The coffin issue

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:49 am

FOX: Kerry Condemns Coffin Photo Firings
BBC: US concern over war dead photos
CNN: Worker fired over photo of flag-draped coffins

So show pictures of coffins or not and why(not)?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:10 am

I am divided. I think the Pentagon had good intentions, but they were wrong. Americans need to be respectfully reminded of what any war costs.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:08 am

FOX: Kerry Condemns Coffin Photo Firings

Right, so he supports people breaking clearly stated rules? Hell of a campaign platform.

BBC: US concern over war dead photos

I think they have a right to be concerned. The way in which photos of the slain soldiers are used is important. I think that photos should be taken, and distributed to respectable news organizations who can be trusted to not use them in political games. I think anyone who mis uses the photos should be blown up.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:24 am

MooCow wrote:
FOX: Kerry Condemns Coffin Photo Firings
Right, so he supports people breaking clearly stated rules? Hell of a campaign platform.

If everyone agreed on everything there would be no campaign platform.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:30 am

Unfortunately, Moo, the "Dover Test" is the political game, as far as the Pentagon is concerned, because war is always political. For years, the Pentagon has allowed pictures like the ones that came out of The Memory Hole to be taken as a sort of opinion gauge, regardless of the laws passed to prevent such things. This was done for Desert Storm, this was done for Afghanistan, this was done for Bosnia; even during those times, the press was still allowed to take pictures of the coffins being flown in. It's like the air fresheners, crucifixes, and garters hanging from your rear-view mirror: they're illegal, but the cops can care less. However, if they're specifically told to watch out for that sort of thing...

The public knows that dead soliders equal dead citizens; the Dover Test merely presents the question, "Do you think the sacrifices are worth it?" which is a valid question because soldiers cease to be a faceless mass and start reforming themselves into fathers, wives, children, and siblings. Nobody in their right mind would automatically say 'yes' without seriously considering what this war is going to cost some people.

-

As for your comment on 'respectable news organizations,' I do believe you're missing one point. Eventually, everyone's gonna get ahold of these pictures, and everyone's gonna end up using them to press their agenda. That's unavoidable. And second, while I'm going to guess that your definition of 'respectable' lies mostly toward the more conservative media outlets like FOX (who actually didn't mention the coffin story, and if they did, then they've reported it later than other outlets) and less towards more liberal media outlets like counterpunch or the Guardian, UK, I doubt that even the most anti-war papers or websites will give the soliders anything less than total respect.

Kitt · Post by **Kitt** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 11:24 am

Just to add my less-educated two cents:
It says in all 3 articles that the pictures were of flag-draped coffins. They were not of bodies, nor were they of mangled body parts. It's not even like they coffins could be identified as the specific remains of [insert name here]. Sure, there's someone's kid in said box, but you cant see them or any indication of who they are. What I want to know is why everyone's got their panties up in a bunch about a few pictures of flag-laden pine boxes. Personally, I think that law is a load of shit. But the other question is if the people who took the pictures knew that it was illegal. If they didn't, they most definitely didn't deserve to be fired, and if they did know about it, if they had no intent upon distributing the pictures as an anti-Bush/pro-someone else plot, who the fuck cares? Hell, if I was someplace where a whole mess of coffins of people who died defending my country (sort of) were being unloaded, I would probably take pictures too. It would be a respect thing. Not "Hey look, I have pictures that make our president look like a war-mongering shmuck." We already have those. Pictures of coffins have nothing to do with the president. They have to do with the people who died doing their job.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 11:46 am

If everyone agreed on everything there would be no campaign platform.

Which has nothing to do with the issue. There is a difference between disagreeing with a rule and disobeying it. If he had simply criticized the rule itself, and not their firings, that'd be ok. However, by criticizing their firing he's saying that people should be allowed to just break the rules anytime they feel like it. It /might/ be different if the couple involved had been engaging in civil disobediance, but they weren't.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:43 pm

If the rule is stupid then you also disagree with the outcomes of its rulings.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:12 pm

If the rule is stupid then you also disagree with the outcomes of its rulings.

No. There is a difference between supporting a change in the law, and supporting anarchy.

