The hidden cost of our..........

[lakritze]

illegal occupation of Iraq .....Why were these pictures hidden from the American public until now? Why was the lady who took these pictures fired from her job? www.thememoryhole.org

[Lilith]

lakritze I have tried to edit your link to make it work but am not having any luck.

[Lilith]

I also wanna ask if that's a discussion (because it will turn political) you really wanna get into here based on what has happened in similar threads???

The same controversy existed recently about CBS showing Princess Di's body.

[Lilith]

Interesting that every link I try, even from the original article, won't work.

[Irish]

Lilith---It doesn't come up for me either! Irish
P.S.My $.02.Yes,it will turn political!

[lakritze]

Sorry for the bad link,but this is breaking news in every paper nation wide.These images should make us all think about what is going on, even at the risk of turning political.

[Lilith]

okee dokee...

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

All political discussions can be equal, if we all practice sufficient self restraint to make them so.

[lakritze]

This is what I am saying. You can disagree with me 50% or even 100%.Thats alright.But get involved and find out for yourselves. Most of the things the govt.does under most any administration is conducted behind our back without any input from people like us. As my friend Aurora points out,decisions are far reaching and effect people the world over.Read Bob Woodward's new book or any of the new books trying to alert us to this fact.There has been a very cinical ban on pictures of coffins returning from this "war" for a long time.Now the story's are breaking in the news.The pentagon says it is to protect the familie's privacy of those who gave their lives for "freedom".Others will say it's a cinical attempt to keep the American publc in the dark as to the failure of this illegal occupation.Everyone has heard that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance,but few realize it means to watch your elected or "selected" officials and participate in the effort to keep Democracy alive.STAY INFORMED PEOPLE......

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

Lakritze and I share few philosophical positions, yet I find myself in agreement with him that we must become and remain informed. Democracy, wherever it is practiced, is practiced best when people know what they are talking (and hopefully voting) about.

As to why the photographer was fired; she was fired because she violated the terms of her employment.

One can argue, as some have, that the no photograph rule is designed to cover up the human cost of war. Others can argue plausibly that the policy it is in the interests of bereaved families. They are, after all, already in mourning over the loss of their family member.

Perhaps the policy could be revised to permit those who want their dead publicized the opportunity to authorize it. That way, the privacy of those who prefer to mourn privately could be respected, and those who wish to make their aguish public could also be accommodated.

Still, whichever way this policy plays out against the Freedom of Information Act (the controlling law in this instance), an adult discussion of the pros and cons of it, and any revisions to it, would best be carried out without rancor.

[Scarecrow]

Why disrespect the dead and their families with pictures of flag drapped coffins. The press releases the names and the number of dead and wounded so it's not the number of dead hidden and not the name of the dead, so I ask what is hidden?? They do not have to sensanualis it with this type of Picture just to sell more papers or get more veiwers. Now if the names were not released that would be a different subject. Please respect the men and women who put their lives on the line so that you have the right to make incorrect statements such as this.

[dicksbro]

I agree, Scarecrow.

[Belial]

Sensational it might be, but so is photographing soldiers farewelling loved ones, saluting in front of flags flapping the the breeze, etc. That's what most journalistic or indeed artistic photographs are designed to do, engender sensation. What those photos are not is dishonest. Soldiers died, got put in coffins, flags were draped over them, and got shipped out. The photographs document nothing that didn't actually happen.

Now personally, I don't understand how photographing a coffin disrespects the person in it or their family. If someone can explain that to me, I'd appreciate it (seriously).

[having_fun]

I received this email on Thursday, it will be the only reply I post to this thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two week leave back home.

And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you.

This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently: (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper is producing): All I saw while I was on leave were reports about the negative things, regarding a small minority of people there.

Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.

Over 400,000 kids have up to date immunizations.

Over 1500 schools have been renovated and ridded of the weapons that were stored there so education can occur.

The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off loaded from ships faster.

