War dead: Privacy or concealment?

[LadyGodiva]

My American friends and I discussed this situation and came to the conclusion that it's concealment. They have learned the lessons of VietNam. Keep the casualties out of sight and the war will be popular. Show the dead and especially the disfigured and ratings plummet.

Now folks, we can discuss this matter in a civil manner - I have confidence in you! I realise to some the truth will offend, but as a mother, I would want the world to know. I believe there are war protesters who feel the same, as well as many families.



Worker fired over photo of flag-draped coffins

DOVER, Delaware (AP) -- A Web site published dozens of photographs of American war dead arriving at the nation's largest military mortuary, prompting the Pentagon to order an information clampdown Thursday...........

..........Defense Department rules prohibit media coverage of human remains arriving at Dover, and Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Gary Keck said release of the mortuary photos appears to be in conflict with department policy.

Defense officials said the purpose of the policy is to protect the privacy of the soldiers' families -- not to circumvent or violate the Freedom of Information Act or any other law.............

..........In a related incident, a cargo worker was fired Wednesday by a military contractor after her photograph of flag-draped coffins bearing the remains of U.S. soldiers was published on the front page of Sunday editions of The Seattle Times.

Tami Silicio, 50, was fired by Maytag Aircraft Corp. after military officials raised concerns about the photograph taken in Kuwait, said William L. Silva, Maytag president.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/South/04/22/mortuary.photos.ap/index.html

[Sponsored Links]

[Mike Nelson]

It doesn't matter to me why they don't want the pictures published. I guess some have a morbid sense of voyerism and others the pictures support their dislike for the war and add fuel to their demogogery. Everyone knows that people are dying over there, some believe for a noble and just cause and others try to lable it blood for oil. I for one am very proud of the men and women who serve my country and am very saddened by loss of life. But what are the alternatives.

[John Bridge]

The Viet Nam war played every day on TV. It got to the point that most people ignored it. That's why I found it hard to believe that the Defense Department formed its new policy beginning with the Gulf War in '91. It goes beyond the need for military security. That can always be protected. It has more to do with politics, I think. :)

[Mr. Bill]

LadyGodiva,
Who-weee, You sure stir a mean pot.:think:

I think my rights to see & know about the casualties of war pails in comparision to the desires of the troops' families and comrades.

If they wish to conceal the facts, so be it.

The media would be better servants of info if they showed more automobile collisions, and their related effects on families. . . . but that would stray from their biased war opinion.

Mr. Bill

P.S. They're not called automobile "accidents"; it's always someone's fault.

[LadyGodiva]

Dear Mr. Bill,

I'm glad you like the way I stir a pot... you'll have to come over sometime. I'm quite a good cook:D

I was watching the news on Spanish television (satellite), and according to the Spanish speaking community (on the street) they believe that we ought to 'see' pictures of the casualties of this war. I guess the old saying that "A picture is worth a thousand words" means something to some.

However, I agree that after awhile one becomes immune to seeing the remains of soldiers being brought home. Every time I hear that another one of our soldiers perished in Iraq my heart bleeds for the families. Then again, every time I see innocent women and children being killed across there, I also become sad. There just doesn't seem to be a happy ending to all of this for anyone, does it?

Meanwhile, we're comfortably tucked away in our homes arguing about politics and the like... isn't fair, is it?

Ah well, you take care and thanks for posting:)

LG aka Eli

[jjwq8]

I am unsure quite how I feel about this insofar as the media here has no qualms whatsoever in airing pictures of dismembered bodies. There appears to be a morbid fascination with the manner of death in general and the celebration of alleged martyrdom.

I suppose the right to know boils down to whether there is any doubt that the numbers stated by the authorities match the actual body-count. Since I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the DOD, then frankly, publishing pictures simply for the sake of filling column inches has no moral purpose, and the DOD is correct to protect the privacy of the families.

Surely the intent behind publishing a picture of a plane filled with coffins was to shock, in which case the motives and agenda of the publisher must be questioned.

Is it wrong to take such a picture in the first place?

