Quote:
Originally Posted by tater
AVG, something can be a good idea, but still not be appropriate. Given the 1st amendment, and the FOIA, the onus is on the government (as it should be) to demonstrate why such otherwise public domain information should be held back. "Because they say so" isn't good enough.
I could be convinced that not publishing was the best thing, and still think that the government cannot hold the images back regardless.
What can they claim the reason is to NOT publish them? National security? That would basically require saying that we must censor any speech in the US that might offend muslims. That pretty much shuts up the entire society, because virtually everything offends muslims. So national security is off the table. Since they can redact any parts of an image that might contain, say, a classified weapon, or document next to the carcass, that won't cut it, either. There is basically no possible rationale for not publishing the images other than possibly "good sense." Good sense isn't enough, though, constitutionally.
|
Consitutionally? I'm not sure if that applies here. Why bother with the Constitution and just use the Freedom of Information Act? Then again, the information can be freed at the governments behest. Like most of the information that is freed, There is no good sense/reason in releasing the photos IMO.
Hell, just sit back...Joe Biden will post the pictures on the net. Hell, he has spilled the beans on everything else.
