I don't believe the families have the right to keep all photographic images of the soldiers private, whether the soldier is being shown in the photograph alive and doing fine, wounded, or dead. I don't believe the families, or the government on behalf of the families, should dictate the terms of journalistic coverage of war scenes, to the press.

Strick asks a legitimate question when he says "Just be sure to be honest with why you want the photos."

Let me be honest, then. The war dead are treated with a tremendous amount of respect, so for me that isn't an issue.

However, to say that we shouldn't show disturbing images of wars that are currently happening because the showing of those images will influence the politics of waging that war, and possibly turn public sentiment against a continuation of the war as happened with Vietnam, is to give the politicans an authortarian advantage over the citizenry I am not willing to accept. Of course the politicians don't want us to see the images of the consequences of war. Because they know their rhetoric will no longer be believed by a duped citizenry. The reasons politicians have for sending our soldiers to war are rarely, if ever, the same reasons soldiers volunteer to serve in the military.

In our democratic republic at this time, we have citizen soldiers and professional soldiers, fighting wars on two major fronts: Afghanistan and Iraq, and in precarious positions in many others, like Kosovo, Korea, the Phillipines, etc.

War is the most political of all crises a nation faces, and we have a duty as citizens to know what the consequences of waging war are. It is imperative we see what is happening in war time, from all the angles, including the wounded, the dying, and the dead soldiers AND civilians.

A large reason why the Vietnam War was brought to an end when it was, is because the country turned against the war. Why? I believe it was in large part due to the fact that we had the war--including the up close soldiers' view of war, beamed into our living rooms every night. We saw graphic depictions of it.

I believe we should ALWAYS be shown those images when we are fighting a war. Always. They are sobering. They make us evaluate what it is we are doing in the war. It shows us the true cost of war. Our right to see those images supercedes the rights to privacy of the families of the dead soldiers.

Those images are no longer broadcasted in the US. They are now censored by the US military, or censored by the corporate moguls who rule the media, because Vietnam proved it is really impossible for a democratic nation to wage an unjust war against a nation which poses no security threat to us, when the citizenry sees the images of the consequences of that war. In the case of Vietnam, that included showing images of angry citizens showing their disgust for the war to the returning soldiers, as it should.

How many of you saw the reports on the treatment of the Japanese hostages taken and released in Iraq this week, on how they were treated when they returned home? They were treated as villains, pariahs, and were utterly condemned by Japanese society. The images shown in Japan? Of the hostages deeply bowing in apology to the nation, and asking forgiveness, which they likely won't be getting from most Japanese citizens. As citizens of democracies, we have the right to express ourselves in those ways, and to see the images of our actions mirrored back to us, however disturbing it is to us, and no matter how bad it makes us look.

A nation's citizenry that is "at war" has a duty to know what the consequences of being "at war" are--and what price it is that our side and the other side will pay in daily consequences of war. Being an informed citizenry in wartime requires we gain complex knowledge of what is happening on the ground, which can only be perceived from a distance through graphic, truthful images and graphic, truthful description. Once we start ignoring what our warriors are doing to their citizens, the inevitable happens: war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against the souls of the soldiers doing the fighting, and the citizens trying to survive what the soldiers are doing all around them, and their society being torn asunder.

Rwanda is ultimate example in recent memory, of what happens when we stop looking for and asking to see those horrific images.

Our media is not showing us any of those aspects of the war in Iraq. It is not showing us what Al Jazeera is showing it's viewers in the Middle East, which is the cost to the civilian population of the war. It isn't showing us what the BBC is showing it's constituents. Or what the AFP is showing to theirs. We should be seeing those images in the US too.

We need to find out why the rate of suicide among our soldiers is so high in Iraq, and domestic violence so extreme in their families upon their return. We need to see the wounded in battle and after it, screaming with pain, whether soldier or civilian. We need to see the images of how our occupation forces and the mercenaries and their employers, are living in Iraq, compared to how the average Iraqi is living. We aren't seeing any of that.

A truly free press acting as fourth estate cannot and should not be patriotic. I feel very strongly that patriotism and journalism, like church and state, should not mix.

Last night on NOW with Bill Moyers, he interviewed Greg Dyke, former Director General of the BBC, who was forced out of his job as a result of the Hutton inquiry into the intelligence scandal in the UK over WMD. In essence, he said what I am saying: journalism and patriotism is a very bad mix, and serves neither cause well.

The NOW website has an excellent gallery of photos and stories titled "After War". It can be viewed here:

"After War" gallery at NOW