I support many changes to many laws which I think are stupid, unneccesary, and/or out dated. However, as long as they remain laws I support their enforcment.

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:19 pm

I think it is gay they fired her.

I think it is even more so they fired her husband.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:21 pm

I can only speak for myself here, but if I was a relative of one of the dead soldiers, I would prefer that the photos of the coffin were released rather than restricted. The photo they've included on the BBC site looks dignified and suitable for release. Ultimately I think the decision should rest with the family of each soldier killed as to whether photos of his or her coffin are released. Neither Bush nor Kerry should be able to veto that decision.

But let's think this through. If the soldiers' families wanted the photos released, then the Bush camp really wouldn't have a reason to supress them. However, if the families did not want the photos released, I believe the Kerry camp could make a case that it is still in the national interest that people see them (although it's pretty fucking patronising to assume that the average citizen needs to see a photo of a coffin before he realises that the death of a soldier is bad). Thus I support the couple who were fired for taking the photos, because I believe their actions were, on the balance of things, justified.

So, there was a rule preventing then from doing what they did. Big fucking deal. It seems to me the rule in question was more about covering Bush's ass than respecting anyone's privacy, for the reasons I have outlined above. If a rule is unjust, then I believe you're justified in breaking it. Obedience to authority for its own sake is not an obligation. It worries me that a number of people here appear to think that licking the jackboot is some kind of intrinsic virtue.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:25 pm

MooCow wrote:
If everyone agreed on everything there would be no campaign platform.
Which has nothing to do with the issue. There is a difference between disagreeing with a rule and disobeying it.

He wasn't disobeying the rule. He was objecting to it.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:40 pm

He wasn't disobeying the rule. He was objecting to it.

/and/ he was objecting that they got fired. Therefore, Kerry is saying that people shouldn't be punished when they break rules.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:41 pm

No, he's saying that people shouldn't be punished solely because they've broken a rule. There's a difference.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:43 pm

He's saying people shouldn't be punished for this rule, because it's a stupid rule.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:44 pm

No, he's saying that people shouldn't be punished solely because they've broken a rule

On what other basis should they be punished?

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:44 pm

Yeah, a very clear one. If you can't object to a ruling without being guilty of breaking it, then you could never campaign for change.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:45 pm

He's saying people shouldn't be punished for this rule, because it's a stupid rule

So if I disagree with a rule, it's ok to violate it? Rock on!

And I'll note that they deserved to get fired. Who the fuck is so stupid as to take pictures on a military base without express permission of the base commander? Geezus.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:48 pm

If you can't object to a ruling without being guilty of breaking it, then you could never campaign for change.

Ummm... that's not what happened. They broke the rule. There is a difference between objecting to a rule and breaking the rule.

The rule was no photos of coffins, they took photos of coffins. They broke the rule, they should be punished.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:48 pm

Moo, I'm sure you're smarter than this. He's disagreeing with the rule by saying they shouldn't have been punished for what they did, because it shouldn't be a rule. There aren't many more ways to say it, and I wish I knew why you're continuing to bend the answer for the sake of confrontation.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:52 pm

MooCow wrote:So if I disagree with a rule, it's ok to violate it?

No, but if it were a legal prosecution, and the prosecutor can't give a decent reason for the law being there, you should probably be acquitted.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:56 pm

For what it's worth, I think he's saying they shouldn't be fired because the law the broke shouldn't have been there in the first place. He's not saying it's okay to break the law, he's saying the broken law shouldn't have existed for them to break. Not to mention the fact that you can condemn the firings without condemning violation of the law; after all, the law doesn't mandate firing.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:56 pm

MooCow wrote:The rule was no photos of coffins, they took photos of coffins. They broke the rule, they should be punished.

Was the rule really no photos of coffins? After all the pentagon took lots of photos of the coffins, they are the once that got sent out due to the freedom of information act request. Looks like the problem is that when a private contractor took a few pictures that problem blew up.

So it is starting to sound a wee bit hollow here. The Pentagon can take photos, probably use them to if they want to. But noone else can, due to that lame explanation that it would upset the families to show boxes with flags on them even thou you don't know who the remains in the boxes is.

