Obama reviewing ban on photos of coffins

[Luigi59]

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 cannot see how anyone would be able to identify a particular service member's casket, therefore I cannot see any invasion of privacy.

Yes, pictures of anonymous military caskets covered with American flags could be used by those with a political agenda against a war, as the American public has an extreme distaste for being reminded that people die in war.

But the absence of these pictures also can be used as a political agenda, such as "out of sight, out of mind" in an unpopular war. Hiding the dead can go a long way in convincing the public that any war is "worth it."

I think there can be some middle ground in this debate. The filming or photographing of American war dead, draped in the flag as they are solemnly removed from the aircraft with a full military honor guard, is a deeply moving site to see. I believe that "the media" would show the appropriate respect.

But even if they didn't, it still needs to be shown. When the Govt begins to control the media, controlling what they can and cannot report, approving or disapproving of what the American people are allowed to see, we begin to slide down a very slippery slope.

 

[oldgrad]

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.

Insiders may say things that outsiders have no right to say.

They have raised their right hand, been issued a green ID card, signed away their personal rights, however are only in training, so they are pseudo military? Since no one learns infantry tactics, how to fly an airplane, drive a tank, or sail a ship in civilian life, I guess while we train people to do these things, they are also pseudo military, since they are only in training. Heck, 90% of military life is nothing but training so, the logical conclusion would be that only those out there on the front lines actually engaging the enemy are in the real military. Heck, support people and those behind the lines sharpening pencils and such in the Pentagon are especially not even real military. Once one commences rating service, no telling where it would end.

Instead of attempting to defend Pima, why don't you just accept her correct explanation that it was a poor choice of words?

 

[zfam]

HBO is releasing a movie later this month (Sat, Feb 21, 8pm), based on a true story, on this very topic.
http://www.hbo.com/films/takingchance/

Packermatt7, I agree with your sentiments. Celebrate the life they lived.

My vote is no media.

 

[oldgrad]

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.

Been a few years since I looked at the organizational charts but are there not situations that CG units fall under the Navy, at least operationally?

I also respect MY superior, who is neither Oldgrad, nor JAM.

Only speaking for myself in that I am very thankful this is true.

 

[flyersboy114]

No media

I was away from the computer for awhile and missed alot. so thats all i have to say

 

[kp2001]

Enough is Enough

I am not going to place any specific names in this post; however, I have simply been irked by this thread on many occasions and I have had enough of it.

If you cannot write your post without using the word 'you' or someone's specific username then don't post it. If you are responding to someone's comments you can do so without making it personal. It is very easy to write your views without bringing other people into the post.

From now on, every time I come in this thread I will be looking at the posts and will be editing them based on the above comment. If you want your post to remain unedited then don't 'call anyone out' or poke anyone's buttons. If you don't like the method I will use in this thread then don't post in it.

My other option is to simply close the thread; however, I think there are still some valid points being discussed and so I would like to avoid that. I will leave what is written up to this point; if you want to take a point up with someone in a more personal matter then please use the PM function.

-Your friendly supermod

 

[hornetguy]

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.

Insiders may say things that outsiders have no right to say.

They have raised their right hand, been issued a green ID card, signed away their personal rights, however are only in training, so they are pseudo military? Since no one learns infantry tactics, how to fly an airplane, drive a tank, or sail a ship in civilian life, I guess while we train people to do these things, they are also pseudo military, since they are only in training. Heck, 90% of military life is nothing but training so, the logical conclusion would be that only those out there on the front lines actually engaging the enemy are in the real military. Heck, support people and those behind the lines sharpening pencils and such in the Pentagon are especially not even real military. Once one commences rating service, no telling where it would end.

Instead of attempting to defend Pima, why don't you just accept her correct explanation that it was a poor choice of words?

