Obama reviewing ban on photos of coffins

[kaullman]

A Former Casualty Assistance Calls Officer Weighs In

1. Do families have a right to privacy (with regards to media)

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.

2. Should the media be able to go anywhere and film anything in the name of "freedom of the press".

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.

3. Do we honor fallen service members by filming their caskets?

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.

4. Do service members want to be remembered a caskets on a plane in the eye of the public?

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.

 

[oldgrad]

which you seem to agree with JAM that that is the reason for it; then please provide such proof and we can discuss it. But a "theory" is not enough to go about debating change for. The proof lyes with you. Not me.

We have two equal opposing 'theories' here. One is that the purpose of the ban is to protect the privacy of the families. The other is that it was done to 'sanatize' the war to the American public. I was just pointing out that, since they are both opinions, neither side should demand proof of the other without being able to provide their own.

 

[Christcorp]

I guess we have to disagree. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt. I am not a conspiracy theorist. When the speed limits on interstates moved from 55 to 75; was that because the people wanted it, or did the government only do it because they knew it would reduce gas efficiency and therefor give MORE MONEY to the oil companies? Did the founding fathers design the electoral college to provide an electoral process that was more efficient and so that candidates wouldn't just concentrate on the urban/populated areas and receive enough popular votes to win and isolated a large portion of the country; or did they do it as a means of manipulating the outcome of an election for their own benefit? Sorry, but there's no opposing theories here. I don't consider conspiracy, a theory. Having said that; if I find misuse or misappropriate behavior; I am one of the first to get on their butts.

The accepted reason, whether you accept it or not doesn't matter; as provided by the government, is that it prevents the media from exploiting fallen military members to sensationalize their agenda or for political reasons. And as such, a way to maintain respect and proper decorum for the military member and their family. As I said, if you have proof otherwise, we can chat. If not, then this is the last comment I will have to you on this subject.

As for the subject at hand; there are a lot of ways for the media to present their story without pictures of coffins. They can use stock footage of arlington cemetery. Photos of the individual military members in uniform. Photos provided by the family. (Wow, what a concept. Dear Mrs. Smith. We'd like to print an article on your husband and the sacrifice he made for our country. Do you have a picture that you'd PREFER we use in our article). Instead, they want to use only pictures that sensationalize. The media has lost most of it's integrity. Shock jocks, Shock radio, is becoming the norm. Newpapers and such have the same agenda.

No, there isn't 1 reason in the world that the media needs to be there in person to take pictures of coffins. Even if the family authorizes such pictures be printed, the media doesn't have to be there when it's the family receiving their fallen loved one. They can get pictures provided by the military. They can attend a PUBLIC ceremony/funeral/procession/etc... These are just examples. The point is, there are way too many options to protect the right of free speech for the media, and maintaining respect for the family and honor for the fallen military member. Seeing on tv or in a newspaper, coffins coming off of a plane, is not honoring or showing respect to a military member. Attending the funeral, attending a memorial service, printing an article or broadcasting a special on the life and sacrifice of the military; these are ways for the American people to show respect and to honor those who dies for them. People use words like "mourning" interchangeably. A complete stranger in Utah is not mourning a fallen soldier in a casket coming off of an airplane. They don't even know who that soldier is. That is nothing more than a driver slowing down on the highway to SEE an accident. They aren't slowing down for "SAFETY" reasons. They are slowing down because they are naturally curious. The media knows this. That's why they print such pictures. Not to be informative. They do it because they know the readers with LOOK at it. And the more sensational they can make it, the more people will want to see it.

There's a time and place for everything. Caskets coming off of an airplane or in a staging hanger, is not the time and place for the media. That's the time for the military to properly and honorably process the fallen military member. It's the time for a family member to be able to come to terms and bring home their loved one. I'm all for the media having pictures, writing articles, freedom of speech, etc... But that right does not trump the family. Freedom of speech has a lot of restrictions. This is one time where it needs to be restricted. Appropriately. Again, if the family is OK with it, fine. If the military has a press package with pictures, fine. There's too many options other than a reporter on sight uninvited.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

LITS – Honestly, your comments in tone and content are quite hurtful. About me you said,

“personnaly I just don't think your opinions benefit the U.S. Armed Forces. ”

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.

 

[Christcorp]

I did read them. I even re-read them. I still stand by my comments and position.

