quote:``Quite frankly, we don't want the remains of our service members who have made the ultimate sacrifice to be the subject of any kind of attention that is unwarranted or undignified,'' said John Molino, a deputy undersecretary of defense.
Yet they had no problem whatsoever when the various television new media showed us photos of the bodies of dead US citizens being hung from bridges in Iraq and mutilated.
Maybe it's just different rules for the military, vs. civilians. But I think something else is going on.
Why are we allowed to see imagery that will inflame our sypmathies, yet forbidden to see images that will sadden us, and possibly lead to internal political resistance?
The first article makes references to the media images of caskets and body bags returning home from the Vietman war, and the way in which that helped motivate US citizens to fight against the war. Imagine, if you would, if instead we were shown images of US soldiers being torn apart by the Viet Cong.
(Apologies, in advance, to any Vietnamese readers we may have).
[ April 23, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I'm, pretty convinced with what you say. Miliary isn't as important as whom they protect, so why the outrage? Afterall, they are citizens too, so its obvious that is important news to all Americans.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Yet the US had no qualms about showing Hussein's sons on public television, either. And I don't want to hear one more "they needed to identify the bodies" excuse, because you don't allow public television to display bodies of someone you are getting validation of identity on.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Actually, you hit the nail on the head in one sentence. It is different rules for military vs. civilians. The military does not have a say in what photos can be shown of civilians, they do have a say in what can be shown of their servicemen. While it may seem to be a conspiracy, it's a rule that's been around for a little while. From what I understand of it, it's to protect the families of those who were killed. They may not want pictures of their dead children/husbands/wives etc shown in the national media. The media is only allowed to show pictures with permission from the families.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
On a related note, I did not want to see pictures of Saddam's dead sons, and I was hoping the night before that the newspapers would have sense enough not to put pictures of hanging bodies in Fallujah in the paper. However, as usual, it didn't quite work out that way. I'd prefer to not open the paper to any dead bodies.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mmm. Depends on the viewer, IMO.
I'm pretty much incensed either way. A rolling ball of perpetual anger and vengeance, that's me.
But then, I'm a white American male. It's kinda what we do.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
But it's okay to use the flag-draped coffins of 9/11 firefighters as leverage in a political ad campaign?
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
"... A rolling ball of perpetual anger and vengeance, that's me.
But then, I'm a white American male. It's kinda what we do. "
Good one Scott!
[ April 23, 2004, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Ayelar, I don't remember anyone saying that either.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:At a rally in Dover last month, war protesters criticized President Bush for continuing the practice of previous administrations of not allowing the public or media to witness the arrival of remains at the base.
``We need to stop hiding the deaths of our young; we need to be open about their deaths,'' said Jane Bright of West Hills, Calif., whose 24-year-old son, Evan Ashcraft, was killed in combat in July.
quote:But Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, who served in the Navy during the Vietnam War, said photos of caskets coming home from Vietnam had a tremendous impact on the way Americans came to view that war.
``As people began to see the reality of it and see the 55,000 people who were killed coming back in body bags, they became more and more upset by the war,'' he said. ``This is not about privacy. This is about trying to keep the country from facing the reality of war.''
[ April 23, 2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Someone did, prolix, and it was someone from the same administration.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yet the US had no qualms about showing Hussein's sons on public television, either. And I don't want to hear one more "they needed to identify the bodies" excuse, because you don't allow public television to display bodies of someone you are getting validation of identity on.
It's not that they needed to identify the bodies. It's because a lot of Iraqis were convinced Sadaam and his sons were coming back. It's the same reasons leaders were displayed in state after their death.
Dagonee
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Sure Ayelar, pin this one on the administration too to keep the flame of outrage against it alive and well.
How about some directing responsibility to the media about this? I mean they are ultimatly the ones who decide what we see aren't they?
edited to add: And to further Dag's point...Do you really think that people (both Iraqi and American) would have beleived that we captured Saddam if he was not shown on world wide public television? Same thing with his sons. People are so dubious about anything that any administration says anymore that undeniable proof is required.
