Navy SEALs Sue AP Over Alleged Abuse Photos

[BlackRain]

Navy SEALs Sue AP Over Alleged Abuse Photos

By Joe Strupp

Published: December 28, 2004 2:25 PM ET

NEW YORK Six Navy SEALs and two of their wives filed a lawsuit against The Associated Press and one of its reporters today for allegedly revealing their identities in photos published in early December, according to a press release from the plaintiffs.

The complaint, filed in California Superior Court, alleges that AP reporter Seth Hettena obtained a photograph in a personal Web site maintained by one of the wives of the Navy SEALs, which contains personal photographs.

None of the plaintiffs are named in the lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by E&P. They are represented by attorney James W. Huston of San Diego.

Hettena allegedly removed photos from that site and published them on December 4, 2004, in a story stating that the pictures "could be" the earliest evidence of possible prisoner abuse in Iraq, the plaintiffs contend. The SEALs argue that the pictures "actually depict special warfare operators' standard procedures during covert operations. The Iraqis shown being captured in the photographs were leaders of anti-coalition attacks and Saddam loyalists."

AP Director of Corporate Communications Ellen Hale declined to comment immediately to E&P, but said she would look into the matter.

"There was no need for the AP to publish the faces of the SEALs," Huston, the Morrison & Foerster partner who is heading the plaintiffs' legal team, said in a statement. "They added nothing to the value of the story. In fact, the SEALs showed more respect for the insurgents and terrorists that they were apprehending by obscuring their faces than the AP did for the Navy SEALs who were in Iraq risking their lives," he added.

Since the photos were released, they have been published widely in the Arab Press, including on Al Jazeera, the plaintiffs claim.

They are requesting injunctive relief, to preclude republishing the photographs, to preclude the publication of additional unpublished photographs, and to preclude the publication of personal photos by the Navy wife whose site was invaded, such as her wedding photos.

[OzMan]

Too bad their trying it in Kalifornia...can't gauruntee the AP will get what they deserve...

[chaz]

I hope that reporter gets his ass sued off....and I mean HIM personally.

[Initiative]

I hope that reporter gets his ass sued off....and I mean HIM personally.

Agreed.

[HooyahCQB]

Can I get a HOOYAH!?

[SOG]

LOL, yes!!!

[hood]

She put them on the !#*$@ing internet. Within minutes they were all over millions of computers. Does she think that the AP was the cause of those photos getting out to the public? This is another case of someone not wanting to take responsibility for what they did, and by that I mean the wife who put them up for the world to see.

[ElHombre]

i'm with hood on this one. they have no one to blame but themselves over this. not to mention that what people are doing in the name of my country is something i need to know about.

does the navy or SOCOM have any regulations about posting this sort of info to the public?

[NcDeuce]

She put them on the !#*$@ing internet. Within minutes they were all over millions of computers. Does she think that the AP was the cause of those photos getting out to the public? This is another case of someone not wanting to take responsibility for what they did, and by that I mean the wife who put them up for the world to see.

WORD

[HooyahCQB]

I agree with Hood too, but the AP could excersize a little more constraint with these guys' faces as well.

[chaz]

She put them on the !#*$@ing internet. Within minutes they were all over millions of computers. Does she think that the AP was the cause of those photos getting out to the public? This is another case of someone not wanting to take responsibility for what they did, and by that I mean the wife who put them up for the world to see.

Ok fine, good point. But I hope he loses his shirt anyway. I'm just sooooo tired of these media trolls trying to find something....anything....to pin on our servicemen.

[OzMan]

Agreed, the wife probably shouldn't have posted the pics on the Internet, but it pisses me off that the AP reporter tried to turn those pics into another Abu-Grahib abuse scandal. F***ing vultures...

[Secret Squirrel]

how stupid do you have to be to post pictures like that online after the abuse scandals? And if you're dumb enough to post them online, at least disable downloading (if for nothing else than to try and protect your personal pictures).

