Gates open to lifting ban on casket photos

[CommunityEditor]

The controversial policy that bans media coverage of flag-draped caskets arriving from the war theater to Dover Air Force Base, Del., is once again being reviewed with an eye toward reversal, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

“If the needs of the families can be met, and the privacy concerns can be addressed, the more honor we can accord these fallen heroes, the better,” Gates said at a Pentagon news conference. “I’m ... pretty open to, to whatever the results of this review may be.”

Gates said he ordered the review after President Barack Obama said Monday night during a nationally broadcast news conference that the White House is “in the process of reviewing those policies.”

Gates said he has put a “fairly short deadline on that effort,” but was not more specific.

Gates, a Bush administration holdover who has served in the Pentagon’s top job since December 2006, said he looked into changing the policy a little over a year ago.

He said the answer he received, partly the result of talks with family members of fallen troops, was that if reporters and photographers were allowed to view the return of flag-draped caskets at Dover, “many of the families would feel compelled to be there for those ceremonies for their fallen hero.”

“For these families, this would delay the return of the remains home,” he said. “For others, it would be a financial hardship to get to Dover. And there were some privacy concerns.”

But, Gates added, “I think that looking at it again makes all kinds of sense.”

Media coverage of military remains arriving at ports of entry was once permitted but came to a halt by Pentagon decree during the 1991 Gulf War, on Feb. 2, 1991.

Exceptions have been made over the years, such as when the media photographed a ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., for Americans killed in the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. In October 2000, the Pentagon distributed photos of caskets arriving at Dover that contained the remains of sailors killed in the bombing of the USS Cole.

In 2004, a “Sense of Congress” resolution included in the 2005 budget stated that the Pentagon policy “appropriately protects the privacy of the families and friends of the deceased.”

Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., has taken the opposite view — that photos of returning caskets both honor the returning service member and remind the public that the nation is at war.

In January, Jones introduced the “Fallen Hero Commemoration Act,” legislation that would force the Pentagon to grant the media access when military remains arrive at U.S. military installations.


Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/02/military_photos_wardead_021009w/

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh23/aliceamm/Military%20Times/021009_obama_coffins_story.jpg
The Associated Press
Flag-draped coffins of U.S. war casualties are
seen aboard a cargo plane in Dover Air Force
Base, Del. President Barack Obama said Feb. 9
his administration is reviewing a policy that
bans the media from photographing flag-draped
coffins of fallen service members.

[POOKIECS]

As a mother I would not want my daughters casket to be photographed. For myself it is a personal thing
for family only. I wouldn't want any protesters to be able to use the photo in their campaigns.

[Unregistered]

Our young men and women go off to war and then come home to be put on display for everyone to look at. What are we, a bunch of animals to be put on public display after fighting for our countries freedom? I can't believe the American government and the President can even consider this outrage. Every American soldier should stand up and raise hell about this consideration. Our Brothers and Sisters who have gone before us should be rolling over in their graves at this injustice.

[Unregistered]

What a sad time it must be if we are discussing this issue. We give our life for our country in public and we deserve to be with our family in private if such a thing should happen to us. We didn't sign up for entertainment, we signed up to do the right thing. The right thing in this case is privacy. Our commitment is over at this point and should be up to our family and not the government.

[Unregistered]

As an active duty service member with family in the service as well, I think is a little absurd. If the media gets this I think the member should be able to comment on it. Here's what I'm thinking, as you process into the military or for those of us in, there should be a form or a box on a form that gives or denys photos of your coffin if you fall while in service. I think this would be fair to anyone asking as some don't mind and others would not want to be seen. Also, how do you think a person's family would feel knowing the front page of their loved ones' news paper had a photo of them returning with honor but also fallen. I think this time the media needs to have a little respect for those who gave them the right to be leeches on society.

[PA Military Mom X 2]

I strongly believe that the photos should be shown.
I agree that it will remind people that we are still at war.
I feel that the general public has forgotten our military who are serving.
WIth the war not being being on tv like in the begining, people who do not have family or friends serving
kind of forget what is still happening. I think the photos show honor & respect that should be given to our fallen. It is not necessary to list names so I don't think families would be upset by it.

Army & Air Force
MOM

[jiml2521@hotmail.com]

Is there no respect!?!? My God we don't need to allow the media to review the fallen hero for thieer political haymaking! What purpose does the lifting the ban serve? Respect these heros. God Bless Americagg3













e6n

[mttm86]

I understand why some might want to change the current policy. They believe that allowing the media to photograph caskets will honor our fallen. However, after seeing how the media treats the military I don't think it would be a good idea. I know that if I was killed I would not want my casket to be photographed so it could wind up on some pundit's show as a way to either attack or defend the war. I've made the decision to fight and the possibility of using my memory or sacrifice for a political argument that I do not agree with makes me pretty angry.

[Army veteran]

I wonder how many of the people who clamor for these photos have ever served, or have family who have served, much less been killed in line of duty? They should take their false concern and stick it.

[Chiefpayne]

That is just so wrong. Frankly, if I were in one of those caskets, I wouldn't want my picture to be taken.

Seems to me we need to honor our dead rather than display them like medals!

If deployed, I plan on writing a letter requesting my casket NOT be allowed to be photographed! Might not make any difference...but I hope it will, if it is taken as a last request of a deceased soldier!

[Unregistered]

Hey Gates: Why don't you ask the families of the troops and their fellow servicemen if they want the caskets shown?

[Unregistered]

This is nothing more then a blatant and gruesome attempt by the left and the MSM to use Flag -draped cofffins as nothing more then props. The use of these remains for this purpose is disgusting and profane.
A Proud parent of a SOLDIER and an Air Force vet.

[Unregistered]

Here is an idea, instead of taking pictures of our brothers and sisters who have paid the ultimate price for our country, why don't we use the funding available and create a monument for all our fallen heroes. I have been to D.C. and personally visited the Vietnam and WWII monuments; I will remember the feeling I had after viewing the remarkable dedications for the rest of my life. This is an honor that our heroes deserve and would last throughout the times. It could even be named the “Wall of Fallen Heroes”. I think this public knowledge of their sacrifices is more honorable than taking pictures of the dead heroes and having them spread all over the internet.

[Mary, Navy mom]

I do not believe this private moment should be used for any agenda, including a recruiting tool for our enemies. This will be used for propaganda, not for honor.

[TJMAC77SP]

The ban in on photographing the caskets while in military transport. Once they get to their families and/or final resting place it is up to the family. No ban in effect. Now if your sole purpose is to simply photograph a fallen warrior's casket that should suffice. If you need to take photos of multiple caskets as they are being transported and received with honors then I would say you have an entirely different agenda and should be honest about it........

[Army Vet-19D]

If this were the 1950's and we still had a MSM which supported the soldiers and their missions, than this might be a good idea to remind our citizens just how much freedom costs, but the MSM has openly shown their contempt and hatred for the our military and can no longer be trusted.

Gates, your supposed to be the one looking out for our soldiers...what happened?

[MitchellJD1969]

I see the anti-war left being the first to use the photos as propaganda first, especially code pink or IVAW. That in turn would make the right use them in response making each servicemembers death a travesty, belittling their deaths.

Bad idea period.

[MACHINE666]

So are you going to let a bunch of social parasites dictate whether or not our vets can or can't be displayed in their coffins? If you think about it, any dissenter can easily go to the official military websites and use any images which are available since they are considered public domain. They can easily use my face to fuel their smear campaign, just as easily as the Air Force can use my image to advance theirs.

I would think that military families would send them a resounding "HELL NO" every time they tried to use it for propaganda purposes...but by the same token that's what makes our media the double edge sword that it is. I say let them be shown since they are heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice - freedom. To censor their contribution would be sacrilege.

[LibertyHound]

The press, under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, has the undeniable right to print - without prior restraint - any material. The same Constitution that all Military have sworn to uphold and defend.

We who have served have become public figures by virtue of both our service and acceptance of the taxpayers' coin. We are no longer the private citizen we once were, nor do we have the expectation of privacy we once enjoyed.

Our death entails not only loss to our family, but also to the country and it's citizens, who not only may - but in our democracy must - continually question whether or not our government's policies require and justify the continued or increasing sacrifice of life.

To that end, the exercise of this open and free Democracy demands the transparency that only a free press and a willing government can provide.

When government finds it necessary to sneak in the bodies of it's fallen in the dark of night and under the guise of 'privacy,' excluding the press from recording these proceedings, the reasonable and prudent man can only surmise that there is something to be hidden. Then the question "Why" becomes so much more important - as we are now finding out these years later.