 

[Pima]

Back on point here...and please don't drag me into this arguement.

I personally asked for someone to explain/defend that seeing the casket in a pic is honoring them, I am not talking about a love one electing to allow the media and people looking at the pic. I am asking for those people who feel it honors that person how is it actually honoring them in your mind.

I do not mean that in any negative tone...I am asking to understand why someone would support it and not see it as a political agenda.

Also let's remember LITS right now is defending everybody's right to have this arguement. He deserves that respect. You might not choose to agree with him, but let's give him the honor we would expect from our children, who are in the pseudo-military.

I just read the link again....interesting that Bush is taking the heat for it, especially since it has been in place since 1991.

Since 1991, the media have been banned from covering the arrival of remains at Dover.

It went on to state

In March, before the Iraq war began, the Pentagon clamped down on similar coverage from military installations around the world, such as Ramstein Air Base in Germany or in Afghanistan. "The prohibition includes ... the movement of remains at any point," the Pentagon guidelines say.

Bush decided to only make the regs tighter, but the regs were already in place for over a decade.

 

[bruno]

OK- if this thread is going to continue there are ground rules that need to be adhered to:
a. There are valid points of view for changing the policy and valid ones for keeping it the same. The stakeholders in this discussion include the american public, military members and military families. They are all equal stakeholders in the policies of the DoD.
b. Differing opinions are valid opinions.
c. There are no more pointed attacks on the motivations of those posting opinions different than your own personal opinions. If you feel the need to question the legitimacy of the other poster- this is appropriate in a PM. If you can't make a public argument based on the merits without attacking the other posters- don't post here.

Folks nobody needs to climb into the mud or slander someone else to discuss this. Lots of different views and they all should be aired - but in a civil and respectful manner. This is site devoted to guiding kids who are considering careers as "Officers and Gentlemen" to use an old and possibly somewhat outmoded term. Beating down the opposition with character attacks doesn't fit that mode.
Regards
Bruno

 

[Christcorp]

Thanks for helping us stay civil and on target Bruno. You are doing a great job. As for your comments on the topic; I have to disagree (It's probably just MY opinion) with one this you said.

The stakeholders in this discussion include the american public, military members and military families. They are all equal stakeholders in the policies of the DoD.

I really don't believe that they are EQUAL stakeholders. I believe that the military member, being the one willing to put their life on the line, does have more at stake with DOD policies. As such, their opinion is more significant. If they are no longer with us, then their immediate family/next of kin are next. I believe that when it comes to DOD policies (Not federal laws); the American people are 3rd. Just because they are paying the bills through taxation, I don't think it gives them an equal stake in the DOD policies. Again, just my opinion.

 

[Pima]

CC I am with you, but I would also like to point out, that they have no voice. When you enter AD you lose your right to speak out, so what frightens me the most is that those truly affected by the change can't/won't speak...instead those that have no chips in this poker game are deciding whether or not you take a card or fold.

I personally respect Gates, I believe he is trying to listen to the military, but I remember a Wing King wife once telling me the higher you get up the quieter it becomes...I am think the silence must be unreal at that level

 

[Pima]

All of us here, have either been in the military, serving in the military, parent of a soon to be military member, thus let's take an informal poll. I'll start.

Media:
No Media: 1

Feel free just to add on, no need to explain why unless you want to.

 

[bruno]

All of us here, have either been in the military, serving in the military, parent of a soon to be military member, thus let's take an informal poll. I'll start.

Media:
No Media: 1

Feel free just to add on, no need to explain why unless you want to.

no media

 

[J Collins]

NO MEDIA

 

[Pima]

Bullet and I discussed this last night, so I will add him in.

No Media

Count so far:

Media: 0
No Media: 4

 

[Christcorp]

Here's my $0.0268476 (Inflation)

Media: 0
No Media: 5

 

[packermatt7]

Well, I'm an appointee, so I don't have much experience.

I say No Media. There are other ways of showing respect to the fallen/families of the fallen. If indeed the media is trying honor those who have given their lives (which sometimes the media is not trying to do this), then they can put a picture of them in uniform, or a use a photo on the family's request. Tell their story.