After all I started the thread; I think they should show them. If nothing else to show that actions have consequences and this is the price that payed for said actions. After all a box with a flag and dead guy speaks louder then a 30 second news report that says some G.I. Joe died in a country far far away.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:13 pm

He's disagreeing with the rule by saying they shouldn't have been punished for what they did, because it shouldn't be a rule.

I know exactly what he's saying, and I disagree with it. People should always be punished for breaking a law, regardless of whether the law is unfair. They should then challenge the law in court, have it over turned, and be retroactively compensated.

But they should /always/ be punished inittially. It is not the job of the people enforcing the law to determine if the law is just or not.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:21 pm

So it is starting to sound a wee bit hollow here. The Pentagon can take photos, probably use them to if they want to. But noone else can, due to that lame explanation that it would upset the families to show boxes with flags on them even thou you don't know who the remains in the boxes is.

Well the concern is that people will use them in a fashion that is not sensitive. Presumably, the Pentagon won't. (Yeah, I'll agree that's a bit dodgy)

After all I started the thread; I think they should show them. If nothing else to show that actions have consequences and this is the price that payed for said actions. After all a box with a flag and dead guy speaks louder then a 30 second news report that says some G.I. Joe died in a country far far away.

As I said, I think the photos should be taken by the Pentagon and distributed to those news agencies that can be trusted to use them properly. There is a danger of people using sensationalism to swing public opinion against a military operation. (As opposed to facts and logic)

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:34 pm

MooCow wrote:As I said, I think the photos should be taken by the Pentagon and distributed to those news agencies that can be trusted to use them properly. There is a danger of people using sensationalism to swing public opinion against a military operation. (As opposed to facts and logic)

Like this?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:42 pm

Like this?

Glancing at it briefly, I'd say yes.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:45 pm

MooCow wrote:But they should /always/ be punished inittially. It is not the job of the people enforcing the law to determine if the law is just or not.

I have to back Moo on this point. Law enforcers are meant to "enforce" laws. However, rules and laws are two different things, too.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:48 pm

However, rules and laws are two different things, too.

True. However, it would not surprise me to learn that this is an actual law. Even if it's not, the person who fired these individuals is not the person who made the rule. It's not his/her job to decide if the rule is just, it's simply to enforce it.

Ikarus7 · Post by **Ikarus7** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:33 pm

Like this?

Or this?

Its a photo of George Bush made of pictures of american soldiers coffins from iraq

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:54 pm

The original seattle times article, photo at right can be clicked to enlarge

I think it is a fantastic photo artistically, far far better than the sterile images I have seen that were released by the airforce.

Someplace on thier web page is a link to letters from people commenting about it. I have to say the letters who say it should not be published completely disgust me. They see a photo of 21 dead american soldiers and it appears that thier first thoughts were of hatred for the woman who took it and "liberal conspiracy" in the paper who printed it.

The pentagon rule, I believe, states that the press are not to be allowed to photograph coffins until they are delivered to the family. This rule was insitutued in 1991 (Gulf War I). I don't know if taking the picture alone was enough to get the woman fired. It might be just because it eventually went to a newspaper, through a friend, without payment.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:20 pm

I've read all the links on this, and the only real opinion that I have is that this is a political issues that is really fucking inappropriate to use as a political issue.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:33 pm

I've read all the links on this, and the only real opinion that I have is that this is a political issues that is really fucking inappropriate to use as a political issue

Amen brother

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:37 pm

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:41 pm

MooCow wrote:I think they have a right to be concerned. The way in which photos of the slain soldiers are used is important. I think that photos should be taken, and distributed to respectable news organizations who can be trusted to not use them in political games. I think anyone who mis uses the photos should be blown up.

I beleive the seattle times was entirerly respecful.

Does this feeling extend to the use of dead firemen's coffins in presidential election advertisements?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:50 pm

I beleive the seattle times was entirerly respecful

That is entirely irrelevent.

Does this feeling extend to the use of dead firemen's coffins in presidential election advertisements?

Why do you ask?

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:51 pm

MooCow wrote:
Does this feeling extend to the use of dead firemen's coffins in presidential election advertisements?
Why do you ask?