[ April 23, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't see where the second link demonstrates that the military had no problem whatsoever with the press publicizing the Fallujah mutilations. The photo is ascribed to a Khalid Mohammed of Associated Press.
P.S. I think the hypocrisy would be more clear if the military had in some way provided those photos or said they were a good thing.
[ April 23, 2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:It's not that they needed to identify the bodies. It's because a lot of Iraqis were convinced Sadaam and his sons were coming back. It's the same reasons leaders were displayed in state after their death.
Then we shouldn't be outraged for the treatment of those who were hung off the bridge at Fallujah. We paraded Saddam's sons all over United States airwaves, not just Iraqi ones. As I said—hypocritical.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
John, as I said above. It wasn't just to convince the Iraqi people, it was for ours too. If the "administration" had simple claimed that we got them, then our people/media would have asked, no screamed, for proof positive. Can you blame them for trying to prove to us that they met one of the goals of the war? That being capturing, not necessarily killing, Saddam and his sons.
As much as I disagree with it in principle, I can't concieve a more effective method in that senerio.
edited for spelling b/c I can't
[ April 23, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Paladin, I read it the first time, and it is still hypocritical if we are in any way outraged with the display of our troops and/or civilians killed in action.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Then we shouldn't be outraged for the treatment of those who were hung off the bridge at Fallujah. We paraded Saddam's sons all over United States airwaves, not just Iraqi ones. As I said—hypocritical.
There's a difference between releasing pictures of people killed in battle to reassure a populace that two vicious torturers are dead and hanging the bodies of up on perpetual display after their deaths.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Paladin, I read it the first time, and it is still hypocritical if we are in any way outraged with the display of our troops and/or civilians killed in action.
Wow. Way to demonstrate an ability to make fine distinctions there, John.
Dagonee
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:John, as I said above. It wasn't just to convince the Iraqi people, it was for ours too. If the "administration" had simple claimed that we got them, then our people/media would have asked, no screamed, for proof positive. Can you blame them for trying to prove to us that they met one of the goals of the war? That being capturing, not necessarily killing, Saddam and his sons.
I hate to be cynical, here, but I think it was mostly for political mileage for Bush. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay, even as pro-current-administration as I am (and have been known to be) I have to agree that this is hypocritical. I just don't understand it. There is nothing in the photos (from what I've seen) that is dishonoring the dead or what they did for our country.
And I have no trouble with the media making the war "more real" for the general public. War is a bad thing. Not always avoidable, but always a sad thing. However, I recognize that wars, and lives, bought us our freedom many times over in this country.
Farmgirl
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
" Paladin, I read it the first time, and it is still hypocritical if we are in any way outraged with the display of our troops and/or civilians killed in action."
Why? What did they hope to prove by showing the identities of those American mercenaries that were killed? I think there is a fundemental difference in the intent of the actions although they are similiar.
We did so to prove that these notorious men were under control (permanently)
They tied those civilians up for more monsterous reasons. To make a political statement by desicrating their remains. Their identities were not politically important except in the fact they were Americans. What did it prove other then those people (by those I mean those that did this, NOT the Iraqi people in general) chose to torture and display those they kill?
[ April 23, 2004, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
It wasn't so many years ago when the conquerors cut off the heads of their conquered enemies, and displayed them on the ends of pikes (poles) at the corners of their castles.
I guess we haven't changed all that much as a species--certainly the civilization of American society hasn't changed that much.
The US soldiers weren't shown--only their flag-draped caskets. Unless they've got the names of the dearly departed written in 6" tall letters, I don't think you can identify what's inside from a television or newspaper.
And the Pentagon could have similarly banned the photos and videos of the US civilians being set on fire, and later strung up on that bridge, if they so desired. (Not that I'm for censorship; just being realistic).
