[Soresbox]

How many people are we detaining just for doing their job for the American press? This is another constitutional violation, holding an AP photographer without habeas corpus. As the AP President and CEO said:

Indefinite detention is not acceptable.

THE DETENTION OF AP PHOTOGRAPHER BILAL HUSSEIN

The U.S. military in Iraq has imprisoned Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein since April 12, 2006, accusing him of being a security threat but never filing charges or permitting a public hearing. "We want the rule of law to prevail," says AP President and CEO Tom Curley. "He either needs to be charged or released. Indefinite detention is not acceptable." Military officials say that Hussein was being held for "imperative reasons of security" under United Nations resolutions. A Pentagon spokesman reiterated that stance Sept. 18. Hussein is a 35-year-old Iraqi citizen and a native of Fallujah. AP executives said an internal review of his work did not find anything to indicate inappropriate contact with insurgents, and any evidence against him should be brought to the Iraqi criminal justice system. Hussein began working for the AP in September 2004. He photographed events in Fallujah and Ramadi until he was detained.

Bilal Hussein is one of an estimated 14,000 people detained by the U.S. military worldwide -- 13,000 of them in Iraq. They are held in limbo where few are ever charged with a specific crime or given a chance before any court or tribunal to argue for their freedom. In Hussein's case, Curley and other AP executives say, the military has not provided any concrete evidence to back up the vague allegations they have raised about him.

[ClorrerVeks]

How many people are we detaining just for doing their job for the American press? This is another constitutional violation, holding an AP photographer without habeas corpus. As the AP President and CEO said:

Indefinite detention is not acceptable.

I didn't know that the US constitution applied to Iraq, it must be a powerful document to apply to other countries.

[SypeKifef]

i find myself surprizingly.. not caring about freedom of the press in a war zone... go figure.

[usatramadolusa]

I didn't know that the US constitution applied to Iraq, it must be a powerful document to apply to other countries.

If you do not want your rules and rights to apply to foreigners, why do you guys claim to be so eager to spread them in the world?

[BlackBird]

I didn't know that the US constitution applied to Iraq, it must be a powerful document to apply to other countries.

Huh? Aren't we spreading democracy?

[medio]

How many people are we detaining just for doing their job for the American press? This is another constitutional violation, holding an AP photographer without habeas corpus. As the AP President and CEO said:

Indefinite detention is not acceptable.

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to lie, incite violence or use as a conditioning avenue to control the way a populace thinks and see’s. Without guidelines and rules, it becomes but another model for anarchy.
This misuse of freedom to spread untrue, counterfeit truth and misleading propaganda was never legal or covered in intent of the constitution.

[KLhdfskja]

The indefiniate detention with charges is abhorrent; I fully agree that the man should be charged and tried or released.

However, I don't see what it has to do with freedom of the press, except that he happens to work for the AP. Is there any evidence he was arrested to keep him from publishing some damning photograph? If not, I don't see how his occupation is significant.

[rbVmVlQ2]

Not all speech is protected.

To respond to Mabus:
We want people to start governments modeling ours so as to keep the peace easier. It's a lot easier to deal with democracies as opposed to tryannies where the people have no say in what goes on. Governments that depend on one person are very unpredictable, therefore we are simply trying to make the world a more stable place.

We do not want to give people that are engaged in war with the citizens of our nation to have the same rights as those citizens. That would make zero sense.

[rbVmVlQ2]

(Forgive for the double post.)

Also, if the man was endangering our military operation in Iraq, the military may just be doing him a favor in not charging him with such high crimes. They may also not have the evidence to show what he was trying to do because they wanted to stop him from doing it in the first place.

If a reporter/photographer/media person wants to be in a warzone, they should comply with all the rules they are given by the occupying forces and expect to be punished when they disobey those rules.

[usatramadolusa]

Not all speech is protected.

To respond to Mabus:
We want people to start governments modeling ours so as to keep the peace easier. It's a lot easier to deal with democracies as opposed to tryannies where the people have no say in what goes on. Governments that depend on one person are very unpredictable, therefore we are simply trying to make the world a more stable place.

We do not want to give people that are engaged in war with the citizens of our nation to have the same rights as those citizens. That would make zero sense.

I always thought that freedom of speech and the right to have a fair trial are the cornerstones of a democratic society. How can americans teach Iraqis democracy by using the measures of tyrants? To my mind, the people who defend denying fair trials and freedom of speech to certain other people but claim to love democracy themselves betray their own ideals.