Hard to say.

If the intent is for a personal record or as an adjunct to a diary entry then perhaps, and only perhaps, there is an acceptable reason.

[lazybumranch]

It is interesting that the compelling pictues of the 3 recent beheadings are being suppressed by the same entities that are demanding to see pictures of coffins. I know the Military is not suppressing those pictures, yet a not a word from anybody...no pictures in the paper, minimal coverage on TV. . Makes me wonder why:confused:

Why do we keep hearing about the amateurish brutality of a few U.S. Army Prison Guards, and nothing on the the continuing brutality of the Muslim Revolution? It would almost seem that the Press had an agenda other than reporting the News.

It appears that todays Gov't appears to be taking a page out of FDR's WW2 Formula For War and the Media. I have never heard anyone complain when HIS name was attached to this particular method.

[John Bridge]

Hi Jim,

I don't know if you noticed, but the last post prior to yours was two months ago, before the beheadings and before a few other recent events.

:)

[lazybumranch]

Yes, I did see that. I figured if the the thread was still open it must still be generating interest. It is STILL a current issue on a slow news day.

I guess my point is that certain things are kept in the forefront of the news, not because there is interest in them by the Great Unwashed Masses, but because they are agenda driven by the Lamestream Media. While that is going on, other things slip by the mainstream news reading public.

Not once have I heard of any debate on why the newsies won't show the available footage. In fact several teachers have been reprimanded or canned for showing these things to Highskoolers.

Now the handwringers will stay quiet till the next anti-American factoid catches thier interest, and they will beat that into the publics heads while real news falls by the wayside. Lets face it- some people watch the "Big Three" News and absorb it with out anlyzing it, with out questioning it, and will go out and vote with their emotions instead of their heads. They will think only about themselves and today, instead of their grandchildren and the tomorrow. Frankly, that scares the hell out of me.

I am trying to keep this from being too long winded, but the debate SHOULD rage on.

PS-is spell check available for this forum?

[John Bridge]

Jim,

Don't worry about spelling too much. Most of us have problems, and we're all in a hurry. :)

I think it has a lot to do with your political orientation as to whether the news media are liberal or conservative or bias or whatever. My take is the TV news people are more showmen than reporters. Naturally, if they don't like someone it's going to show through, but it shouldn't really matter. They are not reporting news anyway. They are focusing on sensationalism.

Take the presidential campaign, for instance. Both sides are accusing the other of changing seats -- of reversing their ideals. In actuality, neither side really has ideals. They have ideas on what the public might want to hear. It's all about getting elected. The old thinking that if I don't get into office, I won't be able to do the great things that need to be done prevails. The end justifies the means.

So when you understand that, it doesn't offend you when someone says something about one side or the other. :)

The thing in Iraq is political. If anyone but George Bush were president (Republican or Democrat or whatever) we wouldn't be in Iraq. We WOULD be in Afghanistan and we would be doing the job there instead of letting our people languish. We would NOT be in Iraq, though. Think of all the possibilities for president -- McCain, Dole, Gore -- none of them would have us in Iraq. Period. So it boils down to Bush, doesn't it? :)

[lazybumranch]

Interesting outlook. Again, I worry that the easily influenced, non anylitical(sp) amongst us don't realize what you and I take for granted. And they vote too!

Maybe someone else would not have gone to Iraq. Maybe they would have let the Iraq - UN standoff fester and stew till it became more of a joke than it already had become. (Is it possible that it could have become more ludicrous than it already had?)

What I do know is that we have brought this long existing war to the enemy. Instead of being reactive, hurling million dollar missles at ten dollar tents, we have forced it into the open. I guess I look at it like getting dragged unwillingly into a bar fight. If you pick out the biggest turd in the bar, and bust him in the ol' snotlocker, then you have everybody's attention.

Besides, no matter what, the fact of the matter is we ARE there right now, and have to behave in a manner to succeed, not fail.

