Yeah, just ask the Tillmans. They’ll tell you all about it…
Let me spell it out in small words, and I’ll type real slow, too.
Numero one-o: your “qualification” was in a whole 'nother paragraph.
Numero two-o: “I’m not clear on the details, but I know Congress passed a huge capital gains tax cut in 2003.” Cap gains tax cut: definite, unqualified. Details: unclear.
The English language is your friend. Learn it, use it.
Hey, I wasn’t the one who claimed that the Privacy Act meant they’d have to be excluded from the photos of the coffins.
I did read your posts. You were strongly taking issue with what I was saying.
At one point (post 31), I noted that, despite the intensity of your objections, what you wanted didn’t seem to differ much from what I did, so I asked you what your problem was, and said you seemed to be arguing with someone else, not me. I said this because - guess what - I read your posts.
As I’ve noted, your posts weren’t exactly models of clarity - disagreeing with each other, not saying what you apparently meant by any stretch of the imagination - but I read them.
While I’m quite aware that I can be wrong (happens with great regularity), I don’t see the relevance to this particular thread.
You were not aware that photos had been smuggled out initially. So you said they hadn’t been. I’d forgotten about the photos produced in response to the FOIA request. But I didn’t claim that there were no FOIA photos.
That’s the difference between not knowing, and knowing what isn’t so. They are not the same thing.
And in some instances, a ‘dis’ would have been appropriate before ‘information.’
Nothing in here seemed worth a whole 'nother thread, and I didn’t have a strong desire to comment about you rather than your posts. I think I can point out inconsistencies between posts, logical errors, and false ‘facts’ perfectly well in the original GD thread. If you desperately want a Pit thread, feel free to go there and start your own.
All right, Knock It Off!
I guess I can see how this topic can get heated, but there is simply no need to make this personal when we haven’t even gotten off the first page.
Let’s stick to the discussion and drop the meta-analysis of the presentation of the discussion (and definitely move away from personal remarks regarding other posters).
[ /Moderating ]
Considering that most of us are in agreement on the crux of this matter, I wonder if the only thing left to discuss is the motivation of the government in not making this information even more freely available.
Not much of an issue to me, as I think the FOIA is sufficient here.
Oh, is that all? Well, piffle, so long as we’ve worked out the important stuff, like the actual regulations concerning transport of the fallen, why should we concern ourselves with the public relations maneuvers of the people who got them killed in the first place!
Nice rant. Pretty much off topic (in a “I don’t care how they spell my name as long as they mention that Bush started an immoral war” way), but nice segue.
Now, let’s try sticking to the topic. If you can demonstrate a direct connect-the-dots relationship between the administration being evil and some variety of imposed and illegitimate censorship regarding photos of coffins, have at it, but let’s not make this “anti-Bush rant #2,572.”
How can the FOIA suffice? The FOIA can’t produce that which doesn’t exist.
If nobody’s allowed to take such photos in the first place, then there’s no FOIA request in the world that can bring them into being.
But the photographs do exist. Proof of that was the FOIA dump.
I’m also linking Joint Pub 4-06, Mortuary Operations in Joint Operations.
Long and short of it is, there are pictures out there. This process is documented. And since you stated that you don’t want additional ones that violate privacy, I don’t know what your problem is.
It would be interesting to see what the Mortuary Operations in Joint Operations publication said in the Spring of 2002, of course. 
This unworthy one grovels at the feet of the Esteemed, and begs to differ…
Mr. Hyde first underlined the issue back in post #7, bemoaning the utility of such photos for “left wing propaganda”. I submit for your consideration that this is precisely the nub of the issue: that the Bushiviks would clearly like to evade such images and their visceral effect. I make so bold as to suggest that this is their only significant motive, that their blubbering concerns for the privacy and dignity of the families is just so much crocodile tears. Further, it helps them to advance thier viewpoint that war critics are anti-military and unpatriotic, it fosters their putrid agenda.
If you are determined to believe that their concerns are noble and worthy, that they are motivated purely by a deep and abiding sympathy for the families of the fallen, then one must ask: where was this love when it mattered? Was it we, the dirty fucking hippies, who sent them to suffer and die for feverish delusions? Or was it they, who now dab their eyes with soggy hankies? There are bloody fingerprints on those hankies, are they ours?
Mr. Hyde is entirely right in this one respect: such photos make excellent anti-war propaganda. Truth is the very best propaganda. I am duty bound to promote such propaganda, and only wish to God I didn’t have to.