Media: 0
No Media: 6

 

[Luigi59]

I really don't believe that they are EQUAL stakeholders. I believe that the military member, being the one willing to put their life on the line, does have more at stake with DOD policies. As such, their opinion is more significant. If they are no longer with us, then their immediate family/next of kin are next. believe that when it comes to DOD policies (Not federal laws); the American people are 3rd. Just because they are paying the bills through taxation, I don't think it gives them an equal stake in the DOD policies.

So you're saying that (as far as our civil rights are concerned) there should be 3 classes of Americans.

Again, I am nonplussed.

That's the most chilling statement made in this entire thread.

 

[Pima]

Luigi not to take this off track, but our society is filled with classes and subsets. Look at the military...Officers...Flag, Field, Company...Enlisted...SRNCO's ...NCOs and Basics.

I don't think he was saying that there are 3 basic classes...I think he was saying in this case, the military members decision trumps the media....no direction from the member then the family trumps...Americans are the last to get a voice in this particular arguement. I agree with that...I would hate to lose my right not only as a parent, but as an American in this decision. The avg American doesn't even know of this, so let's be real to them they don't care...to the military they do

 

[Christcorp]

Whenever ANY policy, law, bill, etc... is put into motion; people's opinions and positions are solicited and considered. When a town wants to enact a "No Smoking" bad in the city limits, and they have a public meeting, do you think they will give the same consideration to someone PRO or CON if that person doesn't live in that town/city? Even if they are a state resident. What about the restaurant and bar owners? What about the economic impact? Don't you believe that different opinions carry more weight than others; DEPENDING ON THE TOPIC!!! Well, on a military policy; that controls the way the military is treated; then the military members and their family's opinion should pull more weight than the media or the general public. If this topic was about a different subject, that required opinions in a decision, then there would no doubt be a different level of who's opinions should be weighed more heavily. That is real life. When you contact your senator; does a REGISTERED VOTER's opinion count MORE than a NON-Registered Voter???? You bet your butt it does. It's a matter of perspective.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

When you contact your senator; does a REGISTERED VOTER's opinion count MORE than a NON-Registered Voter???? You bet your butt it does.

haha. no it doesn't. but keep digging that hole, it's getting deep.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Food for thought:

"Let the media and the rest of America see the coffins … It’s the least we can do. Our children did not live in secrecy; they should not be shrouded in secrecy upon their passing." Statement of Jane Bright, whose son Evan Ashcraft was killed in Iraq, reported in Amanda Ripley, with reporting by Mark Thompson/Washington, An Image of Grief Returns, TIME MAGAZINE, May 3, 2004

"It shows this is the price we have to pay for freedom. … That is what happens, as sad as it is. It’s the ultimate sacrifice. It’s very patriotic." Statement of Vanessa Anderson, whose husband serves in Kuwait with the Utah National Guard’s 1457th Engineer Battalion

"It does show the ultimate sacrifice and lets people know that freedom is not free." Statement of Lowell Tripp, a Vietnam War veteran whose son serves in Iraq

"We know soldiers are dying. We see it every day on the news. It's the truth, and I don't know why they object to showing it." Statement of Ann Y. Sherman Wolcott, national president of American Gold Star Mothers who lost her son in the Vietnam War

"[If pictures are used] to show reverence and memorialize their sacrifice to the country, then I am OK with that. … If it is being used pro or con for the war, then it is absolutely disrespectful because it is trivializing the sacrifice they made." Michael Hansen, a Florida National Guard Captain who served in Iraq

"[T]here is no apparent consensus among families about whether they want events surrounding the death and burial of their service member made public." Statement of the National Military Family Association

"When I see a casket draped with a flag that means that person paid the ultimate sacrifice. Those people are heroes." Statement of Robert Mallory of Buckner, a World War II veteran

One soldier in Iraq wrote that the least the nation could do for a soldier that made the ultimate sacrifice is to "not hide his body away like something shameful" William M. Arkin, Opinion, Censorship Dishonors the Dead—and the Truth, L.A. TIMES, May 2, 2004

"It seems to me that our nation would benefit from both protecting the privacy of those who grieve and the dignity of those who have died and finding a way to invite everyone to experience common grief. Whether or not we support the way the military action in Iraq has unfolded, all of us need to be reminded by the stark symbols of grief that this is a serious matter in which we are engaged." Letter of Jin Watkins, a Vietnam War Veteran and escort officer for the body of a soldier who died in Vietnam,

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB136/others.pdf