[Unregistered]

It's not disrespectful to show closed caskets. It wasn't until they showed caskets and dead civilians/children in Vietnam, that enough pressure was put on our Government to end that war. People need to see what's happening! Our media and our Government owes us that much. Plain and simple truth.

[Unregistered]

I am opposed to the lifting the ban our soldiers returing home in their flag draped caskets. I don't think the news media has any business taken pictures of our loved ones returing home in their flag draped caskets. These are heroes that paid the ultimate price serving this great nation of ours. Becasue all the news media wants to do is take pictures of our dead falllen heroes in their flaged draped caskets and turn this into a media circus. Its all about the news media try to make money off our dead faalen heroes pictures. I think this is wrong and their family members should be left in peace in their time of need too grive their loved ones. And I think that this is very disrespectful and it's due in part for the Anti-War protesters in thsi country. May i say that we have the best military in the world and alot of people of our nation does not appreciate our frredoms that we enjoy in this great nation of ours because of our great men and women serving in the armed forecs today. Without them we would not have these freedoms.

[SgtMac6]

What useful purpose does pictures of flag draped coffins serve? They all appear the same. The only purpose I can think of is these pictures would be used for propaganda against the war, not to honor our heros. Shame on the press for even thinking the thought. Let us maintain the honor and dignity of our fallen heros, and honor their families by not doing this. Only one man's opinion.

[mandy43231]

To be honest I think this is somthing that people just need to get over. The media has rights just as well as we do and besides it only a picture, it's not like the pictures of their open casket. Get real people the united States is at war and we need to stop bickering about small things like this. I also don't know if people realize that our economy is struggling too. Stop whinning about this small ignorant crap and start dealing with our bigger issues. I'm not trying to offend people, we just need to realize the United States has bigger issues right now, other then fighting about a picture.

[VFFSSGT]

If you want to see dead bodies...surf the internet, join the service, fire service, or police service.

As for the "Constitutional Right" to freedom of the press...people have a right to the press yes but the media does not have a right to access a US Military Installation.

As an active duty service member, I object to allowing the press access for this purpose, for no other reason but for cheap entertainment and sensational stories to be twisted to whatever viewpoint and cause the publisher is advocating for. The end goal here is to portray military members as "victims" to appeal to some for someone's personal cause. We signed up knowing the possibilities...

On a side note, a press with true journalism would be nice but that is hard to come by these days...

[VFFSSGT]

To be honest I think this is somthing that people just need to get over. The media has rights just as well as we do and besides it only a picture, it's not like the pictures of their open casket. Get real people the united States is at war and we need to stop bickering about small things like this. I also don't know if people realize that our economy is struggling too. Stop whinning about this small ignorant crap and start dealing with our bigger issues. I'm not trying to offend people, we just need to realize the United States has bigger issues right now, other then fighting about a picture.

There is nothing wrong with the economy other than it has been artificially inflated for the last couple of decades... The bubble finally blew, for a lack of better words, and it needs to self-correct and would if the government would stay out of it... The only thing they are doing is prolonging the inevitable and adding to the inflation, in more ways than just one.

But, back to the point, if it is "just a picture," then was is the big deal to begin with...? What is the purpose to broadcast it to the world? It would be nothing but self-propagating propaganda that would benefit the enemy. What about the families' right to privacy?

[Combat correspondent]

This is crap! Why turn the dignified, somber transfers at Dover AFB into a media circus?

---President Obama, sir, a transparent administration is one thing - got it, check! But, this is something entirely different. Please reconsider!

---Signed, a servicemember who cares about the honorable transfer of our fallen heroes.

[Combat correspondent]

To be honest I think this is somthing that people just need to get over. The media has rights just as well as we do and besides it only a picture, it's not like the pictures of their open casket. Get real people the united States is at war and we need to stop bickering about small things like this. I also don't know if people realize that our economy is struggling too. Stop whinning about this small ignorant crap and start dealing with our bigger issues. I'm not trying to offend people, we just need to realize the United States has bigger issues right now, other then fighting about a picture.

No, you are wrong, ma'am. I am not sure where in the fleet (or field) you serve but I suggest you go TAD/TDY to Dover and see or participate in a Dignified Transfer. This event is executed flawlessly to preserve the dignity, honor and respect our fallen servicemembers and their families deserve. These transfers go off without a hitch and dedicated professionals from all 4 branches work tirelessly to ensure this.

This does not, I repeat DOES NOT need to become a media event. Besides, there is nothing for them to see there except a fallen hero in a flag-draped transfer case being moved by the Air Force (combined with whatever branch fallen is in the transfer case) Honor Guard into a transfer vehicle, so the remains of the fallen hero can be moved to the mortuary. This is not a ceremony and there is nothing for them to see.

I've been there, I've seen it, I've participated in it - this SHOULD NOT become a media circus. Those Airmen, Soldiers, Marines and Sailors give it their all to make sure this honor is maintained, a bunch of camera flashes and noisy reporters would only diminish the somber of the transfer.

[jcurtis]

Another left wing media stunt to devalue the very ones that protect their asses. Did you notice the the pic on the Military Times page? One from the archives no doubt. They would leave the general public to believe we send cargo planes loaded down with bodies every day, what bullshit! The military needs to start getting a release signed from the soldier so he/she has the right to decline photos. Its a piss poor day when the fallin have to be protected from being exploited.

[Combat correspondent]

Politics and party affiliation aside, this is a piss-poor idea and I just explained why. If you make this relative to politics, people will take sides. This is not political - it is descent versus callous ... that simple!

[RMCS(SS) FLEWWELLIN/RET]

I personally think SECDEF and General Jones (former USMC Commandant) should be advising the president very strongly to NOT lift the ban..it will only allow the anti war folks a forum to whine even more..and at the expense of not just our brave men and women in uniform..but even worse our fallen men and women..General..Mr Secretary..get a pair and tell/advise the President NO.!!!..V/R RMCS(SS)

[TJMAC77SP]

It's not disrespectful to show closed caskets. It wasn't until they showed caskets and dead civilians/children in Vietnam, that enough pressure was put on our Government to end that war. People need to see what's happening! Our media and our Government owes us that much. Plain and simple truth.

How did that work out?

[TJMAC77SP]

The press, under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, has the undeniable right to print - without prior restraint - any material. The same Constitution that all Military have sworn to uphold and defend.

We who have served have become public figures by virtue of both our service and acceptance of the taxpayers' coin. We are no longer the private citizen we once were, nor do we have the expectation of privacy we once enjoyed.

Our death entails not only loss to our family, but also to the country and it's citizens, who not only may - but in our democracy must - continually question whether or not our government's policies require and justify the continued or increasing sacrifice of life.

To that end, the exercise of this open and free Democracy demands the transparency that only a free press and a willing government can provide.

When government finds it necessary to sneak in the bodies of it's fallen in the dark of night and under the guise of 'privacy,' excluding the press from recording these proceedings, the reasonable and prudent man can only surmise that there is something to be hidden. Then the question "Why" becomes so much more important - as we are now finding out these years later.

Were making sense up until you revealed your agenda with the last paragraph. So the flights bringing caskets are all planned so they arrive at night? The stated reason of "privacy" is a ploy? Is that what you are saying? I'll bet you love novels where the CIA is running a shadow government behind the scenes.

[TJMAC77SP]

No, you are wrong, ma'am. I am not sure where in the fleet (or field) you serve but I suggest you go TAD/TDY to Dover and see or participate in a Dignified Transfer. This event is executed flawlessly to preserve the dignity, honor and respect our fallen servicemembers and their families deserve. These transfers go off without a hitch and dedicated professionals from all 4 branches work tirelessly to ensure this.

This does not, I repeat DOES NOT need to become a media event. Besides, there is nothing for them to see there except a fallen hero in a flag-draped transfer case being moved by the Air Force (combined with whatever branch fallen is in the transfer case) Honor Guard into a transfer vehicle, so the remains of the fallen hero can be moved to the mortuary. This is not a ceremony and there is nothing for them to see.

I've been there, I've seen it, I've participated in it - this SHOULD NOT become a media circus. Those Airmen, Soldiers, Marines and Sailors give it their all to make sure this honor is maintained, a bunch of camera flashes and noisy reporters would only diminish the somber of the transfer.

Wait a minute CC !!!! Do you mean that these coffins are not merely snuck into the country under cover of darkness and whisked away out of site? Surely that can’t be because we all know that the evil previous administration didn’t want to American people to know the true cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan so hid these coffins from as many people as possible.

Surely you can’t mean that the US Military, following a tradition older than this nation, honors their fallen comrades and protects them from being made into political pawns as they make their way home to their final resting place. Preposterous!!!!!