School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.

The country had it's first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.

The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.

100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed compared to 35% before the war.

Elections are taking place in every major city and city councils are in place.

Sewer and water lines are updated, installed, and working in every major city.

Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.

Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.

Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.

Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.

Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.

An interim constitution has been signed.

Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Iraq.

Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I have met many, many people from Iraq that want us there and in a bad way.

They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. So if you happen to run into John Kerry, be sure to give him my email address and send him to Denison, Iowa. This soldier will set him straight. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email this to a
friend and let them know there are good things happening.

Ray Reynolds, SFC
Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion

[MilkToast]

The original story with the photos that got the woman fired were run in the Seattle Times. The story about it is also there.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001909527_coffin22m.html

I am still looking for the reference so I can post it here, but apparently some of the images that were posted on TheMemoryHole web site have been misrepresented and are of coffins with the remains of one of the shuttle accidents. However, until I can substantiate that claim I will just chalk it up to hearsay.

(BTW, the original link in this thread does work, the site is just overwhelmed at the moment)

[Irish]

having_fun---Thank You!I have heard MANY soldiers complian that
all of the good things done are not reported.The media,sensation-
alises(sp?)all of the bad things & the people at home,don't realise
all of the good that is done! Irish
P.S. I would like to extend my condolences to Pat Tillmans fellow
Rangers!One of my Sons-in Law,was an Airborne Ranger,so I know,the respect,that they have for each other.Much respect is
felt,because they know,what each other,went thru,just in training
alone.Many don't know it,but he also had to pass the Final test,
of the Seals,Special Forces,etc.As his family said-He might not leave money,but he leaves a legacy!

[jseal]

Belial,

No photograph is respectful. No photograph is disrespectful. A photograph is a recorded image. A recording of what is. Reality is not respectful, nor is it disrespectful.

How an image is used or presented can be very disrespectful indeed.

For example, a few years ago, there was a picture entitled “Piss Christ” exhibited in several places, including Melbourne in 1997. Due to the way that the image was presented, it engendered such antipathy that it was seriously damaged, and the exhibit closed. A similar fate befell “The Holy Virgin Mary”. It was not that the images were themselves blasphemous; an image is after all only an image, but that they were presented in such a way as to antagonize people who had existing strong beliefs about the subject matter. As an aside, note that the responses elicited were so passionate that the exhibits were cancelled, thus depriving everyone of the opportunity to see the images. Most regrettable, and so avoidable.

Below is a link to a politically focused site. If you’ll take the time to follow it, you’ll see what has already been done with mere images. While some may take the picture in stride as an acceptable political “statement”, I suspect that others would consider it disrespectful. Composing a mosaic of a nation’s political executive out of images of dead people can plausibly be argued as disrespectful.

http://amleft.blogspot.com/archives/2004_04_01_amleft_archive.html#108112087436221697

The last two American Presidents have had the dubious distinction of polarizing the political environment. The discourteous and nasty tactics which have become the political norm play into the hands of people on both the Right and the Left who seem to delight in savaging people with whom they disagree.

Now place yourself in the position of the Dover AFB commander. To make these images available on demand from a military facility is to be an accessory before the fact of a political statement. Is it fitting for the military to facilitate any particular type of political statement?

It is true that these images of coffins are only images. I believe that there is no prohibition of photography of the coffins once they have been released to the families of the deceased. Until then, how they may be used is very much within the purview of the managing organization, in this case the U.S. Air Force.

[Belial]

I do remember Piss Christ, and I recall being somewhat (pardon the pun) pissed off about what happened to it.

I saw the picture, and on a purely technical level I find it to be quite outstanding though I am very much a lay graphics person (read: I suck at graphics). I do think it could be, and probably was intended to be disrespectful towards George Bush Jr. I don't find disrespect to be an unacceptable political statement, however, and believe this to be central to any society offering freedom of political expression.