[lunatic2T2]

Werent they taken before the Abu Gharib pics?

I could be wrong, if so be gentle. :|

[Secret Squirrel]

Werent they taken before the Abu Gharib pics?

I could be wrong, if so be gentle. :|

The date they were taken isnt as important as the date they were posted. And they apparently were left online after the other scandals broke. ;)

[AOCBravo2004]

I agree with Hood on this matter, if the SEAL's and their wives really cared about their identities they would have obscured the faces BEFORE posting it them on the WORLD WIDE WEB!!!!

[hood]

Well, the question is whether the SEAL husband knew they were going to be posted on the net. My guess is that she did it without consulting him first.

[SHAM]

Just a question.
Why do navy seals have to have there identities obscured? I am guessing SAS/SBS have done it due to northern ireland, IRA possibly tracking them down in the uk off duty, and i guess doing covert work for 14int in amongst the community in northern ireland.
Just an observation but i am guessing the navy seals dont have the equiv of 14int in iraq or afghanistan and are not gona blend in anyway.
So again why do they have to have there identities obscured.

[jedisponge]

in case anyone wants to track them down, and it's not just for SEALS it's really for anyone who could get in big trouble if they found out who he/she is.

basically the reason their faces are obscured is the same reason you see lots of Iraqi National Guardsmen or Police wrap up their faces.

[SHAM]

i can understand iraqi national guards covering there faces as they live in the place.
I just dont get why the seals would. i am guessing they are not on a constant deployment there like the iraqi national guard and dont live in local houses etc. but anyway i guess this is all off topic.

[SHAM]

This brings to mind another question. do navy seals where there names and patches on there uniforms like other branches of the us military/navy?

[hood]

I haven't seen name tags in photos on any SEAL or SF uniforms except in pictures where they were at a formal ceremony.

[SHAM]

ok thanks

[StrikerAir]

What a load of puppy puke ! Panties on heads being worse than heads being sawed off living human beings? Abuse? Freakin` BS. Man ,I`m so far over the edge on this I could spit 20mmDU..... The Pissed Pants duality of this line of PC driven horse manure is beyond acceptable. Whineing about:" Oh we can`t be as bad as them..." as some sort of justifacation for this liberal driven yellow journalizum that only serves to undermine OUR TROOPS is in a word.Treason in a time of war. Yeah sure there`s screw-ups and trophy takers in any outfit, one way or the other they get sorted out. But having this crap being touted by the "media" as somehow being worse than the conduct employed by these terrorist bastids in masks (clearly afraid to show their identities) is way past the sinical effort to sell soap and grab rating points. GRRRRRRR !!!! What`s 200 drowning ACLU lawyers / Mainstream media reporters clawing for air at the bottom of an ocean? A Hell`of `a Good Start !......

[11F5S]

What a load of puppy puke ! Panties on heads being worse than heads being sawed off living human beings? Abuse? Freakin` BS. Man ,I`m so far over the edge on this I could spit 20mmDU..... The Pissed Pants duality of this line of PC driven horse manure is beyond acceptable.

What is totally beyond acceptable, is the actions of those pukes at Abu Ghraib.

[Baboonass]

If these pictures were posted on a public site like, well, here for example, I would be inclined to agree.

What the press did was akin to breaking into your house searching through your ****, and posting information about your personal life without your permission or context.

The place the wife placed the pics was a private server only accessable by password.

She should have never had operational pictures, but that is not the point here and will be delt with internally.

[Glass1]

If these pictures were posted on a public site like, well, here for example, I would be inclined to agree.

What the press did was akin to breaking into your house searching through your ****, and posting information about your personal life without your permission or context.

The place the wife placed the pics was a private server only accessable by password.

She should have never had operational pictures, but that is not the point here and will be delt with internally.

Amen.

I was thinking the exact same thing as I read through this. Stupid as it was to post operational pictures on the www, posting them on a private server (which I'm led to believe is the case here) does not entitle some media jackass to make a cover story out of it simply because he ran across them.