BTW, John L--I said "hypocrital" FIRST! Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I don't see where the second link demonstrates that the military had no problem whatsoever with the press publicizing the Fallujah mutilations
Now wait a minute -- did the American media actually display those burned/mutilated bodies that hung from the bridge? Because I thought I had to go to a foreign-news web site to see those controversial photos -- and the American media just showed a photo of the burning vehicle..... But I don't watch much TV -- just get my news online.
I have been trying to access the photos in question based on the article in the link above.
Farmgirl
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Oh yeah, it seems we still enjoy looking at death in the eye... At least, its actaully kind of a joke to us Mexicans, we laught at death in its face.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:The US soldiers weren't shown--only their flag-draped caskets. Unless they've got the names of the dearly departed written in 6" tall letters, I don't think you can identify what's inside from a television or newspaper.
Yes, this is what I was thinking, too, Steve (though I haven't seen the website, won't load for me, I am assuming the individual coffins are not identified).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Most of the people arguing John's hypocrisy are attacking his stated equivalence of photographing dead bodies to prove to a formerly oppressed populace that two of their opressors are dead and hanging bodies up as trophies.
I wouldn't have posted on just the topic you posted. Now that I have, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Pentagon has no control over the pictures of the hanged bodies, while it has control over the photos of the flagged coffins. So I don't think it's hypocrisy. I do think the pictures deserve to be shown, however.
Dagonee
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Now wait a minute -- did the American media actually display those burned/mutilated bodies that hung from the bridge? Because I thought I had to go to a foreign-news web site to see those controversial photos -- and the American media just showed a photo of the burning vehicle..... But I don't watch much TV -- just get my news online.
Yes, actually, both my local newspaper and the New York Times had pictures of the burned and mutilated bodies hanging from the bridge - and a number of readers wrote in to object.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I was finally able to get the "Photos in Question" to load. I think it was down earlier.
FG
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
But the Pentagon has as much control over the pictures of the hanged bodies as it did over the pictures of the flagged coffins.
Pictures of flag-draped coffins of US soldiers from Iraq had been taken by civilians (subsequently fired from their military contracts), and published in recognized newspapers (from the first article):
quote:The Pentagon move came a day after a cargo worker was fired by a military contractor after her photograph of flag-draped remains was published on the front page of Sunday editions of The Seattle Times.
Where is that photo now? Why wasn't it paraded about at the same intensity of the men-hanging-from-the-bridge photo?
Prove me wrong, please; but it appears that the US Administration (who else?) requested that the former photo be pulled, while allowing the latter photo to remain in circulation.
Both images available to the public. One image pulled from circulation. One image remains.
I'm trying very hard not to be paranoid, and would appreciate someone telling me how wrong I really am.
Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
Maybe the US killed their own soldiers in more lethal "friendly" fire like they did to the Canadians. That was shoved under the rug pretty swiftly too, no?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're accusing the U.S. of prior restraint and censorship. Unless the Pentagon owns the photo, in which case it has control of that one.
The Pentagon cannot stop the publication of photos of the hanging bodies.
Comparing someone stopping something they have control over and not stop something they have no control over cannot prove hypocrisy.
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dag,
I will repeat.
Both images were taken by civilians.
Both images made it to the news media, and to the internet.
The flag-draped coffin images, I believe (and here is where I asked to be proven wrong) have been "pulled." (the more I think of it, the more I think I must be wrong). The Hanging Body images were not--to my knowledge--pulled from public access.
The Pentagon (read: The "Administration") only responded to the images of the flag-draped coffins (and again--note that it was not an image of the remains; it was an image of a flag-draped BOX). It did not respond to the images of the US civilians (Mercenaries? Please prove. I thought that they were US contractors).
The Administration released images of human remains when it wanted to prove that Saddam Hussein's sons had been killed.
That's my point.
(I use the word "images," because know that thre were still amd moving images of the hanging bodies, but I am only aware of still images of the flag-draped coffins)
[ April 23, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
Do NOT make me (again) get into the absolute and insulting inaccuracy of the word "Mercenary" being used to describe anything relating to a U.S. military service member.
