So we don't kid ourselves…

[paul_pci]

… as to what OUR cost is in order for ANOTHER country to have freedom:

The memory hole website is posting photos of the dead and injured from the Iraq war. I feel it's important that we see the cost our young men and women are bearing for an unnecessary war.

www.thememoryhole.org

[Rikki]

Yes, regardless of our political views on the war, it is important to remember the troops and their families paying the ultimate price. US television rarely shows the casualties. Maybe out of respect to the familes. Or maybe because people would be outraged.

[bturk667]

I am not sure how I feel. It is easy for those of us who have not lost a loved one to have a opinion either way. Seems like the families of those soilders are also split on the subject. It is very important to remember the troops, I'm just not sure I have the right to see their flag drapped caskets without the consent of their families. They did make the greatest of sacrifices after all.

I understand why the Pentagon and White House do not want those images broadcasted. I'm just not sure it should be their decision to make. I think it should be left up to the families whose sons and daughters lost their lives.

[paul_pci]

Yes, regardless of our political views on the war, it is important to remember the troops and their families paying the ultimate price. US television rarely shows the casualties. Maybe out of respect to the familes. Or maybe because people would be outraged.

Yes, we need to remember the troops, but there is NO maybe about why we don't see the images on television and that is because the Bush administration has banned such images.

[JSE]

[QUOTE=paul_pci]Yes, we need to remember the troops, but there is NO maybe about why we don't see the images on television and that is because the Bush administration has banned such images.[/QUOTE


Nice, blame Bush for respecting the rights of the families who have lost these soldiers. Very classy. Even Bturk, who can't stand Bush, did not make this a Bush bashing post.

We see images every day that remind us of this War. The least we can do is let the families deal with the loss of their loved ones in privacy and not sensationalize the dead and subject them to political crap.


JSE

[Woochifer]

Nice, blame Bush for respecting the rights of the families who have lost these soldiers. Very classy. Even Bturk, who can't stand Bush, did not make this a Bush bashing post.

We see images every day that remind us of this War. The least we can do is let the families deal with the loss of their loved ones in privacy and not sensationalize the dead and subject them to political crap.


JSE

In all fairness, the decision to ban public access to Dover AFB and all imagery of the fallen returning from overseas (as well as the injured at VA hospitals) IS a political decision. There is no consensus among the military families as to whether or not this policy is right, so I doubt it was put in place solely to protect the sensitivity of those families. For an administration that obsesses about imagery details, they know that seeing flag-draped caskets coming home is something that brings the human cost of the war home for viewers.

If anything, the woman who took the photo that got posted in the Seattle Times was trying to illustrate the kind of care that workers took in preparing the caskets for flight. And I don't see anything sensationalized about the images that The Memory Hole posted. (at least the images that I've seen thus far) It is what it is, our fallen soldiers returning home and documenting how the military comemmorates those events in a dignified manner. No blood and gore, no missing limbs, no fanatics spitting on the caskets or dragging bodies through the streets, etc.

[JSE]

If anything, the woman who took the photo that got posted in the Seattle Times was trying to illustrate the kind of care that workers took in preparing the caskets for flight.

I don't doubt the photographer's intentions, it's what is done with the photo after she sells it.

JSE

[paul_pci]

[QUOTE=JSE]

Yes, we need to remember the troops, but there is NO maybe about why we don't see the images on television and that is because the Bush administration has banned such images.[/QUOTE


Nice, blame Bush for respecting the rights of the families who have lost these soldiers. Very classy. Even Bturk, who can't stand Bush, did not make this a Bush bashing post.

We see images every day that remind us of this War. The least we can do is let the families deal with the loss of their loved ones in privacy and not sensationalize the dead and subject them to political crap.


JSE

Sorry, that is just a party line cop-out. As Woochifer suggests,this is a political decision and the political end is to negate from our consciousness, the deadly results of this war. The result is a skewed perspective of what the cost is. I don't know what images you're watching on tv, but what I've seen is fit for a disney production. Hearing the reports and seeing the results are two dramatically different orientations toward this war. I think it is far more respectful to the families of the deceased soldiers that the public is aware of the cost than were we to sit around like the monkey who sees no evil as Bush wishes.

[jeskibuff]

So we don't kid ourselves… as to what OUR cost is in order for ANOTHER country to have freedom

The war in Iraq is more to preserve OUR freedom, rather than to grant the Iraqis their freedom. Their newly acquired freedom is just a side effect of removing the dictatorship that threatened our freedom by its support of terrorism.

There is no consensus among the military families as to whether or not this policy is right, so I doubt it was put in place solely to protect the sensitivity of those families.