The PERSEC angle on the case may be weak, considering how many SOF operators do make it to the internet, but I'm sure that isn't the point; unfortunately you can't make a good case in this country concerning the media vultures overstepping their bounds and invading peoples privacy. I imagine they took the next best thing.

It is a matter of principle. A word the press doesn't even know how to spell...

[Secret Squirrel]

If these pictures were posted on a public site like, well, here for example, I would be inclined to agree.

What the press did was akin to breaking into your house searching through your ****, and posting information about your personal life without your permission or context.

The place the wife placed the pics was a private server only accessable by password.

She should have never had operational pictures, but that is not the point here and will be delt with internally.

If they were only accessable by a password, why were there no charges filed against the reporter? And why didnt the wife, who seems desperate to avoid taking any blame for her sheer stupidity, blank out the faces?

[11F5S]

If these pictures were posted on a public site like, well, here for example, I would be inclined to agree.

What the press did was akin to breaking into your house searching through your ****, and posting information about your personal life without your permission or context.

The place the wife placed the pics was a private server only accessable by password.

She should have never had operational pictures, but that is not the point here and will be delt with internally.

From what I read those pics were on a commercial site and not on a private server belonging to the SEALs or their family and were not even password protected until after the reporter ordered copies.

http://smugmug.com/

" The initial AP story, transmitted Dec. 3, noted that the photos were found on the commercial photo-sharing Web site Smugmug.com using the search engine Google, and were not password-protected until after the reporter purchased copies online and began inquiries.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14615

The wife is to blame for putting them online, but the burden for the whole mess lies squarely on the shoulders of the dumb **** SEAL who sent the pics to her in the first place. OPSEC :cantbeli:

Had I been the reporter I wouldn't have published their faces (PERSEC/OPSEC), but only because of my experience dealing with classified material. I don't think he bears any legal responsibilty for not doing so nor do I think he should..

I think they have some screws loose for filing the law suite.

[usa320]

The wife shouldnt have posted the pictures sure, but i also hope the reporter gets his assed sued to the point of no return. The press needs to be responsible in its reporting. This time it was not. There was no abuse, and they not only released the identities of the operators, but they tarished their good names.

[Mailman]

I thikn there is a bigger issue here though...and that is one of reporting on facts.

By the sounds of it...HAD the reporter taken the time to actually research the pictures instead of heading off at a hundred miles an hour to get a scoop (which has been proven to be wrong) and cause further damage between American - Arab relations then none of this would have happened.

Sure the pics might have been publicly available...but you have to look at the bigger picture here.

Mailman

[SHAM]

If there had been no photos taken, then there would be no photo abuse. They are elite after all, it just seems unprofessional. Dont you want to expect more from your military?especially the elite.

[11F5S]

Why oh why do people post their personal pics on a public/commercial site to be viewed and downloaded by the world?

I found more pics of SEAL's on that same site...again mot password-protected. it took all of 10 seconds!

http://rogers2004.smugmug.com/gallery/67913/1

This guy even posted his NCM certificate.

http://rogers2004.smugmug.com/photos/2356380-S.jpg

[triath]

Maybe he's retired?

[11F5S]

He may well be, but why post your private photos for the world to do what they want with them...there are people who post family photos including kids to those sites ...no telling where they may wind up....would you want your kids pics on the hard drive of some pedophile's pc?

[11F5S]

He may well be, but why post your private photos for the world to do what they want with them...there are people who post family photos including kids to those sites ...no telling where they may wind up....would you want your kids pics on the hard drive of some pedophile's pc?

