File talk:RG31IED.jpg

	United States portal This file is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
File	This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Do you really think it is responsible to place this image on the public internet? It states this image is public domain because it is an official government photograph. Did you receive authorization to release this OFFICIAL photograph (you must be a Public Affairs Officer). Or would it be more accurate to say this is a personal photograph whose content is a breach of OPSEC in that it may be used by the enemy as propaganda for a successful IED strike (which you so aptly describe the effects of). -82.206.142.90

Are you implying that the American people shouldn't see what's going on in Iraq? Is't shielding them from the realities of the war irresponsible? Any photo of a U.S. soldier on duty becomes publc domain. Besides, it's a photo where everyone survived. You should see ones where they don't. IraqVet225 (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hope the uploader doesn't get in trouble for this photo. If we take, at face value, the assertion that an on-duty GI took it, then I believe it is in the public domain without regard to whether it was officially approved for release. The Pentagon Papers from the War in Vietnam were not approved for release, but those who published them were not sued for copyright violation. My understanding of the public domain status of the work of US Federal employees is that they are born PD -- even classified documents. And if they get leaked and get published they are PD and no amount of legal wrangling can make them proprietary.

So, should we take the assertion the image was taken by an on-duty GI at face value? The other options include that it was taken by an embedded journalist, an Iraqi, or even an enemy, and that some nefarious person is claiming a GI took it, in order to claim it is PD. Well WP:AGF I say.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The explosion tore the vehicle in two? edit

The current description reads: "The explosion tore the vehicle in two."

What it looks like to me is that the passenger compartment remained intact, and was torn away from the engine compartment. We can see the top of the passenger compartment. It appears in one piece. We can't see

Add topic