Navy SEALS Sue AP - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

OFKU0 · 12-30-2004, 12:44 PM

Navy SEALs Sue Associated Press Over Iraq Photos
29/12/2004 2:07:12 PM

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Six Navy SEALs and the wives of two of them sued The Associated Press and a reporter on Tuesday for publishing photos taken from a Web site that appeared to show the troops abusing prisoners in Iraq.

The suit, filed in San Diego Superior Court, said the pictures did not depict abuse and instead put the lives of the soldiers at risk by exposing their faces to the world.

"We believe AP's use of the photos and the manner in which they were obtained were entirely lawful and proper," said Associated Press attorney Dave Tomlin, who is representing the news agency and reporter Seth Hettena.

The plaintiffs are identified only as "Six Navy SEALs and Two Jane Does," and the suit indicates they have been allowed to file anonymously by court order.

"By failing to conceal the identities of the Navy SEALs, Defendants Seth Hettena and the AP have jeopardized the lives of Plaintiffs Six Navy Seals and their families, as well as compromised their future missions and careers," the suit said.

The U.S. Navy said it had nothing to do with the suit.

"The lawsuit is not a naval special warfare issue but rather a civil matter undertaken by these individuals against The Associated Press, which is being handled through the legal process available to all Americans," said Taylor Clark, a spokesman for the Naval Special Warfare Command.

An AP reporter discovered the photos, posted on the picture-sharing site Smugmug.com, during research on another set of photos that purportedly showed Navy SEALs abusing detainees.

Confronted with the photos, the Navy said this month it had launched an investigation. The plaintiffs said in their suit that the photos depicted regular special operations techniques and did not show abuse.

Jane Doe One, the lawsuit said, stored the photos on Smugmug.com, among a collection of personal photographs. The suit said the two Jane Does are wives of two of the SEALs, members of the elite Navy force Sea-Air-Land.

The AP reported that the unnamed woman said the photos came from her husband, who brought them from Iraq after his tour of duty. But the suit denies that that was the case, or that she told the AP as much.

Distributed around the world, the AP reported the photos showed Navy SEALs sitting on hooded and bound detainees, holding a gun to a detainee's bloodied head, and placing a boot on the chest of a prone man.

Other photos showed grinning U.S. personnel sitting or lying atop three hooded prisoners in the bed of a pickup truck.

The Dec. 3 AP story quoted a spokesman for the Naval Special Warfare Command as saying some of the photos could put the lives of the SEALs at risk.

The suit, which claims invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeks damages and an injunction barring further distribution of the photos.

http://g.msn.com/0US!s6.73430_734763/86.a9743/5??cm=TodayonMSN
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't a thread about abuse just to make it clear from the onset.

What I would like to know is who is in the right or wrong with having these pictures publicized. The suit claims AP damaged the rights of the soldiers and are insisting AP is to blame. But the AP source got the photos from a website so isn't that considered public domain? Why wouldn't the SEALS sue the website if these pictures were private and wouldn't the site have to explain there existence. I dunno. Anybody know if the SEALS have a leg to stand on or is this a futile suit?

pan6467 · 12-30-2004, 02:49 PM

If the SEALS were stupid enough to have pics made and then put them on an unsecured sight on the web where ANYONE can have access they are stupid and looking for trouble.

Whether it was a "wife" who put the pics on for "safe keeping" or the SEALS themselves, they put themselves at risk not the AP.

Sounds to me like one of the wives opened her mouth to the wrong people and made these photos public, then the command caught Hell and the men caught Hell so they are trying to save face.

I don't know, our military is looking more and more like a group of thuggish right winged militia hoods and not the great men and women that are suppose to be strong and victorius, yet compassionate and honorable. The SEALS are supposed to be the best of the best also, this doesn't make them sound like it.

I would hope this is taken for what it is a frivilous lawsuit and thrown out of court.

cataklysm · 12-30-2004, 02:51 PM

I don't have a problem with the pictures being published, but if they didn't censor the faces of SEALS still involved in covert ops, then this seems like the fault of AP. The gov't doesn't have a right to censor the media unless there is a clear and present danger to national security (the danger of revealing the idenity of undercover SEALS).

pan6467 · 12-30-2004, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cataklysm

I don't have a problem with the pictures being published, but if they didn't censor the faces of SEALS still involved in covert ops, then this seems like the fault of AP. The gov't doesn't have a right to censor the media unless there is a clear and present danger to national security (the danger of revealing the idenity of undercover SEALS).