[Roger Rabbit]

He may well be, but why post your private photos for the world to do what they want with them...there are people who post family photos including kids to those sites ...no telling where they may wind up....would you want your kids pics on the hard drive of some pedophile's pc?
The above guy is guily of that as well. Within seconds you can findout what his job is, where he lives, and some of his family details :roll:

[11F5S]

http://www.harrythecat.com/graphics/Z/monkey3.gif

[ChuckThunder]

Thats from Dave Roger's Campaign webiste.

http://www.rogers2004.com/index.cfm?SectionID=1&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=1&SectionTree=1

He uses smugmug for other galleries as well.

http://rogers2004.smugmug.com/

[Baboonass]

If they were only accessable by a password, why were there no charges filed against the reporter? And why didnt the wife, who seems desperate to avoid taking any blame for her sheer stupidity, blank out the faces?

Been out of town for a bit, I figured it was only proper to respond to some questions.

With the exception of the intell pictures, there's nothing wrong about having pictures of you and your team mates. I have 3 photo albums full of them. Having the photos on a public webiste, even though it was supposed to be password accesable only, was not a very wise descision, but I would assume that private emails you send to your friends will not end up on the front page of the news. There should be a certain amount of privacy that we expect.

Blanking out faces is fairly subjective to the moment. Usually we don't like photos of us floating around, sometimes you don't have a choice. The media is bound to ask permission before featuring faces of operating spec op team members, but ethics amongst the media is pretty hard pressed to find.

I'm certain the wife and the operators wife have already taken a shalacking from the command and the other members. There's an issue here of privacy that is being adressed.

[Baboonass]

From what I read those pics were on a commercial site and not on a private server belonging to the SEALs or their family and were not even password protected until after the reporter ordered copies.

Not what I read from the official complaint filled from the SEALs and others. Someone is covering their ass, we'll see what transpires from this.

The wife is to blame for putting them online, but the burden for the whole mess lies squarely on the shoulders of the dumb **** SEAL who sent the pics to her in the first place. OPSEC :cantbeli:

Although the intell shots should have never been taken home, there's nothing else wrong about having pictures of you and your friends. I can easily drag up pictures of SF, FR, AFPJ, etc... that are on this site taken by operators from their own private stash.

So I guess you would say they are all "dumb ****s" as well?


I think they have some screws loose for filing the law suite.

The law suit is pretty well written and thought out. I think you have some screws loose thinking the media can just get away with whatever they want.

[Baboonass]

Why oh why do people post their personal pics on a public/commercial site to be viewed and downloaded by the world?

I found more pics of SEAL's on that same site...again mot password-protected. it took all of 10 seconds!

http://rogers2004.smugmug.com/gallery/67913/1

This guy even posted his NCM certificate.

http://rogers2004.smugmug.com/photos/2356380-S.jpg

Yup, and check out the dates. These pictures are also on his official site. He's a senator or something. Anyway, he ask all the members if he could post pictures of them first before posting them.

[Baboonass]

He may well be, but why post your private photos for the world to do what they want with them...there are people who post family photos including kids to those sites ...no telling where they may wind up....would you want your kids pics on the hard drive of some pedophile's pc?

You could say the same thing about any other website. He made that choice because the pros outweighed the cons.

I wouldn't do it, but I have my own reasons why.

Why do members on this site post pictures of themselves?

[11F5S]

From what I read those pics were on a commercial site and not on a private server belonging to the SEALs or their family and were not even password protected until after the reporter ordered copies.

Not what I read from the official complaint filled from the SEALs and others. Someone is covering their ass, we'll see what transpires from this.

The wife is to blame for putting them online, but the burden for the whole mess lies squarely on the shoulders of the dumb **** SEAL who sent the pics to her in the first place. OPSEC :cantbeli:

Although the intell shots should have never been taken home, there's nothing else wrong about having pictures of you and your friends. I can easily drag up pictures of SF, FR, AFPJ, etc... that are on this site taken by operators from their own private stash.

So I guess you would say they are all "dumb ****s" as well?

I think they have some screws loose for filing the law suite.

The law suit is pretty well written and thought out. I think you have some screws loose thinking the media can just get away with whatever they want.


As they say, there are two sides to every story and the courts will decide which floats.

