posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:17 PM
If an employee of the US government released the photos, which were taken on Uncle Sam's dime, and in Uncle Sam's facilities, I believe that
fulfills all the requirements. Just because the US government didn't officially sanction the photo, doesn't mean they didn't commission it, or
allow it to leak. I think that angle needs to be scrutinized.
Think about it like this - while shopping at the supermarket, you get accosted by two supermarket employees on their lunch break. They pull down
your pants and snap a picture. Are they to blame? Sure. Is their employer to blame? Partly. This is the reason that employment contracts
stipulate behaviors that can and cannot be engaged in on the clock, on the premises, or sometimes even at home.
If the employee violates those rules, they are subject to termination. However, if they break those rules and a third party is injured, the third
party may have a very good chance of recouping damages from the employer, due to negligence and failure to provide a safe environment.
I also find it terribly amusing that the words 'Geneva Conventions' came out of the mouths of the US Military. I thought those treaties were a
thing of the past, an outmoded way of thinking, tactics not useful in combatting terrorism, yadda yadda.
Edit: dj - I agree with you, but I'm still interested in talking about the legality, and the possibility that this was a controlled leak. Truth is
that we'll never know one way or another, but I think it's important to identify who benefits from this event?
[edit on 20-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]