Woman loses her job over coffins photo

[brendan_turner1]

Incidently David Turnley was in Iraq for a while, you may have seen hin by video

phone on CNN in North Iraq last April, but he is now in South Africa

[lucas_griego]

In reading other comments regarding this shot (followed the link in the Seattle Times) it seems most agree that more images like this need to be shown. Though you do have one buffoon ranting about US soldiers in Iraq to protect American freedom. LOL. Right. Until Bush senior got us involved the first time 95% of Americans had no idea where Iraq even was (or that US government had been using US tax dollars to support them in the 80's) - even with the war on I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find many that could point it out on the map. Protecting our freedom indeed. Still no WMD, still no Al-Quaeda links - just a rising number of young American men and women and Iraqi civilians being killed so Bush can keep Rumsfeld, Cheney et. al in the money. It certainly is a sad state for democracy to be in.

 

It's ironic that people think that images like this is show a lack of disrespect for the Americans in the armed forces over there fighting. That is hardly the case. It'd be nice if the current administration wasn't so myopic that they had to send Americans over into this debacle in the first place. Look at any of the images from Vietnam and you will find two things - first is a striking similarity with the current sham of a war and the second is that the photographers there presented a war as it'd never been shown - the American public responded by putting enough pressure on the administration to pull out. It seems those in government have learned nothing from history.

 

Now days you have the government manhandling the media and corporate media groups like CNN in cahoots with them. The average American gets further away from the truth as a result of this. My kids and your kids will be footing the bill for this mess for many years to come.

 

I'd prefer to see the images now.

[jbs]

Didn't you boys and girls know this was going on?

 

"Kevin Hundsnurscher , apr 22, 2004; 03:43 p.m.

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."

 

Respectfully Kevin, The President and Vice as well as the Honorable Mr. Wolfawitz (sp) Will be very happy that you and 40% of Americans, "...don't see any issue (in) that." This is a private war please sit down and be quite.

 

....:-(.....J

[jbs]

Quiet. Please.

 

..........................:-(.....J

[chris_waller]

This smacks of censorship, and of the kind of thinking that the Chinese government adopts, that is, if people don't see it or hear about it then it isn't happening. It doesn't surprise me however. During the First World War D-notices were slapped on British newspapers to prevent them reporting the huge numbers of casualties. But it made no difference, people were still being killed.

[jim_gifford]

You could send a nice email asking William Silva, the president of the company (and exec VP of parent Mercury Air Group), to reconsider.

 

I did.

 

Here's his email address, courtesy of the company's web site: wsilva@mercuryair.com

 

-Jim

[yance_marti]

<i>Lucas said: Yance - I fail to see how this showed her company in a bad light.</i>

 

The contractor with whom she was employed was doing work for the Pentagon. She obviously wasn't given permission by any of her supervisors to take this picture during her work. The picture showed the client in a bad light and the client did not like the bad publicity generated from the picture. When a client is unhappy with bad publicity as a result of something a contractor has done, the client probably will not rehire the contractor. This is basic business procedure and the firing of the woman is completely justified. It doesn't matter if the picture was of coffins or a general in a dress, the result would be the same.

[EricM]

I agree with Yance. The details of the issue shouldn�t cloud our judgment. She has at this level had to sign all sorts of agreements and contracts to not talk, publish, or release any info. She may as well shown up to work intoxicated.

 

But talk about having a reverse effect on the company�s intent. If they hadn�t of fired her, we wouldn�t of been aware of it or seen the photos; clearly what they are trying to avoid. Idiots.<div></div>

[Brad_]

Why are so many people here shocked that companies are allowed to fire employees that

break company rules...

[lucas_griego]

Yance -

 

Yeah, point well taken. I actually contradicted myself in the same thread just a bit later. LOL. So yes it does show her company in a bad light. By making the Bush administration look bad (not hard to do) and possibly turning some public oppinion against the Iraq debacle. They know it because they want the very lucrative contracts that Dubya and his pals are handing out willy nilly. Wonder if were being charged double for this like all the other instances.

 

The images made the BBC World Service TV news broadcast. There were other images were obtained under the freedom of information act. And then published on the web - I guess the web here beat print to the punch. And yes the company that fired her really dropped the ball. Especially seeing as how the images were released anyhow in compliance with the F.I.A. - though Bush now says that the band will stand.

 

Jim -

 

Nice one. Good idea. Will do.

