BS: Denied photos of war dead, again

Subject: BS: Denied photos of war dead, again
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:10 AM

According to THIS ARTICLE, a man who received photos of flag-draped coffins of American servicepersons who were killed in Iraq, only after using the Freedom of Information Act, had posted about 350 of them to his website. Shortly after the military forbade any more releases of photos and his website has been blocked, taken down, forced off, or who knows? So far, 700 have been killed. The article uses the euphemism "lost," I will not.

I know it's always been the policy to deny the public these images. I was gratified to read that someone was able to go round such restrictions. I am not surprised, but still very angry that the gov. has stepped in and apparently denied our rights, again, to see the images of the real costs of war. (And, yes, lest we get into that debate, again, I know many more than Americans have lost theirs lives, too. This is about our Freedom of Information, too,)

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Denied photos of war dead, again
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:17 AM

There is a photo with this article and, here is an excerpt:

The Pentagon's ban on photographing soldiers' coffins at US military bases dates to the first Gulf War in 1991. The US Government, concerned that the ban was often ignored, reissued it shortly before the start of the war in Iraq. It is now strictly enforced.

The Pentagon says the ban is to protect families of the dead from unnecessary trauma.

White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday that President Bush believed "we should honour and show respect for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending our freedoms".

Subject: RE: BS: Denied photos of war dead, again
From: Strick
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:17 AM

Do you want to see their bodies like Diana?

Subject: RE: BS: Denied photos of war dead, again
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:22 AM

Strick:

That is below your normal intelligence.

It is not the case that these pictures have always been forbidden.

While it is understandable that moral must be preserved and so on, the argument of being compassionate tot he surviovors is hogwash, IMNSHO. The simple fact is the government edict is intended to allow them to engage in bloodsports their consituents don't want them involved in. So the answer is to suppress the reality.

But the truth is what an informed public must have in order for democracy to work, so the impulse to suppress information -- however well-justified -- is a direct effort to suppress the democratic method.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Denied photos of war dead, again
From: Strick
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:31 AM

But we don't need to intrude on the privacy of families in mourning to do so. This just seems like another case of where people want to focus on the bad news for political purposes. If you have some need photos, why not take a camera and ask the families' permission to shoot the funerals. Face them, look them in the eye, don't go behind their backs to get access to their dead to make your point. I don't need to see coffins to be reminded of the 500 or so combat deaths so far. I have family there, too.

I also couldn't help noticing the connection I mentioned so soon after our friends the British accused us of being ghouls. They were right.

Subject: RE: BS: Denied photos of war dead, again
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:45 AM

Well, you're right that there is an important difference between suppressing photos of coffins and suppressing the facts, names and ages of the dead. Conceded.

I hate seeing human communication being suppressed on any pretetxt.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Denied photos of war dead, again
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:45 AM

There have been photos of funerals, Strick. That's the only way any images of the costs of war have come to the public.

I don't think seeing flag-draped coffins is ghoulish. I don't particularly make a habit of wanting to see them, but, as I am sure you understand, what I am concerned about is our government trying to suppress the real numbers of killed, from the general public...the average Joe on the street who doesn't have the benefit of the internet and/or alternative news sources as we do.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Denied photos of war dead, again
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:59 AM

It is a shame that we need to have photos to prove to people that there is a cost to this war - I mean occupation - that our country is involved in.

To utilize an image of someones grief seems a really low class way of using propaganda to make a point. There are more dignified protests that can be made to show the horror of war and its cost in human life. The media has always had a ghoulish fascination with showing such images. When I used to work at CNBC I had a discussion with a producer during the OJ Simpson trial. The question was poised about whether they would show stills of the vicitims, if they were ever made available. This person's answer was "in a heartbeat". How far do we go to "present the truth"?

Subject: RE: BS: Denied photos of war dead, again
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 12:06 PM

Well, I can appreciate the sensibility with which you write, Ron. But if Imay say so what I find ghoulish is fomenting blind allegiance to an operation that spills the entrails of innocent humans into the sand and leaves them there smoking in the sun. What I find ghoulish is trying to persuade people that there is glory in invasion and virtue in throwing hot lead into othe rpoeple's bodies. I find it ghoulish in the extreme that the insurgents of Iraq -- even if they ar emisguided -- are being identified as terrorists so that they will be identified as linked in some arcane evil way with the nurders of Septemeber 2001. I find it ghoulish that human beings can contemplate a unilateral war, all its horror and destruction and pain and bloodletting, and smile with patriotic pride rather than puke their guts out on the White House steps.

But maybe that's just me.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Denied photos of war dead, again
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 12:08 PM

ironic that the first BUsh campaign ad
showed flag draped coffins being taken out of the WTC site but has banned the same images of coffins coming back from Iraq.

but then of course they accused Senator Max Clelland (who lost 3 limbs
in Vietnam) of being unpatriotic and ran a picture of Osama next to his in a smear campaign. They also accused Clelland of politicizing his war injuries. (this from a bunch chickenhawks who avoided any military service overseas)

Subject: RE: BS: Denied photos of war dead, again
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 12:40 PM

Please post to the other thread, which PeterT, started before this one. My apologies for not seeing it and starting this one. CLICK HERE