I will defend Pima's point. We, at USAFA, call everywhere else the "real Air Force" mainly because most of us have not been on active duty in units other than the Cadet Wing and all parties in the Cadet wing (enlisted and officers) agree with our sentiment that active duty on the other side of the gates is very different from life as a cadet (or midshipman). Most of us don't treat our job as unworthy or anything along those lines, but recognize that our job is different from most others on active duty. Places like the Squadron Officer School or War colleges have officers that have been in non-cadets units performing duties, so they have a different skill set to draw upon. The academies are, in general, a training environment for how to be an officer, which makes the analogy that all other training is the same as ours (to become an officer). It is not. We are taught the skills of other active duty members and those are recognized as skills we need, the "leadership lab" that we are in we look at differently.

 

[kaullman]

The Fleet

We, at USAFA, call everywhere else the "real Air Force"

While going through Navy ROTC, initial Surface warfare training, and subsequent tours at every Navy training command, it was quite common to refer to "The Fleet," that rest of the Navy that is out there doing it. Many of my USMC buds referred to "FMF," (Fleet Marine Force) in a similar manner.

Sorry, guess that's a detour, Return to your regular scheduled programming!

 

[LineInTheSand]

Been a few years since I looked at the organizational charts but are there not situations that CG units fall under the Navy, at least operationally?



Only speaking for myself in that I am very thankful this is true.

Well August 4, 1790 through 1967 the U.S. Coast Guard was in the Dept of the Treasury, 1967 through 2003 under the Dept of Transportation, and since Dept of Homeland Security.

During declared warm, by executive order of the President, the Coast Guard CAN call under the Dept of the Navy...but this hasn't happened since WWII...

 

[LineInTheSand]

We, at USAFA, call everywhere else the "real Air Force"

While going through Navy ROTC, initial Surface warfare training, and subsequent tours at every Navy training command, it was quite common to refer to "The Fleet," that rest of the Navy that is out there doing it. Many of my USMC buds referred to "FMF," (Fleet Marine Force) in a similar manner.

Sorry, guess that's a detour, Return to your regular scheduled programming!

Ha, also called it the Fleet.

 

[unitedstatesAFA2013]

Back to the Originial topic:

I'm pretty sure that when they mean "pictures of caskets" they don't mean open caskets, they mean closed caskets with a flag on top of every single one of them, right? This isn't an invasion of privacy in my opinion. As someone who will hopefully be part of the US Military, I'll also, technically, be "U.S Property" and the public has every right to keep a tab of our government and what it does. That's their right.

Now, the only reason why Bush would put a ban would be because the "liberal" media was using the pictures to show that the war was killing too many of our men and women, and obviously it was bad publicity. Bad publicity like how we learned to kept torturing a secret (or at least tried).

I think we, as a nation, need these pictures so that we can show the future what we were involved in. It is obviously part of American History that we went into the Middle East, and there should be more documentation of the casualties of that decision.

 

[SemperExcelsius]

Back to the Originial topic:

I'm pretty sure that when they mean "pictures of caskets" they don't mean open caskets, they mean closed caskets with a flag on top of every single one of them, right? This isn't an invasion of privacy in my opinion. As someone who will hopefully be part of the US Military, I'll also, technically, be "U.S Property" and the public has every right to keep a tab of our government and what it does. That's their right.

I agree... Except for one thing which I think was mentioned earlier. Yes when we join the military part of us belongs to Uncle Sam, but the problem with the media is that they take the caskets and objectify them. They take the caskets and feed them to the people for hype. They seem to care nothing about the veterans, just about the caskets.

A list of names may not have the same emotional affect on the citizens as a plane load of caskets, but when people only see the dead coming out of airplanes, they forget the thousands that are still alive serving to protect THEIR freedom.

 

[oldgrad]

I will defend Pima's point.

service differs from those who are actually doing the job

Okay, to summarize, tongue firmly implanted in cheek, certain AFA and CGA cadets do not feel that 'students' matriculating on their campuses are a part of the active duty military.

Back on track.
_____

 

[bruno]

I cannot see how anyone would be able to identify a particular service member's casket, therefore I cannot see any invasion of privacy.

Yes, pictures of anonymous military caskets covered with American flags could be used by those with a political agenda against a war, as the American public has an extreme distaste for being reminded that people die in war.

But the absence of these pictures also can be used as a political agenda, such as "out of sight, out of mind" in an unpopular war. Hiding the dead can go a long way in convincing the public that any war is "worth it."

