"RHF" wrote in message
om...
= = = m II wrote in message
= = = news:VNxKc.45988$iw3.36886@clgrps13...
RHF wrote:

Actually the 'logic' goes just the opposite. Instead of getting
all the Bad News out "Now" and putting it in the past. The Liberal
Media Elite are slowly letting it out a few photos at a time up
to the day of the election; in order to try and influence the
outcome of the election day-by-day; week-by-week; month-by-month
{against President George "W" Bush} for John 'ff' Kerry and the
Democrats.

How is it possible that news/information can be manipulated this way by
EITHER side? If it's there, it should be out in it's entirety. Why
doesn't the Bush side release everything in one go then, to stop the
slow 'leaks' by the opposing camp?

News is meant to be heard, not played with for political gain. That may
well be why a lot of folks started listening to shortwave to begin with.
Even as a kid I thought the truth lay somewhere between what Washington
and the Kremlin said...mind you, sometimes they BOTH stretched things
beyond belief.

mike

MII,

The original reason for withholding the information (pictures
and images) was to allow the US Military to conduct an full
investigation and charge and judge under the UCMJ. These few
specific individual members of the military who committed
these crimes do have the 'right' to due process . . .
BEFORE - They were Tried in the Court of Public Opinion.

The release of pictures and due process don't necessarily either go together
nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Pictures of crime scenes are
often shown in the press. Popular opinion rarely enters into jury
deliberations to any significant degree. I will, however, agree with you on
one point... if a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, as one
is supposed to be in our judicial system, then their name should not be
released to the press unless and until they are found guilty in a court of
law. Many innocent people's reputations have been ruined because of a high
profile criminal case (at least in their local area). Also, there is a
section in the Constitution prohibiting excessive bail... but excessive bail
seems more the rule than the exception anymore. I have read cases where a
burglar has to post $20,000 bail.. if they had that kind of money in their
wallet (or even their bank account) they most likely wouldn't be burglars...