Do you really believe…really believe!.. that the Bushiviks primary motivation in suppressing such pictures is rooted in a deep and abiding concern for the feelings of their respective families? And that our suspicions are unfounded? You hold these men to be so noble?
Yeah, well, I don’t clearly recall that being quite the tidal wave you seem to, I remember Sean Hannity was pretty upset about it. In terms of unanimous public outrage, I don’t think it measures up to when Hillary and George Soros ordered MoveOn to compare GeeDub to Hitler.
Shouldn’t be that hard to keep live, ambulatory soldiers out of the picture. The pic that most pops up in Google is the one that WAS smuggled out, which in turn led to the FOIA request, contrary to your claim that this didn’t happen. (Can you eventually start checking your ‘facts’ first? I figured this time you might actually be better informed than I. My bad.) Be that as it may, the reason there are soldiers in the pic that might possibly be identifiable is that the pic did have to be taken on the sly. If there were cooperation between reporters and military, you might get more photos like this, where the live soldiers are in the background, quite unidentifiable. Or maybe not in the photos at all.
Maybe you got the abridged version of All the President’s Men. Mine has photos.
Well, yes, I suppose it would be, if that’s how they’re transported.
But just to reiterate, the pix I’ve seen showed coffins, in neat rows, with flags neatly folded around them, on the floor of the cargo plane. Like the ones I linked to above in my response to Mr. Moto.
Which still translates into, if the gummint doesn’t want you to see it, then you shouldn’t see it.
Sorry, but I live in the United States of America, not in some fucking authoritarian state.
If the coffin is sufficiently concealed by the American flag in which it’s wrapped that one has to assume it’s a coffin because there’s insufficient visual info to tell for sure that it’s not just a bunch of dummied-up boxes that they’re practicing the etiquette of coffin transport on, then nobody’s privacy is being violated.
This has been a concern of the military since way before the current administration. While I appreciate that some of you think the military may be overreacting a bit here, I don’t think this is primarily administration driven.
What did get driven in the current war was the consistent application of regulations already in place.
Other than the fact that there’s no way to tell whose coffin is under which flag.
Obviously they can be distinguished one from another, to ensure that each coffin goes to the family of the deceased soldier whose remains are in the coffin. But there’s no way to see that from the photos I’ve seen.
In short, I think you’re really reaching here.
Even though, as I said, to ExTank, I’d have no problem with, say, a 2-week embargo on publication, I certainly don’t see how you derive your claim from the material you quote.
Bingo. But there’s still the matter of someone’s being able to take them in the first place.
You’re twiddling around the edges here, and ignoring the big picture.
Commonsense to me would be a restriction on release on these images for a reasonable period of time. After that, no restrictions. Additionally, the name of the deceased will not be disclosed until proper notification through military channels has been done - and I would go so far as to impose a prior restraint on the press here, or impose massive civil penalties on the press for disclosure of this information before casualty assistance officers have done their work.
Additionally, the families of the deceased, as discussed, have significant privacy rights. I mentioned in the last thread a wonderful series in the Rocky Mountain News covering the work of these casualty assistance officers. The families that were covered agreed to be covered in a very intense manner - and that was their right. Other families may choose to be left alone. That is similarly their right.
This dovetails with a discussion recently held concerning the rights of families to be free of harassment at funerals. While many of us disagreed with the level of protection these families ought to be afforded under the law, I think we were under general agreement that a decent society would grant them every consideration to mourn their loss as they saw fit.
The photos you have seen were segregated out from other photos that may well have contained identifying information, and further scrubbed of identifying information themselves. Your link contained this cover letter explaining just that.
So you cannot suppose that all photos would be this way based on the ones you have seen. The ones you have seen were carefully selected to comply with privacy regulations.
Did the other photos show labels, manifests, unit codes, or any other such data? Presumably they did - and thus could easily have created a situation where a family was notified ahead of time.
I would have no problem with the eventual release of all photographs. But my concern here is noninterference with both the casualty notification and assistance program and ongoing military operations, should that situation be necessary.*
*In rare cases, I can imagine situations where the actual number of casualties in a particular fielded unit may need to be suppressed for a time, so as not to give that information to an enemy.
Mr. Moto, do you have anything to contradict what Tomndebb posted in the firefighter’s thread?
Since when does freedom of speech have to be governed by public taste? What party do you belong to again?
I read your link about this ad in the firefighter’s thread. According to that link, the ad went virtually unnoticed by the “public” until the Republicans called attention to it. Even then, only two Republicans actually asked that it either to altered or taken down from the website. That is hardly representative of the public!!
Since that is “the most egregious case,” please describe exactly how the photo was used in the ad.
If such photos are not being supressed, why does it literally take an act of Congress – the Freedom of Information Act – to have access to them?
The old saying about a picture being worth a thousand words is memorable for a reason. There is truth to it. Talking about 3500 dead is one thing. Illustrating it is another. A photograph of 25 coffins makes a greater impact than the mention of 25 deaths. Surely you don’t deny that.
Martin Hyde, thanks for admitting that the Democratic Party wants to use the truth for propaganda and the Republican Party wants to prevent them from doing so.
Don’t they already have procedures about this? Are they not working?
It’s a mystery to me how a picture of a group of flag-draped coffins will somehow cause the names of the bodies in the coffins under those flags to be prematurely released in a way that nontrivially exacerbates the current risk of that happening.
Repeating the same stuff you’ve said before.
This is so far out in left field that it can get service from the beer vendors.