Believe it or not, there have been complaints by service member families about media presence at the return of their loved ones remains. I, personally agree with them and do not want press coverage if I have to come home in a body bag, and my family has specific instructions regarding this. The military, in its sometimes misguided fervor, took the response to these complaints further than they needed to, but I for one can understand overdoing it.
It's not a political conspiracy. It's about misdirected respect.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The photographs were released last week to First Amendment activist Russ Kick, who had filed a Freedom of Information Act request to receive the images. Air Force officials initially denied the request but decided to release the photos after Kick appealed their decision.
From your first link. The photos were released by the Pentagon, implying some control.
Dagonee
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I have a copy of footage of the soldiers who were held hostage in Iraq and then killed. It shows them mouthing words to the camera (no sound) and some dead American soldier bodies lying around in one room.
Maybe I'll make that available to the public on the internet. You know, just to inform people that human beings are actually dying.
Anyone care to guess what the reaction will be?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd bet you're not forcibly shut down. And of course, outcry isn't censorship.
Dagonee
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Two important points.
One, the pentagon is not the administration.
Two, You are neglecting the difference between soldiers and civilians. The military rule only applies to military deaths, so yes, the civilian dead could be shown while the military dead could not. It is out of respect to the family, as was mentioned a few times before.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I didn't say I'd be censored. I said there'd be outcry about it. That's what would be hypocritical. And the fect is that the footage was taken from American media coverage, where the footage was ceased in airing at the government's request. However, the government made no outcry against showing the dead of the enemy. That's where the hypocrisiy lies: the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
quote:It is out of respect to the family, as was mentioned a few times before.
Yeah, we showed a lot of respect to the family of the dead Hussein boys. You know, they weren't just clones of Saddam grown in a tank. Thanks for illuminating what I mean—demand respect for our dead, show none for the enemy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
John,
At least pretend to refute the points against your position. Taking pictures of bodies does not equal hanging them on poles to display them.
Dagonee
Edit: Nor did any of the people on the poles keep an entire population cowering in fear while they were alive, so displaying the bodies had no purpose.
[ April 23, 2004, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:At least pretend to refute the points against your position. Taking pictures of bodies does not equal hanging them on poles to display them.
Taking those pictures and then displaying them on major network news does equal hanging them on poles for display. In fact, the major network news stations of the US (NBC, CBS, ABC), including CNN and MSNBC, would reach a far wider audience than a pole hanging in a city thousands of miles away.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
John, scroll up, I said I disagreed with the showing of the Hussein boys. I disagree with showing all of them. It is possible for me to defend the military's position of respect for the families of our dead and also disagree with flaunting the Hussein pictures around.
Quit attempting to polarize the issue. There is a middle ground. I don't want to open the paper to a picture of any dead people, no matter whose side they were on. This doesn't mean i want to ignore the fact that people are dying, it just means I want to avoid the sight of the gore as much as possible.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Are you admitting that it's hypocrisy, then?
And yes, it is a polarized issue when the nation is doing the "do as I say, not as I do" act. It sends the wrong signals to groups and nations who would be valuable allies.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Actually, you are all wrong about the full scope of this hypocrisy, think of Bush's campaign commercials amid the wreckage of the trade towers. There was even a commercial that aired somewhere in the south with a fireman picking up a dead infant, almost like Olkahoma City.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
prolixshore,
right on.
fallow
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
John, you've continued to ignore the justification for it. The decision that act X is wrong in circumstance Y but right in circumstance Z is not hypocrisy. You know, like believing that killing is generally wrong, but recognizing the right to shoot someone who's about to kill your baby.
Your not believing in the justification does not remove its ability to wipe away the taint of hypocrisy. Of course, you haven't even bothered to explain why the justification isn't valid.
Dagonee
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Of course. I just don't understand.
We went into a war of aggression against them.
However, we need to be given more leeway and understanding with our motives, because even if they aren't really any different, we can complicate them with lots of mostly baseless justifiction. "Do as I say, not as I do, son. What I do is because I'm an adult, and you're just a child."