The wife (identified in the lawsuit only as Jane Doe One) who stored digital photographs on smugmug.com, believed they were protected from access from any unauthorized users and that a password was required to view them, according to the suit.

Attorney Huston(SEALs) said the woman might have been wrong about the password but contests the reference in the story that said she posted the photographs on a commercial photo-sharing Web site.

WTF is http://www.smugmug.COM if it's not a "commercial photo-sharing Web site"???

Quote smugmug.com: "We founded smugmug in November of 2002 because we couldn't find an industrial-strength site free of clutter for photos, where great sharing is the center of gravity."


If in fact intel pics were taken home and posted as is suggested then he is by all means a dumb **** of the highest order.

If he doesn't want his or teammates identities made public, then he a dumb **** for letting their mugs and identities be posted on the world wide web.

IMHO anyone who has pictures and other personal information that they don't want the world privy to is a dumb **** for posting them on a DOTCOM website.

Maintaining OPSEC/PERSEC is the responsibility of the individual(s).

Yep! Some of my screws are loose, but I'm not worried because my doc applied some lock-tite super glue to them so they won't fall out.

[Baboonass]

IMHO anyone who has pictures and other personal information that they don't want the world privy to is a dumb **** for posting them on a DOTCOM website.

Maintaining OPSEC/PERSEC is the responsibility of the individual(s).

.



http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/view_album.php?set_albumName=User_Submitted

Were should I start?


These pics are unprotected and in the open. At least the wife who posted her husbands pics was under the impression they were protected by password and only accesable to specific members.

Tell me something, how much intell can you gather from some of these pics on this site?

It's one thing to post pictures you assume are privacy protected, it's quite another to post them in the open.

So who's the dumb **** again?

[11F5S]

Yup, and check out the dates. These pictures are also on his official site. He's a senator or something. Anyway, he ask all the members if he could post pictures of them first before posting them.

I was aware of the age of the pics, I was using them to illustrate how easy it is to obtain pics on sites like smugmug.com

He's not a Senator, he was running for Congressman in RI and was defeated by almost a 2 to 1 margin.

2004 wasn't a good year for Navy Vets using their war medals to campaign for political office. :lol:

[Baboonass]

2004 wasn't a good year for Navy Vets using their war medals to campaign for political office. :lol:

What, you mean like McCain?

or Bob Kerry?

or Jesse Ventura?

Granted none of them were running for anything, but I do take exception to your snide remarks.

[11F5S]

IMHO anyone who has pictures and other personal information that they don't want the world privy to is a dumb **** for posting them on a DOTCOM website.

Maintaining OPSEC/PERSEC is the responsibility of the individual(s).

.



http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/view_album.php?set_albumName=User_Submitted

Were should I start?


These pics are unprotected and in the open. At least the wife who posted her husbands pics was under the impression they were protected by password and only accesable to specific members.

Tell me something, how much intell can you gather from some of these pics on this site?

It's one thing to post pictures you assume are privacy protected, it's quite another to post them in the open.

So who's the dumb **** again?

Why start anywhere? What exactly is it that are you trying to prove to me?

The old addage, " Assuming will make an ass out of you 9 out of 10 times.
proved true in this case..

How much intel? I haven't looked at them, however probably more than I would care to disclose if I were involved, which I'm not.

"I didn't think the gun was loaded", doesn't absolve one from being responsible for the consequences of their actions.

IMHO the dumb **** in this case remains the same.

[Baboonass]

IMHO anyone who has pictures and other personal information that they don't want the world privy to is a dumb **** for posting them on a DOTCOM website.

Maintaining OPSEC/PERSEC is the responsibility of the individual(s).

.



http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/view_album.php?set_albumName=User_Submitted

Were should I start?


These pics are unprotected and in the open. At least the wife who posted her husbands pics was under the impression they were protected by password and only accesable to specific members.

Tell me something, how much intell can you gather from some of these pics on this site?