Isn't it the military's raison d'etre to facilitate - indeed, to act out themselves - political statements? If I were a commander committed to war I might be inclined, from a pragmatic point of view to not allow the photographs of the coffins to be released, because a pictorial reminder that soldiers actually die in war might not make me and my mission quite as popular with the citizens of my country, however, to not release the pictures obscures (in a pictorial sense) part of reality. To obscure information in any form that has no national security value, I believe, is not the function of the air force, nor military, nor any body puporting to act on behalf of "the people".

Originally posted by jseal
Belial,

No photograph is respectful. No photograph is disrespectful. A photograph is a recorded image. A recording of what is. Reality is not respectful, nor is it disrespectful.

How an image is used or presented can be very disrespectful indeed.

For example, a few years ago, there was a picture entitled “Piss Christ” exhibited in several places, including Melbourne in 1997. Due to the way that the image was presented, it engendered such antipathy that it was seriously damaged, and the exhibit closed. A similar fate befell “The Holy Virgin Mary”. It was not that the images were themselves blasphemous; an image is after all only an image, but that they were presented in such a way as to antagonize people who had existing strong beliefs about the subject matter. As an aside, note that the responses elicited were so passionate that the exhibits were cancelled, thus depriving everyone of the opportunity to see the images. Most regrettable, and so avoidable.

Below is a link to a politically focused site. If you’ll take the time to follow it, you’ll see what has already been done with mere images. While some may take the picture in stride as an acceptable political “statement”, I suspect that others would consider it disrespectful. Composing a mosaic of a nation’s political executive out of images of dead people can plausibly be argued as disrespectful.

http://amleft.blogspot.com/archives/2004_04_01_amleft_archive.html#108112087436221697

The last two American Presidents have had the dubious distinction of polarizing the political environment. The discourteous and nasty tactics which have become the political norm play into the hands of people on both the Right and the Left who seem to delight in savaging people with whom they disagree.

Now place yourself in the position of the Dover AFB commander. To make these images available on demand from a military facility is to be an accessory before the fact of a political statement. Is it fitting for the military to facilitate any particular type of political statement?

It is true that these images of coffins are only images. I believe that there is no prohibition of photography of the coffins once they have been released to the families of the deceased. Until then, how they may be used is very much within the purview of the managing organization, in this case the U.S. Air Force.

[jseal]

Belial,

In your first post to this thread, you raised the question of how photographing a coffin could disrespect the person in it or their family. Following my explanation of how easy it would be to use the pictures of the coffins in a fashion which could plausibly be described as disrespectful, your second post allowed that you thought that the linked mosaic could be, and probably was intended to be disrespectful. As the images used for the mosaic could just as easily have been little flag draped coffins (perhaps as the colors of a tie, or a little lapel pin), I submit that the issue of how a photograph of a coffin could be used in a fashion which disrespects the person in it or their family may safely be considered resolved.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this does not indicate my preference for, or for that matter against, the armed conflict from which these photographs are taken. While that could be an interesting issue to debate, it is one in which I am unwilling to engage. I think that doing so here would be rash.

I hope you do not take it amiss if I disagree with you about the raison d'être of the military of a democracy. Their function is to execute the orders given to them by the political rulers of the state. You and I entrust the military to the politicians. You may be aware that the throw weight of the nuclear weapons of an Ohio-class (Trident) submarine is, at 91+ megatons, many times in excess of that used during the course of World War Two – even when including the weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The last thing I want is a highly politicized crew of one of those vessels to broadcast their ultimatum. Come to think of it, were that to come to pass, the ultimatum would probably be one of the last things I would hear.

If you want examples of politically active military, you need only look at the sorry history of South America during the second half of the 20th century.

And in re limited success with graphics, I feel you pain. Having spent more on graphic tools than I should have, I must admit to being “graphically challenged” myself.

[Belial]

I see how the photographs could lead to disrespect, forgive me for being a little slow :) I concede that, but as I alluded to earlier, I think the risk of that is something we must accept if we wish to maintain freedom of expression.