I think there can be some middle ground in this debate. The filming or photographing of American war dead, draped in the flag as they are solemnly removed from the aircraft with a full military honor guard, is a deeply moving site to see. I believe that "the media" would show the appropriate respect.

But even if they didn't, it still needs to be shown. When the Govt begins to control the media, controlling what they can and cannot report, approving or disapproving of what the American people are allowed to see, we begin to slide down a very slippery slope.

Luigi - this summarized the issue about as well as can be done- thanks for this very articulate post. While I would have real problems with these guys camping out on the lawn at Arlington while my child is laid to rest- a time when I believe that there is certainly an expectation of privacy, there is a significant difference between the funeral services and the return of coffins into Dover (or wherever these days) and the press has a right to cover that -regardless of whether they or someone else will use those images as propaganda for or against the war. Freedom of speech is pretty much the bedrock for all of our other constitutional guarantees and restraining it is indeed a slippery slope that may start with very good intentions and turn to something else very quickly.

 

[LineInTheSand]

To say that people will only believe the causalties because of these pictures is hoping for too much (death camps were well documented during/after WWII, and STILL SOME have doubts ).

First the military already allows for inbedded journalists (which of course carries with it, it's own set of "problems"), so they understand the toll and they struggled.

I cannot see how this is different from having 50 reporters/photographers from standing around your mother or father's casket and firing off shots before a closed funeral that you would rather mourn at.

The absence of casket photos have made people forget the past 7 years, I'm sorry, but that won't change for the next few either. This is about people wanting to "SEE", not about people wanting to remember. It's a gross love of pain, wanting to see the Princess Di crash instead of just visiting the grave site, or watching the public funeral.

 

[Bullet]

I have avoided posting on this particular thread, mostly because I've seen how easily poeple have been agitated over the responses, and quiet frankly I've been sitting on the fence about the issue, not leaning one particular way over the other (despite wha Pima may have voted for me. Talk about CINC-House!). But after careful consideration, I just want to add my 0.000376 cents (about what my retirement account is worth these days. ) about the reaction to several of the posts on here, and some of the view points (and KP, I promise to try not to use the "y" word! I personally like to substitute "personal pronoun in the second person", or "PPITSP" for short! )

First off, I always felt that internet forum conversations run a risk of getting people worked up over what is said, because part of the equation of standard human interaction is missing: being able to hear and imply HOW the person is saying it. Let's face it, "PPITSP" can't type out inflection in "PPITSPP" ("personal pronoun in the second person posessive") posts. (and I'll stop with the silly humor on that particular topic before people get insulted at my poor attempts at lightening up the situation. Again, INFLECTION adds to communication). On a forum, people tend to see what they want to see about a person's post, based on their general feeling on that particular person. ("Look what you said here! How dare you", "That's not how I MEANT it! You're taking my posts the wrong way!" and on and on and on...) Personal recommendation: read the post. Read it again. THINK about what they said,and how you will respond basing your conversation as if the person was right in front of you. Write your response. Re-read what you are responding to AGAIN. Re-read YOUR response again. And if you feel comfortable with what your saying, hit the "submit reply" button. And I'll be the first to admit that emotions have sometimes gotten the better of me and I've ignored my own advice. Sigh....

Now, as to Pima's "Psuedo military" comment. A good example of this. Not meant in dis-respect on her part, but I IMMEDIATELY told her that it was a VERY POOR choice of words on her part, and could (and should) be taken as insulting. (Brave on my part. I mean I have to live with her! I saw my "honey-do" list growing as we talked, and my time in the dog-house growing to the point that I would wear out my welcome on the part of the family pets). But I did get her to see my point. And she admitted her mistake on here with a sincere apology (something many on here have refused to do in similar situations). We consider the situation closed--we hope the rest of you can as well, no matter if you understand what she was trying to say, or you don't.