And seeing as how there is no consensus, it follows proper logic that you maintain a policy that is uniform, and in that uniformity, errs on the "safe" side. In other words, if it offends some families and not others, you create a policy that protects those families that are offended. That policy, in place now, says that images of coffins are not displayed. If individual families want to publish the pictures of their loved one's coffin, they can make that choice individually, once those remains are under their control.

this is a political decision and the political end is to negate from our consciousness

No, it's a policy decision that makes sense. The political aspect comes from the lefties who want to use such images to manipulate other people by toying with their emotions. We all know that wars produce dead bodies. Some of us just don't realize that with lessened resolve, we'll end up with more dead bodies, NOT less.

the woman who took the photo that got posted in the Seattle Times was trying to illustrate the kind of care that workers took in preparing the caskets for flight.

Well, actually, it appears that she took the photo in order to profit from it, as well as to do a little political damage to those who had previously offended her.

See http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/23/114319.shtml

where it says things like: it turns out that four years ago the duo, Tami Silicio and Amy Katz, sued Halliburton, then run by Vice President Dick Cheney, naming Cheney in the suit. and "she has retained an agent to help sell the casket photo, with the proceeds to be divided between charity and a fund to help pay Silicio's debts in the wake of her firing."

I'd call that "war profiteering", wouldn't you?

[mtrycraft]

[QUOTE=JSE]

Yes, we need to remember the troops, but there is NO maybe about why we don't see the images on television and that is because the Bush administration has banned such images.[/QUOTE


Nice, blame Bush for respecting the rights of the families who have lost these soldiers. Very classy. Even Bturk, who can't stand Bush, did not make this a Bush bashing post.

We see images every day that remind us of this War. The least we can do is let the families deal with the loss of their loved ones in privacy and not sensationalize the dead and subject them to political crap.


JSE

How is it disrespectful of showing flag drapped coffins? No names attached, no families indicated, zilch. Any different than in Arlington? Which family is disrespected? Not all or most object to those pictures. Certainly some will object to anything in life. Has Bush been out at Dover with any of the families? I just don't know. I have not seen him there. Clinton has, many times.

[JSE]

How is it disrespectful of showing flag drapped coffins? No names attached, no families indicated, zilch. Any different than in Arlington? Which family is disrespected? Not all or most object to those pictures. Certainly some will object to anything in life. Has Bush been out at Dover with any of the families? I just don't know. I have not seen him there. Clinton has, many times.

The content of the picture is not disrespectful, it's the use of it after the fact that irks alot of people. The media showed that picture every chance they got last week. I think that's what angers a lot of people. How is it different than Arlington? Arlington is a cemetary. The dead have been laid to rest and the families have had a chance to come to terms with the loss.

What does Clinton have to do with this? Maybe he feels guilty for not doing something when he had the chance? Who knows.

JSE

[bturk667]

One question for you: Remind me how you felt when President Bush used the image of a flag draped casket in one of his political ads?

[JSE]

One question for you: Remind me how you felt when President Bush used the image of a flag draped casket in one of his political ads?

I guess you did not get the point of my last post. Go figure? It's about timing. The flag drapped coffin in the President's add is clearly past tense and the families have laid the dead to rest. Should we ban all photos where coffins are present from this date forward? No, that would be stupid. But, we can have a little tact. In the case of the photo of the coffins on the plane, the families have just heard that there loved ones have been killed and they see a plane full of coffins that may very well indeed contain their son, daughter, brother, sister, whoever. Is that not a little insensitive? I don't really care who proposed the photo ban or for what reasons. I just think it makes sense. Simple as that.

JSE

[bturk667]

I guess you did not get the point of my last post. Go figure? It's about timing. The flag drapped coffin in the President's add is clearly past tense and the families have laid the dead to rest. Should we ban all photos where coffins are present from this date forward? No, that would be stupid. But, we can have a little tact. In the case of the photo of the coffins on the plane, the families have just heard that there loved ones have been killed and they see a plane full of coffins that may very well indeed contain their son, daughter, brother, sister, whoever. Is that not a little insensitive? I don't really care who proposed the photo ban or for what reasons. I just think it makes sense. Simple as that.

JSE

I was just curious how you felt about Bush using images of flag draped caskets for political gain. So using photos of caskets where the dead have already been laid to rest is okay? I do not understand why. Does it not bother you that some of those families - of 9/11 victims - were offended by what the President did? Do not these families have deserve the same respect from the President? Seems a little insensitive to me. How does it seem to you?

I understand that you "don't really care who proposed the photo ban or for what reason." The fact is that the President banned (not just a proposed ban) news agencies from using images of flag draped caskets." Should we ban all photos where coffins are present from this date foward?" Again, since in fact the President did ban such photos, there is no need to do it again. I do understand why he did it. I just do not understand the use of such images for political gain.