[john_h.1]

A couple months ago a certain Presidential candidate ran television commercials showing a flag drapped corpse being taken from Ground Zero. The candidates supporters fell all over themselves justifying the use of that imagery despite some disrespect it may cause to involved families. This week those same supporters are citing the same sort of disrespect to involved families while many of the candidates opponants are now justifying the use of the flagged drapped coffins in photos.

 

Perhaps one distinction is that one use of the imagery was for a television advertisment while the other was used as a news event.

[bob_hollifield]

Well it's obvious some of you folks don't like President Bush from your comments, and that's fine... and some of you may be from other countries, however I'm from the USA, proud of it, and we "ain't" been bombed again since 9/11. I'd say the man's doing a good job of fighting terrorism. I don't see anything wrong with pictures of the coffins...they depict nothing other than what's going on in the world today, and these coffins and their contents have been treated with great respect and dignity.

[robertfarnham]

Images and soundbites rule the American media. The Pentagon doesn't want photos of coffins published because the photos communicate in an instant far more than thousands of small headlines that read "40 soldiers killed in siege of Falluja" ever could. It's their version of damage control, and by having this rule they are admitting that the war never should have happened. By refusing to acknowledge the existence of their dead service men and women through photography they are doing them a disservice and, in essence, admitting that their deaths are an embarassment to the country. As a non-American that is the feel I get from this whole situation - the practice doesn't fit the theory. I think if the fight is just you must glorify the dead because they are the heros who have sacrificed everything. Glorification = publication. Shout it from the hilltops - "our son died for a just cause!!". If the fight is unjust, hide the ugliness and hope nobody notices what the reality is. My question is - and it's an honest question because I wasn't around at the time - did the Pentagon have the same rule for the WWII dead?

[andrew_somerset1]

Photos of American dead were censored for much of WWII. Eventually, Roosevelt lifted the rule because he felt that the American public was missing a sense of how serious the situation was -- he wanted people to see what they were up against.

 

The present rule has nothing to do with a realization on the Pentagon's part (or the Bush administration's part) that the war is wrong. After all, it's been in place (if unevenly enforced) since '91. This rule went into place for Gulf War I, where control of the media was seen as all-important. It's a reflection of the old canard, so popular at the Pentagon, that America would have won the Vietnam War were it not for a seditious and unreliable press. It's simply a fear that press coverage could backfire on them and erode support for the war.

[EricM]

Andrew has summed it all up. They can�t have the public protests like the Vietnam war reproduced. And they�re successful since the first Gulf War; public opinion is still that of �ridding and evil dictator� from the nation. So much depleted uranium has been used for munitions there since �91, that for ten thousand years nothing will grow properly, no one will be born properly. It's in the soil, it's in the water. The allied forces in �91 destroyed, unnecessarily, all the water systems, the hospitals, the sewage treatment systems, schools, neighbour hoods�ah, it makes me so angry. It�s all messed up really.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Eric; depleted uranium has been used for decades in trimming the balance of jetliners; going back to the Nikon era and the 747. Depleted uranium is listed in the Metal handbooks for along time. The antitank shells were developed long time ago; maybe 2 decades ago. I worked with some folks who worked with DU well before the fall of the Berlin wall. I heard it was developed for NATO usage; to help stop the massive outnumbering of tanks; since the Neutron Bomb was polically not correct. It was first used in war about 1991; at least a decade after being thought up. Later it was used in Bosnia. Like alot of crap; it turned out to be aalot more messy than first thought.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The first 550 Boeing 747 haave alot of DU for counterbalance. A crash of an older 747 often causes Environmental concerns. These 747's were made from 1969 through 1984. Some older 747 have about <b>1000 Pounds</b> of DU for counterbalancing. Bill Clinton signed the bill in 1994 to allow export financing of DU; to other Governments. rounds M-833 and M-829 ..........The half life of 4.5 billion years is darn long...Something like 400 tonnes was used in Iraq in 1991...

[EricM]

Kelly, thanks�I think. You are such a wealth of knowledge in so many faucets.

 

Four hundred tons? Genocide in three generations, maybe four?

[rdkirk]

Eric,

>>The allied forces in �91 destroyed, unnecessarily, all the water systems, the hospitals, the sewage treatment systems, schools, neighbour hoods�ah, it makes me so angry. <<

 

I can't speak to the DU issue, however you are in error on this point. I was a military reconnaissance imagery interpreter for both the last part of the Vietnam war and for the Gulf War. I had the list of targets, and it was my job (along with others) to judge whether they hit their intended targets.

