Navy SEALs Sue AP Over Alleged Abuse Photos

[wicket]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000742675

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."

[rfranklin]

1. And I'm Little Red Riding Hood!

My,what big teeth you have, Grandma!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

36. Psy-ops 101 headline: "US Military vs the Nosy Press"...old tactic.

The whole purpose of having this headline/story is to chill the press and prevent exposing more war crimes.

This is the lesson learned by the Pentagon during Vietnam.
HIDE THE EVIDENCE AND BLAME ANY EXPOSERS!

If bad things are exposed, blame the messenger. Psy ops 101. Sheeesh...this tactic will work for a long damn time...

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. So it's OKAY to torture them if they are really really bad people?

I am so disgusted by this argument. No matter why the prisoners are there, they are ALL HUMAN BEINGS. Why oh why does that fact escape these assholes?

[pokercat999]

34. Because their captors aren't human beings....nt

[KansDem]

44. Yeah, perhaps the military should link up with Gov. Mitt Romney...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1107619

...and craft guidelines that will guarantee only those prisoners deserving of torture will actually be tortured.

I think the rules will need to be "carefully written" to assure this...

[Skink]

3. That ranks up there with Ken Blackwells latest decision...

Any order that is unlawful should be ignored. That's part of the deal.

[GAspnes]

4. 'expectation of privacy'

after posting on the World Wide Web. Hmmmmm.

[Ian David]

6. You know what happens next, right?

We find out who these idiots are and broadcast it all over the web to a far wider audience than would have been possible had they just shut-up.

[Osamasux]

5. 'Your Honor, my clients posted those photographs to the other

Internets, you know, the private one. Not to the public Internets.'

[ally_sc]

11. lol n/t

[Robb]

7. Who wrote this, the Gardening Desk editor?!?

"Hettena allegedly removed photos from that site and published them"

:wtf:

...Like they were published on a site and he stole them right off-a-there, and they were gone. :eyes:

[BlueEyedSon]

8. "a personal Web site".... on the PUBLIC INTERNETS???

LOL...good luck!

[Ian David]

9. Why aren't the soldiers and their families being charged with espionage?

After all, they took a government secret and posted it online where some liberal media reporters found it.

[Just Me]

13. Hey!!! There you go!!!! These crappers deserve to eat sh*t!!!

Let's file a lawsuit against them!!!! They violated both Constitutional and international laws,...buttwipes!!!!

[ally_sc]

10. oh please

and they just can't stand to let the AP go unpunished for doing their damn job.

[Just Me]

12. DUH!!! The "Plaintiffs" revealed their own identities via web site.

Are you freakin' kidding me?

File a suit against yourselves,...MORONS!!!!

Ugh,...hideous bullshit.

Ridiculous crap.

I suppose they are adamant Bush supporters, no less, and back "litigation reform" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT *LOL*.

Gross.

Fine. It's time to be creative and lodge lawsuits against these freaks of human nature!!! I've had enough of these manipulative creeps. Time to go on the offense and TAKE THEM DOWN!!!!!

[Ian David]

14. Let's go find those pics!!!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041203/D86OEJ7G0.html

The images were posted to the Internet site Smugmug.com. The woman who posted them told the AP they were on the camera her husband brought back from Iraq. She said her husband has returned to Iraq. He does not appear in photos with prisoners.

The Navy goes to great lengths to protect the identities and whereabouts of its 2,400 SEALs - which stands for Navy Sea, Air, Land - many of whom have classified counterterrorist missions around the globe.

"Some of these photos clearly depict faces and names of Naval Special Warfare personnel, which could put them or their families at risk," Bender said.

Out of safety concerns, the AP is not identifying the woman who posted the photos.

The wife said she was upset that a reporter was able to view the album, which includes family snapshots. Hundreds of other photos depict everyday military life in Iraq, some showing commandos standing around piles of weapons and waving wads of cash.

The images were found through the online search engine Google. The same search today leads to the Smugmug.com Web page, which now prompts the user for a password. Nine scenes from the SEAL camp remain in Google's archived version of the page.

