@49: Mr. Higdon, I fully stand behind all the criticism Sheehan has thrown against Bush, Obama, Pelosi and others, all of which is well-merited and well-directed. What I take issue with is her conduct throughout this whole thing, especially as a wife and mother. I don't want to pass judgment on her private affairs, but I will say that her husband apparently agrees with me, publically. She is setting a poor example.

Just to drive the point home: as for long-term good, much of her following has now abandoned her for the deity Obama's amen corner. I submit that whatever horrifying photos are published, the 2012 election will pass with many U.S. forces still in action in hostile lands on a futile mission.

Where are those who took me to task with the injunction that no good may come of evil deeds when I defended a use of torture if the fate of a city should hang in the balance? Those who defend the use of these photos to sway public opinion are approving of the psychological torture of the families.

As for the hypocrisy referred to in Roberts' title, I see few better examples of it than in this former government official's rush to defend the fair female reporter who took the photo, in order to indulge his tastes for high dudgeon and attacking present government officials he dislikes.

No, I personally would not "like" it. That's irrelevant. What matters is that showing the true costs of war more accurately might cause less American boys to be killed. The death is far more of a crime, and far more painful for the family, than the picture. If those pictures can prevent more of those deaths...

There are many things wrong with American society, many reasons why this war was allowed to happen and why we can expect to see further blunders until a massive catastrophe snaps us out of it. Resorting to shock effect for a quick "end to this war" is akin to placing a band-aid over a deep gash on the leg and will resolve nothing in the long run except eventually desensitize us entirely to suffering.

"Actually, I don’t believe that is true. Newspapers always publish names and pictures of alleged perpetrators before trials, so the fair trial argument is not valid. Whatever scruples media men do possess seem to prevent them from picturing victim’s faces out of concern for the victims."

Fair enough, though a victim isn't a perpetrator. As Mr. Toddard pointed out in his post #44, a non sequitur isn't a valid argument, which was also my point in response to #41, though I seem to have expressed it badly.

Actually, I don't believe that is true. Newspapers always publish names and pictures of alleged perpetrators before trials, so the fair trial argument is not valid. Whatever scruples media men do possess seem to prevent them from picturing victim's faces out of concern for the victims.

That poor girl in CA, Jaycee Duggard, has had her name and picture as a youth posted but no current pictures. Her captors' images have been everywhere.

@43, 44, you guys are perhaps as close as you will get in the gray area of civility vs. truth. To me, if we have laid to rest the question of respect for individuals and are just talking abstractly of appropriateness or effectiveness of showing graphic images to achieve some result, I am reminded that man is primarily a social creature. And we have the nasty habit of killing messengers or at least associating them with their message, thus tuning them out if we don't like what we see.

If I meet someone and the first words out of my mouth were, "Nice to meet you, you are really fat." I may have spoken the truth; it may be an important truth, and it may or not be a truth they already know, but I have lost all connection with that person. They did not ask me for an opinion, yet I hit them with it anyway. That is far different from answering someone's question honestly.

It is an important thing to be ready to prove the truth if it is being denied. It is another to assume to know why others believe what they believe and how to change those beliefs.

I tend to think resorting to graphic images is a shortcut. It is much harder and slower to convince someone that there is life in the womb or bad policies behind unjust wars (all wars are violent). It is much harder to pray consistently. But if you do, you have perhaps importantly converted someone rather than spread shock or created/galvanized an opponent.

Obviously not. There is no analogous problem in America whereby the public is exceedingly favorable to rape due to their unfamiliarity with its violent nature. Sorry - it's not comparable.

This is a non sequitur. This isn't a question of senationalizing a story. The view that anything is permissible in war is much easier for the chickenhawks to promote when their opposition has nothing to which they can refer in the mainstream media to illustrate the kinds of horrors being done in our names during a war.

"That’s why most newspapers won’t publish the names and photographs of girls who have been raped."

This isn't true. Pictures of rape victims aren't published to avoid influencing of public opinion prior to an arrest and/or trial.