You know exactly why he's asking.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:53 pm

You know exactly why he's asking

I do? How would I know what he is thinking?

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:58 pm

OK.

Do you think president Bush should be "blown up" for using a dead 9/11 fireman's coffin in his political tv advertisements some weeks ago?

If not how is it different than an anti-war protestor (Kerry isn't going to do it) putting a photo of soldiers coffins on thier protest sign?

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:58 pm

What I'd like to know Moo, is your definition of 'respectful' when it comes to these pictures. They not be taken at all? They not be shown at all? They be paraded down a red carpet with a 21-gun salute?

Perhaps you expect the Pat Tillman treatment, with every soldier getting a nationwide eulogy?

Having seen pictures of the dead from both sides of this damned conflict, I'd have to say that the treatment the Americans are getting is pretty damned respectful. As Kitt said, the pics were of coffins draped with American flags, not bodies or faces or mangled appendages. They could be empty, for all we know, and yet they stll manage to evoke an emotional response because they give the guy back home an inkling of what's being sacrificed over there, whether they agree or not.

And while I'll admit that it's wrong to politicize the issue of dead soldiers by brining them up, it's just as wrong to de-politicize them by referring to them with some sterile phrase like 'collateral damage' or not refer to them at all. Again, dead soldiers are dead citizens. Whether you are for or against, the President's policies are getting his people killed. Not 'broke,' not 'unemployed,' not 'somewhat dissatisfied,' but killed. It doesn't get much more political than that: either you are going to remind yourself that the sacrifices are worth it or you're going to end up questioning the wisdom of the President's course.

-

On a somewhat off-topic note, I have to wonder how well-guarded those hearse cargo planes are. I mean, if someone really wanted to piss off an entire country, all they'd have to do is shoot one of those fuckers down over the ocean.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:08 pm

Do you think president Bush should be "blown up" for using a dead 9/11 fireman's coffin in his political tv advertisements some weeks ago?

I figured this is where you were going. In the future don't try and trick me, it's really annoying.

As to your question.... I haven't seen the commercial, but I'd tend to say yes. I have yet to see a political advertisment on either side of the fence that I like. Both presidential canidates suck huge donkey balls. The only reason I'm voting for Bush is I'd prefer the Evil I know to the one I don't.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:12 pm

It wasn't a trick. I was confident you would know where I was going.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:12 pm

MooCow wrote:Both presidential canidates suck huge donkey balls. The only reason I'm voting for Bush is I'd prefer the Evil I know to the one I don't.

*Looks at quote.*

*Looks over Kerry's campaign platform.*

Shit, he's got a point. Voters're in for a nasty surprise this year: either they get Bush or they get Kerry.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 11:43 pm

Shrug, if you think they are indistinguishibly bad you ought to vote for Kerry. His party won't control the house, and very likely not the senate either.

Divided government means that less legislation will happen and lower spending, when the same party controls both they just go into a back slapping pork frenzy because there is so much less risk of veto (I don't think Bush has vetoed anything at all, clinton did about 5 a year and Reagon and Bush I did 10 a year.).

I read a conservative article the other day that went through the annual spending increases of all the presidents since wwII. In order from highest rate of spending increase to lowest they went: D president D legislature, R president R legislature, R president D legislature, D president R legislature. (edit: hmm the first two may be reversed, the last two are in the right spots though).

My rule of thumb is if both candidates are equally bad vote for the non-incumbent. This helps churn through potential candidates faster, hopefully somewhere down in the candidate stack is someone who doesn't suck, and we might get to them by tossing out the ones at the top every election. I don't hold that opinion about the relative merits of the candidates in this presidential election, however. Think of it this way: you can either have president Bush and senator Kerry, or president Kerry and senator somebodyelse. Then if Kerry is as bad as you think four years later you might have both Bush and Kerry permentantly out of office, and the republicans might nominate someone more worthwhile that time.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:16 am

Rev wrote:It wasn't a trick. I was confident you would know where I was going.