It's one thing to post pictures you assume are privacy protected, it's quite another to post them in the open.

So who's the dumb **** again?

Why start anywhere? What exactly is it that are you trying to prove to me?

The old addage, " Assuming will make an ass out of you 9 out of 10 times.
proved true in this case..

How much intel? I haven't looked at them, however probably more than I would care to disclose if I were involved, which I'm not.

"I didn't think the gun was loaded", doesn't absolve one from being responsible for the consequences of their actions.

IMHO the dumb **** in this case remains the same.

I don't know how many other ways to explain the same thing, I was pretty straight forward in my statement, maybe you should read it again.

The point about the case is not in the photos themseves, rather in the fact the media took them and posted them without the permission of the owner. The site, (link to the photos) was supposed to be password protected.

Would you assume that your email is private? would you be so opinionated if someone broke into your computer and posted your private stash?

You are entitled to your opinion, but you know what they say about that.

[11F5S]

2004 wasn't a good year for Navy Vets using their war medals to campaign for political office. :lol:

What, you mean like McCain?

or Bob Kerry?

or Jesse Ventura?

Granted none of them were running for anything, but I do take exception to your snide remarks.

Someone's wound just a wee bit too tight .

Nothing snide in that remark at all, just a statement of fact and a bit of political humor.

John Kerry and Dave Rodgers both used their combat medals in their 2004 campaigns...they both LOST!

[Baboonass]

2004 wasn't a good year for Navy Vets using their war medals to campaign for political office. :lol:

What, you mean like McCain?

or Bob Kerry?

or Jesse Ventura?

Granted none of them were running for anything, but I do take exception to your snide remarks.

Someone's wound just a wee bit too tight .

Nothing snide in that remark at all, just a statement of fact and a bit of political humor.

John Kerry and Dave Rodgers both used their combat medals in their 2004 campaigns...they both LOST!

Fair enough, it's difficult to interpet the tone of a post through written word.

[2RHPZ]

Back to this topic!

SEAL's wife 'extremely frightened' since publication of prisoner photos

By Ray Huard
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

May 31, 2005


When the photographs were published, "I was terrified that some of these SEALs would be killed," the woman said, because "they were often on covert missions which could be jeopardized if their identities became known."

A former officer with the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, E. Alan Platt, said in a written declaration supporting the SEALs' suit that Jane Doe's fears are well-founded.

............................

He said the photographs showing the faces of the SEALs "have been plastered all over the world" and have been the topic of Web site discussions in which the men have been called sadists and torturers.

The AP contends that the photographs and discussions over their content – including a Navy investigation – were legitimate news and published in the context of an international debate on the treatment of prisoners.

Aside from whether the AP has the legal right to publish the photographs, the case raises ethical questions.

A former AP photo editor, Paul Harrington, said in court papers filed by Huston on May 6 that he wouldn't have published the photographs, nor would "any other respectable or ethical journalist."

Link (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20050531-9999-1m31seals.html)

[Bia]

The Seals should have never put their faces in the public domain in the first place.
Also their photographs were not copyrighted....therefore they need to drop this vindictive and greedy lawsuit.

All due respect and whatnot.
But you dont shoot the messenger.

[Dalleer]

I have to agree with the rest here. The wife's fault if she put them in the internet in the first place..

[vote for Pedro]

I hope that reporter gets his ass sued off....and I mean HIM personally.

Sorry, no one is going to have to pay here, it's not that kind of lawsuit. They are just asking the court to force the news to stop showing the pictures. Good luck though, the whole blacking out the face thing, that is just a courtesy, it's not law.

[radon]

"For revealing their identities"?

I'm with the journalist if the pictures were on a public site. If the journalist wins it will make journalism alot harder. It isn't worth it. The wife should have used her mind and not now try to this childish bs

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

She put them on the !#*$@ing internet. Within minutes they were all over millions of computers. Does she think that the AP was the cause of those photos getting out to the public? This is another case of someone not wanting to take responsibility for what they did, and by that I mean the wife who put them up for the world to see.