Nice opening, (although my sarcasm meter is pinging), but you have not actually differed witrh my point, just ignored it.
Of course, the issue is whether the regs were intended to protect the families or protect the government. However, if you will note the second paragraph in my comment to you, you will see that I am asking for evidence that the rules were changed for the purpose of hiding some important truth.
Neither your post to which I responded nor your response to me actually engage that issue beyond making your political claims. We know the politics; let’s see a debate.
Suggestions (in case you are having trouble coming up with debating points):
We know what the current rules are: when were the current rules put into effect? It would change the arguments if the rules were changed from something quite different in 2006, 2002, 2000, 1990, 1985, etc.
Does anyone have an internal DoD document in which changes are discussed with explanations that could be considered nefarious?
The issue has been raised that the public images are delayed to provide the military with the opportunity to notify the families prior to the public release of information. Does anyone have evidence for how long it takes to notify a family (when carried out by a bereavement officer and not handed out by Western Union)? Does anyone have evidence for how long it takes a body to be processed in Iraq or Kuwait, (shipped to Germany?), then shipped to the U.S.? Is there a significant difference or an insignificant difference between those two periods of time?
The point has been made that the images are available as long as one goes through the FOIA process. Does anyone have an argument why such images should be locked behind a bureaucratic time-wasting process that does not involve making sure that news of specific body returns do not wind up on page three of Section C in the paper as old news? Does anyone have an argument that seeing a particular set of coffins within one day of their arrival is genuine news?
If you have a Great Debate, have at it. I simply do not want one more pointless thread calling Bush names (and eventually calling posters names) when we already have too many of them.
Well, that’s Bush’s fault!
What do you mean, “the photographs do exist”? Are there photographs of the coffins being brought back to the U.S. in, say, May of this year? January of 2005? Any other date you care to name after the FOIA request in 2004?
You’ve proved that that one set of photos exists.
Unless you believe I’ve said that one set of photos we already have should suffice for all time (not sure why you’d believe that, but it’s possible I suppose), I don’t understand your incomprehension.
Anyway, I didn’t say that. I hope that clears up your confusion.
Anyway, your quote from your link isn’t helpful there. I don’t see anything that requires photos to be taken and produced.
I should add that if the government, rather than news agencies, are to be the picture-takers, I would expect them to provide the photos to the public in some regular and reasonable manner, rather than requiring people to go through the hassle of a FOIA request every time they want something that should be generally available. So AFAIAC, the FOIA is not the proper channel for multiple reasons.
Actually, in response to a separate FOIA response filed by Professor Ralph Begleiter of the University of Delaware, the DoD released all of the images originally released to Russ Kick in the original FOIA request, plus many additional images. These included pictures of casket handling at airfields in numerous areas of operation. These images were of course redacted, with the unit and nametags (and oftentimes the faces) of the honor guards obscured.
In addition, the DoD assigned Begleiter a case officer to handle subsequent and ongoing FOIA requests from him, at which time a stipulated settlement of the lawsuit was reached.
So pictures are being released to him. I’m sure the process of redacting them may hold up the speed of this. You can call Professor Begleiter and see how things are going, I’m sure.
Getting back to the main objections to these photos…
Lost among his vitriol, Martin Hyde actually raised a point worthy of further discussion:
Well, I totally disagree that there’s no public interest in such photos (is there no public interest in the photos of the hundreds of dead marines in the surf of Iwo Jima?), and the left-wing-propaganda issue is neither here nor there, but the issue I’ve bolded here is interesting, and unrelated to the general privacy defense that has mostly been dealt with in this thread.
The question: Is it disrespectful to the dead to publish photos of “stacked coffins being carried like cargo”? And then, does this potential disrespect trump the public interest in seeing such photos?
Personally, I don’t find such photos to be disrespectful in any way. Just as with photos we’ve seen of non-military citizens of this or other countries arranged in neat rows of body bags in the immediate aftermath of some disaster. Striking, yes. But not disrespectful. If anything, it demonstrates to me the tremendous lengths and care to which military personnel go in respecting their fallen comrades and treating them with dignity and respect. Again, I doubt many disaster victims are given such care, or even allowed so much room on a cargo plane/truck/etc.
Does the military vouch for these photos being, say, (a) more than 80% complete, and (b) not more than a couple months old by the time they get to the professor?
Honestly, I do not know the answer to that.