PS-going back into history, we were attacked by the Japanese in 1941. Why did no one complain about us engaging Germany? They weren't even in the same hemisphere! (I know the answer-because it was the right thing to do).;)

[John Bridge]

Germany? The Axis powers were threatening to take over the world, including us.

Iraq did not attack us. And Iraq did not threaten to take over the world, including us, and even if it had threatened, there was no chance -- no threat.

Bin Ladin and his crew, supported and harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan, attacked us.

If Bush had come out and said he wanted to attack Irag because it was "the right thing to do," he would not have gotten support from Congress.

[Steven Hauser]

All right!!

John said something I can argue with!!!!!


John, are you meaning that if it were a different president, that we would not have entered Iraq or do you mean we would have done so differently? The reason I ask is that I can post quotes from Clinton to Kerry that says they would have been there also.

If the equation is... all candidates are saying things to get elected, why change?

Also--
The chips have been tossed into the wind... don't we need to see this through? After all some of the people in this adminsitration are probably the best I have ever seen. Powell, Bremer,Rice, and yes even Rumsfeld to name but a few.

Would paying higher taxes have really helped with the deficit?

In the interest of full disclosure, I think they are all idiots but I am glad I don't have to make those decisions.
Because I don't I do like to second guess them.


:D

[John Bridge]

Yes, I mean Bush had a personal agenda in going into Iraq. And yes, I believe that. I'm not just saying it. :)

I don't believe Clinton or Kerry would have invaded Iraq, not that it matters now. I don't think Gore would have invaded, either. I do believe any of those men would have gone to Afghanistan. Bush was doing okay right up until the time he decided to invade Iraq.

I think we are doing the correct thing under the current circumstances in trying to extracate ourselves from Iraq. We are really screwing up, though, in failing to push bin Laden to the ends of the Earth. Had the money and manpower we've wasted in Iraq gone into the effort to capture bin Laden we might have him now.

[jjwq8]

Aaah, but John now you have the world's third largest proven oil reserves to dip into at your time of choosing to top up the war chest.

[John Bridge]

You don't believe that, Jeremy. I'm sure we'll arrange to buy the oil that is pumped out of there when they get it to pumping again. We may be interlopers and meddlers, but we are not plunderers. We have always rebuilt the countries we've invaded. ;)

[Steven Hauser]

Well,

Dagnabbit, I don't seem to be able to argue this point as I agree with what you said:D :bang:


Uh Jeremy,

If you wish to turn a baleful eye on the present shenanigans we have access to the first and second as well.

Canada's true tar baby ----tar sands has the greatest deposits. We do possess the technology to extract it.;) We just have to make it cheaper.:)

:)

[lazybumranch]

All right! I love to start a S#*t storm!

Great points. I will give my last and bow out.

John- Muslims' Lunatic Fringes' stated objective is to not rest until all Infidels (Thats me:eek: ) are dead. It has been documented that these clowns have ties to Iraq, whether thru training or financial support, ie paying rewards to suicide bombers.

As for the Germany reference: As a student of history, I am sure you are aware of the pre-1941 Isolationist Movement, along with a large, respected contingent that supported Germany, such as Lindenburg and (I love pointing out the next one) Joe Kennedy. My point being that yes, Germany wanted to rule the world, but many only saw that in hindsight.
Ok man, Back to work...


Thanks for the waycool website!:)

[Jo3]

Originally posted by John Bridge
Yes, I mean Bush had a personal agenda in going into Iraq. And yes, I believe that. I'm not just saying it. :)

I don't believe Clinton or Kerry would have invaded Iraq, not that it matters now. I don't think Gore would have invaded, either. I do believe any of those men would have gone to Afghanistan. Bush was doing okay right up until the time he decided to invade Iraq.

I think we are doing the correct thing under the current circumstances in trying to extracate ourselves from Iraq. We are really screwing up, though, in failing to push bin Laden to the ends of the Earth. Had the money and manpower we've wasted in Iraq gone into the effort to capture bin Laden we might have him now.

Man, if we all veiwed things this way we would be sittin' pretty right now with an impeached president.
However, I think the only reason we're trying to pull out so quick with this deadline is strictly for his second term.