[Combat correspondent]

When government finds it necessary to sneak in the bodies of it's fallen in the dark of night and under the guise of 'privacy,' excluding the press from recording these proceedings, the reasonable and prudent man can only surmise that there is something to be hidden. Then the question "Why" becomes so much more important - as we are now finding out these years later.

It's not sneaky and its not a ploy - the planes don't always arrive at night. However, due to the time change from the AOR/Germany and the travel time - it works out that way.

Besides, it is operationally prime to arrive at night. Listen, Dover (like all AMC bases) has a very busy real-world mobility mission. Dover moves a ton of cargo, MRAPS, etc. downrange. All flightline operations STOP during the dignified transfer, which seriously impeded operations during day hours.

The more daytime transfers occur, the less MRAPS get downrange, the need for more Dignified Transfers increase---- get it? This is not a conspiracy to keep media out. It is normal AMC operations at Dover combined with flight arrival times from the AOR/Germany!

Stop watching X-Files!

[Combat correspondent]

Wait a minute CC !!!! Do you mean that these coffins are not merely snuck into the country under cover of darkness and whisked away out of site? Surely that can’t be because we all know that the evil previous administration didn’t want to American people to know the true cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan so hid these coffins from as many people as possible.

Surely you can’t mean that the US Military, following a tradition older than this nation, honors their fallen comrades and protects them from being made into political pawns as they make their way home to their final resting place. Preposterous!!!!!

Oh woe is me! The sarcasm is very appropriate. I can't believe some of the people on here think the media needs to cover the solemn transfers....my God! What do they want a photo or B-roll of??? The only thing moving is flag-draped transfer cases. There's no story there - no news value to begin with. The real story is happening in Iraq/Afghanistan, not on Dover's flightline.

[VFFSSGT]

That is the problem with our media...they do not know how to report news to begin with. Instead of researching and report on what our government is doing, like this nonsense of a bill, they are worried about creating a media circus during troop transfers...

[WIRETIRE]

It is a matter of respect and honor. If the military wishes to release photo's that is one thing but I do not trust the written media and a few of the visual media (TV) to show the respect or honor required. They are too busy pushing an agenda and trying to sell papers or increase their viewing ratings. Protesters will use the photos to advance their agenda without regard to the feeling of the family . Let our fallen hero's lie in peace. Let us remember them with honor not as part of a hate protest. Let the families get on with their lives, to love and remember their lost. They should be the final voice.

[Combat correspondent]

It is a matter of respect and honor. If the military wishes to release photo's that is one thing but I do not trust the written media and a few of the visual media (TV) to show the respect or honor required. They are too busy pushing an agenda and trying to sell papers or increase their viewing ratings. Protesters will use the photos to advance their agenda without regard to the feeling of the family . Let our fallen hero's lie in peace. Let us remember them with honor not as part of a hate protest. Let the families get on with their lives, to love and remember their lost. They should be the final voice.

You are absolutely correct. Media should be able to come on a case-by-case basis. If there is only 1 fallen hero on a particular day and his/her family wants media there, then so be it - they can get their story. However if there are more than 1 fallen and even 1 family doesn't want media there, then they should not be able to come. Good idea WIRETIRE.

[Unregistered]

As parents of a son who is an Army aviator who has been in Bosnia twice and Iraq three times, we are STRONGLY opposed to allowing the press to photograph or to be present for the flag-draped casket ceremonies at Dover Air Force Base. If anyone is allowed to be present during this time, it should only be family members. Our children volunteer to defend and serve their country--not to become party to political or media exploitation.

[VFFSSGT]

If you oppose this change in policy I recommend you contact your officials...it is our only option I know of until they change the policy and then a lawsuit might work as long as we sponsor some veterans organization to conduct it...

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html

[LibertyHound]

I can't believe some of the people on here think the media needs to cover the solemn transfers....

It's not really up to any of us whether or not the media should be able to cover the transfers. The 1st Amendment of the Constitution is quite clear - Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of .... the press. The press has the right.

Now regarding the Constitution, let me know which part of your oath of enlistment or office - "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" do you find repugnant and wish to repudiate??

[VFFSSGT]

Congress has not made a law abridging the freedom of the press... But, on a side note, they have infringed on my right to bear arms...

No one has a right to access a US Military Installation.

[mel44]

Hello all I am on leave and having a blast!!!

This is an outrage! How dare they infringe on my families right to privacy! God forbid my husband or children are killed in this war but the thought that the ones that took their lives would have the accessibility to watch and rejoice their remains being sent home enrages me. Why didn't we get asked our opinion? This is just wrong.

[VFFSSGT]

Why didn't we get asked our opinion?

Because, contrary to popular belief, we are no longer a nation ruled by its people...

[LibertyHound]

Congress has not made a law abridging the freedom of the press... But, on a side note, they have infringed on my right to bear arms...

No one has a right to access a US Military Installation.

The press does have the right to publish; the Constitutional restriction against abridgement does not only apply to Congress. Learn your Con Law while you're fretting about your other infringements.

[VFFSSGT]

The press does have the right to publish; the Constitutional restriction against abridgement does not only apply to Congress. Learn your Con Law while you're fretting about your other infringements.

Sure, if you buy into judicial activism... :rolleyes: However, I tend to lean toward intent and history versus liberal ideology and activist judges. We can argue semantics all day and not get anywhere. There is also the divide between where does right to press end and right to privacy begin. But there is one simple indisputable fact. Civilians, which includes the press, have no right to access a US Military Installation.

Lets also consider the purpose behind the motivation and desire to "report" and display lost soldiers returning home. There is no real story behind it and there is no real journalism behind it. It is only a ploy for political exploitation among various organizations and groups.

[LibertyHound]

Sure, if you buy into judicial activism... :rolleyes: However, I tend to lean toward intent and history versus liberal ideology and activist judges. We can argue semantics all day and not get anywhere. There is also the divide between where does right to press end and right to privacy begin. But there is one simple indisputable fact. Civilians, which includes the press, have no right to access a US Military Installation.

Lets also consider the purpose behind the motivation and desire to "report" and display lost soldiers returning home. There is no real story behind it and there is no real journalism behind it. It is only a ploy for political exploitation among various organizations and groups.

Liberal ideology?? Whatever do you think the American Revolution and our Bill of Right embody? No need to argue semantics nor divide between where you think privacy begins and ends regarding the press; the Surpreme Court ruled on those issues and prior restraint quite clearly in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, New York Times Co. v. United States, and Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart. There shall be no prior restraint.

Sorry, neither you nor the government gets to play arbitor of what consists of 'motivation' and 'desire to report' as you put it. The American public is a pretty astutue breed of cat, and can eventually figure out when it's getting BS shoveled at it. Those news outlets (and governments) survive which best allow the sunlight of scrutiny.

[VFFSSGT]

Again, the press has no right to access a US Military Installation...using your argument...the press has the right to classified information or for that matter access to anything and everything they feel they want to "report" on. I guess the press can walk around in my house too... :rolleyes: The Bill of Rights were a controversial issue in its day. One side feared they would be twisted and maligned to create "new" rights and additional power and the other side fear not instituting them would cause the same (The Federalist and Non-Federalist). Needless to say the Constitution was created to limit government power not provide it and so were the Bill of Rights. But they all have been twisted and maligned. So, women have a right to privacy when entitles them to a choice to have an abortion but members and families do not have a right to privacy of the fallen... :rolleyes:

I did not suggest anyone play arbitrator rather attempt to get you to understand what cause you are advocating for. They can report on whatever they want all day long but they do not have a right to access a military installation and record or broadcast dead bodies or caskets.

[LibertyHound]

Again, the press has no right to access a US Military Installation...using your argument...the press has the right to classified information or for that matter access to anything and everything they feel they want to "report" on.

I did not suggest anyone play arbitrator rather attempt to get you to understand what cause you are advocating for.

We haven't been arguing whether or not they have the right to be on an installation. The issue has been whether or not they have the right to use anything; i.e. pictures of caskets if they come in possession of them.

I again direct you to the Supreme Court Cases cited. They have nothing to do with 'advocacy' but everything to do with the Press' Constitutional Right to publish without prior restraint in accordance with the 1st Amendment.

You seem to have an issue with this for one reason or another. Care to explain?

By the way - the deceased is not entitled to complete privacy. Limited information (such as dates of service, awards, and training) is available to anyone.

[VFFSSGT]

What? It has everything to do with the right to access the base...The original question concerning this matter to the White House was are they going to change the Defense policy that prohibits the media access to the return of fallen soldiers so that America can see the true costs of war...it is not about broadcasting images if they come in possession of them. Get the subject at hand straight before you engage in the debate of it.