Now, on to the OP: Good points by all involved, and I think ChristCorp summed it up nicely for one side of the fence, and Luigi did the same for the other. And both posts did that without getting overly "agitated". I'm still sitting on the fence, however. I worry that the use of the image of caskets rolling off the back of a C-17 at Dover will be use for an "agenda", which I find abhorrent and distasteful. I also worry that a Government using mass media to control their own agenda and unafraid of it's populace can ride that slippery slope to areas we'd rather not go down. Personally, I would like to see comprimise: if a family is there at Dover to meet their loved one for the first time returning from that "last full measure of devotion", they deserve the right to handle that emotional situation and begin the grieving in private. If they allow cameras to be there and the deceased SPECIFIED they would allow this in some method beforehand, that is perfectly acceptable to me. No family there, film away! (but I WILL be watching how you use the footage, and if it's done distastefully, I won't be watching you any more, or buying products from the companies who advertise on you.)

For me, I kinda specified I wanted a parade on the scale of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day one, complete with the cheerleaders from every NFL team (with their uniforms done in black and with black pom-poms, to keep with the dignified attitude of the situation), to meet me at the end of the C-17 ramp. But that's just me. I'm not so sure Pima would have gone along with the New Orleans style funeral procession however...

But there is one area being posted here that I'm still having trouble with. The arguement that this all comes to freedom of the press and freedom of speech. I get VERY uncomfortable with the arguement used by the same folks who find it perfectly acceptable, and within their constitutional rights, to loudly protest military funerals all in the name of their perverted distortion of religion. Do have HAVE the right? Certainly, and I've spent my adult life defending that right. Does it MAKE it right? Well, I'll let you all decide on that one...

So, to end this manifesto. I have to say you need to take one of the Against Media count, and add a new category: "Depends"....

And I'm spent....

 

[unitedstatesAFA2013]

Bullet, completely agree with you: It depends.

LITS, you can't say that because a few people think that death camps were a conspiracy and that 6 mil Jews never died doesn't mean that 90% of the rest of the world doesn't know better than that. There are also people who are "undecided voters" up till now and don't know who they could have chosen for last year's election. I have intense feelings for both groups.

Anyway, I think those that are affected by what the media portrays have serious issues. There is ALWAYS going to be a group of people that will say something you don't want to hear. If you're smart enough, you will look past the bias of the media (or whoever else is saying it) and manage your own conclusions. If you're one of those people that takes pictures of caskets seriously and reverently, then that's your thing. Others don't understand why these people died, or how they affected you, and perhaps they'll never know. But you're going to have to live with it. Not everyone will see your views, so we shouldn't have to impose those views on everyone else. This is why the constitution was made so broadly and why the media has the RIGHT to fight it. Whether we agree or not.

One day I will be a parent (if I don't end up in a casket before then) and I will want my kids getting their knowledge from all view points and making their own decisions off of that. I don't want us to silence the media and have information that would otherwise belong to us blocked off by the government or any other agency.

(nobody should get offended, I used "you" in a general sense)

 

[Christcorp]

I think there was a concern of mine that was being lost in all the emotions and debate. The actual picture of a casket on the news or in a newspaper; I DON'T have a problem with. As said by others, there is anonymity and the actual military member is not known. Thus the privacy. Yes, I do have a problem with the spin the media PROBABLY will put on the story for their own agenda. But that is part of freedom of speech and we have to deal with that separately.

The biggest problem I have, and if you go back to my posts and analogies you will probably say; yea, I see his point now. (Whether you agree or not). If that many times when military remains are being returned home through Dover, McGuire, Andrews, Travis, or wherever in the country; there is a good chance that one or more of the deceased member's families will be present as the coffins/caskets are taken off of the plane or in the staging area of the hanger. It is at THIS TIME that I have a problem with the media. They have no business being there while family members are at their MOST distraught and emotional time. The military can give out a press pack with pictures. They can use STOCK photos. They use stock photos for a lot of things. Don't most coffins look the same? Anyway; it the actual BEING there while the family member is there. That is simply wrong. Sorry, but that is NOT something someone is going to change my mind on. Some might think I am closed minded or such. That's fine. I DON'T CARE. This is something that I have seen and been present for more than once. I have seen the family members there with the coffins coming off the plane. I've seen them in the hangar with the caskets lined up. Sorry, but I really feel strong that the media doesn't need to be there while the family members are there. Not unless they get consent from each next of kin for all the deceased members.