This is one of the things that bothers me most about Bush and his Presidency, the hypocrisy! Simple as that.

[JSE]

"So using photos of caskets where the dead have already been laid to rest is okay? I do not understand why. "

Look, unfortunately we as a country are at a time and place where the bodies of dead soldiers are being shipped back almost daily. Why can't we have a little consideration for the families of these shoulders. They don't need to see plane loads of coffins being shipped back on a daily basis we there is a good chance it may be there family member. Again, this is not a political thing for me, it's about being compasionate for these people.

And, it is different than Bush using similiar images. I know you will continue to beat that dead horse to death, but it's simply different. Spin however you want. I am done with this.

JSE

[JSE]

"I got the point. Seems you did not get mine. Go figure! "

Did you have a point to make? I thought you asked a question, In that case, I responded specifically to your question and gave my answer. Just because you don't like the answer or don't agree with me, does not mean I missed the point. If there was one?

JSE

[bturk667]

"So using photos of caskets where the dead have already been laid to rest is okay? I do not understand why. "

Look, unfortunately we as a country are at a time and place where the bodies of dead soldiers are being shipped back almost daily. Why can't we have a little consideration for the families of these shoulders. They don't need to see plane loads of coffins being shipped back on a daily basis we there is a good chance it may be there family member. Again, this is not a political thing for me, it's about being compasionate for these people.

And, it is different than Bush using similiar images. I know you will continue to beat that dead horse to death, but it's simply different. Spin however you want. I am done with this.

JSE

Why is it different for Bush when he uses similar images? I am trying to understand why you feel this way. It has nothing to do with beating a dead horse.

[bturk667]

It is not about liking or disliking your answers, or agreeing or disagreeing with them. It is about trying to understand your point. You do not seem to see the hypocrisy in it. I don not understand how you can not. This is all that I am trying to understand; your point on this subject.

[JSE]

It is not about liking or disliking your answers, or agreeing or disagreeing with them. It is about trying to understand your point. You do not seem to see the hypocrisy in it. I don not understand how you can not. This is all that I am trying to understand; your point on this subject.

Re-read this again,

"I guess you did not get the point of my last post. Go figure? It's about timing. The flag drapped coffin in the President's add is clearly past tense and the families have laid the dead to rest. Should we ban all photos where coffins are present from this date forward? No, that would be stupid. But, we can have a little tact. In the case of the photo of the coffins on the plane, the families have just heard that there loved ones have been killed and they see a plane full of coffins that may very well indeed contain their son, daughter, brother, sister, whoever. Is that not a little insensitive? I don't really care who proposed the photo ban or for what reasons. I just think it makes sense. Simple as that."

And now read it again. I am not going to keep explaining it to you. If you don't get it. Too bad! It's not my job to make you understand things.

JSE

[paul_pci]

Re-read this again,

"I guess you did not get the point of my last post. Go figure? It's about timing. The flag drapped coffin in the President's add is clearly past tense and the families have laid the dead to rest. Should we ban all photos where coffins are present from this date forward? No, that would be stupid. But, we can have a little tact. In the case of the photo of the coffins on the plane, the families have just heard that there loved ones have been killed and they see a plane full of coffins that may very well indeed contain their son, daughter, brother, sister, whoever. Is that not a little insensitive? I don't really care who proposed the photo ban or for what reasons. I just think it makes sense. Simple as that."

And now read it again. I am not going to keep explaining it to you. If you don't get it. Too bad! It's not my job to make you understand things.

JSE

You didn't answer his question—you answered a question he did not pose. He asked how you FELT about Bush's use of the flag draped coffin for political gain and you gaven an EXPLICATION of the difference between the image in the political ad and the images coming off the plane (a quite compentent explication I might add). But the fact remains, you have yet to state how you FEEL about it, not that you are required to. I just thought I, myself, should explicate the difference between what was being asked of you and what you actually wrote. Personally, I felt disappointed that our commander in chief feels so politically bankrupt that he must turn to the cheapest emotionally charged resource to position himself politically. And don't forget this: Political gain may not be monetary profit, but it is a type of profit nonetheless and you shouldn't dismiss the fact that if you're disgusted by others trying to profit on the pictures of the dead coming home, you should be equally disgusted that a candidate would appropriate similar images for political profit.