I am not arguing they do not have a right to the press but that they do not have a right to access a US Military Installation to video fallen troops returning, which their argument is based the Constitutional right. Sure they can do it, but they are not allowed on the base or flight line, which prohibits them from doing so.

[LibertyHound]

You're one of the few staying focused with the "Base Access" issue, which I haven't broached - many others here have extended the discussion past that to the wishes of familial privacy. I've certainly not entertained any notion that the press should be given free rein on bases - though I believe had this been addressed in an open, albeit discrete manner very early on, there would not be the controversies nor possible propaganda exploitation some feared.

i.e: Casualties occur, here's how we deal with the logistics, there's no need to clamp a lid on it.

This is nothing like the 500 per week we experienced during the peak of 'Nam - barring the press now during the 24/7 cable cycle only extended the controversy.

[mel44]

The photo on the Military Times is evidence enough of misrepresentation. I counted 20 caskets on that plane. When was the last time we had 20 casualties to sense home at once? We have only had 23 deaths in Iraq since the first of the year an only 10 of those were from hostile fire the rest were accidents and a self inflicted. So how old is that pic that would lead the public to believe that we ship home planes full of war casualties? Just another ploy to hurt the image of our soldiers and military.

[VFFSSGT]

You're one of the few staying focused with the "Base Access" issue, which I haven't broached - many others here have extended the discussion past that to the wishes of familial privacy. I've certainly not entertained any notion that the press should be given free rein on bases - though I believe had this been addressed in an open, albeit discrete manner very early on, there would not be the controversies nor possible propaganda exploitation some feared.

i.e: Casualties occur, here's how we deal with the logistics, there's no need to clamp a lid on it.

This is nothing like the 500 per week we experienced during the peak of 'Nam - barring the press now during the 24/7 cable cycle only extended the controversy.

Well, the issue is access and the question asked by the media to the White House recently that cause this up stir was centered on the Defense policy that prohibits the media access.

This is not 'nam... The deaths are reported on and a picture of the fallen is released to the press. There is no purpose or reason for the Defense Dept to allow media access and make a circus of the fallen coming home... It isn't news; it is only an exploitation attempt.

[TJMAC77SP]

...............The American public is a pretty astutue breed of cat, and can eventually figure out when it's getting BS shoveled at it. ...................

Really ?!?!?!?

A little pie in the sky considering the recent past.

Want a list of the false stories posted by MSM during the recent campaign? Visit FactCheck.org. False stories which a professional news organization should have recoginized prior to the rush to publish or broadcast

"Sarah Palin made a statement that she could see Russia from her house" Remember that? The vast majority of your astute Americans were repeating that as fact the next day.

[TJMAC77SP]

…………………

i.e: Casualties occur, here's how we deal with the logistics, there's no need to clamp a lid on it…………...

This is exactly why the motives of those seeking a lifting of the ban are suspect. Statements like this. The immediate rush to assume that the government was ‘clamping the lid on it’, as in hiding facts. No credence was ever given to the explanation that these fallen warriors deserved better than to be turned into a political football (by either party).

[LibertyHound]

This is not 'nam... The deaths are reported on and a picture of the fallen is released to the press. There is no purpose or reason for the Defense Dept to allow media access and make a circus of the fallen coming home... It isn't news; it is only an exploitation attempt.
Sorry - you can't determine whether it's news or not. And neither can the government. But who makes 'Circus's when the dead are coming home??

Here's a little hint for you as to why the policy was implemented in the first place. It appears President Bush I thought it was comedy hour at the same time that the Dead were being returned from Panama. SecDef Cheney quickly pulled the plug.

PENTAGON RELEASES HUNDREDS MORE WAR CASUALTY HOMECOMING IMAGES (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB152/index.htm)

The ban on media coverage of returning casualties was imposed by Defense Secretary Cheney after an embarrassing incident in which three television networks broadcast live, split-screen images in December, 1989, as the first U.S. casualties were returning from an American assault on Panama. In that incident, President Bush was seen on television joking at a White House news conference while somber images of flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base moved across viewers' screens. The ban on war casualty images was continued during the Clinton administration, which made several exceptions to allow publication and broadcast upon the return of victims of attacks against U.S. personnel abroad, including the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. President George W. Bush continued the ban following the start of the Afghanistan war in October, 2001 and the Iraq invasion in March, 2003.

[LibertyHound]

This is exactly why the motives of those seeking a lifting of the ban are suspect. Statements like this. The immediate rush to assume that the government was ‘clamping the lid on it’, as in hiding facts. No credence was ever given to the explanation that these fallen warriors deserved better than to be turned into a political football (by either party).

You couldn't be more wrong. The largest number of photos of the returning Dead at Dover, has been supplied, in fact, by the federal government, in response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit settlement. Those 732 photos may be easily accessed and copied from the National Security Archives at George Washington University.

Had those who sought publication of these 700+ government photographs desired to make "political hay' out of them, one would surely have thought the Big, Mean, Exploitive Press" would have been all over them by now.

Sorry - it's a transparency and Freedom of the Press Issue. As Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said: "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants" .

[VFFSSGT]

Sorry - you can't determine whether it's news or not. And neither can the government. But who makes 'Circus's when the dead are coming home??

Here's a little hint for you as to why the policy was implemented in the first place. It appears President Bush I thought it was comedy hour at the same time that the Dead were being returned from Panama. SecDef Cheney quickly pulled the plug.

PENTAGON RELEASES HUNDREDS MORE WAR CASUALTY HOMECOMING IMAGES (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB152/index.htm)

No, no one can determine what is or is not news but the DOD can determine the media has no purpose to access the base just as the public affairs office determines what to release and what not to release to public media...

As far as your rationale, it is ignorance... Carry your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

[LibertyHound]

As far as your rationale, it is ignorance... Carry your conspiracy theories elsewhere.
And what conspiracy theory is that??

Interesting you find a desire for transparency ignorance. Also the insistance on a free press. Your problems with that??

[LibertyHound]

Really ?!?!?!?

A little pie in the sky considering the recent past.

"Sarah Palin made a statement that she could see Russia from her house" Remember that? The vast majority of your astute Americans were repeating that as fact the next day.

So People watched SNL and were quoting that.... You took it for fact?? Shame, shame, shame....

[TJMAC77SP]

So People watched SNL and were quoting that.... You took it for fact?? Shame, shame, shame....

Noooooooo......listen carefully now........

The media reported it as fact.

You are going to have to try harder.

[TJMAC77SP]

You couldn't be more wrong. The largest number of photos of the returning Dead at Dover, has been supplied, in fact, by the federal government, in response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit settlement. Those 732 photos may be easily accessed and copied from the National Security Archives at George Washington University.

Had those who sought publication of these 700+ government photographs desired to make "political hay' out of them, one would surely have thought the Big, Mean, Exploitive Press" would have been all over them by now.

Sorry - it's a transparency and Freedom of the Press Issue. As Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said: "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants" .

How am I wrong? Photos have been released and yet the media is still trying to get the ban lifted. What is the motivation for that? Why the quotes around "Big, Mean, Exploitive Press"? I didn't say that. Did some other poster? As I have stated before, it is comments like this that reveal the true motivation of those seeking a lifting of the ban. The First Amendment has been abused before and will again. I say shed sunlight on the motivation of the press.

Justice Brandeis was absolutely correct but the case he was issuing an opinon on was not going to cause anguish the families of dead warriors.

[LibertyHound]

Noooooooo......listen carefully now........

The media reported it as fact.

You are going to have to try harder.

Here's two big ones that knewreported otherwise. You cite which media reported it as fact as you claim:

CNN: Sarah Palin Has Never Seen Russia From Alaska (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/cnn-sarah-palin-has-never_n_130752.html)

MSNBC - Palin tops list of memorable quotes (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28225566/)

"I can see Russia from my house!" — Comedian Tina Fey, while impersonating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on the TV comedy show "Saturday Night Live," broadcast Sept. 13.


Now you go "Try Harder" and get the actual meda quotes you allege.

[LibertyHound]

How am I wrong? Photos have been released and yet the media is still trying to get the ban lifted. What is the motivation for that? Why the quotes around "Big, Mean, Exploitive Press"? I didn't say that. Did some other poster? As I have stated before, it is comments like this that reveal the true motivation of those seeking a lifting of the ban. The First Amendment has been abused before and will again. I say shed sunlight on the motivation of the press.

Justice Brandeis was absolutely correct but the case he was issuing an opinon on was not going to cause anguish the families of dead warriors.

How are you wrong?

Easy. The government shouldn't control what access the press has on non-security essential matters no more than the press should control government.

Your reference to motivation of the press? That is a non-sequitur. It matters not. One would more appropriately ask what the motivation is for the government to censor - and SCOTUS looks upon that much more critically. It's already decided the question of the press - there shall be NO prior restraint.

