Woman loses job over photo taken of coffins coming back from Iraq being used in newspaper

The government has banned photos of coffins being returned to the US since 1991.

Why?

The US doesn't want people thinking real human beings lose their lives in a war. War's fun, remember? GI Joe etc.?

You just answered your own question.

"emotional nitwits"

http://www.kuci.org/~brianm/ile/coffins.jpg

but if it's rows of coffins that can't be tied to a specific individual. . .I don't see where they get off saying what the public can and cannot see.

The woman who took the photograph claims, in the story I linked above, she took the photo to show the respect that the poor young men get in regards to their preparations to be sent home -- not solely to serve as a prop for anti-war "propaganda". Now, you can believe her or not. But just calling her an "asshole" unprovoked is, well, something I'd expect an asshole to say.

And is "emotional nitwit" just another euphemism for "bleeding heart"? That's a good one there.

Someone who believes that the war is wrong because we're suffering these casualties in the process of liberating 24,000,000 people, I would not call a "bleeding heart" or a "compassionate" anything. That kind of person sounds like a blind and ignorant emotional nitwit to me.

It carries with it all the times we've seen the flag ceremony at burials in movies and TV and real-life, and in that way carries home the concept of death better than a photo dealing directly with body.

That's why, I assume, the Pentagon embargos those photos specifically.

Bahahaha.

name-calling's a great way to convnice people to your way of thinkingl

censorship is bullshit any way you cut it.

I think we're questioning why coffins are specifically considered off-limits as their image, while grim, doesn't signify giving away any security secrets at all (which I agree is off limits for photographs of course), while plenty of even more gruesome imagery is apparently ok.

Now, this is an x-post, because I just read Milo's point of view, and I just don't happen to share it. Personally, I'm FAR more disturbed by a dead body than a coffin, as a lasting unforgettable grim symbol of the realities of war, that is. But my brian is wired differently I guess, as I easily faint at the sight of gore.. something members of the Pentagon surely are less likely to do, perhaps(?)

Someone who believes that the war is wrong because we're suffering these casualties in the process of liberating 24,000,000 people, I would not call a "bleeding heart" or a "compassionate" anything. That kind of person sounds like a blind and ignorant emotional nitwit to me.

Then why did you first use the term "emotional" then?

It's a good thing we helped him out in the 70s when we did, then, eh?

- freedom
- liberation
- terror
- freedom
- evil
- freedom
- eye-RAAAAAAAACK
- weapons of mass deschtruction

Taking that another step, to an actual dead body (the only combat photo I can think of is Robert Capa's moment-of-death shot from the Spanish Civil War, I'm sure there are others I've just blocked out) and you've got something that turns people away immediately. Like you, they're shocked and horrified (rightly) and don't want to look.

Something like a coffin+flag image is more thoughtful in its effect, because the viewer doesn't have to fight to turn away immediately. And you can show coffins on primetime TV or on the front-page, where a truly gruesome photo you can't.

(I hope none of this sounds like I'm defending the Pentagon's censorship, I just think I understand why they're more concerned with these images than others.)

http://www.worldwander.com/france/Cemetery.jpg
http://www.n.ethz.ch/student/schmitzj/download/covers/M/Metallica%20-%20Master%20of%20Puppets.gif

Today coffins, tomorrow will be national cemeteries. When do you stop censoring the press?

http://www.darkknight.ca/images/villains/twoface.gif

If only it were easier done than said. But that's hardly the case. The thing is.. this has pretty much been our policy for decades, yet tyranny and terrorism still exist. It comes and goes. Perhaps you're more idealistic about the Iraq war being a message to terrorists around the world (and I'll grant Libya's surrender as one positive result from the Iraq war) to stop being, um, themselves, once and for all. It's a very noble goal, but I say, very cynically, that eliminating terrorism is impossible. I'm not saying we shouldn't take measures to prevent it, but I question whether the Iraq war was the way to deal with it best... especially given all the skepticism about muddled intelligence reports (which you can believe it or not) and that our public goals for getting involved in Iraq have now magically shifted to just "liberation", and not "GETTING RID OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AGAINST THE WESTERN WORLD, and oh yeah, liberation". In brief, the U.S. policies towards protecting itself and its allies against Middle East terrorism has been historically bad, and this is just another example of the policies simply providing band-aids and not finding a solution.