And that's not hypocrisy. Nope, not at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
yet again, you refuse to refute the justification. You refuse to acknowledge any possibility of moral difference.
Simple word you live in John. Anyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite or a bigot, right?
Dagonee
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Because the world is so much more complex than that, right?
Suuuure it is. And whenever you want to fire me up, start the bullshit about me calling everything I disagree with a bigot again. How incredibly intellectual of you.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
I think one would have to be deliberitly obtuse to not admit that there is a difference between the motivations and actions of showing the bodys of infamous slain tyrants and showing the bodys of desicrated civilians or soldiers. Or to realize that the policy of not showing flag drapped coffins might be more than just restricting bad PR. (Not that I saying that is definitly the case, but it could be, unless you are a composer of military policy, can you really know? Anyone in the military here that would wish to weigh in on this?)
Also, to blame just the current administration for this policy is wrong. It is not like this a new policy, it was also the policy of previous administrations.
As I think I am the one who introduced the term, "mercinary" above in this thread, I would like to explain that I used that term b/c the contractors who were killed and then mutilated were US ex-military who were hired by a firm to provide protection. I didn't mean to introduce any negative conotation by the use of the word mercinary. Armed men who are paid by a private company to be in an unstable area and offer armed protection against militants sound like mercs. to me. I like to use the word mercinary to imply that these men knew the risks they had put themselves in, were armed to protect themselves, were doing so for money, and therefore responcible for their own choices. Although they were civilians, I think people picture business men in polos and khackis when they hear "contractor". Not the case.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:I think one would have to be deliberitly obtuse to not admit that there is a difference between the motivations and actions of showing the bodys of infamous slain tyrants and showing the bodys of desicrated civilians or soldiers. Or to realize that the policy of not showing flag drapped coffins might be more than just restricting bad PR. (Not that I saying that is definitly the case, but it could be, unless you are a composer of military policy, can you really know? Anyone in the military here that would wish to weigh in on this?)
Baloney. That's a load of apologist crap, mostly because it completely ignores the effect it has, focusing completely on a "they must have meant well" justification. The plain truth is that this displays a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. It really is that simple in the end, because the results are what counts.
Mind you, I am not against the war we waged to remove Saddam. I just think the way the current administration has handled it has been total and utter crap.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So John, still won't or can't refute the justification for showing Hussein's sons, huh?
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Showing Sadaam's sons was in poor taste; showing the dead US civilians was in poor taste.
Showing the coffins covered with American flags-- I don't see what's so terrible about it. The photos I saw were tasteful and respectful. They were an honor to the dead, IMO.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I found those coffin photos to be beautiful (in terms of testament and photographic work, not in terms of dead people).
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
What the hell do you want me to refute, genius? There was no need to show those dead photos on American news stations. There is only a thin justification for doing it in the Mid-East. In both instances, it is essentially the exact same thing as hanging a body from a pole—it's meant to display a dead enemy to the people to show people a display of the dead enemy. Whether it's for intimidation or some other psychological warfare is neither a new idea nor justifiable in any moral sense. Using newer technology and making thin excuses does not change what it is.
In other words: there's nothing to refute. The acts speak for themselves.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Can I touch the vein that's popping out of your forehead?
That is SO cool.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I think people read emotion that isn't there. If anything is genuinely annoying, it's that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What the hell do you want me to refute, genius? There was no need to show those dead photos on American news stations. There is only a thin justification for doing it in the Mid-East. In both instances, it is essentially the exact same thing as hanging a body from a pole—it's meant to display a dead enemy to the people to show people a display of the dead enemy. Whether it's for intimidation or some other psychological warfare is neither a new idea nor justifiable in any moral sense. Using newer technology and making thin excuses does not change what it is.
In other words: there's nothing to refute. The acts speak for themselves.
OK, genius, it's really simple. The Pentagon released the photos so they could be shown in Iraq. The media in the U.S. showed them in this country, which the Pentagon was powerless to prevent once it released them in Iraq.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Then consider me to be your ten-year-old kid brother, just back from Camp Chocolate and the Soda Fountain Wonderland.
