That’s what war means.
To appropriate the images of these fallen soldiers to argue the “just-ness” of a war I think is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. They might be honestly used in arguing against war as a general proposition, but not against the righteousness of a particular war. That has to be argued on its own merits.
For the sake of framing the debate I’ve been arguing extremes here. Where I come out is that I’d be fine with a less “image rich” picture of the war (no pun intended). I’d like information as to what is going on and how well it is going. Personally, I am most drawn to information that explains what actual progress is being made, with maps, charts, etc. I would not even object to the occassional picture of a dead GI, either in the field. I do think that is a part of the reality of war that we all should be aware of. I just don’t think that the pictures should be used as propaganda to undermine our own efforts. As stated earlier they have power well beyond the role they should play in decision making.