 

I've also been trained as a "targeteer"--the person who determines how to destroy a given target.

 

The US certainly did not destroy "all" the water systems, the hospitals, the sewage treatment systems, schools, neighbour hoods. We hardly damaged any of those kinds of facilities, and we certainly did not deliberately target any of them. Where any were struck, it was most likely because a Tomahawk was hit by ground fire and knocked down or crippled. But in fact, very little such damage was done--in tremendous contrast to what I saw in Vietnam.

 

We are taught that is a war crime for which we, as targeteers, would be prosecuted. The legal exception is if we prove it is being used for militar purposes--but in fact, we still did NOT target such places in the Gulf War, even if they were being used for military purposes.

[EricM]

i never intended to use the word "all", please excuse me.

[steve_swinehart]

I've worked for several government contractors and on projects where we were specifically precluded from bringing cameras or any "recording instruments" onto the property. The security officer made it very clear that taking unauthorized photos could result in being fired. She screwed up - she got fired. It has nothing to do with any of her alleged "Freedoms." She also has the freedom to NOT WORK for a company that imposes those requirements.

[johnlund]

<i>"She also has the freedom to NOT WORK for a company that imposes those requirements."</i> - Steve S<br/>

<br/>

"Love it or leave it" is hardly an argument for freedom. I've been wondering about this case. What would've happened if the person in question was enlisted? What impact does the shift to military contractors have on our freedoms? Does/should working in a war zone make any difference to how we distinguish contract workers? Can the government use private contractors when it wants to get around laws that govern the military? <br/>

<br/>

Back to <b>photo.net</b>: The issue of war photo censorship may not be new, but it's still troubling. Give me a choice between trusting government or holding it accountable to the public, and I'll choose the latter every time.

[steve_swinehart]

Lot's of "what ifs" in the previous post. Is this some sort of game? Okay, what if she was a millionare by winning the lottery and thought she'd see if she could just get away with something?

 

How about - what if she understood her responsibilities as an employee and took them seriously?

 

What if she did her job as a professional and didn't break the rules?

 

What if she worked for the CIA and did that? Oh, I know. She'd have been fined at least $10,000 and could have spent time in jail - but then, she probably would have claimed she didn't read and sign the security agreement. If you do certain jobs, you accept the responsibilities that go with them and don't break the rules.

 

If you don't like the rules, you don't take the job. Yes, it's as simple as that - it's called personal responsibility. Too many people apparently don't understand that concept.

[johnlund]

Steve, "what ifs" are part of the game of philosophical inquiry. Did you turn snippy merely because I disagreed with your characterization of freedom? Stop grinding your axe for a moment and you'll see that earlier in this thread I noted, "I don't have a problem with [this firing]". I believe we'd agree on another point: responsibly is the flip side of freedom. We could use a little more responsible behavior in these forums.

[giel_du_toit]

wel,what really bothers me is that one person was fired for documenteda happening which for the sake of freedom and democracy must be made known to the outside world.how on earth other then doing just that will you ever bring reality to the man in the street.take for instance west africa.oil and wood is what so called first world countries take out there.of which the USA AND FRANCE is the key elements.you ever see a wide spread coverage by cnn on people being killed in thousands,or children walking around with chopped off,yes,chopped off hands and arms.noooo,because once the outside world steps in,the chaos will stop,but yip,no more cheap oil,no more cheap wood.you talk about coffins being shown in pictures.wait till you see how a pregnant woman and child is killed by forcing her to kneel,and then cut her stomach open.we as photographers has a duty to document events like this,as to make sure by taking action,that it will not happen again.i think if more pictures shows up in public,hopefully the pressure on the USA goverment of the day will realize that its time to listen to the public,the very same ones who voted them in place,can remove then also,and bring a stop to this war.

one must ask the question,why did 9/11 took place in the first place.i asked that question to myslef many times over and over.and still today the puctures of innocent people jumping to their death,rather then choose to burn alive to death in the trade centre buildings is a nightmare.but why.a dog only bite his master when mistreated to a point where love and affection is taken over by pain and fear.for a long time BIN LADEN and for the matter,SADDAM too,was very big friends of the USA and great brittian.what happened to make him turn against them.bad politics and nothing else.sorry that i drifted away from the original thread of this post,but yes,it all boils down to photo,s,the man and woman behind the camera.its the only way the general public will be able to know what their goverments do.and if they want them as their respected leaders or not.