Which is fine. What’s your problem? This demonstrates that such “safe” photos can be taken; I don’t want any more than that. You are arguing with someone else, not me.
Meanwhile, speaking of privacy rights, here’s something for you to be up in arms about: if you click here and scroll down, you’ll see an AP photo of some American soldiers in Iraq carrying a wounded comrade on a stretcher. Think the AP got a release from the guy on the stretcher? Time to start your letter-writing campaign.
Since there is no identifying information involved, there is no problem with the photograph. Additionally, as government employees, soldiers have reduced expectations of privacy under the Privacy Act.
That does not, however, apply to their families, who by and large do not work for the government and do have Privacy Act rights that must be respected when they are receiving the remains of their loved ones.
I keep on trusting that you know what you’re talking about in these matters, and it keeps on being a mistake on my part. Please do not expect me to give you credence in the future should you claim particular knowledge of military matters on account of your having been in the military.
Since that time, per my cites, I took the time to look up the current Navy PAO manual and brush up on things. If you go into that manual and check out what I have been saying on the subject, you will find it is backed up there.
Or I can save you the trouble, since folks around here in general are lazy about reading cites. From the manual:
So at the beginning, I had general data, later made specific through better research. Since I admitted at the beginning that I was rusty on the matter (I haven’t held that particular assignment since 1995) I wonder why you’d attack me so personally about this.
If you have particular problems with my data, or my cites, let me know, please.
Not so much that, Moto but that it seems you want to exclusively frame the issue around privacy concerns, which are rather arcane, under the circumstances. I can accept that you believe that such concerns are the primary motivation in suppressing such imagery, but I don’t really believe it to be true. I believe that the primary concern is to keep unpleasant realities discreetly under wraps, so much as that is possible.
Again, I don’t think these images are suppressed, at least not in any traditional sense of the term. Now, many of them require a FOIA request before their promulgation, but that is the case with a lot of government information.
That makes you look even worse. In one paragraph, you give an unqualified statement of fact - the Privacy Act applies to living soldiers.
Then in another paragraph, after stating the basis of your supposed expertise, you say you don’t know the details, but you do know this much.
Yeah, bold that as much as you like.
Good of you to look things up after making counterfactual assertions.
It would have to be, wouldn’t it? If one time, you say that living soldiers are protected by the Privacy Act, and another time, you say they aren’t, then you’ve got to be right 50% of the time.
Thanks, but with exactly NO military background, I can be right 50% of the time about stuff like that.
No, you’re lazy about explaining, in the thread, what the link will tell the reader. You’re making an argument. “Link.” isn’t an argument.
Because what you claimed to be rusty about was “details.” You didn’t indicate any uncertainty about the basic statement you made - that living soldiers were protected by the Privacy Act. None.
Plus you’d already had me fooled about the photos not being ‘smuggled out,’ until I accidentally came across the truth. That’s two matters of fact in a very short space, that were at least related to an area that you supposedly are more familiar with than I.
Even when I heatedly disagree with someone, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt in their personal areas of expertise, as I initially did with you here. I’m just being quite frank about this - you’ve lost that cred here, at least AFAIAC. Whatever you say about any aspect of military life or rules or whatever, needs a cite just as much as if a 17 year old pacifist said it. I’m not speaking for anyone else here - just me. But since we seem to be tangling a lot these days, it seems worth saying now, rather than waiting until the next time it matters.
Plus, just this week, you were making multiple bogus claims in another thread without looking things up first. Maybe this will get you to start doing your lookups first. It would be a good habit to get into.
Just call it “tough love.” You conservatives are big fans of that.
How could it be an unqualified statement of fact when I qualified my statement by saying I was rusty on the details?
That sounds like a qualification to me.
Of course living soldiers are covered by the Privacy Act. They just have a reduced expectation of privacy than civilians given the public nature of their job.
All you were doing was posting a picture and saying that I should have a problem with it, when of course most thinking people wouldn’t. And I didn’t.
If you had bothered to read my posts, I don’t have a problem with the casket pictures either. I just want the rules followed, and the rights of the surviving family members respected.
Well, I was not aware that a photo had been smuggled out initially. You weren’t aware that scads of them were released after FOIA requests.
So what have we learned here. That we both can be wrong about things? Hardly a thing I needed to be reminded of, myself.
And hardly a thing to get overly excited about. I’m bringing an opinion and information to this debate. You can agree or disagree as you see fit. If you have a problem with my conduct here or elsewhere, you are well aware of a forum where this can be discussed.
I don’t give a good goddamn which coffin belongs to which soldier. The point is that there is a soldier in any given flag-draped coffin, and that soldier had a family of some sort or another that cared for them, loved them, and wants their remains back for a funeral and closure.
At least give the family that much before taking the pictures and printing them on the front page of a newspaper with the caption, “War! What Is It Good For?”
As far as coffins being set out for public viewing in funeral homes, that’s the deceased’s (or the deceased family’s) choice now, isn’t it?
And finally, it isn’t “unchristian” to publish a photo of a coffin that hasn’t been buried/cremated/whatever yet. It’s kinda disrespectful to the fallen soldier and their surviving family members to publish a photo of the coffin of a dead soldier for political purposes when the family hasn’t even been given the remains for final disposition.
I see on reading the replies that RT gets it. I have no problem with the photos of coffins of dead soldier being taken, and used for political purposes (“War is Bad, Stop The War”). I just want to wait, out of respect for the dead and their families, until they are laid to rest before releasing the photos.
