john schroeder Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 An article in Thursday's Seattle Times about a woman who was fired for taking a photograph. I find it disturbing that the Pentagon has banned the taking of this type of photograph. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001909527_coffin22m. html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_hundsnurscher Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 I find it assuring. If I had a relative die in Iraq, I wouldn't want a picture of their casket put in a newspaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_witkop Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 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 More sharing options...
peter_witkop Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 The link above is dead, could be a typo or it's down already. These are two other stories about it:<p><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616268111.html">http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616268111.html</a><br><a href="http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000491273">http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000491273</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_hundsnurscher Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Peter, <p> The link isn't dead, there's just a space after "coffin22m." that should be eliminated. <p> <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001909527_coffin22m.html">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001909527_coffin22m.html</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_fitzmaurice Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Traditionally the government restricts photography only when security is involved. This clearly restricts freedom of the press. This may sound insinsative, but the family doesn't have a right not to see their relatives casket in a newspaper. The public has a right to be informed by the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_macman Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 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 More sharing options...
the_macman Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 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 More sharing options...
kevin_hundsnurscher Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 The fact is, she was clearly not doing her job and she broke a rule the military feels she broke and she lost her job. I'm not surprised.<br>I happen to agree with that rule. I'm not spouting BS when I say that, that's how I feel.<br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yance_marti Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 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 More sharing options...
lucas_griego Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 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 More sharing options...
EricM Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Me thinks these discussions are healthy. If we keep the name calling and insults down to zero, the moderator might let us keep it� Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_hundsnurscher Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Lucas, I agree with you, I feel deceived about the war but I feel it's disrespectful to take pictures of the dead in this instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 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 More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 >>>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 More sharing options...
johnlund Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 <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 More sharing options...
minh_thai Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 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 More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 <i> case of wrongfull termination </i><BR><BR>What the state law on this; in her state?<BR><BR>Some states can fire without cause; and the worker is out of a job; with no recourse; if no discrimination happened.<bR>Each state's laws on termination is different. <BR><BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 <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 More sharing options...
joel_becker1 Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 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 More sharing options...
chris_hawkins Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 It is all part of the plan to let us only have information that supports those in power. Nothing new here. From the Medicare budget projections to the 911 investigation, the current administration is more concerned with covering its *** than with serving the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_prouty Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 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 More sharing options...
kevin_hundsnurscher Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 <i>Then I'd respectfully suggest that you aren't particularly bright.</I><br><br> I'd respectfully suggest that was a rude comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan_turner1 Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now