Jump to content

Woman loses her job over coffins photo


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kevin,

I can cerntainly understand that it could be comforting for a family of the service man/woman, but I see it as a basic freedom of the press issue. The traditional litmus (sp?) test of the american public's support for a military action has always been the reaction to flag draped coffins, and miltary funerals. Not allowing the press to show those images is essentially a side steping of that test of support.

 

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin, I think you're talking BS. Those are anonymous coffins, it's not like they're

labeled... otherwise I'd say you're prefectly right. I have a brother-in-law who died in

Bosnia. Believe me, it would have been fine with all of us if his coffin was on every

billboard on this planet. You certainly don't want the same thing to happen to others

hence, if himself could serve as a message to all even after his death is certainly a

very good thing.

 

I think those assholes learned their lessons with Turnley. Remember that gulf war

photo he made in a helicopter of a soldat crying after he learned that the bodybag

next to him contains the body of a good friend? The administration didn't like it... yet

America wasn't that shocked because the war, after war was legitimate. Now try to

imagine the effects of an equally depressive picture (such as the coffins) in a

illegitimate war... They want to avoid certain things and the suspension of the

freedom of press rights is an acceptable price for them.

 

Don't give me BS with government's property. Lemme ask you. On which property did

the "Mission Accomplished" banner hang?... we all know that the Baas party controlled

the press the same way. Do what I say but not what I do. This administration wants to

keep the public's eyes off the mishaps of this invasion. That's the only reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine the following, published these days:

 

http://pdngallery.com/20years/photojournalism/21_david_turnley.html

 

Imagine the effect it makes on public opinion... BTW, ever wondered why you don't

see that many pictures taken inside army property (hangars, planes, helicopters,

buildings)... as we used to see during gulf war, bosnia & others? :) Now you see why

the Pentagon fired that photographer.

 

BTW, what is Turnley doing nowadays? I highly doubt he's welcomed in Iraq :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not freedom of the press - she was an employee of a company who is a government contractor. She didn't work for a newspaper. The picture isn't top secret but I would assume it goes against the best interests of the company she works for. The article even states that the government isn't prosecuting her, its a decision entirely made by the company. It's like if I took a picture while at work that showed the company in a bad light and sold it to the newspaper. I wouldn't expect to have my job in the morning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yance -

I fail to see how this showed her company in a bad light. What really more the case here is the Pentagon and everyone making skads of money on this whole debacle get worried if images that could change American public opinion going against the whole money making endeavor. Her company see it as biting the hand that feeds her - which you can be damn sure is how the US administration that handed out the billion dollar contracts for this kind of work in Iraq are sure to feel when the images of coffins of American GI's start showing up in the paper.

 

Kevin -

There was nothing identifying who was in the coffins. It'd be nice if Americans could see the ugly reality of the mess their government has gotten them into. America loves to pump money, weapons and military advisory support into the 3rd/developing world and then turn around and go to war with the same people when alliances built in the sand start to shift. Nothing new here. Same as every conflict the US has gotten for quite some time now.

 

You didn't see any of these jerk offs complaining about Saddam or the Baath party when they were pumping them full of support (intelligence, economic aid, and weapons) to keep Iran in it's place in the late '70s. Where was Rumsfeld then? Chatting it up with Saddam at the request of Reagan - of course - the US needed cheap oil. Oh - silly me - that's why the US is back there again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From TheMemoryHole.com:

<p>

<em> Since March 2003, a newly-enforced military regulation has forbidden taking or distributing images of caskets or body tubes containing the remains of soldiers who died overseas.

<p>

Immediately after hearing about this, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the following:

<p>

<ul> All photographs showing caskets (or other devices) containing the remains of US military personnel at Dover AFB. This would include, but not be limited to, caskets arriving, caskets departing, and any funerary rites/rituals being performed. The timeframe for these photos is from 01 February 2003 to the present.</ul>

</em>

<p>

<a href="http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/">http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/</a>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>The military certainly has the right to restrict photos shot on government property just like people do over images shot on private property, I don't see any issue that.<<<

 

I do. The government does not enjoy the same power to restrict photography on goverment property as does a private property owner on their own property. The goverment can restrict and regulate photography on its property, yes, but not in the way described above. The military, of course, has even more authority to restrict and regulate photography in its sphere of operations whether it is on government property or not. These powers, in any event, are not akin to private property ownership. The reference to military restrictions on photography on government property is also overly broad. According to the passage, the military could forbid photography wherever government property exists which is not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"The military certainly has the right to restrict photos shot on government property just like people do over images shot on private property"</i> - KH<br/>

<br/>

 

That's not the issue here, but that argument doesn't make sense. Do you feel the same about the National Park Service? Government can restrict access to some areas, of course, but only with good reason.<br/>

<br/>

 

Firing the employee in question was a harsh penalty, but I don't have a problem with it. However, it serves as a reminder of the restrictions being applied to the media, which are indefensible. The government/military shouldn't be able to exempt itself from the public accountability that media coverage facilitates. Secrecy and security are legitimate military issues of course, but they aren't relevant here.<br/>

<br/>

 

As for respect for the dead, claiming that is it disrespectful to photograph flag draped coffins (often accompanied by an honor guard) is extreme. Besides, should it be the government that gets to decide what's respectful or not?<br/>

<br/>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to miss something here. Was the photo actually banned? How is the government involved in the woman's job termination here? I think she and her husband may have a case of wrongfull termination in their hands, and some lawyers would love to take up the case. Let's not get over-generalizing here with the anti-war, anti-freedom of speech-violation sentiments. My 2c. M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>The military certainly has the right to restrict photos shot on government property just like people do over images shot on private property, I don't see any issue that.</i>

<p>

Then I'd respectfully suggest that you aren't particularly bright.

<p>

Who the hell do you think the government works for? Who do you think owns the government's property in the first place?

<p>

The only legitimate reason for CITIZENS' EMPLOYEES to restrict CITIZENS' access to property OWNED BY THE CITIZENS is for reasons of national security, to protect information that would be dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands.

<p>

As for it being "disrepectful" to take pictures of coffins, quite obviously the military does not agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that, given an existing rule, the employer has a right to fire a transgressor. It like enforcing "morals" clauses in contracts. It is only enforced when it serves a purpose.

 

What really is an injustice is firing her husband, who had nothing to do with it. That is pure spite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel,

 

You are absolutely right! The husband, as long as he was only fired for being her husband and not for being beligerant to his employers about the matter, certainly doesn't deserve to be fired. Since we don't have these facts, I won't pass judgement on the company. Unfortunately, there are laws in states that say employers can terminate at will with no reason at all! Fact of life!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This story is all over Canada right now. There were a bunch of photos like this being

shown on the news tonight. There's all sorts of coffins. 'Guess that's what happens

when you try to turn hummus and falafel into onion chip dip and pork rinds....or lead

into gold (pun intended) as the case may be.

 

Strange that GW is the first American president not to attend the funeral of a soldier

who was killed on his watch...maybe that has something to do with said defence

contractor firing said contract employee for snapping pics of all the pine boxes.

 

If you find it disturbing that the pentagon has banned taking shots like that, you're

part of the majority of the world's citizens. If there was any honour in that war your

military wouldn't be so ashamed of all the bodies.

 

I'll keep it at that before I start going on about Somalia....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...