As far as I'm concerned this thread should've been locked after hoods reply. Its amazing people can sue others for there own stupidity.

[jedisponge]

She put them on the !#*$@ing internet. Within minutes they were all over millions of computers. Does she think that the AP was the cause of those photos getting out to the public? This is another case of someone not wanting to take responsibility for what they did, and by that I mean the wife who put them up for the world to see.

As far as I'm concerned this thread should've been locked after hoods reply. Its amazing people can sue others for there own stupidity.
There are lawsuits more farfetched than this one that succeed.

[radon]

"For revealing their identities"?

I'm with the journalist if the pictures were on a public site. If the journalist wins it will make journalism alot harder. It isn't worth it. The wife should have used her mind and not now try to this childish bs

Of course I mean if the wife and seals win :cantbeli:

[2RHPZ]

I agree with SEALs. Even if **** happened and someone post online such photos and another re-post then everybody must respect the PERSEC of operators. Some countries have such a law that identities of members of certain units or agencies can be revealed. It is simple ... just make the personal file Confidential or Secret and those who disclose identities will face the lawsuit. Journalist must obey the rules.

[moughoun]

I agree with SEALs. Even if **** happened and someone post online such photos and another re-post then everybody must respect the PERSEC of operators. Some countries have such a law that identities of members of certain units or agencies can be revealed. It is simple ... just make the personal file Confidential or Secret and those who disclose identities will face the lawsuit. Journalist must obey the rules.
those photos had no place being anywhere near the internet, you do something silly, well

[2RHPZ]

I agree with SEALs. Even if **** happened and someone post online such photos and another re-post then everybody must respect the PERSEC of operators. Some countries have such a law that identities of members of certain units or agencies can be revealed. It is simple ... just make the personal file Confidential or Secret and those who disclose identities will face the lawsuit. Journalist must obey the rules.

those photos had no place being anywhere near the internet, you do something silly, well

OK, but still I insist on the fact that journalist can not post non-edited photos of SOF operators even if they found them thru Google. In my country it is simple. If someone knowingly reveal identity of operators of URNA (Police CT) or 601st SSS (Army SOF) ... or certain agents of military intelligence then he will face minimum 2 years in jail.

[pathfinder82]

She put them on the !#*$@ing internet. Within minutes they were all over millions of computers. Does she think that the AP was the cause of those photos getting out to the public? This is another case of someone not wanting to take responsibility for what they did, and by that I mean the wife who put them up for the world to see.


x2

[RGRBOX]

She put them on the !#*$@ing internet. Within minutes they were all over millions of computers. Does she think that the AP was the cause of those photos getting out to the public? This is another case of someone not wanting to take responsibility for what they did, and by that I mean the wife who put them up for the world to see.

Have to agree.. it isn't like they broke into her house and stole her wedding album. She put them on one of the most unsecure places in the world... and those guys aren't secret.. their mission is.. there's a difference.. and the book deals coming out of this will probably make up for the wedding pics.. or whatever... I do think that AP should have hidden their faces, but just out of repect for being soldiers, and they have no proof of wrong doing... they just don't understand what they where posting... As for the remark about the hoods on the heads of the Iraqi fighters.. sorry but this reminded of what the lawyer for the Abu Grab Prison guards should have saud... we hooded them to protect their identities..... p-)

[vote for Pedro]

I agree with SEALs. Even if **** happened and someone post online such photos and another re-post then everybody must respect the PERSEC of operators. Some countries have such a law that identities of members of certain units or agencies can be revealed. It is simple ... just make the personal file Confidential or Secret and those who disclose identities will face the lawsuit. Journalist must obey the rules.

those photos had no place being anywhere near the internet, you do something silly, well

OK, but still I insist on the fact that journalist can not post non-edited photos of SOF operators even if they found them thru Google. In my country it is simple. If someone knowingly reveal identity of operators of URNA (Police CT) or 601st SSS (Army SOF) ... or certain agents of military intelligence then he will face minimum 2 years in jail.