"I think it's fair to assume that it would be very hard for most consumers to know all the ways the search engines can discover Web pages," said Smugmug spokesman Chris MacAskill.

Before the site was password protected, the AP purchased reprints for 29 cents each.

Some men in the photos wear patches that identify them as members of Seal Team Five, based in Coronado, and the unit's V-shaped insignia decorates a July Fourth celebration cake.

----

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://smugmug.com

also:
http://www.archive.org/

[wicket]

31. LOL!!!!

[Gothmog]

15. This looks like a very weak case

The attorney who took this case must be doing this on an hourly basis. It would be crazy to take this case on a contingent fee basis given the hurdles faced. First, there is no expectation of privacy for anything posted on the internet on an open or non-password protected site. Second, the Seals names were on the site and so there was no violation of privacy. Once something is published or released, then it is normally public for all purposes. Finally, the First Amendment gives a great deal of protection to the press and the fact that the Seals do not like the interpretation of the pictures does not mean that this interpretation is defamatory.

It will be interesting to see how far this case goes.

Th

[Solly Mack]

16. the chutzpah of these people

they committed the acts, they took the pictures, somebody's stupid wife posted the pictures...on the INTERNET...that beacon of privacy...NOT. The site wasn't invaded, it was accessible by the public....he found by way of a search engine


HELLO!!??!!!!???!!!!

The reporter PAID to download the pictures...I believe it was 0.29 a piece.

[Tinoire]

17. That ranks right up there with Rumsfeld

That ranks right up there with Rumsfeld bitching that damn cameras on the battlefield were f*cking everything up.

What a bunch of immoral wimps and idiots.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Err boys you may not have known this

but this is a site on the world wide web... it has been PUBLISHED.

By the way, this will create some law

[tsuki]

38. No doubt to restrict the internets. eom

[TahitiNut]

19. The California Constitutions gurantees a right to privacy.

That right is not forsaken by being accused of a crime or civil wrong. (Being accused isn't voluntary, after all.) I'm not sure whether this is the basis of the suit, and IANAL.

[Solon]

20. Still no expectation of privacy...

when you publish your own name and photographs on the Internet.

[TahitiNut]

27. I don't know what's meant by "personal Web site" in the story.

.. and neither do other DUers, I'd wager. The specifics of WWW/Internet functions are almost always garbled by the media. It's possible that the 'wife' in question had the photos on a commercial site for personal storage and interpersonal sharing of photos. (I have some doubts she maintained her own web site.) Indeed, an account at such a commercial site would be a handy way for troops in Iraq to share their digital photos with family and friends. So, it brings up a question of knowingly publishing as opposed to storing. The 'reasonable expectation' would be contingent upon the representations of the particular commercial service, if any. To say that anything on the Internet negates a "reasonable expectation of privacy" opens up the question of false advertising, misrepresentation, and obtaining money by deceit for all the services that assure 'privacy' in their representations.

[Just Me]

43. Even my unleashed imagination cannot include an argument,...

,...that any "reasonable expectation of privacy" could possibly be anticipated by anyone posting a web page on the internet.

I simply cannot fathom it.

I can't.

[TahitiNut]

45. Well, we all have our limitations.

:shrug:

[daleo]

21. The suit seems frivolous

Particularly given that the wife who posted the pictures is not be named as a co-defendant. I wouldn't be surprised if the government is supporting this suit in the background, as a bit of a warning to the press to "be careful what you print". It also serves as a distraction from the content of the photos themselves. They claim the site was "invaded", which is a laugh given the public nature of the internet (particularly a site that isn't password protected).

[FreakinDJ]

22. I'm sure the website was "Copy-written"

Oopps...

Those asswipes have no case

Only thing better would be a photo of Rumsfeld going down on Oxycotten Rush Limbaugh

[Disturbed]

23. Another frivolous law suit by Right Wingers.

Kids, can we say- hypocrites?

[FreakinDJ]

29. BIG TIME HYPOCRITES

They got caught torturing people and now in the usuall bush tradition they want to shoot the messenger.

If America is lame enough, pacified with Jesus Land proficies then they get what they deserve. Bush is selling out the country faster then his henchmen campaign contributers can count the money they are raking in.