Your reference to the families of the dead is emotional, but the principle question to examine is the policy which caused their death in the first place.

[Calmo70]

How are you wrong?
Your reference to the families of the dead is emotional, but the principle question to examine is the policy which caused their death in the first place.

That statement by itself reveals your true motives - it has nothing to do with Freedom of the Press for you - it has everthing to do with your anti-war position. Do not try to wrap your political opinions in a constitutional arguement.

[LibertyHound]

That statement by itself reveals your true motives - it has nothing to do with Freedom of the Press for you - it has everthing to do with your anti-war position. Do not try to wrap your political opinions in a constitutional arguement.

Then I could sink to the same level as you, and claim that your argument has nothing to with privacy, dignity, nor consideration for the bereaved - but rather your pro-war stance.

But that's not the point of the argument. It rests on Constitutional - rather than emotional issues - the Constitution we swore to uphold, defend, and protect.

Nice try, but no cigar.

[mel44]

How are you wrong?

Easy. The government shouldn't control what access the press has on non-security essential matters no more than the press should control government.

Your reference to motivation of the press? That is a non-sequitur. It matters not. One would more appropriately ask what the motivation is for the government to censor - and SCOTUS looks upon that much more critically. It's already decided the question of the press - there shall be NO prior restraint.

Your reference to the families of the dead is emotional, but the principle question to examine is the policy which caused their death in the first place.

Busted!!! :mad: - always a chicken s@#% side bar as a means to make a political statement! I really don't care what you think about the policies but I will tell you that each of my family members that serve have a college degree and choose to serve and die if it calls for it. The continued implications that the soldiers and marines, seamen are to ignorant to understand what they are doing and get killed by mistake is just belittling their commitment and selfless service to a country that unfortunately protects the likes of people that would devalue them in this manner.

If one of my family members dies they no longer belong to the military. Their service is complete by the ultimate act of duty. They will be returned to me. I should have the right to decide who, what, when and where at that point!

[LibertyHound]

Busted!!! :mad: - always a chicken s@#% side bar as a means to make a political statement! I really don't care what you think about the policies but I will tell you that each of my family members that serve have a college degree and choose to serve and die if it calls for it. The continued implications that the soldiers and marines, seamen are to ignorant to understand what they are doing and get killed by mistake is just belittling their commitment and selfless service to a country that unfortunately protects the likes of people that would devalue them in this manner.

If one of my family members dies they no longer belong to the military. Their service is complete by the ultimate act of duty. They will be returned to me. I should have the right to decide who, what, when and where at that point!

Don't give up your day job to become a clairvoyant, Mel. Your mind-reading skills really suck.

But thanks for letting us know how you REALLY feel. That had to be cathartic as hell for you.

[TJMAC77SP]

A two-for-one post………..

Here's two big ones that knewreported otherwise. You cite which media reported it as fact as you claim:

CNN: Sarah Palin Has Never Seen Russia From Alaska (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/cnn-sarah-palin-has-never_n_130752.html)

MSNBC - Palin tops list of memorable quotes (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28225566/)

Now you go "Try Harder" and get the actual meda quotes you allege.

Ok, I admit I can’t find a quote in the MSM on the "I can see Russia" misquote (at least as reported by the MSM). Just reporting that many Americans now wrongfully attribute the quote to Palin. Now since my original point was the misquoting in general.

………….Want a list of the false stories posted by MSM during the recent campaign? Visit FactCheck.org. False stories which a professional news organization should have recoginized prior to the rush to publish or broadcast………………..

Let me ask you…….are you stating that gross misquotes did NOT take place? I can definitely try harder and give you those.


How are you wrong?

Easy. The government shouldn't control what access the press has on non-security essential matters no more than the press should control government.

Your reference to motivation of the press? That is a non-sequitur. It matters not. One would more appropriately ask what the motivation is for the government to censor - and SCOTUS looks upon that much more critically. It's already decided the question of the press - there shall be NO prior restraint.

Your reference to the families of the dead is emotional, but the principle question to examine is the policy which caused their death in the first place.

I noticed you side-stepped my question regarding your misuse of quotes. Not surprising.

My point is non sequitur? I suppose it must be in your mind because it doesn’t support your position. And again you reveal your true agenda in this argument, after we strip away your specious defense of the Constitution (and ignoring the court decisions on the right to privacy). The media’s right to take the photos is to support their questioning of the policies which led to the deaths of these warriors. You are ok with that? That was the intention of writers of the Constitution? You state that my reference to the families is emotional. Of course it is! How could it not be? Believe me if I thought for one moment that the media’s motivation were purely in exercise of their reporting news I would be leading the charge to change the policy. How does prohibiting the taking of photos of coffins being returned by MILAIR hide the effects of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you seriously stating that there isn’t a person in this country old enough to think that doesn’t know the effects? Please………………try harder.

[LibertyHound]

A two-for-one post………..

Let me ask you…….are you stating that gross misquotes did NOT take place? I can definitely try harder and give you those.
I simply asked you to back up your allegation with cites. I'm not in the business of proving negatives. I provided you two examples that the MSM stated she didn't make that statement as per your claim.

So I stick by my statement that a lot of dummies probably confused the SNL skit with the MSM.

So if you want to keep trying to find some examples of the MSM making that statement to back you up - have a ball!


I noticed you side-stepped my question regarding your misuse of quotes. Not surprising..
Want to run that by again, and we can discuss it.

My point is non sequitur? I suppose it must be in your mind because it doesn’t support your position. And again you reveal your true agenda in this argument, after we strip away your specious defense of the Constitution (and ignoring the court decisions on the right to privacy)...

OK. Go get the applicable SCOTUS decisions regarding privacy rights, and we'll examine their applicability.

The media’s right to take the photos is to support their questioning of the policies which led to the deaths of these warriors. You are ok with that? That was the intention of writers of the Constitution? You state that my reference to the families is emotional. Of course it is! How could it not be? Believe me if I thought for one moment that the media’s motivation were purely in exercise of their reporting news I would be leading the charge to change the policy. How does prohibiting the taking of photos of coffins being returned by MILAIR hide the effects of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you seriously stating that there isn’t a person in this country old enough to think that doesn’t know the effects? Please………………try harder...

Do I seriously think there are people who really don't know the effects of war? Yes. And some of them are in the service. I remember watching the movie "Platoon" at Camp Pendleton back in the 80's. Not having been embroiled in any serious wars for a decade or so, no doubt a number of the young Marines who were in the audience were unblooded. When it came to the "Zippo" and the massacre scene - those young Gyreenes cheered and cheered. Unbelievable.

The media's job is to report. And question. If they're given access or can dig out the facts.

[TJMAC77SP]

I simply asked you to back up your allegation with cites. I'm not in the business of proving negatives. I provided you two examples that the MSM stated she didn't make that statement as per your claim.

So I stick by my statement that a lot of dummies probably confused the SNL skit with the MSM.

So if you want to keep trying to find some examples of the MSM making that statement to back you up - have a ball!

So you are ignoring my acknowledgement that I can’t find examples of THAT misquote and equally ignoring my original point. I didn’t ask you to prove anything. I asked you to state whether it is your opinion that misquotes were reported by the MSM during the recent election.

Want to run that by again, and we can discuss it.

You didn’t understand my statement?

Why the quotes around "Big, Mean, Exploitive Press"? I didn't say that. Did some other poster? As I have stated before, it is comments like this that reveal the true motivation of those seeking a lifting of the ban..

What is there to discuss? You didn’t answer the question.


OK. Go get the applicable SCOTUS decisions regarding privacy rights, and we'll examine their applicability.

Are you saying they are not applicable or you just interested in demonstrating your Google proficiency? Justice Brandies himself said a person has 'a right to be left alone’. I would think that would expressly hold for the honored war dead.

Do I seriously think there are people who really don't know the effects of war? Yes. And some of them are in the service. I remember watching the movie "Platoon" at Camp Pendleton back in the 80's. Not having been embroiled in any serious wars for a decade or so, no doubt a number of the young Marines who were in the audience were unblooded. When it came to the "Zippo" and the massacre scene - those young Gyreenes cheered and cheered. Unbelievable.

Unbelievable that you were surprised that a bunch of Marines, probably mostly fresh out of boot would act like that. Equally unbelievable that this is your best example to answer my question.

The media's job is to report. And question. If they're given access or can dig out the facts.

That is fine. What question is asked by photographing coffins of dead warriors (that can only be asked and answered by photographing coffins of dead warriors)?

[mel44]

Don't give up your day job to become a clairvoyant, Mel. Your mind-reading skills really suck.