But if the pictures were on a public website, and their faces are clearly shown then it is their fault. I am tired of everyone blaming others for their mistakes and their wrong doings. SEALS are supposed to be taught pride, honor and dignity.... there is none when crying foul over pictures they put on a public forum ended up in a mass media forum.

be men for God's sake and say you fucked up and take the heat. The AP didn't put those on the web, one of your wives put your pics on the web for all to see and she should take part of the blame, but you little boys in SEALS clothing are the ones that took the pics and obviously didn't care what became of them.

ObieX · 12-30-2004, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

But if the pictures were on a public website, and their faces are clearly shown then it is their fault. I am tired of everyone blaming others for their mistakes and their wrong doings. SEALS are supposed to be taught pride, honor and dignity.... there is none when crying foul over pictures they put on a public forum ended up in a mass media forum.

be men for God's sake and say you fucked up and take the heat. The AP didn't put those on the web, one of your wives put your pics on the web for all to see and she should take part of the blame, but you little boys in SEALS clothing are the ones that took the pics and obviously didn't care what became of them.

I agree. And also if i recall correctly those pictures weren't allowd to be taken in the first place. That didnt stop them from breaking regulations and taking them anyway.

archer2371 · 12-30-2004, 03:31 PM

I think it's a little premature to jump to conclusions about this until the trial is all said and done.

Seaver · 12-30-2004, 08:31 PM

This may be off topic but I'm fucking sick of the term abuse being thrown around as it is.

Standing naked is NOT abuse. Just to enlist, our own members have to stand naked, bend over, and spread the ass cheaks so the docs can check for polyps. Sorry but I say that's worse than standing naked. But god forbid the press sees it and it's deamed torture. Having someone sit on a prisoner when the hummer is fully loaded is not abuse, it's finding a place to sit.

Who's fault are these pics? The SEALs, it's their fault they entrusted wives who weren't trustworthy, or too stupid to realize wtf they were doing. The AP was retarded in that they posted it, but arent to blame.

martinguerre · 12-31-2004, 12:13 AM

somehow, seaver, i don't think they were doing cancer screenings. just a thought.

and no, i don't think there's a case to be made for restraining the press in this instance. its on the plaintiffs to make a very strong showing, and i don't see any hint of ont.

Willravel · 12-31-2004, 12:54 AM

There are a lot of things the AP should be brought up on charges for. I'm not sure if this is really one of them. The photos were already public, making the wbesite that hosted the pictures originally the guilty party. Legally, the AP is not at fault. Seems pretty open/shut on the surface.
Suits like this take away credibility from actual illegal acts.

