Are the offenders being investigated and/or punished?
Sure sounds like it.
Isn't that's what important?
Guess not.
As far as the "public's right to know," as a general rule, the public has never had a right to see evidentiary photos of child abuse or sexual assault.
For example, look at the Michael Jackson trial. We know that there were photos used for evidence in that case, some of a sensitive of graphic nature. And we also know the media's interest in that case was at least as obsessive as it is in this case.
But did the media or ACLU scream "public right to know" in that case?
Of course not. In fact, in a typical case, the ACLU is screaming about the rights of the ACCUSED not to have the photos "prejudice the case."
This would seem to indicate that the motivation here is not so much "educating the public," as it is sensationalism and stirring up anti-war/anti-Bush sentiment.
Furthermore, ever other time these numbskulls have gotten this stuff out there, the first reaction of a sizeable portion of the terrorist community is to riot and/or step up efforts to kill soldiers and civilians.
Don't they care that their actions may give terrorists an excuse to KILL people?
