Obama reviewing ban on photos of coffins

Taking that as MEDIA 1

Update poll tally
Media:1
No Media:6
 
Perhaps as part of the "Emergency Data" the service member could have the opportunity to elect media access or deny media access. One check in the deny box and the media pounds sand. If they want to reveiw the policy that might be a good place to start.

My opinion is still no access because the media cannot be trusted.
 
Pseudo was a poor choice in wording, however, they are not AD compared to other military members...that is why I chose pseudo...they have made their committment, but their main military job right now is to attend school and gain the rank of 2nd lt. The chances of being called up AD to go to Afghanistan, Iraq or any hotbed to see action or risk is slim compared to somebody that is currently assigned to an operational base or post, yet they have willingly signed the paper that says take me, which is an amazing committment at a young age(let's face it 17-18 is young to be willing to die for your country). The SA's goal is to turn out amazing leaders, it is to prepare them to lead men and women in battle, but currently their job is to obtain those skills and not to implement them on a battlefield quite yet. I understand that they have military id cards, and they are afforded military rights, but at this time they are still cadets, not an officer. It was never meant as disrespecting a cadet. Let's also put that comment into the situation it was about... showing respect to a person, that is alive it is not about this topic...

so let's get BACK ON SUBJECT...

Media 2
No Media 7
 
Last edited:
Wow. JAM questions policy. Sec Def Gates expresses same concerns. Young officer questions JAMS opinions. Is he also questioning those of his superior, SecDef Gates? Heady stuff.

Oldgrad, SecDef isn't in everyone's chain of command....remember that. :thumb:
 
I'm sorry I missed this thread moving along. I agree, there is no right to privacy, nor is there "separation of church and state". In addition to that, our "rights" are based on protections against the government. That means, while there is an expectation of privacy between private citizens and the government, those "rights" are not established between private citizens (that may not have made any sense).

I agree with your second point.

Third point....not so easy. You CAN'T restrict access just because the press it using something in a way your rather them not do. They take pictures of caskets and then write an article "President sacrifices young for own agenda", good taste? No. Will the military cut them off? Heck no. The $%# storm that would follow would hurt more than a few careers.




There is no explicit right to privacy in the US Constitution. There is an implied right to privacy established by Supreme Court decisions based on the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments.

No, no, a thousand times no! The US Military rightly controls access to areas and personnel for the safety of all. To control access to spin a story is wrong, and I don't believe it is happening under the current rules.

Yes. Their service and the cost to the nation are real and should be celebrated. If a member of the media uses the images inappropriately, further restrict their access.

While I doubt it, giving the nation an opportunity to mourn is wholly appropriate. It is not something to be hidden away.

5. Do the media have the responsibilities to act and report fairly and humanely?
Yes!!! Do all? No.
 
LITS – Honestly, your comments in tone and content are quite hurtful. About me you said,
Do you think I am Anti-American? A Communist? I am old enough to be your mother. I would hope you would never use the same tone with own parents, parents of your friends or significant others. Of course you wouldn’t.

You and your buddies on this forum dismiss me (and others) because you don’t view us as legit. You don’t view anyone as legit if they have never served in the military. You do it to me and others. I have had several messages from other folks on this forum who have been driven away by the rudeness they have encountered here.

I am not sure what one has to do to be legit in your eyes. Pima once commented that dependents serve by being a dependent and enduring what goes with the service. If that is true then I served for 14 years, 9 different schools and 7 different homes in 5 states and one foreign country. I watched my father go to war and lived with that pain and uncertainty for a year. I will never be so presumtuous as to put myself in the shoes of a parent who loses a child to war.
Military service in my family goes back Bunker Hill. My grandmother sent all 5 of her sons off to combat including one who fought at the Battle of the Bulge and one who flew 187 combat missions in SE Asia. I have a brother, sister-in-law, aunts, uncles and cousins who have and are serving. My brother’s stepson fought in Afghanistan and Iraq (Fallujah). My daughter has chosen a military career and I support her in that choice. My opinion on the topic of this thread I said was mixed – I could see both sides. Roughly the same opinion as the Defense Secretary of the US and you don’t think my opinion benefits the Armed Forces?
If you would like to be more specific I would be happy to address my opinions.

You obviously think I posted the article to make some sort of political statement. Nothing could be further from the truth. I posted it because it is relevant, newsworthy and about the military. It caused me to pause and think. I thought about when/why the ban was instituted, back to the years before the ban (which you cannot remember). I read a lot. I read the news, other blogs and books to develop a sense of where we are as a country and how to move forward. I like to think of myself as open-minded and appreciate hearing all sides of an argument.
To those of you who think I am Anti-American or Anti-Military for daring to ask the question – perhaps you need to look inward.

ChristCorp – Read the links to the articles that I posted back on Post #33.