Recent posts have convinced me that Moo is at least twice as intentionally-obtuse as is normal for a bovine of his temperment. Methinks he doth imbibe too much of his own urinary distillations.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:32 am

Recent posts have convinced me that Moo is at least twice as intentionally-obtuse as is normal for a bovine of his temperment. Methinks he doth imbibe too much of his own urinary distillations.

Not really. I'm just irritable at work, and don't feel like playing games. Having not seen any political commercials, I really couldn't be sure that was what he was talking about. At the same time though, he's obviously going somewhere with, so I refuse to answer until he spills it. It's a fine tactic to play in person, but falls flat on a board. It's what I honestly hate about message boards, and why I get bored so easily with these discussions.

What I'd like to know Moo, is your definition of 'respectful' when it comes to these pictures.

I don't really know to be honest. I agree that the paper in question handled it tastefully, however just because it worked out /this/ time doesnt mean it will next time.

Everything else you said is absolutely correct. It still stands however that the couple in question broke a rule, and was punished for it. I wholly support that. Rules are rules, and if they are wrong they need to be challenged through civil disobediance, followed by judical battle. You can't just break a rule, and then whine that the rule is unfair. If you aren't willing to go through the process, sit down and behave.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:41 am

MooCow wrote:I'm just irritable at work, and don't feel like playing games. Having not seen any political commercials, I really couldn't be sure that was what he was talking about. At the same time though, he's obviously going somewhere with, so I refuse to answer until he spills it. It's a fine tactic to play in person, but falls flat on a board. It's what I honestly hate about message boards, and why I get bored so easily with these discussions.

Honestly, I don't think he intended it that way at all. I can't promise you anything, but he doesn't seem like that kind of guy to me. I think he just assumed you were following the conversation on the board from last week.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:55 am

I figured the brief blowup in the news about those ads had reached everyone, and from your posts it seems I was correct in your case.

I actually am ambivalent about the woman being fired. I don't think that ideally these funerary workers (which is what they are while loading bodies) ought to be snapping photos for the media. On the other hand I think that the media ought to be able to photograph such scenes for itself. On the other other hand I greatly admire her allowing the photo to be published at her friends suggestion, with the knowledge that it could easily get her fired, given that the government is not allowing the media access.

A story covering how the photo ended up being published:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... mi25m.html

TheHeather · Post by **TheHeather** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:08 am

So where's the article with responses from family members of dead soldiers? Except for that one quote, nobody seems to have asked. It's hard to have a valid opinion without having that knowledge. Because in the end, their families should get the biggest vote, don't you think? If my son or daughter had died, would I have wanted to look at that picture and wonder if one of those nameless bodies was his/hers? That's sheer torture. Some images are unnecessary. We do have the right and the responsibility to know the facts, to know just what the price for freedom is. We have the moral responsibility to acknowledge those that pay it for us. But do we really need to intrude so far into people's private lives as to take pictures of their family members' coffins as they arrive back on their homesoil only to be buried there? And what honors, exactly, await them? A parade? Balloons? An empty, self-serving, politically strategic mass eulogy broadcast on CNN every time a new plane load of bodies arrives? To what end? If they wanted to publish those kinds of photos, they should have had to track down family members for each body shown and gotten their permission.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:30 am

There are several responses from family members someplace in the times. Some support the publication, some do not. No idea on percentages, and I doubt anyone is going to conduct a poll.

No, families should not get the biggest vote. These people aren't dying of old age. They are dying in war. We sent them there. We got them killed. We have a responsibility to, from time to time at least, be reminded that they are dying. To see evidence that they are dying on the covers of our newspapers.

This sort of photo is not intruding far into people's private lives. These men and women are dying as soldiers. Dying publically as a result and in the persuit of government policy that we all could have and could again vote on. These coffin photos do not even identify them in general terms. Here are 21 more americans who died in Iraq. You cannot tell who they are or anything about them. With modern communication by the time a body is on an airplane I am pretty sure the family would already know the person is dead.

Sure some families might be tormented a bit more by seeing such a photo, but if we allow war to be glorified and sanitized as some political forces would like there will be a lot more families tormented by having thier loved ones killed in wars supported by a public spoon fed only what the administration thinks will support its policies.