[Jo3]

got one more:

[Unregistered]

The only way to effectively deal with terrorism is to seperate the passive supporters from the activists. The way you do that is to address the legitimate claims of the passive supporters. In this way you seperate the radicals from the local support and if you're good, you will get the local support to help you identify the now, unsupported, radical contingent. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Why do you think Cheney refuses to release the records of the energy task force? This is about the positioning of US military bases in the middle of the last known oil reserves. It's also about geo-strategy and the petro-dollar but it's getting late and I've gotta go.

a suggestion: "The Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson

[Davestone]

Yes, but with everyone valuing their countrys' borders no one would have let us do anything over there to get Bin Laden until we showed a mighty presence,it would have been as fruitless as a Nato observation mission.With ballless Gore and Clinton covering his impeachment defense,nothing there.Mccain might have done something,but what?Buchanan,and Dole are the only ones i can say would have definitely done something.But as L.G. said,we sit in our comfy chairs, going nowhere, with nothing to lose,typing drivel to others who have their own opinions and getting nowhere except blowing off steam.I have learned a lot here,listening to how others think,and i wish it were simpler,and we weren't so hard on ourselves and our govt., we're not perfect,and shouldn't hold ourselves to such high standards as to stifle any achievement.This is still the best place on the planet.

[sdaniels7114]

The last reason that I had as validating this war was the creation of a moderate, perhaps even Democratic state in the ME. Not a mini-America, but a place where those who lived there controlled their own destinies.

It would seem as though our President could have had that with the Palestinians for a whole lot less bloodshed. Why not insist that Isreal give up some portion of the occupied territories to some sort of UN controlled peace-keeping force that would lead the way to self-rule, and perhaps eventual total sovernity for the Palestinians? Don't we give Isreal enough money to insist on something like this? Wouldn't we be able to really kick start this new nation's economy with all of this money we are spending in Iraq? 200 billion sure does buy a lot of roads, schools, power systems etc, especially in a country that would be tiny.

The Palestinian problem seems to be a major sticking point with the greater Arab world. Wouldn't ending this problem in so positive a manner be a great first step in defeating terrorism with less innocent lives lost, not more?

[John Bridge]

I don't know what's going to happen in Iraq. I hope it ends up being a country like other countries where people have some say in the course of their government.

But is has nothing to do with Israel and the "Palestinians." Fact is, there are a great many Arabs who are Israeli citizens and who only want to live in peace. No one ever talks about these people. They are not "Palistinians."

The land that we call the Holy Land has traded hands down through the ages. It has always belonged to whoever could take and hold it. It's never been any other way in that region.

I don't think Israel should have to give up any territory at all. What they hold wouldn't even equal a quarter of the counties in Texas -- hell, maybe not even in some Yankee state. ;) Palestinians are Muslims who don't want to live with people who are not exactly like them. I don't think they will ever be happy unless the Jews are once again driven out of the Holy Land. I won't be a part of that. It's not a religious thing for me. It's just a thing. :)

[sdaniels7114]

. "SNIP" I don't think they will ever be happy unless the Jews are once again driven out of the Holy Land. :)

You might be right, but I sure hope not. The idea of hating someone you've never met is difficult for me to comprehend. Then again, I've been reading a bit lately, One book that I've just begun has stressed the fact that the Koran is all knowledge, that it stands as absolute perfection to a Muslim. That too is a hard idea to grasp. How can a book written 1300 years ago be THAT relevant today?

[jjwq8]

John
Try talking to a few Israeli arabs (Moslem and Christian) and discover whether they actually enjoy equality with their Jewish brethren.

Do not forget that the Palestinians were among the very first Christians.

[Steven Hauser]

Jeremy,

I think an interesting facet of your point for Americans is the contrast of Israel to the USA.

Many people here ascribe to an outlook of different cultures melting together in to a new culture that is American. We refer to this as the "melting pot". A consequence of our motto

E Pluribus Unum From many, one.