I am sorry I missed that entire thread until now. I'll address some of it, now that is has been brought up without a response from moderators.

I care very little for your family's military history going back 200 years. It's great that you have that history, but that history does not excuse your comments. I never said you were un-American or Communist, or even anti-Military. I do not think your opinions have the military's best interests in mind, but your opinions, as do all of ours, have little weight. I also think you'll figure that out once your daughter really starts serving (yes, anyone who has attended an academy understands they are "active duty", they carry the CAC cards to prove it. They also understand it doesn't amount to a hill of beans on in the "real" service of whatever branch they will soon be TRULY a part of). I also believe that MANY of the things you post are meant to be political. And finally, JAM, you are no mother of mine. I will give you the respect you have "earned".

Do I think the filming of caskets should be entirely off limits? No. Do I think it should be up to the families? Yes. I believe 100% of the families with returning remains on any returning plane, should have to agree for it to be allowed. If only 1 is not ok with it, no access. That's what I believe.
 
Agreed. A VERY poor choice of wording.



A word that MANY academy cadets and midshipman use to describe how their active duty service differs from those who are actually doing the job (and it does differ, not just in pay or leave days....many ways.
 
Sandman; (Ooo I kind of like that); there is nothing wrong with the word pseudo. Unfortunately, some people only read 1 possible definition. It is an acceptable definition to define academy or ROTC students who are training to be in the active duty.

As for you "Questioning" JAM, SED, or anyone else; you keep on questioning them. That is what I, the academy, and the military in general expects you to do. Again; another mis-interpretation where someone assigns meaning to what isn't there. I know you well enough to know that if your superior; all the way to the SED or president; was to give you an order or set policy; that you would follow such orders or policies. That doesn't mean you can't question them. We question EVERYTHING that we encounter everyday. That is how we "CHOOSE" what to do. Our military officers are NOT ROBOTS. They CHOOSE to follow orders and policies because they TRUST those over them that they are more aware of the "Big Picture". They also believe in honor and integrity. And they, their superiors, and their subordinates all trust each other. But questioning is human nature. Especially if it's something you don't agree or understand 100%. As far as questioning JAM; well you should. She has absolutely nothing to do with your military career or the security/defense of the country. Just like you should question me or anyone else on this forum or in your encounters. That's 2 different topics. Questioning a person on this forum and the SED shouldn't even be in the same sentence. They have nothing to do with each other.

Anyway; you continue questioning. Including your superiors. I trust you, that you understand the difference between questioning (To oneself or at the appropriate time to another) for the purpose of better understanding; and questioning believing that you won't make a decision to do or behave a certain way unless you make the actual final decision or agree 100% with the decisions or policies. I know you know the difference. Best of luck to you. Mike.....
 
Last edited:
Agreed.


My comment to Oldgrad is meant as a reminder....the Secretary of Defense is not in my chain of command, the Secretary of Homeland Security is, however.

I don't have a problem with either of them. SecDef's coin sits on my desk. I also respect MY superior, who is neither Oldgrad, nor JAM. :wink:
 
Since my poor choice of wording has put this thread off track, le's bring it back on with a new twist.

Cadets and candidates...you are the future of the military, many of you under President Obama will receive the oath and commission... personally how do you feel about the chance that your casket might be in the newspaper, with no caption about you, just your casket?

It is not something anybody would want to address or acknowledge...but it is reality in everybody's life...heck, statistically, the most dangerous job in the world is not military related...it is a taxi cab driver. SO you all are going to give 9 yrs, you are mature enough to dedicate your life for that time...what is your desire.

I am re-starting the media/non media count...only cadets/candidates or AD should put their opinion...b/c they are the ones that publicly will never voice their opinion, they will just accept what is the reg.

DS since I am unsure if you are still AD...I am putting you in the AD...if you aren't remove your name

Media: 0
No Media :2
 
Luigi...you are right that there is a chance that nobody knows, but than if you are defending the reason for the pic as to honor that member, shouldn't they acknowledge who is in the casket? Otherwise, it is a picture of a casket that IMHO is being used as a political agenda and not to honor or acknowledge the military members life.
 
I would rather have a photo provided by my family used than my casket being photographed by journalists.

Personally, I think that a photograph of a casket is insensitive sometimes. I want to be remembered as a person, not an object. If they are going to report on someone, they should show the person.
 
Sorry to take this off topic, but it's the only way. Accept my apology.

JAM; I tried to PM you, but it came back saying your PM box is full and you can't accept any new PM's until you delete some. Didn't want you to think I ignored you.

Thx for letting me jump off for a second.
 
Packer...lesson for every single military member, please discuss your wishes with your parent...it will never be easy, but it is important. The shock and loss are bad enough, comfort will occur for them when they believe that they are following your decisions.
 
Back
Top