You can insist all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that in the USA, where the lawsuit is, journalists can post non-edited photos of SOF operators. Photos of SOF operators are not protected in the USA. We have this thing called the Constitution, which has this thing called the 1st Amendment. Like MikeBox said above, hidding the Operator's faces is out of respect, it is simply a courtesy, it is not law!

[RGRBOX]

I agree with SEALs. Even if **** happened and someone post online such photos and another re-post then everybody must respect the PERSEC of operators. Some countries have such a law that identities of members of certain units or agencies can be revealed. It is simple ... just make the personal file Confidential or Secret and those who disclose identities will face the lawsuit. Journalist must obey the rules.

those photos had no place being anywhere near the internet, you do something silly, well

OK, but still I insist on the fact that journalist can not post non-edited photos of SOF operators even if they found them thru Google. In my country it is simple. If someone knowingly reveal identity of operators of URNA (Police CT) or 601st SSS (Army SOF) ... or certain agents of military intelligence then he will face minimum 2 years in jail.

You can insist all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that in the USA, where the lawsuit is, journalists can post non-edited photos of SOF operators. Photos of SOF operators are not protected in the USA. We have this thing called the Constitution, which has this thing called the 1st Amendment. Like MikeBox said above, hidding the Operator's faces is out of respect, it is simply a courtesy, it is not law!

Every American soldier has to sign, at least when I was in, in pencil??? the 1974 Freedom of Information Act, that's inside of the Official File of every military personel... We all have an Open fich and a Closed Fich...

[Para]

The last place you would want to put these photo's is on the web, no body ever seems to learn about security of sensitive information till it is to late. Now on the battlefield we have all taken the very odd photo but it is not the thing you would put in the way of a journalist. On a battlefield you become some what harden to life and it's problems which people who are not involved in this sort can understand.

[RGRBOX]

The last place you would want to put these photo's is on the web, no body ever seems to learn about security of sensitive information till it is to late. Now on the battlefield we have all taken the very odd photo but it is not the thing you would put in the way of a journalist. On a battlefield you become some what harden to life and it's problems which people who are not involved in this sort can understand.

Well said... Non-Military, and most non Infantry types couldn't handle the extremes, nor the atitude, that is found in the field...

[Michael RVR]

She put them on the !#*$@ing internet. Within minutes they were all over millions of computers. Does she think that the AP was the cause of those photos getting out to the public? This is another case of someone not wanting to take responsibility for what they did, and by that I mean the wife who put them up for the world to see.

I haven't read the whole thing, but hoods on the money.
;)

[2RHPZ]

I agree with SEALs.

those photos had no place being anywhere near the internet, you do something silly, well

If someone knowingly reveal identity of operators of URNA (Police CT) or 601st SSS (Army SOF) ... or certain agents of military intelligence then he will face minimum 2 years in jail.

We have this thing called the Constitution, which has this thing called the 1st Amendment.

I know the 1st Amendment and also Constitution ... and respect that at the second place after 10 Commandments. Anyway, in some particular matters the absolut freedom has no place.





I agree with SEALs.

those photos had no place being anywhere near the internet, you do something silly, well

If someone knowingly reveal identity of operators of URNA (Police CT) or 601st SSS (Army SOF) ... or certain agents of military intelligence then he will face minimum 2 years in jail.

Photos of SOF operators are not protected in the USA. Like MikeBox said above, hidding the Operator's faces is out of respect, it is simply a courtesy, it is not law!

That´s bad!

[California Joe]

Christ, in my last job I spent half my time photoshopping badges and names and maps off walls and any identifying elements out of pics that might be declassified below TS at some point and that was on a secure internal network in a SCIF. And we still got preached at about OPSEC constantly. It just shouldn't have happened.