But thanks for letting us know how you REALLY feel. That had to be cathartic as hell for you.

This is a intelligent reply.

[VFFSSGT]

Well, this one has definitely taken a wrong turn...

[TJMAC77SP]

Well, this one has definitely taken a wrong turn...

It often does when hidden agendas are promoted.

[LibertyHound]

Are you saying they are not applicable or you just interested in demonstrating your Google proficiency? Justice Brandies himself said a person has 'a right to be left alone’. I would think that would expressly hold for the honored war dead.
You never did get any cases. Googling is rather nice, but I took Con Law Courses long before that, when one actually had to do some real research. Obvious you've never put in that work, nor have any idea of how to cite cases to back up your point. You begin to get an understanding of some of the principles of the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights when you've got to burn that midnight oil reading what some of our great jurists wrote and composing your own briefs. There's a lot more to merely googling it or those messdecks discussions.

Unbelievable that you were surprised that a bunch of Marines, probably mostly fresh out of boot would act like that. Equally unbelievable that this is your best example to answer my question..
You did ask who might not be aware of what war entails. Sucks you don't like the answer. In those years a lot more Jarheads were killed by launching their skulls over their Crotch-Rockets than IED's...

What question is asked by photographing coffins of dead warriors (that can only be asked and answered by photographing coffins of dead warriors)?
If you can't imagine the range of questions presented- then you have no business taking on any responsibilities of censorship.

[LibertyHound]

This is a intelligent reply.

Mel,

It's about as kind as I could be considering your complete inability to reply in kind to any of the principles I'de discussed.

[TJMAC77SP]

You never did get any cases. Googling is rather nice, but I took Con Law Courses long before that, when one actually had to do some real research. Obvious you've never put in that work, nor have any idea of how to cite cases to back up your point. You begin to get an understanding of some of the principles of the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights when you've got to burn that midnight oil reading what some of our great jurists wrote and composing your own briefs. There's a lot more to merely googling it or those messdecks discussions.
Actually my degree is in Criminal Justice so I am well aware of ConLaw and yes I got it before Google. But that really isn’t on point is it?
You did ask who might not be aware of what war entails. Sucks you don't like the answer. In those years a lot more Jarheads were killed by launching their skulls over their Crotch-Rockets than IED's...
Actually what I asked was, now in 2009 is there anyone in America who isn’t keenly aware of the costs and implications of this war. You answer with stories of Marine behavior in 1980s base theaters.
If you can't imagine the range of questions presented- then you have no business taking on any responsibilities of censorship.
You really don't like confronting points of view that don't line up with your own way of thinking. Your answers (which aren’t really answers) side step direct points. Critical thinking wasn't part of the midnight oil burning research was it?

[LibertyHound]

Actually my degree is in Criminal Justice so I am well aware of ConLaw and yes I got it before Google. But that really isn’t on point is it?

The point is why you're unwilling to cite any cases on privacy that you believe relevant. If you're argument is based upon law - then make it; if but emotion - simply say so and then we're done.

Actually what I asked was, now in 2009 is there anyone in America who isn’t keenly aware of the costs and implications of this war. You answer with stories of Marine behavior in 1980s base theaters.
It's a good example. Those 'kids' in there, while technically 'Marines' - were still not aware of the real cost of war.

You really don't like confronting points of view that don't line up with your own way of thinking. Your answers (which aren’t really answers) side step direct points. Critical thinking wasn't part of the midnight oil burning research was it?
I don't answer trick questions. i.e. "What question is asked by photographing coffins of dead warriors (that can only be asked and answered by photographing coffins of dead warriors)?" You might be into censorship, but I'm not. And I'm on Constitutional grounds.

Remember the "Pentagon Papers?"

The top-secret DOD history of our involvement in Vietnam from 1945-1967. They were leaked to the New York Times who intended to publish them in 1971. No doubt to embarass Nixon and help end the war. Nixon's Attorney General sought an injunction to prevent the Times from publishing, the Times appealed - and the rest is history.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/713/case.html)

Excerpt from Courts Opinion.

Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, followed in 1791. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country.

In seeking injunctions against these newspapers, and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms. [Footnote 1] They especially feared that the

new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge. Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment in three parts, two of which are set out below, and one of which proclaimed:

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments, and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment, able men that they were, wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: 'Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom * * * of the press * * *.' Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.

[TJMAC77SP]

The point is why you're unwilling to cite any cases on privacy that you believe relevant. If you're argument is based upon law - then make it; if but emotion - simply say so and then we're done.

So, your answer to my points is to keep insisting on me citing some court cases on privacy while never answering my question as to if you believe this is not a matter of the right or privacy. I did not state there were any cases on point, merely that the right to privacy is involved and you were ignoring it, you continue to do so. Perhaps even the right of publicity. Hell let’s consider that…..get to Googling. I have already told you this matter is fraught with emotion. Do you also disagree with that? Is that wrong? Once again does the right to privacy not enter into this?

It's a good example. Those 'kids' in there, while technically 'Marines' - were still not aware of the real cost of war.

Yeah, it is a perfect answer to my repeated and unanswered question. Wow!

I don't answer trick questions. i.e. "What question is asked by photographing coffins of dead warriors (that can only be asked and answered by photographing coffins of dead warriors)?" You might be into censorship, but I'm not. And I'm on Constitutional grounds.

Translation = “I don’t have an answer, have some more specious rhetoric.”
(Or…. “the true answer will tend to shed light on the truth of my stance”)

Remember the "Pentagon Papers?"
The top-secret DOD history of our involvement in Vietnam from 1945-1967. They were leaked to the New York Times who intended to publish them in 1971. No doubt to embarass Nixon and help end the war. Nixon's Attorney General sought an injunction to prevent the Times from publishing, the Times appealed - and the rest is history.

This is your example of a relevant case? You think this equates to the ban on coffin photos at Dover?

Surrrrrrrrre.

Obviously you are another of the countless who avoid confronting any direct counterpoint by deflection. Equally obvious is the fact that you will not admit your specious constitutional arguments reveal your true agenda. Finally and again equally obvious is that you will not tire of your verbal masturbation.
Ironically if the ban is lifted it will mean little. I believe the media will not at this time clamber to show the photos and the lifting will be a non event.
At least you were not so mundane as to utter the overused ‘slippery slope’. Although my guess is that would have squeaked out eventually.

[Spec 4]

Man, I cant wait until I can post again. Thanks TJ for being the voice of reason in my absence.

[LibertyHound]

So, your answer to my points is to keep insisting on me citing some court cases on privacy while never answering my question as to if you believe this is not a matter of the right or privacy..

You're the one who claimed it was a privacy issue. So get the cases. Shit or get off the pot, as they say. If you can't do it, and were just running your mouth about knowing Con Law - then so be it. We're a Nation of Laws - that is one of the qualities which made us great.

I did not state there were any cases on point, merely that the right to privacy is involved and you were ignoring it, you continue to do so.

If there's a privacy right involved - then there's a case. Find it.

Perhaps even the right of publicity. Hell let’s consider that…..get to Googling. I have already told you this matter is fraught with emotion. Do you also disagree with that? Is that wrong? Once again does the right to privacy not enter into this?
You bring up the point - it's you're burden to google (provide the source. If you're in Criminal Justice, you should now that. Of course it's frought with emotion - that's when people lose sight of their senses and start doing stupid things - another Basic LAWF 101 Principle.

Yeah, it is a perfect answer to my repeated and unanswered question. Wow!

Translation = “I don’t have an answer, have some more specious rhetoric.”
(Or…. “the true answer will tend to shed light on the truth of my stance”)
Boy, I bet you were a real hit on the Playground!!

This is your example of a relevant case? You think this equates to the ban on coffin photos at Dover?

Surrrrrrrrre.
It's a case on "Prior Restraint" in which the Supreme Court again (and for hardheaded folks like you) again, and again, and again reiterates "the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints." Sorta over your head there, eh.

Obviously you are another of the countless who avoid confronting any direct counterpoint by deflection. Equally obvious is the fact that you will not admit your specious constitutional arguments reveal your true agenda. Finally and again equally obvious is that you will not tire of your verbal masturbation.
Ironically if the ban is lifted it will mean little. I believe the media will not at this time clamber to show the photos and the lifting will be a non event.
At least you were not so mundane as to utter the overused ‘slippery slope’. Although my guess is that would have squeaked out eventually.

Considering the source, I take that as a perfect compliment. I now understand that you are one who has absolutely no concept of our Constitution, nor what it means. We're in two different worlds, and I hope your kind never comes to power in the U.S.