Back to the coffin photo issue...

I find the Pentagon's exercising the hiding of these photos to be appalling and baffling personally, aside from the obvious censorship issues. Almost everyone who lives long enough has to see a coffin of a loved one at some point in his or her life, so why should we be forbidden from being able to see the coffins of the some of the bravest people of all and reflect upon that and give them more thought? The above photo makes me more patriotic than not, in fact.

They don't have the authority to prevent any such thing. They can't stop you from taking photos of Arlington cemetary. Nobody at Time magazine has gone to jail for publishing this photo. This woman lost her job but it was apparently company policy to cooperate with the DoD's policy. If they have the authority to restrict people from taking pictures of caskets in transit, it's perfectly understandable why they'd want to prevent such photos from being taken just to become propaganda.

milo: i think more Iraqis don't than do.

One entry found for propaganda.

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

....

So assuming we're going with #2 and #3 here, what's exactly wrong with propaganda again?

Photos of coffins don't exactly reveal the dead, blount. How do the family members know who's in there?

Privacy issues? I don't get that. Their names are released through every news outlet in the country. I mean, certainly there is something very personal about somebody's coffin, but there is also something personal about obituaries, and a shitload of other news that I see and hear about the soldiers.

As far as going "looky looky," well, that's what journalism is. They're showing us what's going on.

-- Alex in SF (clobberthesauru...), April 23rd, 2004.

I'm curious as to how this is legal myself. I couldn't find any official version of the policy on the DoD website.

-- Stuart (gonzomoos...), April 23rd, 2004.

i don't read it closely enough to know - most of the time to me it just looks like an edgier garfield

-- cinniblount ([email protected]

Out of context, that is a funny exchange.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2385.html

You'd have to ask Autumn Almanac about tactics, but I did say "verging."

http://www.theindiadirectory.com/shopc/imges/brownshirt.jpg

Yeah I know, rah rah, constitution sacred, rah rah. It's still dogshite.

pulling from way back: "i'm just trying to figure out what the news angle is in photographing dead american soldiers" there wasn't any! silicio was a cargo worker, not a journalist. it got into the major press after getting on the internet. it's not like photogs don't know the pentagon rules. the question re silicio's canning is whether she did.

well it might be in the Pentagon's best interest but that doesn't mean it's in the public's best interest.

I am however, quite puzzled by this. The only reason i can think that the pentagon would be banning photography of coffins draped with flags and not dead bodies is that the former incorporates iconography belong to the government. Or because they can.

it also strikes me as an unnecessary and not terribly useful policy to prohibit the taking of photos of coffins, precisely because they have no inherent relationship to any given argument; if the pentagon is truly fearful that they will inevitable end up reinforcing only the anti-war side then perhaps they are not sufficiently confident in the rightness of their own positions.

... I'll grant Libya's surrender as one positive result from the Iraq war.

actually, Libya was in negotiations far before the Iraq war, and mostly through/with the British.

otm and I would think certainly not a surprise

What the US government wants is for "politics" not to exist. It would like meanings to be fixed. (For instance, it would like "heroism" to be the province of imperialists, not pacifists.)

The problem wth these photos would initially appear to be their strong point, from the government's perspective: they immediately force you to consider the enormity of the sacrifice made in this war.

The enormity of the sacrifice? Made by the Iraqis maybe. But my us? C'mon in most of the US's wars abroad these would be minor losses. The right-wing socialist aspect of the US Military aside, our servicemen and women joined knowing they might have to fight. The reason this war is a dud stems from the gross incompetence and delusional thinking of a bunch of armchair pseudos who are as amateurish as any administration in my lifetime.

I'm, of course, not refering to you.

At first blush you'd think this stuff couldn't help but rouse the nation's patriotism. And you'd think that the more patriotic, the more support for the war.

Maybe Bush and Co. actually realize that being patriotic doesn't necessarily mean being on their side of the argument?

Thank you, hstencil and Ed, for the correction.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_18.php#002868

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_18.php#002870