Military casket photos

[speeder]

I'm sure that those of you who read newspapers are aware of the controversy over the release by the military of pictures of flag-draped caskets arriving at Dover from Iraq and Afghanistan. The government has a ban on photographing these caskets being unloaded, ironically the pictures in the papers this week were taken by the military, (for historical purposes), and released under the Freedom of Info act.

As someone who was against going to Iraq, I have criticised this policy, (no photos), in the past. I felt that it insulates the public somewhat from the reality of current foreign policy. You get to see endless photos of our soldiers and Marines returning alive and happy, reuniting w/ their families, etc., but no pictures of the dead and horribly maimed. (There are a lot of these).

The problem is this: The country is completely divided politically right now, thanks to "the great uniter", , really split down the middle between people who believe that the president is an honorable man doing his best in trying times and people who are repulsed by the sound of his name. I'm not exagerating here.

The photos of the flag-draped caskets are a powerful image that could be used by anti-war people as a PR device, no question about it. It's no secret that a large percentage of military personel are politically conservative and would not approve of the pictures being used for such a purpose, including the soldiers and Marines inside of the caskets and their families. Their wishes should overrule the public's in this case, just my opinion.

[ronin]

for once we agree. let the families of the fallen deal with their tragedy on their own terms

[jyl]

If a tragedy is a wholly private affair - if it matters only the person to which it occurs - then there is an argument for keeping pictures of the tragedy under the control of that person or his family. There isn't any reason for the public to see the images, except for voyeuristic purposes.

A war isn't a private affair - it is the very opposite. The war in Iraq matters very much to all Americans, who will die in the war in coming years, who pay for it ($100BN and counting . . .), who will live with its positive and negative effects on our country and our position in the world. The war is a very, very public affair.

As such, all Americans should be able to see all the aspects and effects of the war - positive and negative. The government is happy to show us photos of the positive aspects - brave soldiers, cheering soliders, grateful Iraqis, rebuilt schools, the President serving turkey to the troops, soliders returning to joyous reunions with their families. We should also see the negative aspects - which includes soldiers returning in caskets.

What happens if Americans are not allowed to see the negative images of the costs of this war? The ultimate decision-makers - I'm referring to you and I, the citizens of the country - don't get the full picture of a war that we started and that we have to decide what to do with. This is akin to more "faulty intelligence". Another name for it is "government keeping the voters in the dark."

I have sympathy for the bereaved families who don't want images of their loved ones' caskets used for public relations and political debate. But, to be blunt, images of their loved ones while alive were being used for PR and debate, weren't they? Refer back to the "positive" images that the government was enthusiastically displaying to promote the war - recall those photos of brave, cheering, joyous, etc soldiers. The fact is that their sons, daughters, husbands, etc are doing something very, very public - there's no privacy in it.

I have no sympathy for the government's position that it is acting to protect the families' privacy and wishes. These are photos of anonymous caskets. The government policy applies to every photo regardless of the family's wish - whether the family supports or opposes the war makes no difference. The government has a long history of ignoring the policy when it wants to. This is an attempt to censor and spin the news, that's all.

[911pcars]

Remember the photos taking during the VN war?

-Suspected VC prisoner shot in the head (executed) by town sheriff
-Young VN girl running on road toward camera, clothing burned off her body, after explosion from American napalm bomb
-Our/their soldiers and civilians, wounded, crippled and dead

Would you have chosen to not see these and instead view the images chosen by General Westmoreland? I suspect some might have in order to sustain and "win" the war.

Not exactly a parallel situation, but IMHO, it's close.

Sherwood

[speeder]

I think that voters need to be treated like adults who can handle the reality of their choices, (and one way or another, we voted for whatever is going down), and the caskets don't have names on them, so admittedly it is a judgement call. I just can't get past the reality that each of those "anonymous" flag-draped caskets has a body in it that was as alive as me maybe 3 days ago. (And probably a lot younger and healthier).

It is basic decency to honor the last wishes of anyone, especially military personel KIA. Since they cannot speak for themselves any more, I am just assuming that most of them would not want those pictures published. Somehow or another, however, I believe that we deserve a balanced, complete look at our foreign policy results in Iraq.

[araine901]

The soultion to get a first hand view is to enlist.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by 911pcars
Remember the photos taking during the VN war?

I mentioned this in another thread, but your post begs the question again. How come we got those images and those stories from Viet Nam (the first "tv war"), but we don't from Iraq? We have now superior and ubiquitous communications infrastructure. Yet the only "negative" press is an FIA-leveraged photo and weblogs from people living in Iraq. Has our media become *that* controlled? There are those that would argue that the "embedded journalists" were carefully crafted propoganda tools (and that is "tool" in the perjorative sense, not in the socket sense). Or is just nothing bad happening over there?