Because I read TONS, SCADS, and BUSHELS of negative emotions in phrases like:
"What the hell do you want me to refute, genius?" "That's a load of apologist crap"
:pokes Leto's belly:
Did that hurt?
:pokes Leto's belly:
Did that hurt?
:pokes Leto's belly:
Did that hurt?
:pokes Leto's belly:
Did that hurt?
:pokes Leto's belly:
Did that hurt?
:pokes Leto's belly:
Annoying, huh? It's 'cuz I read emotion into your posts that isn't there.
Bottom line, John:
If you don't want people thinking you're angry, don't write angrily.
:pokes Leto's belly again, runs away cackling:
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
He's the one assuming intellectual superiority. I'm just pointing out the results. Making excuses after the fact is apologetics.
Gee, maybe I just won't say exactly what I mean next time. Whatever.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:OK, genius, it's really simple. The Pentagon released the photos so they could be shown in Iraq. The media in the U.S. showed them in this country, which the Pentagon was powerless to prevent once it released them in Iraq.
And this changes what I pointed out how? Putting the dead on public display is still intimidation by way of treating the dead with no respect. Like I said, your justification is weak.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:He's the one assuming intellectual superiority.
Mama, Papa's eatin' matches!
Okay, that was childish, but John, for Heaven's sake, you're an adult. Supposedly. I mean, you could be a 14 year-old cheerleader, this is the internet. . .
Okay-- you CLAIM to be an adult. I'll take your word for it.
When you claim people are adhering to apologist crap (in those terms), you have lost all room to ALSO claim that THEY ONLY are claiming intellectual superiority.
quote:I'm just pointing out the results.
Pointing out the results of. . . his assuming intellectual superiority? Che?
What are the 'results--' you berating him? This makes sense how? This furthers the discussion in what way?
I don't understand. I'm ten, and on a sugar high, :poke, poke:, so maybe that's it.
quote:Making excuses after the fact is apologetics.
Apologetics, explanations. . . what's the difference? I guess that would depend on what side of the fence you're sitting on, wouldn't it?
quote:Gee, maybe I just won't say exactly what I mean next time. Whatever.
Civilization means tempering exactly what you mean to say, and expressing your opinion in socially acceptable terms.
Thus, I don't say, "Tom Davidson's a pathetic waste of human flesh, and I wish fire ants would chew him a new craphole in his skull."
I say, "Tom, I disagree with you point of view."
Listen up, chilen's. They's lots to learn, hear?
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Thanks for the lesson. I'll take it into consideration.
In the meantime, I meant what I said.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
So, I just want to make sure that I understand something...
The pictures that the US Government allowed to be shown were, for the most part, disgusting and tasteless, and showed a reckless disrespect for human remains.
The pictures that the US Government DID NOT ALLOW to be shown (in fact, pulled from public access after letting them out in the first place) were respectful and in good taste.
And if any of you out there think that this sort of thing is not within the US Government's control, you've got a
Posted by US Government (Member # 6489) on :
Please disregard the previous post.
It is not true. The US Government has no control over the Internet, or the media, or anything, really. We're really very, very weak. You don't have to worry about us at all. Just pretend that we're not here. It's OK.
Please go back to your normal, everyday tasks.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Good one, Steve.
quote:Showing Sadaam's sons was in poor taste; showing the dead US civilians was in poor taste.
Showing the coffins covered with American flags-- I don't see what's so terrible about it. The photos I saw were tasteful and respectful. They were an honor to the dead, IMO.
quote:I found those coffin photos to be beautiful (in terms of testament and photographic work, not in terms of dead people).
I totally agree, on both counts.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Is it historic irony that Saddam's sons were displayed dead on television, when around 40 years ago the Baathists displayed the then-president Kassam's dead body on television as "confirmation" of his death?
We actually stooped to tactics of the Baath Party. We must be proud.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Did I miss it?
Did nobody in this forum thread mention that it turns out these photos (in controversy) were NOT actually of soliders from Iraq?
