Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, February 27, 2009
War We Are Now Allowed to Publish This Image (Yesterday, We Weren't)
Posted by Christopher Frizzelle on Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Has this not been on Slog today? (Somehow I missed it when I was reading up on Obama's Iraq-withdrawal remarks today.) The ban on images like the one above—published this morning on the cover of the New York Times—has been lifted:
WASHINGTON — In a reversal of an 18-year-old military policy that critics said was hiding the ultimate cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the news media will now be allowed to photograph the coffins of America’s war dead as their bodies are returned to the United States, but only if the families of the dead agree.
What happened 18 years ago that got the ban instituted in the first place?
The original 1991 ban had its genesis in an embarrassment for the first President Bush.
In 1989, the television networks showed split-screen images of Mr. Bush sparring and joking with reporters on one side and a military honor guard unloading coffins from a military action that he had ordered in Panama on the other.
Mr. Bush, a World War II veteran, was caught unaware and subsequently asked the networks to warn the White House when they planned to use split screens. The networks declined.
At the next opportunity, in February 1991 during the Persian Gulf war, the Pentagon banned photos of returning coffins.
2
not so fast on the first amendment ... didn't I just read that we can see the photos only if the family of the dead agrees? someone passed the buck on this one.
5
People were dying in Iraq? Really? No way. I thought they were throwing rose petals at the soldiers. They were bombs you say? Did anyone need a picture to know war means death and killing?
6
The post title is misleading. You were allowed to *publish* such a photo, weren't you? You just weren't allowed to photograph the coffins.
And like @2 says, the families of the dead must agree that photos can be taken of the coffin. The photo here, with about 20 coffins, probably would not get taken legally in the new rules (since there's a good chance at least one family would not have agreed).
And like @2 says, the families of the dead must agree that photos can be taken of the coffin. The photo here, with about 20 coffins, probably would not get taken legally in the new rules (since there's a good chance at least one family would not have agreed).
7
all the silly twits
the propaganda mister did not want to show death and dying
FUCKING NOTHING ELSE, NEO NAZI CONTROL regime is over, thank God
Print all you want - please PRINT a bold Iraq photo each day for six months - DO IT
FUCK THE PROPAGANDA MINISTER AND HIS/HER MINONS
the propaganda mister did not want to show death and dying
FUCKING NOTHING ELSE, NEO NAZI CONTROL regime is over, thank God
Print all you want - please PRINT a bold Iraq photo each day for six months - DO IT
FUCK THE PROPAGANDA MINISTER AND HIS/HER MINONS
10
We were not allowed to pubish this photo until today:
http://a.abcnews.com/US/popup?id=2396057…
"Five Years Later: Diane Sawyer with many of the children who lost their dads on 9/11. Some children never got the opportunity to get to know their fathers. "
We were not allowed to pubish this photo until today:
http://a.abcnews.com/US/popup?id=2396057…
"Five Years Later: Diane Sawyer with many of the children who lost their dads on 9/11. Some children never got the opportunity to get to know their fathers. "
11
Um, haven't pictures of coffins draped w/ American flags in airplaces been printed in newspapers before, like as recently as 4-5 years ago?
Also, how can the families tell which coffin has their loved one inside of it? All those coffins look the same to me on the outside.
Also, how can the families tell which coffin has their loved one inside of it? All those coffins look the same to me on the outside.
12
funny if bush 1 was so bad how come Mr clinton didn't show the coffins of the marines that died in Somalia ?
13
@ 12, because it was a brand new policy and Clinton didn't want to rock the Pentagon boat?
That was easy.
That was easy.
14
As a retired military with family who also has served, I think it's only respectful that the media should have to clear photos like this with family first.
Tell me seriously that the NY Times didn't print that photograph just for the shock value. The right picture is worth a thousand words.
Conservativenorthwest.com
Tell me seriously that the NY Times didn't print that photograph just for the shock value. The right picture is worth a thousand words.
Conservativenorthwest.com
15
Ok, aside from the change in policy - what's with those flags? The coffins don't look draped, they look like they're in sort of flag bags. Is that something new, or is it just the way they're hanging?
16
A flag covered coffin is a flag covered coffin - conservative guy. I can't tell if that's Joe Smith or whoever else who died in Bush's misbegotten war, and the notion that a family who saw that picture would know that it was their family member in row # 3 fourth coffin up is absurd.
Just confess it - you don't want us to see the results of your failed foreign policy. Hell, I bet you jacked off to pictures of the troops lost in Somalia when you were able to beat Bill Clinton over the head with it.
Just confess it - you don't want us to see the results of your failed foreign policy. Hell, I bet you jacked off to pictures of the troops lost in Somalia when you were able to beat Bill Clinton over the head with it.
