Well I dislike firefighters, but thats just because I know a lot of them. I do have a lot of respect for professional firefighters because of what they do.
I think once you open it up to firefighters and police officers you need to open it up to a whole lot of other professions also.
How about a Volusia County lifeguard who dies in the line of duty rescuing a drowning victim? How about a county hospital ER nurse who gets scratched by a doped up gang member with a knife wound and she contracts AIDS and dies?
How about a parole officer who gets killed by one of their angry/insane convicts when visiting them in the ghetto? How about a national park search and rescue worker who dies trying to pluck someone off a mountain side?
All these people serve the public. All of them have dangerous jobs. Don’t they desrve the same recognition?
:rolleyes: I think that’s taking it to the point of pathological obsession with egalitarianism. People do care about all those people, and they do make the news. We just happen to have a greater cultural connection to Firefighters.
Mr. Bush is certainly not above using living soldiers as political props, or even photoshopping some into his rallies .
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can see not allowing pictures that show secret weapons or would give away troop locations, but not allowing pictures of coffins in groups is indeed fascist.
People might get the misguided idea there’s a war going on.
How has the lack of coffin photos prevented anyone who wanted to know from knowing how many soldiers has died, their names, and what they died from?
Notice also, that the government is not stopping an aggrieved family from publicly displaying or distributing pictures of their own lost loved one.
The government is only refusing to allow this to be done when the body is in the governments custody.
What is stopping their families from draping their coffins with the American flag is they think it an appropriate tribute? Maybe I’m missing something, but is the OP suggesting that there is some sort of federal government endorsement here (as opposed to an individual family making such a decision)?
IMO, anyone who in life felt a pride for and dedication to the country that would make such a tribute a comfort to his family–what’s the problem? Those who take exception to it or who see ulterior motives are picking nits.
And Mr. Emanuel wasn’t above using dead ones as props either, to the point that some Democrats begged him to remove the offending ad from the airwaves.
Now, did Rahm Emanuel get permission from the families of any of these soldiers before using that image in an ad? Did he even know their names, so that he could obtain such?
Nope.
There are certain lines of propriety that ought not be crossed. This probably was one of them. It was right and proper that this ad was pulled.
bolding mine
Nitpick: Third, not half.
Insensitive, perhaps. But none of the families could say with any certainty that any particular coffin was theirs, so in my opinion no such permission was needed. Censoring something on the grounds that it might be misused is a pretty weak argument.
But it is not censored. The FOIA case was won by the journalists who pressed it, and they got their pictures. So your case holds no water there either.
Perhaps I’m wrong. Are journalists currently allowed on the plans to photograph and publish groups of flag-draped coffins?
As I stated above, when journalists work with the military in this regard they are given tremendous access to cover this story.
Working with the military in this regard does not mean toeing the line on the war, BTW. The article I cited did not do that. All the military wants is for the rights of the families to be respected.
Did you read the article I cited? Here’s a better link.
Can you cite news stories that made this comparison? I did see an account making a comparison of the community impact of the SC firemen deaths to that of 9/11 in New York, but not anything treating firefighters as equivalent to soldiers.
Regardless of what problems police and firefighters have, expressing disdain in this way is, politically speaking, incredibly damaging to one’s cause. It’s the same with commenting disparagingly about patriotism and sneering at American flag displays. It’s a losing tactic. Cede the patriotic ground to your opponents, and you lose vast segments of the voting public.
This self-defeating viewpoint shows no sign of abating. Too bad.
By the way, I can remember funerals of murdered police officers going back many many years before 9/11 and GWB, and tons of flags were always in evidence.
I would have to agree. As a group they are reminiscent of jocks in high school. Always screwing with each other and cracking wise. I don’t know a lot of police but I imagine they would be much they same if they didn’t have to carry a gun. I know for myself, as a civilian, even when I have a loaded one on me I am very respectful of It’s capacity as well as mine to take a life.
I skimmed heavily. I thought it was a real snoozer. And the photo of the boys in the belly of the plane unloading a coffin- OK but what does it prove? I have no problem with suppressing the photos of mangled bodies in the field. But to suppress a group of anonymous coffins on the grounds of being sensitive to the families is a very flimsy excuse to avoid showing photos that could be damaging politically. THAT’S what Bush cares about, NOT the families.
The issue of photographing coffins arriving from the Middle East is closely tied to the change in rules regarding those bodies, initiated by this adminsitration, that made these the first bodies returned from a war that were not greeted in an official ceremony by delegates of the government. When the practice was intiated, there was a loud cry that the “refusal” to greet the bodies was a deliberate effort to hide the rising numbers of casualties.
Whether turning the arrival into simple cargo dispersion without ceremony and prohibiting photographs was actually a well-meaning effort to protect families or an insidious plot to disguise the cost of the war, the issue has now been tainted with bad feelings, charges, and countercharges.
At any rate, that topic is really not part of the OP’s question. If anyone wishes to continue that discussion, it would be better served in its own new thread.
(sigh)
BUT THEY ARE NOT SUPPRESSED.
Typically these photographs will be released only after a Freedom of Information Act motion is filed. But to date, they have been, with redactions made only to protect the privacy of the soldiers involved (remember, there is also a Privacy Act which is in force).
And as I have documented well above, working with the military and ensuring that the rights of these soldiers and their families are respected will allow a journalist tremendous access to cover this story.
So I do not know what your beef is. Please spell it out for me.
Preferably in a separate thread.