quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I don't know why they have this policy but I'm sure it is there for a good reason, I'm sure it wasn't just the fart of an idea of someone at DOD.

It's not even the DOD ... this is a private contractor, Maytag Aircraft, that is outsourcing to the government. Therefore in order to get the contract, the company must do what the CLIENT wants. Therefore, if the client wants you to strip down naked to plant daisies in a field walking backwards, you do so IF you want the contract. Look, I hate dealing with clients too ... they're stupid fucks, but if I say "look, you're a stupid fuck" guess what? I'm fired! Therefore, if the DOD set rules to not take pictures of caskets while in transit out of respect for the families, regardless of how silly the rule may be or how it does not matter to us, it's still their desire therefore something the company is obliged to follow. This media hype is rediculous. Once the caskets reach public domain, or public property, than any two bit reporter can take a million pictures if they want.

___________________
Retro ...

ok, ok, ok, i thought about this and read the posts but there's just like one thing that i dont seem to understand and well, i know it's no use to talk about it, but i dunno, i'll just do it anyway:

Ok, so let's think why the pictures should not be published, options:
a-in respect to the relatives of the diseased
b-to avoid sharing the way the caskets are transported - although there is nothing wrong with that - it may not be a nice view cuz those are caskets of fighters who gave their life for a purpose, but they are neat and as yoepus said "I think they are very good and powerful pictures."
c-for some reason which i do not know

Ok, Yoepus u said "As the article mentioned this Pentagon policy (is it policy, law, recommendation what exaclty isn't still clear to me?) is in regards of photograps during transit." So "in transit" would mean the way they were - being loaded on a plane. But whether it's in transit or at home or away, it's still the same thing, right? like it's pictures of dead soldiers and those pictures might actually hurt people who have lost a relative as a fighter in the war - i totally understand that.

Now, as Cal said, the US did show pictures of Saddam's sons, which i think we can call horrible eventhough they did fix the bodies and most of the viewers enjoyed the view since they were not even covered. I understand that the pictures of Hussein's sons were published to prove their death and at the same time lower the Iraqi fighters' morals, but i believe that there are people who can be hurt seeing Saddam's sons dead just like there are relatives or people seeing US soldiers' caskets. (Now, let's avoid the entire: "yes, but the sons had to be killed and bla bla bla)
If the US has a policy for its own soldiers, why shouldnt it respect other nation's policies (if any) or sentiments?
(but then again, who's gonna stop the US from doin that? no1...)
this post may not make sense....sry if so....meh....



**Edit: i just read your post occrider and ok...Company's rules...

Sure. You have a valid point, but we have two different arguments going on.

She was fired on the basis of a company policy violation. A policy that is fostered by the DOD concerning the bereaved American families. Canning her was the company's response to the negative image they recieved by the Seattle Times publishing that picture on their cover. Harsh, yeah, but perfectly within Maytag's right to do so. Maytag does not want to be involved, in any way, with the "Times" agenda. Yes, they have an agenda.

The DOD didn't release the pictures of Uday and Douche' for the sole purpose of putting them on every front page in the world but they knew every news organization would, and you can't fire the DOD.
Besides no one cared for Uday and Qusay anyhow. It's all about context.


I don't remember the Seattle Times putting Uday and Qusay on the front page to further their "agenda" either. They were just following everyone else's lead.

yah, sry bout that, by the time i had posted my thing, occrider was done with his and his just actually made me realize that they're different things....my bad

Why is this a Pentagon policy from...1991?