Israel in contrast seems to be mosaic of cultures in a broad sense. I.E. maintaining their unique cultural identities while coexisting within the borders.

Another interesting facet seems to be the secular foundation of Israel is actually governed by Orthodox Jewish sensibility.

Do other Arabic countries rule secularly or rather from religious ideology? Second does it not also matter what branch of Islam the ruling party ascribes to?

[John Bridge]

I'm aware that our brand of republicanism doesn't exist in Israel. In fact, it doesn't exist anywhere that I know of except right here. I'm aware of this. I also know there is not a total and universal sense of equality in Israel, but that is the case here as well. So it's not a perfect world.

I am acquainted with a few Palesinian Christians who have immigrated to this country. There is no place for them in Israel, or not a large and open place at least. I think there is a sizable contingent of them in Jordan. I'm sure many of them have gone to Lebanon, too. I don't think they figure into the current scheme of things. Call them the forgotten minority if you will.

The current turmoil is not one of secularism. It's entirely religious as far as the Muslims are concerned. I think Israel would like nothing better than to be a secular country.

I don't know all the answers.

[Airborne]

I don't know all the answers.

Aw, come on John, that's why we all come here! :nod:

I've only a couple of observations / partisan thoughts...

1) I played in the sand back in '90/'91. Back then Saddam did have chemical munitions. It's not classified information that he had them. I saw them, others with far more credibility than me have seen and reported the fact that WMD did exist back then. What happened since I have no first hand knowlage of, but it stands to reason there had to be a reason Saddam tennatiously resisted inspections; whether it was pride (and he had nothing) or guilt (because he did) it seems to me either answer justifies toppling his regime.

2) As to the Afghanistan is justified, Iraq isn't debate, no one is mentioning the pressure Iran is placed under by the invasion of Iraq. They now have US/Coalition forces on their east and west border. There are differing conclusions as to the pre-invasion status of Iraq's nuclear program; little disagreement exists over the status of Iran's program. They have a very active program that is by their own admission enriching nuclear material. Iran posesses an enormous oil reserve which is a far less costly source of energy for their own domesic consumption, but yet they are pouring resources into a nuclear power R&D program for which (to the best of my knowlage) they must import the fuel for. I could be mistaken, but I believe they have no natural domestic Uranium source.

3) President Bush did not cite 9/11 as a reason for the Iraq invasion, nor WMD as a prime reason. He identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as "The Axis of Evil" and predicted a ten-plus year war on Terrorism (capital T). As others earlier have aluded to, the basic Radical Muslim vs. the Infidel conflict will exist as long as there are Radicals who will not accept coexistence with those who do not adopt their creed. I'd rather fight the battle in Iraq, Afghanistan or the Phillipines than in Kansas, Oregon or Detroit. It is my humble opinion that there is no escaping this conflict, only a choice of geography; President Bush chose to respond to the string of attacks dating from the '80's through the USS Cole attack and finally the attacks on 9/11 by taking the battle to somebodyelse's backyard. Is that fair? No it is not fair. Is it fair that the Israeli's are such an overwhelming miss-match when fighting the Palestinians? No it certainly is not, but it is a fact. When faced with mortal threats to my hearth and home, family and friends, political allies and opponents, I choose to support the use of overwhelming, swift and decisive force to move the fight elsewhere. I believe the Radical Muslims have demonstrated (and continue to demonstrate) they have no regard for our norms of decency (not shooting children in the back as they flee a burning school for example). I am accutely aware of the sad fact that an extremely small number of Radical folks are messing up the picnic for entire countries of innocent people, but once again, life isn't fair. If I can distract the bully with a fight in the alley instead of in the midst of the sunday school class, I'll meet him in the alley every time.

[jjwq8]

Much as my gut would love to see Chechnya turned into a glass parking lot, it could never be the right thing to do. Perhaps a little bit of Napoleonic slash and burn is called for, provided always that those who remain alive are made to feel that the policy is in their long term interest. Let's see Washington, London and Moscow spin that and get it right :uhh: