Obama reviewing ban on photos of coffins

It is also important for them to realize that the 100,000 other service members of their branch will not view them as "active duty" even though they in fact are. A cadet/midshipman is looking for some pain if they attempt to make that argument to the first Chief or Msgt. they run into. You know this Oldgrad.


As for the chain of command question, we're talking joint commands, and where talking operational chain of commands.

It's not called lazy when you're ignoring the past 219 years, that's called ignorance.
 
oldgrad; are you ALWAYS such a negative person? Sorry, but that might be part of my problem. I don't do well with negativity.

Of course every single cadet knows that they are part of the military. But you blanket statement about they AREN'T in a COLLEGE; and that they ARE in the MILITARY and that the needs of the MILITARY are paramount; etc...... Sorry; but that is NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

This is a quite SIMPLE CONCEPT. We can debate C2C/C1C year; but their first two years, they are FREE TO GO any time they want. In the "REAL" military; whether it's AFTER graduation, ROTC grad, OTS, Enlisted, etc... there is no just changing your mind and leaving like you can the first 2 years of the academy.

And using the word pseudo is NOT in any way inaccurate or demeaning to the cadets. While it is true that SOME DEFINITIONS of the word pseudo means pretending, false, and lying; as with ALL WORDS, there are more than one used and accepted meaning. Another dictionary meaning; and one I THINK IS PROBABLY MEANT AND USED MORE OFTEN IS: (almost, approaching, or trying to be.) An that is exactly what the academy is in relationship to those who are in the rank of E-1 through O-10. Matter of fact, the word pseudo could apply equally to ROTC. And while we're at it, PSEUDO, being it is a PREFIX, is totally dependent on the subject noun that it is referring to. I.e. A minor league baseball player could be considered a Psuedo-Professional baseball player. He's a pro because he is getting paid; but a pseudo when COMPARING HIM TO THE OTHER PRO who is a member of the MLB and one of the active teams in the schedule.

Sorry; but I try to stay positive. I try to find the good in that which is around me. I don't do well with negativity. I knew exactly; and probably 99 % of all other readers; what the word "PSEUDO" referred to. It was NOT a bad choice of words. I think it was just a BAD CHOICE OF INTERPRETATION. The sad part is that this part of the discussion was ended and dropped a number of days again. But you brought it up again. Maybe we can let this rest. The word pseudo is a word up for interpretation. The poster defined their meaning to the word. According to the dictionary, the poster's meaning is a legitimate meaning and can apply depending on the context. So let it drop.
 
Line In The Sand said:
It is also important for them to realize that the 100,000 other service members of their branch will not view them as "active duty" even though they in fact are. A cadet/midshipman is looking for some pain if they attempt to make that argument to the first Chief or Msgt. they run into.
Click to expand...



Perhaps I was too succinct. My concern is not with what will happen after they are sworn in. The system will take care of itself. The cadets and midshipmen will learn their place in the hierarchy of things. My concern is the candidate, the candidate sitting at home right now, the candidate with no military background, the candidate getting ready to make a decision. It is this individual and his family that must realize that they are entering the real military, not some extended summer camp. Since none, or perhaps an insignificant few, are really entering with the “give it two years” attitude expounded by Christcorp, his views, in relation to my concerns, are irrelevant.

However, at the risk of sounding negative, perhaps now, just prior to spring break, might be the time to remind cadets and midshipmen that they are active duty, prior to their packing the speedos, cowboy hats, and boots.



LineInTheSand said:
As for the chain of command question, we're talking joint commands, and where talking operational chain of commands.

It's not called lazy when you're ignoring the past 219 years, that's called ignorance.
Click to expand...



Since I have not had the opportunity of working with the new unified commands, ignorance is debatable. Any research on my part would not be commensurate with actual experience, I was actually deferring to your expertise.




“the past 219 years” wasn’t working which is why the unified commands were developed. After 9/11, a Northern Command was established to defend the United States. It is also responsible for drug interdiction. The unified commanders, I think, at least in theory, report directly to the Sec Def.



Therefore, my question is whether or not USCG operational units are under the unified command umbrella and, if so, does that not mean that at least parts of the CG work routinely under SecDef, at least operationally?

Christcorp said:
oldgrad; are you ALWAYS such a negative person? Sorry, but that might be part of my problem. I don't do well with negativity.
Click to expand...

I think my definition of negative is somewhat different than that which was used for the above 'observation'.
 
Last edited:
219 years is referring to where the USCG has falled under, with regards to Departments.

Your statement about unified commands is fairly accurate.
 
What is that Godfather movie line...Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in again!

My concern is the candidate, the candidate sitting at home right now, the candidate with no military background, the candidate getting ready to make a decision. It is this individual and his family that must realize that they are entering the real military, not some extended summer camp. Since none, or perhaps an insignificant few, are really entering with the “give it two years” attitude expounded by Christcorp, his views, in relation to my concerns, are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I have already stated it was a poor choicce in words, however, I am not backing down from the premise behind the statement. I get the fact that there are non-military families determining whether or not to join the military is a right fit for their child. We are talking about kids that are still in HS. To me this is parsing words to make a point that was never intended. The point that I intended to make and will reiterate, is that they are attending the Academy, the fact that they are at a military academy does not put them on the same footing as the 18 yr old enlisted member currently serving in an operational situation. They have determined to make the military for at least the next 9 yrs their priority. I respect that, I honor that committment, however, let's also acknowledge that the chances of being sent to Iraq as a cadet is lower than me winning the powerball lottery!


However, at the risk of sounding negative, perhaps now, just prior to spring break, might be the time to remind cadets and midshipmen that they are active duty, prior to their packing the speedos, cowboy hats, and boots for spring break.
Click to expand...
Of course they are and just like the 18 yr old enlisted personnel on leave, some will do stupid things, but you summed it up in 2 words SPRING BREAK...no AD member calls it that, only college kids do!

They are kids with a military committment. If we want to assist families in this decision making process that have no military background, shouldn't we also allow them to remove the fear that for the next 4 yrs, unless another WW breaks out like WWII, their child will be required to live within the confines of military law, but at the same time they do not need to worry about their child coming home in a casket over summer break.

Pseudo was meant in those terms...break a law (rape, selling drugs, stealing, etc) your child will go to Ft Leavenworth because they will be tried in a military court, however, they are protected and most likely will not be called up to AD service while at the SA.

Finally, according to Merriam-Webster the definiton for pseudo is:
being apparently rather than actually as stated
Click to expand...
or
outwardly similiar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities
Click to expand...

When a cadet shows up on I-day and takes an oath they will adhere to the UMCJ, however, for 2 yrs they can leave without penalization...thus, they are similiar, now find me the 18 yr old who goes through boot camp that gets a 2 yr pass to walk away without repercussions (AWOL quickly comes to mind), which means the cadet does not have the same genuine qualities that the AD member of the same age.

I truly hope that this finally puts to rest that I did not intend for it to be derragotory or insulting. I was only intending to state that as parents of a cadet our children will not be in harms way for several yrs and although we acknowledge their committment to our country, they are not living in the same parameters as the 18 yr old enlisted that is currently in serving in any branch of the Armed Forces
 
Last edited:
just prior to spring break, might be the time to remind cadets and midshipmen that they are active duty, prior to their packing the speedos, cowboy hats, and boots.
Click to expand...

Surely you jest. You may correctly qualify that statement by removing "cadets". :wink:
 
JUST ANNOUNCED.

The Bush policy was reversed, however families will have the right not to allow the coffin to be photographed. I am very happy that the DOD came to this decision, it is the best option,
 
so there are 5 caskets coming home... the media starts to film...
they have no idea who is in them....

then 4 notified families SAY NO FILMING....

The media keeps filming the other one, and maybe the other four in the background.........

it isnt a win..... Its still the media duing what they want.. :frown: cause they now have the president's permission
 
J Collins said:
so there are 5 caskets coming home... the media starts to film...
they have no idea who is in them....

then 4 notified families SAY NO FILMING....

The media keeps filming the other one, and maybe the other four in the background.........

it isnt a win..... Its still the media duing what they want.. :frown: cause they now have the president's permission
Click to expand...

How do you know this is what will happen? Maybe it will be the opposite, if one family out of the five says no, then there will be no filming. I would like to wait and see what the policy really says before jumping to conclusions.
 
Without Bush, media lose interest in war caskets
By: BYRON YORK
Chief Political Correspondent
September 29, 2009

Remember the controversy over the Pentagon policy of not allowing the press to take pictures of the flag-draped caskets of American war dead as they arrived in the United States? Critics accused President Bush of trying to hide the terrible human cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"These young men and women are heroes," Vice President Biden said in 2004, when he was senator from Delaware. "The idea that they are essentially snuck back into the country under the cover of night so no one can see that their casket has arrived, I just think is wrong."

In April of this year, the Obama administration lifted the press ban, which had been in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Media outlets rushed to cover the first arrival of a fallen U.S. serviceman, and many photographers came back for the second arrival, and then the third.

But after that, the impassioned advocates of showing the true human cost of war grew tired of the story. Fewer and fewer photographers showed up. "It's really fallen off," says Lt. Joe Winter, spokesman for the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations Center at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where all war dead are received. "The flurry of interest has subsided."

That's an understatement. When the casket bearing Air Force Tech. Sgt. Phillip Myers, of Hopewell, Va., arrived at Dover the night of April 5 -- the first arrival in which press coverage was allowed -- there were representatives of 35 media outlets on hand to cover the story. Two days later, when the body of Army Spc. Israel Candelaria Mejias, of San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico, arrived, 17 media outlets were there. (All the figures here were provided by the Mortuary Affairs Operations Center.) On subsequent days in April, there were nearly a dozen press organizations on hand to cover arrivals.

Fast forward to today. On Sept. 2, when the casket bearing the body of Marine Lance Cpl. David Hall, of Elyria, Ohio, arrived at Dover, there was just one news outlet -- the Associated Press -- there to record it. The situation was pretty much the same when caskets arrived on Sept. 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23 and 26. There has been no television coverage at all in September.

The media can cover arrivals only when the family gives its permission. In all the examples above, the families approved, which is more often than not the case; since the policy was changed, according to the Mortuary Affairs Office, 60 percent of families have said yes to full media coverage.

But these days, the press hordes that once descended on Dover are gone, and there's usually just one organization on hand. The Associated Press, which supplies photos to 1,500 U.S. newspapers and 4,000 Web sites, has had a photographer at every arrival for which permission was granted. "It's our belief that this is important, that surely somewhere there is a paper, an audience, a readership, a family and a community for whom this homecoming is indeed news," says Paul Colford, director of media relations for AP. "It's been agreed internally that this is a responsibility for the AP to be there each and every time it is welcome."

Colford says the AP has a photographer who lives within driving distance of Dover and is able to make it to the arrivals, no matter what time of day or night. As for the network news, it's not so simple; a night arrival means overtime pay for a union camera crew. And then there's the question of convenience. "It seems that if the weather is nice, and it's during the day, we get a higher level of media to come down," says Lt. Winter. "But a majority of our transfers occur in the early evening and overnight."

So far this month, 38 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan. For all of 2009, the number is 220 -- more than any other single year and more than died in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 combined.

With casualties mounting, the debate over U.S. policy in Afghanistan is sharp and heated. The number of arrivals at Dover is increasing. But the journalists who once clamored to show the true human cost of war are nowhere to be found.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...interest-in-war-caskets-8310113-62427012.html
 
tpg:
reading the previous 19 pages of posts was similar to a ringside seat at a pro wrestling event.

The lifting of the photo ban served the current administration well.
1. It showed again how short the attention span of the average American is.

2. It showed that the president is not afraid to make tough decision's in regard to the Iraq/Afghanistan war, doesn't look like he will take any chances by making a second decision

3. He has trivialized the deaths of service members by showing their coffins every day so now the public does not even notice.

4. He the president will be able to display mock horror of the daily photos(with the assist from the media) as his reason for ending all combat operations in the Afghanistan/Iraq war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top