Perhaps our definitions of politics and its scope are not in sync. To me, every statement made by a political leader in their political role is a political statement. No politician makes statements without considering and moderating those statements against the potential political consequences. So therefore, to me, when a country's military is only engaged at the behest of that country's political leadership, that military exists for the actioning of political statements. I do agree with you that this is/would be not a happy state of affairs, but unless my understanding is incorrect, it is a very real one.

Originally posted by jseal
Belial,

In your first post to this thread, you raised the question of how photographing a coffin could disrespect the person in it or their family. Following my explanation of how easy it would be to use the pictures of the coffins in a fashion which could plausibly be described as disrespectful, your second post allowed that you thought that the linked mosaic could be, and probably was intended to be disrespectful. As the images used for the mosaic could just as easily have been little flag draped coffins (perhaps as the colors of a tie, or a little lapel pin), I submit that the issue of how a photograph of a coffin could be used in a fashion which disrespects the person in it or their family may safely be considered resolved.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this does not indicate my preference for, or for that matter against, the armed conflict from which these photographs are taken. While that could be an interesting issue to debate, it is one in which I am unwilling to engage. I think that doing so here would be rash.

I hope you do not take it amiss if I disagree with you about the raison d'être of the military of a democracy. Their function is to execute the orders given to them by the political rulers of the state. You and I entrust the military to the politicians. You may be aware that the throw weight of the nuclear weapons of an Ohio-class (Trident) submarine is, at 91+ megatons, many times in excess of that used during the course of World War Two – even when including the weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The last thing I want is a highly politicized crew of one of those vessels to broadcast their ultimatum. Come to think of it, were that to come to pass, the ultimatum would probably be one of the last things I would hear.

If you want examples of politically active military, you need only look at the sorry history of South America during the second half of the 20th century.

And in re limited success with graphics, I feel you pain. Having spent more on graphic tools than I should have, I must admit to being “graphically challenged” myself.

[jseal]

Belial,

Freedom of speech/expression is not an absolute. My freedom to shout “Fire!” stops well before I am seated in a crowded cinema.

There is, I grant you, an unavoidable tension – a give and take if you will – between the freedoms customarily extended to our political leaders and their responsibilities to be honest and forthright about their policies.

In order to be effective they must be afforded sufficient room in which to maneuver into some consensus the various and sometime contradictory constituents they represent. At the same time, I will grant that they cannot expect the electorate to accept back room deals done at night in obscurity.

I do think we differ in how we see the role of the military in a democracy. I point again to 20th century history to emphasize the importance of segregating the military from politics.

[Belial]

Originally posted by jseal
Belial,

Freedom of speech/expression is not an absolute. My freedom to shout “Fire!” stops well before I am seated in a crowded cinema.

There is, I grant you, an unavoidable tension – a give and take if you will – between the freedoms customarily extended to our political leaders and their responsibilities to be honest and forthright about their policies.

In order to be effective they must be afforded sufficient room in which to maneuver into some consensus the various and sometime contradictory constituents they represent. At the same time, I will grant that they cannot expect the electorate to accept back room deals done at night in obscurity.


I'll agree with you there. There has to be a line drawn, and it's tough to decide where. As long as there is open dialogue we have some hope of getting it "right".


I do think we differ in how we see the role of the military in a democracy. I point again to 20th century history to emphasize the importance of segregating the military from politics.

I do see your point, and to quite an extent agree with it in terms of what I would like to see. However, what I would like to see and what I believe are in this case not necessarily the same. My contention is that if the government truly wishes the military to engage, one of two things will happen: One, commanders will comply, or two, they will not, and the likely result will be some sort of coup, with either the government deposing the military commanders and replacing them with commanders who will comply, or the military deposing the government who then become the government, giving us a situation where obviously the military will do the government's bidding as they would be one and the same.