Does that strike anyone as interesting? I remember seeing the original Gulf War and wondering what war we were at? They never showed bodies - period|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

a) This woman was working for a privatre contractor, but her ultimate employer is the US government. The government cannot say "sorry you no longer have any rights because we're going to have a contractor search your house, beat out a confesssion, supress your speech, etc".

b) This woman took photos of a non-sensitive nature. No classified materials or information was included. This is not a security risk.

c) This has nothing to do with consoling the famillies. If she was opening up the coffins and showing the remains, THAT would be for the comfort of the families. These are unmarked, unidentifiable flag covered coffins, obviously treated with great respect and deference by their comrades. In fact, the only thing these photos did was make me proud of our soldiers, and of course deeply saddened that they paid such a terrible price for serving this country.

d) The only reason photographs of coffins arriving cannot be photographed is because history shows us that when we fight pointless wars in far off lands for no good reason that the US public tends to react poorly when they start to see the coffins.

e) The public has both the RIGHT and the NEED to see these photos so that we know what is happening. How can we possibly be active, effective participants in our democratic process if the truth is being concealed from us. If the our dead are too terrible a burden on our national conscience or will to fight, then perhaps we should think twice about sending our men and women off to war.

This is a sad sad day for America, our democracy, and our ideals of free speech and informed participation in shaping public policy. Hiding the truth should never be permitted because some dipshit in Washington who has never used a latrine, let alone bled for this nation, thinks someone might be saddened by it... Saddened my ass, Bush is afraid that he's going to get thrown out like the garbage he is when we see the price we paid for his not-quite-accomplished mission....

quote:

a) This woman was working for a privatre contractor, but her ultimate employer is the US government. The government cannot say "sorry you no longer have any rights because we're going to have a contractor search your house, beat out a confesssion, supress your speech, etc". b) This woman took photos of a non-sensitive nature. No classified materials or information was included. This is not a security risk. c) This has nothing to do with consoling the famillies. If she was opening up the coffins and showing the remains, THAT would be for the comfort of the families. These are unmarked, unidentifiable flag covered coffins, obviously treated with great respect and deference by their comrades. In fact, the only thing these photos did was make me proud of our soldiers, and of course deeply saddened that they paid such a terrible price for serving this country. d) The only reason photographs of coffins arriving cannot be photographed is because history shows us that when we fight pointless wars in far off lands for no good reason that the US public tends to react poorly when they start to see the coffins. e) The public has both the RIGHT and the NEED to see these photos so that we know what is happening. How can we possibly be active, effective participants in our democratic process if the truth is being concealed from us. If the our dead are too terrible a burden on our national conscience or will to fight, then perhaps we should think twice about sending our men and women off to war. This is a sad sad day for America, our democracy, and our ideals of free speech and informed participation in shaping public policy. Hiding the truth should never be permitted because some dipshit in Washington who has never used a latrine, let alone bled for this nation, thinks someone might be saddened by it... Saddened my ass, Bush is afraid that he's going to get thrown out like the garbage he is when we see the price we paid for his not-quite-accomplished mission....

Hmmm, here's one upset American...Anyway, yeah, good point there about the reason why caskets should not be published...and allow me to perhaps edit your thought: US citizens might and most prolly WILL react poorly when they see dead soldiers returning instead of proud fighters.

Anyway, the fact that she was fired because she violated the rules she had to follow is ok to understand. But the fact that this law was created "no pictures of caskets to be shown in transit" is useless, as mps242 said, this is the truth and the public should be aware of the truth. I think a lot of us DO think that the law is useless...

And even if the coffins were not opened or taged/licensed, some viewers CAN be upset. But hey, that's reality afterall. I dont think we can expect all soldiers to return home safely. Soldiers + war = deaths

It's on the front page of the Washington Post today (and will probably be on the front page of almost every newspaper tomorrow as well):





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34864-2004Apr22.html

quote:

Photos of Soldiers' Coffins Revive Controversy By Blaine Harden and Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, April 23, 2004; Page A10 The Pentagon lost its tight control over the images of coffins returning from Iraq as about 350 such images were released under the Freedom of Information Act and a Seattle newspaper published a similar photo taken by a military contractor. After Dover Air Force Base, the main port for returning remains, released hundreds of government photos of the ceremonies, the Defense Department ordered yesterday that no more photographs be released. In addition, two employees for defense contractor Maytag Aircraft were fired after the Pentagon complained about a photo of flag-draped caskets taken by one of them that appeared in the Seattle Times. In March 2003, on the eve of war in Iraq, the Pentagon ordered an end to all media coverage of ceremonies for the returning remains of soldiers killed overseas. Although Dover already had such a policy, the Pentagon action enforced a military-wide ban on images of flag-draped caskets that dated to late 2000 but had not been followed. With few exceptions, the ban had remained in force until recent days. But last week, about 350 photos from Dover were released under a Freedom of Information Act request by Russ Kick, a First Amendment advocate who runs a Web site called the Memory Hole (www.thememoryhole.org). Dover recommended that Kick's request be denied, but officials at Air Mobility Command headquarters at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois authorized the release on appeal. After Kick posted the photos, they appeared on other Web sites, including the Drudge Report. The sudden spread yesterday of the Dover photos of flag-draped caskets returning from Iraq came a day after Tami Silicio and her husband and co-worker, David Landry, were fired for the photo she took at Kuwait International Airport of caskets in an aircraft. The photo was published Sunday on the front page of the Seattle Times. "We have terminated two employees in Kuwait who violated Department of Defense and company policy by working together to photograph and publish the flag-draped caskets of our servicemen and women being returned to the United States," said William Silva, president of Maytag Aircraft, the Colorado Springs-based military contractor that employed Silicio and her husband. According to the Times, Silva said the firing decision was made by the company but the military had "very specific concerns" about the photo. The Pentagon has said that only individual graveside services give the full context of a soldier's sacrifice. Silicio, a cargo worker who often loaded coffins on military planes bound for the United States, shot the photo in early April, as twin uprisings in Iraq led to a spike in American war dead. She snapped a digital photograph of an aircraft packed with caskets and told her best friend that her photograph of coffins of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq would allow parents of the dead to see that "their children weren't thrown around like a piece of cargo." Losing her well-paid job in Kuwait was something that Silicio had been very worried about before the photo was published, according to Barry Fitzsimmons, a photo editor at the Times. "She has a mortgage to pay, and she really needs the job," said Fitzsimmons, who said he had a dozen phone conversations and exchanged 40 e-mails with Silicio before the photo was published. He and the newspaper's senior editors wanted to make sure she understood the possible consequences of publication. "In the end, she felt she would be okay and she would be able to keep her job," Fitzsimmons said. "I think there is a little bit of being naive about the whole thing." Silicio received no payment, but her name appeared under the photo. Zuma Press, a photo agency, is handling distribution of the photo. Rights to publish it have been purchased by a weekly newsmagazine, according to Zuma. Although photographs of flag-draped caskets returning from overseas fighting were common in the 1980s and 1990s, the Bush administration has enforced the ban on such images, saying it reflects families' wishes. Critics of the policy said the administration is trying to airbrush the realities of war. "I feel if the administration were more sympathetic they would see that this is a positive thing," Silicio said in an e-mail yesterday. "When our loved ones are coming home, the families want to be there with them through the media, coming the whole way home." Harden reported from Seattle. Staff writer Josh White contributed to this report. © 2004 The Washington Post Company

People need to see these photos imo so that they are aware of the real costs of war.

Something tells me that by firing her, they've done the exact thing they wanted to avoid - publicised the existence of these photos.

As for the situation - I'm 50/50 on this one. On the one hand, she did violate company policy. On the other hand, I think that the policy is idiotic, and that there shouldn't be any restrictions with regards to showing images such as these.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

Apparently the Pentagon is more worried about the PHOTOS of the dead than the ACTUAL dead.
What a damn shame.

By the way were are you flag waving pinko bastards now.

Iraqi dead which are more than likely civilians or in military terms; "collateral damage".

___________________

Oh don't worry about that, those coffins are empty.
They're not even coffins, they're just coffin-shaped boxes of animal crackers with flags draped over them.
No one is dying in Iraq.
Except for Arabs.

Now take this miniature American flag and go sing the national anthem!