[Spec 4]

You're the one who claimed it was a privacy issue. So get the cases. Shit or get off the pot, as they say. If you can't do it, and were just running your mouth about knowing Con Law - then so be it. We're a Nation of Laws - that is one of the qualities which made us great.
Wrong, we are a nation of people and that is why we are great. The belief that we are a nation of laws is what is holding us back. IE our current issues in washington. What TJ is saying is that this is an arguement of privacy vs right. I tend to side with the privacy, since the ban has not limited the press's ability to report on the war. However, IF the family of the deceased was okay with the photography, then I believe that it should be okay.

Boy, I bet you were a real hit on the Playground!!
lol likewise Im sure.


It's a case on "Prior Restraint" in which the Supreme Court again (and for hardheaded folks like you) again, and again, and again reiterates "the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints." Sorta over your head there, eh.
I find this statement a bit amusing. You are so invested in the fact that the press has rights that you have forgotten that the other people involved have rights too. Im sure you would make a great ambulance chaser, but a crappy interpreter of the constitution.



Considering the source, I take that as a perfect compliment. I now understand that you are one who has absolutely no concept of our Constitution, nor what it means. We're in two different worlds, and I hope your kind never comes to power in the U.S.
Actually, his kind are the ones who WROTE the constitution. Your kind are the ones in office now. Thus proving the low approval rating of our current congress.

[TJMAC77SP]

You're the one who claimed it was a privacy issue. So get the cases. Shit or get off the pot, as they say. If you can't do it, and were just running your mouth about knowing Con Law - then so be it. We're a Nation of Laws - that is one of the qualities which made us great.



If there's a privacy right involved - then there's a case. Find it.


You bring up the point - it's you're burden to google (provide the source. If you're in Criminal Justice, you should now that. Of course it's frought with emotion - that's when people lose sight of their senses and start doing stupid things - another Basic LAWF 101 Principle.


Boy, I bet you were a real hit on the Playground!!


It's a case on "Prior Restraint" in which the Supreme Court again (and for hardheaded folks like you) again, and again, and again reiterates "the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints." Sorta over your head there, eh.



Considering the source, I take that as a perfect compliment. I now understand that you are one who has absolutely no concept of our Constitution, nor what it means. We're in two different worlds, and I hope your kind never comes to power in the U.S.

Still no answers, repeat, blah, repeat, blah, blah, blah……………….

Now you have resorted to insults which AGAIN confirms what I have been saying all along. You are promoting an agenda but don’t want to say it aloud.

You like court cases so….

There is no absolute freedom of the press nor prohibition against prior restraint……………

Houchins v. KQED Inc

United States v. The Progressive

[CMSBROWN]

Okay...I am being a devils advocate here....(Strapping on my IBV w/trauma plates and ACH)

What is the difference between showing a flag draped coffin of a fallen hero in transit home or when receiving military honors for the ultimate sacrifice and pictures of the fallen in the Military Times or other media avenues?

Most pictures of the flag draped coffins are published without names....the media does not know the names of our fallen heroes unless someone tells them. Now the pics in the Military Times or other media avenues seem to be give to them by families. Many pictures are shown in various arrays of uniforms and clothing and in different locations such as at home or at a duty station. I could be wrong but that is my perception.

When I was in Iraq I sent 4 fallen heroes home to there families. The Army recorded the ceremony for the families of the fallen hero being honored with a ramp ceremony as all branches of the services on the base lined up in formation with flags and guidons marking the pathway to the back of the C130 they were going home on. We were called to attention by the escort when the fallen hero arrived. The escort then commanded "PRESENT ARMS!" Everyone in the formation rendered a saluted to the fallen hero as they passed by in a flag draped coffin. The fallen hero was placed on the back of the C130 and the escort and the pilot rendered a transfer of remains custody salute to the escort stating he assumes responsibility of the fallen hero and will get him home. The escort exited the C130 and stands at the back of the ramp and commands "Order Arms!" The formation of over 2500 personnel order arms. The escort then commands "Detail Dismissed!" The formations do an about face and leave the ramp. The leadership of the fallen hero enter the C130 and surround the fallen hero's flag draped coffin and say a prayer and a few words of gratitude and render a final salute to the fallen hero and exit the plane.

Again this is filmed by the PA and is put to the music of Brave Heart and sent to the families to know they were honored as heroes. Should this be allowed? If we are going to argue the families need to mourn in peace?

Yes I know all about the media anti-war propaganda crappola.

I am just asking what is the actual difference.

I truly believe in two quotes....one is in my siggy and the other is by Socrates-"Only the dead truly see the end of war."

[mel44]

Okay...I am being a devils advocate here....(Strapping on my IBV w/trauma plates and ACH)

What is the difference between showing a flag draped coffin of a fallen hero in transit home or when receiving military honors for the ultimate sacrifice and pictures of the fallen in the Military Times or other media avenues?

Most pictures of the flag draped coffins are published without names....the media does not know the names of our fallen heroes unless someone tells them. Now the pics in the Military Times or other media avenues seem to be give to them by families. Many pictures are shown in various arrays of uniforms and clothing and in different locations such as at home or at a duty station. I could be wrong but that is my perception.

When I was in Iraq I sent 4 fallen heroes home to there families. The Army recorded the ceremony for the families of the fallen hero being honored with a ramp ceremony as all branches of the services on the base lined up in formation with flags and guidons marking the pathway to the back of the C130 they were going home on. We were called to attention by the escort when the fallen hero arrived. The escort then commanded "PRESENT ARMS!" Everyone in the formation rendered a saluted to the fallen hero as they passed by in a flag draped coffin. The fallen hero was placed on the back of the C130 and the escort and the pilot rendered a transfer of remains custody salute to the escort stating he assumes responsibility of the fallen hero and will get him home. The escort exited the C130 and stands at the back of the ramp and commands "Order Arms!" The formation of over 2500 personnel order arms. The escort then commands "Detail Dismissed!" The formations do an about face and leave the ramp. The leadership of the fallen hero enter the C130 and surround the fallen hero's flag draped coffin and say a prayer and a few words of gratitude and render a final salute to the fallen hero and exit the plane.

Again this is filmed by the PA and is put to the music of Brave Heart and sent to the families to know they were honored as heroes. Should this be allowed? If we are going to argue the families need to mourn in peace?

Yes I know all about the media anti-war propaganda crappola.

I am just asking what is the actual difference.

I truly believe in two quotes....one is in my siggy and the other is by Socrates-"Only the dead truly see the end of war."

CS it's not the issue of the pic but as the mom or wife I should have the right to decide if this is released or not. My son has a real issue with photos. He hates his pic taken and would be very upset if his picture was published of him being sent home. My entire family knows this about him and we would all be further injured by not having the option to decline to have his picture taken in a casket.

[CMSBROWN]

CS it's not the issue of the pic but as the mom or wife I should have the right to decide if this is released or not. My son has a real issue with photos. He hates his pic taken and would be very upset if his picture was published of him being sent home. My entire family knows this about him and we would all be further injured by not having the option to decline to have his picture taken in a casket.

I understand Mel....but again...my question was not answered....you gave me your son's and your preference...

My preference I would not care....I am gone... As long as the photos are in good tasteful respect and during the military honors I would not care where they were seen. I would want people to know there is hero who has fallen to protect their freedom and not hide it. The only thing that would bother me would be if it was used as an anti-war propoganda then I would call foul from the casket! :D

[mel44]

I understand Mel....but again...my question was not answered....you gave me your son's and your preference...

My preference I would not care....I am gone... As long as the photos are in good tasteful respect and during the military honors I would not care where they were seen. I would want people to know there is hero who has fallen to protect their freedom and not hide it. The only thing that would bother me would be if it was used as an anti-war propoganda then I would call foul from the casket! :D


I agree. I would want him to be honored but the thought of a terrorist group having a pic of my child and rejoicing over it would make my blood boil! I guess it's just one of those 2 sided coins that can't have one good answer. It just reminds me of Vietnam makes me hurt inside to see them.

[CMSBROWN]

I agree. I would want him to be honored but the thought of a terrorist group having a pic of my child and rejoicing over it would make my blood boil! I guess it's just one of those 2 sided coins that can't have one good answer. It just reminds me of Vietnam makes me hurt inside to see them.


Trust me Mel...I would rather them have one in a casket then one picture of video of a fallen hero after they were killed by the POS's. I have seen many of those terrorist propaganda videos...take the casket picture over it any day.

Try standing there when are you are sending them home....you dont know them personally but you know them as a brother in arms and hits you to the core. I pray that we as a country suffer alot less loss then we have in the past years.....but freedom isn't free and I am thankful there are americans who stand up to sign on the dotted line to defend our freedoms and protect our country from terrorism.