They can post pictures of coffins if they want to. Use stock photos, let the military issue a press pack with photos in it. There's a lot of options. They just don't need to be taking the photos during what SHOULD be a private event. Funerals, processions, and memorial services are generally public events. This is a great time for the media to help bring the military member into America's homes so everyone can show respect. Of course they WON'T. The only media for a military member will be their local home town media. Unless a ceremony is done nationally for all of them. Anyway; just wanted to clarify my position. It's not the picture of the casket. It's that the media is there initially when it should be a private time for the family. Let's be honest. ALL military coffins look the same. They can use stock photos and never have to disturb the family.

Why do they have to take pictures of that particular coffin? Because they are HOPING to get family members, the grief, and other means of sensationalizing their story to get more readership/viewership. News and Journalism as it USE TO MEAN is dead. They DON'T care about truth or the American people or nationalism. They care about sensationalism. They care about sell MORE papers than the other team. Having MORE people watch their news channel that the other team. That's what this is all about. You didn't use to have to tell the media what they could or couldn't do. MOST times they were human beings first, neutral news reporting second. No, they can write their stories and post all the pictures of coffins they want. And during any PUBLIC ceremony, they are free to snap away. But they shouldn't be permitted during private reunions between the deceased and the family members. They can use stock photos and make their point without exploited the military member, family member, or military for their own agenda. Which has NOTHING to do with truth. (Mike, are you saying you don't TRUST the media to tell the truth?) That is exactly what I'm saying. Fortunately, I feel that I am capable of watching/reading NUMEROUS news sources and finding the truth between them all. Many people don't. They are hard core CNN, MSNBC, or FOX viewers. They only see 1 side. Anyway, that's a different topic.

 

[NativeTexan]

Good information and arguments above. As I read the last one I would like explore one the idea of using stock footage/images. If we allow the Military to release the images which they control, Is the Government in essence controlling the media? Will that not add more credibility to the notion / appearance of spinning the story?

Many view the media as the problem, maybe it is two fold. Quite possibly there are two agenda's going on at the same time. One spinning the story as to keep the fact that we are at war out of view and another that spins the story to appear like the WH or Military has things to hide. Neither are probably correct but unfortunately we have become a nation that only sees things in black and white - my way or the "other way" if you will. Compromise does not have to be selling out on your core beliefs. Have faith in America. We have faith in our Military, sometimes that faith is shattered but most of the time not. Have faith in the media, if it lets you down, find another source to get your information. I am an optimist, if the media is allowed coverage, until proven otherwise, have faith that they will act responsibly. If they do not, then pull the plug. Let the media control their own future. If you are given enough rope we know what can happen.

Personally, I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other, so like the election I am undecided.

 

[Christcorp]

Texan; I understand what you're saying. But there's a big difference between pictures of coffins (Which all look the same) and having embedded journalists or other stories/topics. I would really like a news agency to tell me WHY they need to have current/actual pictures of coffins coming off of a plane or in a staging area for an article/newscast they are going to produce; instead of using stock photos or stock videos???? I've seen a lot of military caskets/coffins; they all look pretty much the same. We're not talking about the military providing the media with "THE STORY THEY MUST PRINT". We're talking about providing pictures that the media requests; if they don't have stock footage in their archives. I don't see the government being able to spin anything by providing the pictures the media wants.

The ONLY REASON; and I would need a media reporter/representative to dispute this; that I can possibly believe that the media would want LIVE, ACCURATE, and IMMEDIATE photos/video footage of the ACTUAL caskets/coffins is in their HOPE that they will get lucky and be able to film/photo the reactions of a family member so they can sensationalize the story they are going to print. Remember; this topic is about the pictures. (Assuming video also). The story will be written by the reporter no matter what. WHY do they need these immediate photos/video???? Sorry, but except for the family members who are grieving right there, there is absolutely nothing different between the picture of that coffin and the one from the last flight.