They were actually stock images of space shuttle Columbia's crew..
Farmgirl
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Yes, but not the ones discussed above, FG. The ones that were the shuttle astronauts included one casket covered with an Israeli flag, as one of the astroanuts was Israeli.
Some news organizations accidentally selected the one of the astronauts to publish, not all.
quote:"Many news organizations across the country are mistakenly identifying the flag-draped caskets of the space shuttle Columbia's crew as those of war casualties from Iraq," NASA said.
(Added emphasis mine)
[ April 26, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I had originally looked at the ones on MemoryHole, which came under fire for posting them.
quote: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration said up to 73 images posted on a Web site, www.thememoryhole.org, that media organizations used were mistakenly identified as photos of casualties from Iraq.
To me, 73 images is a lot more than one.
Farmgirl
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
One image contains, in many cases, more than one coffin, and that is what I meant. Sorry for not being more clear. 73 out of greater than 300 is not a majority of the images. The article that appeared in the NY Times yesterday stated that some news organizations accidentally selected images that were of the astronauts. It did not state that all the images in question were of the astronauts
[ April 26, 2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Leonard Pitts had a good article on this subject in Friday's Miami Herald:
Maybe you remember. American soldiers were fighting in Afghanistan, and every time one died, we learned his name. Not only that. Reporters told us about his life, introduced us to his newly bereft widow and suddenly fatherless children. Made us feel the weight of that singular death.
You had to know it couldn't last. Had to know that, as the casualty count mounted, it would become impossible to know the dead as individual men and women. At some point, they would become ''casualties'' in much the same way raindrops become a thunderstorm. And death would lose the ability to hurt us in the way it did when we knew their names.
Then one sudden day, you open your paper or your browser and find yourself facing row upon uniform row of coffins, all draped with American flags, the red, white and blue of them so crisp and vivid it is almost painful.
And hurt falls on you like rocks.
As you're no doubt aware, the Pentagon was angered last week when pictures of coffins containing the remains of American soldiers turned up online and in newspapers. This was the work of two people. One, a Tucson writer and webmaster, obtained several hundred such pictures -- mistakenly, the Defense Department says -- through a Freedom of Information Act request. Separately, a woman working for a Pentagon contractor photographed coffins in Kuwait. She and her husband, another employee, were both fired.
PRIVACY AS RATIONALE
The government's stated reasoning is that its photo ban protects the privacy of grieving military families. It's an argument that is, to put it mildly, difficult to accept at face value. One is at a loss to understand how anyone's privacy is infringed upon by photographs of anonymous coffins.
No, the administration's true concern seems transparent. Namely, that casualty photos will galvanize opposition to the war in Iraq.
The fear grows from the Vietnam experience, of course, from the conventional wisdom that holds that media coverage of returning casualties, body bags on the six o'clock news, soured the public on that war.
Which is the truth, but not the whole truth. What really soured people on Vietnam was the slow-dawning realization that it was a bad war -- that our commanders were lying and our men dying in a place they ought never to have been. It wasn't as if the images of body bags revealed any of these things. They only underscored the cost.
That is what casualty photos have done since the day Matthew Brady first trained his camera upon the Civil War dead. They remind us of the ruinous price of war. So there is always something somber and sacred in those pictures.
Would a steady diet of them turn public opinion more firmly against the Iraq war? The question misses the point.
INDIVIDUALS VANISH
Whether one supports or opposes this or any other war, we all come to the same place, eventually. Meaning that place where it is no longer possible to know the dead by name, to feel the weight of individual loss. This is only human nature. We lose sight of water drops in the cascade of rain.
So photographs of the honored dead are valuable because they remind us what it means when we use that word ''casualties.'' Reminds us that we're talking about a life lost. About a man shot through the eye, a woman whose body wound up in pieces. About a mother's tears, a widow's fears, a child whose sleep will never be quite as secure again.
For all the administration's claims that its photo ban honors the private pain of military families, the truth is that we honor those families more when we share, to whatever small degree we can, the loss they have sustained.