12-30-2004, 12:44 PM	#1 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	Navy SEALS Sue AP Navy SEALs Sue Associated Press Over Iraq Photos 29/12/2004 2:07:12 PM LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Six Navy SEALs and the wives of two of them sued The Associated Press and a reporter on Tuesday for publishing photos taken from a Web site that appeared to show the troops abusing prisoners in Iraq. The suit, filed in San Diego Superior Court, said the pictures did not depict abuse and instead put the lives of the soldiers at risk by exposing their faces to the world. "We believe AP's use of the photos and the manner in which they were obtained were entirely lawful and proper," said Associated Press attorney Dave Tomlin, who is representing the news agency and reporter Seth Hettena. The plaintiffs are identified only as "Six Navy SEALs and Two Jane Does," and the suit indicates they have been allowed to file anonymously by court order. "By failing to conceal the identities of the Navy SEALs, Defendants Seth Hettena and the AP have jeopardized the lives of Plaintiffs Six Navy Seals and their families, as well as compromised their future missions and careers," the suit said. The U.S. Navy said it had nothing to do with the suit. "The lawsuit is not a naval special warfare issue but rather a civil matter undertaken by these individuals against The Associated Press, which is being handled through the legal process available to all Americans," said Taylor Clark, a spokesman for the Naval Special Warfare Command. An AP reporter discovered the photos, posted on the picture-sharing site Smugmug.com, during research on another set of photos that purportedly showed Navy SEALs abusing detainees. Confronted with the photos, the Navy said this month it had launched an investigation. The plaintiffs said in their suit that the photos depicted regular special operations techniques and did not show abuse. Jane Doe One, the lawsuit said, stored the photos on Smugmug.com, among a collection of personal photographs. The suit said the two Jane Does are wives of two of the SEALs, members of the elite Navy force Sea-Air-Land. The AP reported that the unnamed woman said the photos came from her husband, who brought them from Iraq after his tour of duty. But the suit denies that that was the case, or that she told the AP as much. Distributed around the world, the AP reported the photos showed Navy SEALs sitting on hooded and bound detainees, holding a gun to a detainee's bloodied head, and placing a boot on the chest of a prone man. Other photos showed grinning U.S. personnel sitting or lying atop three hooded prisoners in the bed of a pickup truck. The Dec. 3 AP story quoted a spokesman for the Naval Special Warfare Command as saying some of the photos could put the lives of the SEALs at risk. The suit, which claims invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeks damages and an injunction barring further distribution of the photos. http://g.msn.com/0US!s6.73430_734763/86.a9743/5??cm=TodayonMSN ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This isn't a thread about abuse just to make it clear from the onset. What I would like to know is who is in the right or wrong with having these pictures publicized. The suit claims AP damaged the rights of the soldiers and are insisting AP is to blame. But the AP source got the photos from a website so isn't that considered public domain? Why wouldn't the SEALS sue the website if these pictures were private and wouldn't the site have to explain there existence. I dunno. Anybody know if the SEALS have a leg to stand on or is this a futile suit? __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

12-30-2004, 02:49 PM	#2 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	If the SEALS were stupid enough to have pics made and then put them on an unsecured sight on the web where ANYONE can have access they are stupid and looking for trouble. Whether it was a "wife" who put the pics on for "safe keeping" or the SEALS themselves, they put themselves at risk not the AP. Sounds to me like one of the wives opened her mouth to the wrong people and made these photos public, then the command caught Hell and the men caught Hell so they are trying to save face. I don't know, our military is looking more and more like a group of thuggish right winged militia hoods and not the great men and women that are suppose to be strong and victorius, yet compassionate and honorable. The SEALS are supposed to be the best of the best also, this doesn't make them sound like it. I would hope this is taken for what it is a frivilous lawsuit and thrown out of court. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

12-30-2004, 02:51 PM	#3 (permalink)
cataklysm Tilted Location: New York	I don't have a problem with the pictures being published, but if they didn't censor the faces of SEALS still involved in covert ops, then this seems like the fault of AP. The gov't doesn't have a right to censor the media unless there is a clear and present danger to national security (the danger of revealing the idenity of undercover SEALS). __________________ --Cataklysm--

12-30-2004, 03:31 PM	#6 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	I think it's a little premature to jump to conclusions about this until the trial is all said and done. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

12-31-2004, 12:13 AM	#8 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	somehow, seaver, i don't think they were doing cancer screenings. just a thought. and no, i don't think there's a case to be made for restraining the press in this instance. its on the plaintiffs to make a very strong showing, and i don't see any hint of ont. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-30-2004, 08:31 PM	#7 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	This may be off topic but I'm fucking sick of the term abuse being thrown around as it is. Standing naked is NOT abuse. Just to enlist, our own members have to stand naked, bend over, and spread the ass cheaks so the docs can check for polyps. Sorry but I say that's worse than standing naked. But god forbid the press sees it and it's deamed torture. Having someone sit on a prisoner when the hummer is fully loaded is not abuse, it's finding a place to sit. Who's fault are these pics? The SEALs, it's their fault they entrusted wives who weren't trustworthy, or too stupid to realize wtf they were doing. The AP was retarded in that they posted it, but arent to blame.

12-31-2004, 12:54 AM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	There are a lot of things the AP should be brought up on charges for. I'm not sure if this is really one of them. The photos were already public, making the wbesite that hosted the pictures originally the guilty party. Legally, the AP is not at fault. Seems pretty open/shut on the surface. Suits like this take away credibility from actual illegal acts.