[JSE]

You didn't answer his question—you answered a question he did not pose. He asked how you FELT about Bush's use of the flag draped coffin for political gain and you gaven an EXPLICATION of the difference between the image in the political ad and the images coming off the plane (a quite compentent explication I might add). But the fact remains, you have yet to state how you FEEL about it, not that you are required to. I just thought I, myself, should explicate the difference between what was being asked of you and what you actually wrote. Personally, I felt disappointed that our commander in chief feels so politically bankrupt that he must turn to the cheapest emotionally charged resource to position himself politically. And don't forget this: Political gain may not be monetary profit, but it is a type of profit nonetheless and you shouldn't dismiss the fact that if you're disgusted by others trying to profit on the pictures of the dead coming home, you should be equally disgusted that a candidate would appropriate similar images for political profit.

Let me be perfectly clear then. I did not have a problem with the ads Bush ran. I DO NOT have a problem with the coffin pictures as images. I DO have a problem with them being published at the time and in the manner they were. There is a ban against such images. Simple as that. In terms of monetary vs. political profit, I never commented on that and I don't think that the main issue here. I am a semi-pro photographer who has worked as a press photographer in the past so my views regarding a person's right to take photos and publish it may suprise you and Bruno. But there is a line that we should not cross. I have seen dead bodies in burned up vehicles and bodies covered up outside a buidling or on the side of a road. I will/did not take those shots. I don't think Bush crossed it with his ads. I think the image he used represents an event, not the individual. The images of the coffins in the plane, at least to me, represent the individuals who died. There is a big difference to me. I do think the media crossed that line with this image at the time it was made public.

JSE

[jeskibuff]

I DO NOT have a problem with the coffin pictures as images. I DO have a problem with them being published at the time and in the manner they were.

It's ALL in the timing. 9/11 was an horrific event that happened, and there was little we could do about it once those planes reached their targets. A flag-draped coffin represents the loss of innocent life at the hands of barbarians.

The coffins returning from Afghanistan and Iraq represent lives lost during on ONGOING conflict. Some people (okay...liberals) don't like the idea that we're fighting these wars and want to exploit the images to achieve their goals. This is manipulative at best, and tragically subversive at the worst. The 9/11 images had no such use. 9/11 was an event that came and went. To use images of coffins in an attempt to emotionally manipulate others should be rightfully restricted. Publish them all you want when the wars are over. But don't allow their use as political pry bars in wars that we NEED to win!

It's apples and oranges. One represents history that cannot be changed. The other is history in the making which should NOT be changed, lest we cause additional deaths at the hands of barbarians and at the expense of families who already have enough reason to grieve.

[karl k]

… as to what OUR cost is in order for ANOTHER country to have freedom:

The memory hole website is posting photos of the dead and injured from the Iraq war. I feel it's important that we see the cost our young men and women are bearing for an unnecessary war.

www.thememoryhole.org

I've been reading all about what you guys think and find it interesting the differences between you and the sides you choose. I also find it interesting the differences on each side of the line each of you draw between whats acceptable and not.Let me just say for the record that I don't think the fotos are restricted because of families respect. The only thing that the families DON'T experience is the published foto. Sometimes you will hear names, locations, gender, and cause of death... all on TV. Granted, you don't hear about every death in this context, you, none the less, do hear about some. Hell, all I heard about all weekend was the death of a certain football player that threw away a 3.5mil contract with the Cardinals for a ticket to Afghanistan and was a HERO for it. Ya, I'm sure his family really appreciates the news groups respecting their feelings and emotions about him taking away their future(all weekend long)! Besides, nearly every reference to the troops has been in the context of being heros and not taken advantage of in a negative way by any major political party. It really depends more on how the media portray the dead than how a politican does. After all, who really gets all the air time anyway... Rush, O'reily, Larry, Bill Maher, or the 2 candidates for prez? If the media would portray the dead, w/pics, as brave heroes, then the use of pictures in a negative fashion would be counter-productive in politics AND be a tribute to those families, not an offense. I think any war worth fighting for would stand up to the scrutiny of pictures anyway as you would be remembering those same pics the next time you are asked to go to war... because it's the right thing to do AND you would be more committed when you say yes to that. A daily reminder of the cost is also good in the aspect that it keeps you more in tune with what decissions are being made in the gov pertaining to the strategy and results of "your" personal investment in such matters. I propose a trade off... Show the pics once an hour, with a moment of silence, and spare us the 20min/hr of commentary about the life and times!

It's really moot anyway... the pics are a risk and a smart prez doesn't take many risks... and survives.

[bturk667]

Okay, now if say Kerry were to use the images of the bodies coming off the airplane in one if his political ads after the families have laid their loves ones to rest, you would in fact not have a problem with it?

[bturk667]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. You never answered my question about respecting the families of the 9/11 victims. Many of them did not like the fact that Bush used the events of 9/11 for political gain. By the way which he never apologized for doing. Do they not deserve the same respect that you feel the families of those killed in Iraq deserve?