17
@1 and all the other 'constitutional' commentators: STFU, you have no idea what you are talking about. Constitutional arguments aren't one dimensional and are filled with nuance . You don't have the authority to speak about such things, so STFU>
18
I think allowing the press to take pictures of the coffins is the right decision so we can be honest about the effects of war. This is the same reason why I think we need to have honest debates about major issues whether it is war on the soon to come modifications of mortgages on debtots' primary residences in bankruptcy.
19
@14: The NY Times didn't print that photograph just for the shock value.
They printed it because it's news. It'd pretty pretty silly to print an article about photojournalism without printing an accompanying photo. Not exactly shocking.
They printed it because it's news. It'd pretty pretty silly to print an article about photojournalism without printing an accompanying photo. Not exactly shocking.
20
@14: Really? I have a family full of vets, too. I grew up in a military family. I can tell you right now, every single one of them would would inform you that they served in order to protect the rights of the rest of us, including our right to see and feel and make judgment on the impact of wars our government wages abroad. If you really can't grasp why the New York Times published this photo, then I can't imagine what it is you thought you were fighting for.
22
We have comment spam from lawyers nowadays?
@18: The design of your website suggests to me that you might be new to the internet. It is generally frowned upon to promote your business through comments on a story only tangentially related to your business.
@18: The design of your website suggests to me that you might be new to the internet. It is generally frowned upon to promote your business through comments on a story only tangentially related to your business.
23
We do need to be honest when debating major issues.
Women and girls deserve to see what the babies they abort actually look like, and also to understand that even at a few hours after conception they are dealing with a human life.
Liberals are all 'right to know' when the topic is dead soldiers during a Republican Administration.
They go to court to stop displays of aborted babies outside abortion clinics.
Women and girls deserve to see what the babies they abort actually look like, and also to understand that even at a few hours after conception they are dealing with a human life.
Liberals are all 'right to know' when the topic is dead soldiers during a Republican Administration.
They go to court to stop displays of aborted babies outside abortion clinics.
25
I found you guys might be interested to improve mangood. natural male enhancement site is nice for you.
26
I am a veteran. 8 years.
If I had died in service to my country, I would not want my government or my family to hide my death from the public.
If I had died in service to my country, I would not want my government or my family to hide my death from the public.
27
14, 19, & 20 all make valid points. This isn't a slam-dunk, there are several viewpoints that should be considered. Ideally, the news media should keep the public informed about war casualties in such a way that we have a rational and realistic understanding of the full cost of war, without excessive emotionalism. But photos of flag-draped coffins INHERENTLY have a lot of emotional baggage tied to them. Tough one to call.
28
Put it this way: pictures of flag-draped coffins are a hell of a lot less shocking than pictures of dead soldiers in pools of blood.
29
@23, since when was abortion a major issue? fetuses don't feel anything. I mean, seriously, they'll grab onto their own cords and suffocate themselves until they die. How are they sentient if they can't feel that they're killing themselves? How are they human if they can't think or feel? (If you can some how place this worth on fetuses, then you should place the same worth on animals even though they can actually feel pain & suffering. I don't understand how people can be anti-abortion and not vegetarian, it makes no sense.)
In addition, you have to admit, abortion is a lot better than infanticide or deliberate fetal destruction through alcohol and other teratogenic substances. And babies born with defects aren't exactly the pick of the litter when it comes to adoption... it's really, really sad.
Also, if I were to get an abortion, I wouldn't mind looking at pictures of "aborted" fetuses. I rose above the typical public school education and I know those images should be verified or dismissed as propaganda if they didn't come from a peer reviewed journal. It's a shame that people are taking advantage of females who do not know any better. They are not going to Heaven at all.
In addition, you have to admit, abortion is a lot better than infanticide or deliberate fetal destruction through alcohol and other teratogenic substances. And babies born with defects aren't exactly the pick of the litter when it comes to adoption... it's really, really sad.
Also, if I were to get an abortion, I wouldn't mind looking at pictures of "aborted" fetuses. I rose above the typical public school education and I know those images should be verified or dismissed as propaganda if they didn't come from a peer reviewed journal. It's a shame that people are taking advantage of females who do not know any better. They are not going to Heaven at all.
30
Do not want to seem ghoulish, but it would be much more effective if the coffins were open and the dead soldiers were stripped of make up and face reconstruction. Then you would see the real horror of war.
31
30 - Sometimes there aren't even bodies in there. Inside my cousin's casket was a cup with his DNA in it and a marine's uniform. They couldn't find enough pieces of his body to send home, so they just sent home a piece of his body that they tested to confirm it was him. He was blown, literally, into pieces. How's that for the horror of war?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (31) RSS