And when we are made to stand reverent before the awfulness of war.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"It is not like this a new policy, it was also the policy of previous administrations."
Nope, only one other than Dubya's. For purely political reasons.
[ May 03, 2004, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
On the local news a few days ago they showed a soldier's coffin coming in to the airport and being put in a hearse, and they talked about his life while showing it. I didn't see anything offensive about it at all. They were honoring his service to the country.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
"Nope, only one other than Dubya's. For purely political reasons."
What exactly does this mean? I didn't see anything in the link about that policy and Bush Sr.? And though I do not have a link, yet, to offer evidence, wasn't it said earlier in this thread that this policy was also followed under the Clinton administration? Look, feel free to hate it if you wish, call it hypocritical, but at least be fair about this policy and quit pretending it as some kind of new conspiracy by the current administration.
[ May 03, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Paladin,
Please show us the links, then, to other non-Bush administrations that banned the photographs of the coffins (or even the body-bags, if you like) of the incoming war dead. Please also make sure that you provide sufficient political context to refute the initial premise (the premise that the current administration's ban on these photographs is purely political, and not "sympathietic.")
Thank you, we appreciate your work.
Steve
[ May 03, 2004, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Never said it was new. Bush began the ban on photographs. The ClintonAdministration ignored it. And Dubya reimposed the ban just before the invasion of Iraq.
[ May 04, 2004, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
My work here is done.
Point proven.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How is your work done? All you've proven is that one argument put forth by one person against your point was wrong. You seem to have a really low threshold of proof.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Close family members are not allowed to take photographs of returning caskets containing their own loved ones. Which negates Dubya's contention that "the purpose of the ban is to protect family members".
[ March 28, 2005, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, it doesn't. No cameras allowed means just that...none allowed for anyone, beacue if you allow cameras there sooner or later thre will be photos of a family there to see a son or daughter.
Not that I agree (or disagree) with the ban....I just hate poor arguments on way or another.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Not at all. If the ban is "for the sake of the families", then nearest kin should be able to waive that ban for their own kinsman. If they capture images of others who don't want such photographs taken, then that is a completely&totally different issue.
[ March 28, 2005, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not true, for any number of reasons..the most obvious of then being that just because you are related to someone who died there doesn't mean you are a good person who would respect the dignity of privacy of others.
By having a complete ban on cameras, you remove the temptations of the Jerry Springer relatives, who might be tempted to attempt to profit from said pictures.
A full ban is the only real way to protect them from the prying eyes of cameras. God knows the paparazzi have proved themselves to be out of control more than once. Kwea
[ March 28, 2005, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Basicly, you are trying to argue that if some people have accidents or drive irresponsibly, then driving should be banned for everyone.
And we aren't talking about paparazzi, commercial photographers, or even just any ol' relative in this instance. We are talking about nearest kin.
[ March 28, 2005, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You are making even less sense than usual.
I didn't know that was possible.
What I am saying is that there are very good reason to ban cameras, even if you don't agree with them. Trying to use a logical fallacy to prove a point doesn't work.
It is like saying that since the price of tea in China has gone up, no one in China drinks coffee. The two things have nothing in common, besides faulty logic.
Also, in case you don't know...there are these tings called traffic laws..I suppose you disagree with those too?
Driving has some positive effects..taking pictures of dead soldiers families grieving for their dead children is disgusting.
Either allow them for everyone, or don't...seems pretty even handed to me, all things considered.
[ March 28, 2005, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So your argument is "I believe the ban is good, therefore its existence needs no justification."?
Yeah, there are driving laws. And if you break them, you are prosecuted and justice is dispensed. Similarly, the ban could be worded to protect those who don't want to be photographed, who don't want their kinsman's casket to be photographed. While still allowing people who don't break those specific portions of the ban to take photographs. Just as we allow responsible people to continue driving.
With digital cameras, there is no reason whatsoever that photographs could not be screened immediately inregard to compliance.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)