Now we have NEW MORAL VALUES....shoot the messenger because it is A-ok in Jesusland to torture "Those Brown Skinned Peoples" who can not govern themselves

[NVMojo]

24. I am taxed to pay their salaries, they can be exposed publicly ...

they should have thought about it.....

[Supersedeas]

48. public servants who don't want to be exposed doing the public good??

Odd? Then, what are they doing in are name that could personally shame them so?

[Blue_Tires]

25. time again to kill the lawyers and eat the rich???

this case should be thrown out the first minute it comes before a judge

[LiberalFighter]

26. The photo was removed from the website?

Does that mean they no longer have the copy that they used on their website?

[mitchum]

28. Sue? Why don't they just garotte AP?

Are the macho SEALs going soft?

[Sandpiper]

30. "Wholly without Merit" are the first words that come to mind

With regards to this suit.

Good luck arguing an expectation of privacy for photos published on the most public forum imaginable.

[Osamasux]

32. I just found 'Home Photos' of Saddam's capture at the same site

I was looking for the seal photos and the sites own search engine turned up this.

http://soldiers.smugmug.com/gallery/114622

If you read through the six comments viewers posted, it is very obvious that this was not a 'friends only' place to post pictures.

Apparently, a lot of people use the site. Smugmug.com's 'About Us' page adds, "In its first ten months of business, smugmug grew to nearly 1,000,000 photos from almost 3,000 customers including Presidential candidate Howard Dean, who depended on us for 3,000,000 quick and reliable image views per month."

[psychopomp]

33. Those photos are awesome

It is so strange to me that in the home near the hidey-hole was they found all of those US dollars and American snacks and kitchen products.

On edit: You have to check out the CIA Christmas party 2003 photos at that site. Who knew the CIA was so lilly-white?

[Supormom]

51. They have C&H Sugar and 4-09 in Iraq?

kewl

[Cocoa]

35. Navy Seals Sue!

[Hillary08]

53. Great pic!

You know, she really looks the same! She hasn't gained an ounce!

[Supersedeas]

37. Does the author have some inside info on WHO the Iraqis are?

Joe Strupp is pretty definitive about, "The Iraqis shown being captured in the photographs were leaders of anti-coalition attacks and Saddam loyalists."

And while the 'journalist' is definitive about WHO they are, Joe manages to breeze over a description of WHAT the photos actually depict...other than "standard procedures during covert operations."

And Joe didn't forget to float that idea that Wedding Photos might also be published by the eeeeeevil journalist.

The article 'could have' been written to the Strategic Office of Disinformation itself...or a covert arm thereof.

[oly]

39. I'm confused. Seems that a site (smugmug?) provides space

for folks to post privately taken photos for showing with password protection (or did do something like this). However, smugmug appears to have sold the photos for 29 cents each. You think the wife failed to read the fine print -- you can have a free album space here, but we're going to sell the photos if possible, to make money?

[Solly Mack]

42. exactly...and once they sold them they became the property of the reporter

to show as he pleases.

the reporter in question said he paid 29 cent a piece for them

[saigon68]

40. Fucking WAR CRIMINAL should have Mugshots posted instead.

That would be sweet to see them getting the same derision they apparently were dishing out.

But its OK they were only whipping the shit out of Islamic Rag-Heads.</sarcasm>

[wicket]

41. kick

:kick:

[0rganism]

46. Morons. Should've sued on the basis of falsification, not confidentiality

This is a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit.

If they made the claim that the photos were fraudulent or doctored or even some kind of effects/propaganda gimmick, that would at least give them a claim to malicious irreparable harm by the AP. As it is, they have NO case, and any responsible attorney would have told 'em so right out of the gate.

[wicket]

47. exactly

It's their own damn fault they posted them on the internet, what a bunch of idiots!

[AllegroRondo]

49. If anyone should be sued for endangering lives,

it should be the SEAL's wife who posted the pictures on the internet in the first place.

[w4rma]

50. The moment they put them on the internet they became public. (nt)

[johncoby2]

52. Is this what they call a "frivolous" lawsuit? eom