[mburbank]

I think Moore should have reported this stuff right away, and simply eaten whatever criticsim came with it.

Of course, the red cross already reported it to the administration, and the first guy they sent out to 'investigate' said nothing out of the ordinary was going on.

Nalds posted this not because of hat he thinks of Moore, (A given) but to reinforce his belief that we'd all leap to Moores defense. I think he did the wrong thing, I wish he'd done otherwise, but I don't think he needs defending in any case. He's not in the military, he didn't commit these crimes, he didn't ask lawyers to lay legal groundwork for commiting these crimes, etc, etc, etc.

Again, I think he had a moral obligation to turn this stuff over immediately. I think he failed. That his mortvation was profit is speculation, and no more justified by the article than my theory that W's motivation for invading Iraq is his twisted relationship with his father. My point is, the number of people on the list above Moore who need defending for their actions in this situation is really, really long before you get to Moore. Mayeb at some future point it will be worth spending time on Moores culpability for abuse that took place during the months he knew and the time 60 minutes first publicly aired the photos. But before we get there, a whole lot of actively involved parties need to be... examined. Maybe if we hooded them, stripped them and set dogs on them the process would go quickly enough that we might get to Moore in the next decade.