This bugs me. Not because I want to see carnage, but rather that a free press is one of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy.

[911pcars]

Good straight line Todd.

Because govt. officials learned the power of images from VN. So they filter what we see and, in effect, what we feel.

In a truly just war, we grit our teeth and bear the images. In an unjust war, we grit our teeth and become more vocal. They know that.

Sherwood

[island911]

Originally posted by jyl
If a tragedy is a wholly private affair - if it matters only the person to which it occurs - then there is an argument for keeping pictures of the tragedy under the control of that person or his family. There isn't any reason for the public to see the images, except for voyeuristic purposes.

A war isn't a private affair - it is the very opposite. The war in Iraq matters very much to all Americans, who will die in the war in coming years, who pay for it ($100BN and counting . . .), who will live with its positive and negative effects on our country . .. . .

At the risk of being in agreement with speeder let me say;

Americans, who will die . ..

True, our country will have to live with the positive and negative effects of the "Americans, who will die".

Therefore I think we should require news-casts, every evening, open with the horrific 100+ dead bodies, of those killed in that days auto accidents.


The point being, a whole lot of death happens each and every day; everywhere. None of us live forever. . . even if you do exersise and see your doc regularly.

We have a bunch of soldiers whom have signed up for a commendable risk, and some of them aren't making it back alive.

That is sad, but somehow not as sad as the 100+ deaths (PER DAY) on our roads.

So, for those clamoring for more coverage of coffins from Iraq, I will be interpreting that as exclusively for political reasons. You can't pass it off as some high-ground "right to know" BS.

OTOH (and just to be contray to speeder ) News organizations ought to be able to present what ever distasteful lunacy they want. (whew... for a minute there, I was feeling all dirty)

[nostatic]

but the lack of coverage is for political reasons too. And the lack of the lack of the coverage is apolitical, which makes it political. Then when you factor in the coverage of the coverage of the lack of the lack of coverage, you have a whole new set of coverage. Or lacks. I forget.

Anywho...what were we talking about? Oh yes...Island feeling dirty for agreeing with speeder. I'm sure there is something Fruedian in there somewhere...

[911pcars]

Showing auto fatalities would be more appropriate if, instead of deaths due to accidents and dumbass driving, drivers and passengers were being killed by purposely outfitting their cars with say ... defective tires. Now we have something that perks up people's ears. "This is something we might be able to avoid", people will say.

Perhaps a better "auto accident" analogy would be if we asked for young sons and daughters from across the US to walk through our freeways to show their patriotism. The purpose of this walk would be to:

a. educate drivers the importance of good driving habits
b. look for illegal immigrants
c. look for worn out and thus unsafe tires
d. find Osama Bin Laden

If there are casualties as a result of this deployment or we don't achieve a, b, c or d, then the question might become, "Is this the best course of action to meet our objectives?" We then make the right decision; it shouldn't be based on increased profits from the consumption of more gasoline; it should be from the realization that we didn't quite think it through as thoroughly as we should have. Do we denigrate the volunteers who merely want to show their patriotism? Of course not. They're just taking orders. However, we can hang this on those responsible for this policy. That's their job too. We chose them to make the right decisions.

BTW, if they don't show the public what's happening or acknowledge the cost to society or talk about why they started this in the first place, then more effective plans don't get implemented and this "walk-a-highway" program probably continues longer than it should.

Now that's an analogy.

Sherwood

[island911]

Originally posted by 911pcars
. ...
Perhaps a better "auto accident" analogy would be. . .

I was making a comparison, not an analogy.

There is risk and benifit to both war and driving.

[osidak]

I am opposed to the pictures being released. Every single one of those people had some sort of family. Those families must deal with the loss of their loved one. I do not think the dead should be used for a political purpose. Those photos will be used for just that purpose.

Pictures of happy soldiers returning do not carry the same weight on those involved.

Everyone in this country knows war means people will not be coming home. They do not need to see a casket or people that have been shattered in some way. Right or Wrong, Justified or Not we all agree war is hell on those involved. Let those people handle their losses as they choose.

[island911]

From the start, the liberal PBS has put-up old portraits of those soilders killed, with moments of silence.

This is very smart; it hits home the human cost of the war, with out disrespecting the families. . .. well, not obviously disrespecting the families. . .thay are afterall using them for political message. (says the cynic in me)

[jyl]

island911, you might be too cynical there.

A couple weeks ago, our local paper printed a special insert with the names and photos of every soldier killed to date. Pages and pages. I sat down at the dining table one morning, and slowly read every name, studied every face, one by one, every last one. I felt that I owed them that hour of my time. It was my personal way of respecting their lives and sacrifice.

I don't agree with the war (any more), you guys all know that, but that doesn't mean I don't honor the men and women serving.