[mel44]

Trust me Mel...I would rather them have one in a casket then one picture of video of a fallen hero after they were killed by the POS's. I have seen many of those terrorist propaganda videos...take the casket picture over it any day.

Try standing there when are you are sending them home....you dont know them personally but you know them as a brother in arms and hits you to the core. I pray that we as a country suffer alot less loss then we have in the past years.....but freedom isn't free and I am thankful there are americans who stand up to sign on the dotted line to defend our freedoms and protect our country from terrorism.

I have great respect for you. I can't even imagine how hard that must be. My son told me back in the beginning of the war as he was preparing to depart for Iraq with the invasion that if he were killed, I was crying hysterically, that he would die doing what he loved and for a country he would give his life for any day. How could I respond to that but to kiss one last time maybe for ever and square my shoulders for the battle. I hear many talk about "brass balls" but putting your baby on a plane maybe to their death takes a full armor of steel! I have gotten better at it over the years now but I always make that last kiss & hug count!

[CMSBROWN]

IMy son told me back in the beginning of the war as he was preparing to depart for Iraq with the invasion that if he were killed, I was crying hysterically, that he would die doing what he loved and for a country he would give his life for any day.

He shares the same feelings that many military soldiers, airman, marines and sailors feel.

It reminds me of Hoot from Black Hawk Down...(seen it 17 times)

When I get home people 'll ask me, "Hey Hoot, why do ya do it man? Why? Just some war junkie?" Ya know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the men next to you, and that's it. That's all it is.

Awesome quote! Ask your son or husband...I bet they remember the quote if they have seen the movie.

[mel44]

He shares the same feelings that many military soldiers, airman, marines and sailors feel.

It reminds me of Hoot from Black Hawk Down...(seen it 17 times)

When I get home people 'll ask me, "Hey Hoot, why do ya do it man? Why? Just some war junkie?" Ya know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the men next to you, and that's it. That's all it is.

Awesome quote! Ask your son or husband...I bet they remember the quote if they have seen the movie.

Awwww yes I remember! Seen it just a few times myself :). Colonel steele was my sons Brigade commander when they got back to Ft. Campbell after their first tour of Iraq. One day I was sitting watching TV and my son-in-laws little notebook was sitting on the side table. I picked it up and on the inside cover in bold letters he had written "remember we fight for a freedom we do not possess" It really touched my heart as I realized all the young soldiers in and out of my house did not have the same freedoms that they fight for me to have as they belong to the military! Changed me and the way I saw our fighting men.

[VFFSSGT]

The Pentagon is expected to allow some media coverage of returning war dead with approval from their families, the Associated Press reported Thursday.

At least they put that stipulation in it...

[TJMAC77SP]

At least they put that stipulation in it...

As appropriate.................minus the ConLaw lectures.

[mel44]

At least they put that stipulation in it...

Rock on! So it will only be with family ok then?

[TJMAC77SP]

Hmmmmmm A wrinkle to the story. Turns out it was not George Bush that instituted the ban to hide the deaths in Iraq (a pretty lame argument in the first place). Turns out that it was first put in place in either 1989 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/pentagon.media.war.dead/)or 1991 (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/02/ap_military_coffins_022609/) (depending on your source). Of course, it could be that George Sr, knowing that the Illuminati were going to get his son elected President and that George W. would start the war in Iraq put the ban in place so that the grand conspiracy could continue………………………

[CVal]

As the mother of a man who died in service to his country, I've thought about this issue for quite some time. I've read most of this discussion, and I've come to some conclusions. Photos of flag-draped coffins, with no identification of whose remains are involved, provide a way for the public to see the cost of war, and it allows the families and friends of the deceased to see the care with which their loved one's remains are handled, whether it's their loved one in the pictured coffin or not. With the caskets in a group, one individual cannot be specifically identified.

On the other hand, if it is a picture in which the deceased is identifiable, I believe that goes beyond the bounds of civility, good taste, and common courtesy. However, this nation believes in certain freedoms, including that of free press. Do I believe the government should make laws abridging a news organization's right to publish such photos? No, but I would be very unhappy with any news organization that runs graphic photos of the deceased.

My son died at Brook Army Medical Center in Texas, so he was flown home on a commercial airliner, with his best friend's older brother as his official military escort for the flight. As far as I know, there was no press there as his remains were placed in the airplane. I also don't believe there was press there when his plane landed in Chicago, nor were there any reporters following the state police escort and hearse up the tollway.

So while I don't have the experience of having my son's flag-draped casket shown, I do have the experience of having his medical flight from Guam to Hawaii to Texas shown. The U.S. Air Force Air Mobility Command published photos of the interior of the airplane that transported my son and five others (Use this link and go to the photos that reference USS Frank Cable http://www.amc.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=447&page=8 ).

None of the patients is identifiable in the photos, but as a mother, I've studied each one (there were more in the original publication) to try to figure out which one was my son. It's hard to tell a person's height when he's lying down, or to identify a nose when the entire face is wrapped. I've asked myself, Is that foot big enough to be his?

While some might find this distressing, it allowed me to see a glimpse of the level of professionalism displayed by those involved in his care on this flight. It allowed me to see what his experience was on this flight, even though he was not conscious for it. In a way, it gave me a little more time to spend with him.

Do I have a final anwer to this question? No, except to say it ought to be up to the families involved in cases where identities are visible in the photo.

[mel44]

Hmmmmmm A wrinkle to the story. Turns out it was not George Bush that instituted the ban to hide the deaths in Iraq (a pretty lame argument in the first place). Turns out that it was first put in place in either 1989 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/pentagon.media.war.dead/)or 1991 (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/02/ap_military_coffins_022609/) (depending on your source). Of course, it could be that George Sr, knowing that the Illuminati were going to get his son elected President and that George W. would start the war in Iraq put the ban in place so that the grand conspiracy could continue………………………


Fred thats kinda deep :confused:

[Proud Mom]

Gates said in his speech it would remain with the families to give permission before their loved ones are shown.

CVal...I 'm sorry I missed your post until now. As always when I read your posts I think of his memory books you shared with me. Your a special and brave woman.

[mel44]

CVal I just read your post. Thank You for sharing your experience. I lost a son when he was a child I can't imagine how difficult this must have been. Just like you check out fingers and toes when they are born you would check every inch of a pic to see him, I understand that. My heart goes out to you - I know there are no words anyone can say so a hug and a kiss on the cheek. May God bring peace to your heart and joy on a day of reunion that is sure to come. Thank you for your son you have given the greatest gift to this country.

[namvet]

first off the post title is wrong. Gates has nothing to with it. the dictator Osama came up with stupid idea. also the families as of now have not given permission. and shouldn't. I would not want the mongoloid media turning this into a circus.
...........last I assume you've heard of the Westboro Baptist church???? nough said...........

[MegProc823]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/pentagon.media.war.dead/index.html

I searched for awhile before I made this thread for fear of being repetitive... but I was not able to find any discussions on the topic.

Of course most of us have heard by now that it is now legal for the first time in 18 years that the media will not be allowed to photograph and cover fallen troops arriving back to the United States... with the permission of the family members.

What do we all think about this? Do you think that it is right for the media and the rest of the country to be able to see our departed loved ones coming home?


Personally- I would not want anyone besides my family to be able to photograph my husbands casket if god forbid something were to happen to him. I believe there are some things in life that we should be able to keep private and between the family. Why the fascination with seeing deceased troops? There are not fights to see civilian funerals. I do not understand the need to for the rest of the country to be able to share these private and grief filled moments with a mourning family. Again.. this is just my opinion. I just feel like our servicemembers, the men and women that put their lives on the line for our freedom deserve some privacy and respect... while they also deserve praise for their hardwork and ultimate sacrifice. But this is someones son, husband, daughter, mother, father, wife, sister... etc. Why should the media be allowed special services and report this...

WELL... what do we all think here? Again, direct me to the thread if this topic already exists.

[mel44]

Meg there is a thread on this somewhere but its been a while. My opinion on this is once they have given their lives they have fulfilled their obligation and should be returned to their family. God forbid anything happen to James I would be very angry to have to share anymore of him with the country.

I think the difference is between draft and enlistment. The decision to serve is a personal one and once that is over then it is again personal and has no place in the media period.

Meg he is gonna be fine quit worrying -

[oncnn]

It depends on the family if they want news coverage of their fallen.

[TJMAC77SP]

This has been discussed (and hopefully we won’t get any further specious constitutional lectures). If the families have no objection, then I can see the point of raising any myself. Of course, in this instance only one (and thank God for that at least) fallen warrior was returned. If more than one were to be returned, all families will have to agree to the coverage. As distasteful the potential agenda of some of the media in pursuing this issue, that at least seems a fair compromise.