The NYT is supposed to show news, so I won't cuss them this time.

The editor is the one who bothers me. Why was a comment necessary?

And if one was, what about "I hope he missed"?

What is really sad about this photograph of an enemy fighter firing on US troops is that if the US troops fired back and killed the journalist who took the picture, we would be treated to endless stories about the US "targeting" journalists, and the ...

Death by "friendly" fire is obviously one of the hazards of covering enemy activity.

Don't confuse them with the facts, Henley. It's like teaching a pig to sing.

Yes - he�s an American first before he is a journalist.

Actually Silva isn't an american.So there's not much of a moral requirement on his part to take one side or the other.

I also have to agree with those who say the photographer wouldn't have many options for warning the US soldiers. He would have been searched for weapons or transmitters before even seeing those involved. He would also be under constant armed guard.

What I don't agree with, is any assertion that this benefits either side to any degree. There is not any new and useful information in the photo for the US military, and the Mehdi army can make and distribute their own propaganda (and regularly do so), and their target audience likely doesn't read the NY Times. The only people served (or not served) by this photo are the NY Times and their readers.

To the extent that the Sunnis are now calling on the U.S. to support them, the Times photo is indeed counterproductive to their supposed wishes.

I put this under a separate response because I consider it a separate topic. There seems to be this misconception that the Sunnis are this monolithic creature which has no dissension within.

Hadn't occurred to you, I suppose, that the reason that we're getting mixed messages from these various groups is simply because they haven't figured out what they want yet?

I'm speechless at the gymnastics you went through to arrive at that position. However, I don't consider it any more credible for it.

...the Sunni militias do not live in a dream world where the NYT�s opinion is particularly significant. They are not losing any sleep at all as to whether they possess �legitimacy� in the eyes of the Times�s readers.

Anderson, care to support this position?

Bithead, unlike many OTB commenters, the Sunni militias do not live in a dream world where the NYT's opinion is particularly significant. They are not losing any sleep at all as to whether they possess "legitimacy" in the eyes of the Times's readers.

To the extent that the Sunnis are now calling on the U.S. to support them, the Times photo is indeed counterproductive to their supposed wishes.

In the long term, though, if every journalist tried to disrupt things, then the enemy would quickly stop giving access to journalists. There would be no long term benefit to you sacrificing your freedom and/or life.

Perhaps the excuses you offer, Anon, would make somewhat more sense, were you to also offer up an explanation as to exactly what benefits to America, are had by this picture? What great moral good is being served that it's worth the American lives in question?

I'll save you the trouble; The fact of the matter is that the only good that's being served here is that of the terrorists themselves, because that picture serves to give them something that they would not otherwise have but for the efforts of a media ; Legitimacy.

And that's only worth American lives if you're working against America.

Of course, there's every chance its staged and there are no US troops within miles.

Regards, Cernig

Some things are simple, but some things are not. Let's say that you are dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. Reduced to very simple terms, do you kill many innocents or not? Simple, eh?

Well, no, Hiroshima was not so simple. And neither is this case.

Let's suppose you were this journalist. You are given an offer to take photos of an enemy sniper. If you say no, there is no benefit at all the US. If you say yes, you could just go do your job, or, you could try to disrupt the attack.

If you try to disrupt the attack, you either try to sneak in a weapon, or you just rush the sniper. Either way, you will be imprisoned, and likely killed. Maybe you will save one life.

In the long term, though, if every journalist tried to disrupt things, then the enemy would quickly stop giving access to journalists. There would be no long term benefit to you sacrificing your freedom and/or life.

The negative effects would be that we would not have any view or understanding of the enemy, other than through a gunsight. He is the enemy, but knowing and understanding the enemy makes defeating him much easier.

So, to summarize, if journalists took an active role in helping the US, there would be a few short term lives saved, but we would ultimately lose something else, perhaps just as valuable in the long run.

And no, I don't believe in coddling terrorists, or sympathizing with them. I'm a scientist/engineer, not a warrior, but I have no moral qualms about helping to design weapons to kill our enemies better, faster, messier. But one of the reasons I have no moral qualms, is precisely because we have these kinds of journalists.

A free, assertive, energetic press; checks and balances on executive power--yes, these things have a price and a cost, sometimes in human lives. But in the long run, I think these things have allowed the world's best scientists, engineers, and businessmen (like Einstein, Teller, etc.) to focus on developing the world's most effective and powerful military, confident in their knowledge that they are working for the good guys.