What if someone took pictures at the funeral for your son/daughter/wife/parents and then used them for political reasons?
-------------------
Anti-war zealots love these things. They are an emotional tool. Need a tool? Fine. But don't use the coffins of people who you wanted nothing to do with when they were alive.
It angers me that some people's first reaction upon seeing these photos is political capitalization.
Where do you see names? They are as anonymous as it's possible.
Do you think we shouldn't have access to anything that is objectionable?
We don't see many pictures from the war anyways, and most of what we do see has been 'approved' for you to view.
"It angers me that some people's first reaction upon seeing these photos is political capitalization" - hey, if that was directed towards me, then you're mistaken. I couldn't care less about politics.
All i've said was that it to me it seems unnatural, cold, emotionless.
Banning everything that may spark discussions or can be uncomfortable for some is not a way to go.
But hey, i don't want to argue, i don't want to get involved in discussion about that war, i was simply sharing my personal opinion.
A "Bushie"? The Chimp-in-Chief? No. I am ambivilent about GWB. He's not great, he's not awful. I'm more concerned with his "war room" than him.
... and NO, I do not think using the coffin footage from the WTC was appropriate.
It's not like we did not know that people were dying before these pictures came out. Dan Blather tells me every night the new death toll.
Dan can spend 2 minutes spewing 30 words about the toll, but we all know pictures are far more telling. You know "A picture is worth a thousand words."
What if someone took pictures at the funeral for your son/daughter/wife/parents and then used them for political reasons?
-------------------
Anti-war zealots love these things. They are an emotional tool. Need a tool? Fine. But don't use the coffins of people who you wanted nothing to do with when they were alive.
It angers me that some people's first reaction upon seeing these photos is political capitalization.
It works both ways: The banning of these pictures by the Pentagon/admin is also politically motivated. The images of dead American service people returning from Vietnam fueled the antiwar sentiments then, and the antiwar movement this time started before the troops were deployed...whereas in Vietnam it took nearly a decade, but a major factor in ending that spell of lunacy. This has NOTHING to do with protecting the feelings of the bereaved families. Their commander in chief who sent them on this (crazy) mission hasn't attended a single soldier's funeral. Thats how much he cares.
Another thing: to ban the free dissemination of images (flag draped coffins in a cargo hold), which have no "national security" sensitivity sounds suspiciously "soviet-like" to me. To put it another way, un-American.
This argument of "what if they were photographing your relatives" is a very weak and hollow. I don't see any dead soldiers being put on display. I see coffins with flags on them. Yes yes there are indeed dead soldiers in there, but their anonymity is not compromised in any way nor are the rights of the family members.
I suppose that funeral processions are exploitative of the dead as well, correct? Under this flawed logic that would indeed be the case.
There are kinda two stories mixed together here. This actually started as a controversy because this picture was on the front page of Sunday's Seattle Times:
Not sure but I believe that this is the original article:
Controversy ensued after that was published because it is against Pentagon policy and so it got a lot of attention and ire from certain groups. Here are some followup articles, one that details the photographer's firing and then an article about the other set of photos which the Air Force took in Dover:
The ones that you see in the link someone posted at the beginning of this thread are the ones that the Air Force gave out in response to the FOIA request. It seems they were actually requested and received before the one that appeared in the Times, however that one was published first and in a major newspaper causing controversy before the ones obtained from the FOIA request started garnering attention on the internet.
They're not "just coffins", they're our brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers. I don't like there being a ban on showing images of our dead coming home.
And I don't like the exploitation of the dead coming home. That's what this is -- someone building ratings by treating the fallen as some kind of political device. Disgusting.
I'm not sure what the political purpose of the site that has these images is. . . . and I don't really care.
These are very very powerful images.
I think these images let me grieve for those lost. . . and grieve with them.
I couldn't help but cry . . . I think that we loose something profoundly when we are not allowed to reflect on the human cost of war . . . we stand to losse our humanity when we can see only statistics.
I'm not sure what the political purpose of the site that has these images is. . . . and I don't really care.
These are very very powerful images.
I think these images let me grieve for those lost. . . and grieve with them.
I couldn't help but cry . . . I think that we loose something profoundly when we are not allowed to reflect on the human cost of war . . . we stand to losse our humanity when we can see only statistics.
And I don't like the exploitation of the dead coming home. That's what this is -- someone building ratings by treating the fallen as some kind of political device. Disgusting.
i disagree
people need to see the realities of Bush's war.
it's BS that this person lost their job
"Chimp-in-Chief"
i wasn't going to vote for president this year but now i might (not only because of this issue) vote for Kerry even though i don't like him
The pictures may be reality, but their use by the media will most certainly be politicized and sensationalistic. That is the greater protection being served by not making them trivially accessible. To trust that the media would use them responsibly and respectfully is plainly ridiculous.
The pictures may be reality, but their use by the media will most certainly be politicized and sensationalistic. That is the greater protection being served by not making them trivially accessible. To trust that the media would use them responsibly and respectfully is plainly ridiculous.
That argument could be used for just about anything.
The pictures may be reality, but their use by the media will most certainly be politicized and sensationalistic. That is the greater protection being served by not making them trivially accessible. To trust that the media would use them responsibly and respectfully is plainly ridiculous.
But GUNS for example, that's different. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. You can't deny people the freedom to have a gun just because some people won't act responsibly and respectfully.
Comments
Originally posted by piwozniak
I'm not saying they are being disrespectful, they follow military protocol. It just strikes me as cold. That's it.
Hey, i just found out these ,take a look...
yeah protocol, that's the word i was looking for
Originally posted by Jubelum
What if someone took pictures at the funeral for your son/daughter/wife/parents and then used them for political reasons?
-------------------
Anti-war zealots love these things. They are an emotional tool. Need a tool? Fine. But don't use the coffins of people who you wanted nothing to do with when they were alive.
It angers me that some people's first reaction upon seeing these photos is political capitalization.
Where do you see names? They are as anonymous as it's possible.
Do you think we shouldn't have access to anything that is objectionable?
We don't see many pictures from the war anyways, and most of what we do see has been 'approved' for you to view.
"It angers me that some people's first reaction upon seeing these photos is political capitalization" - hey, if that was directed towards me, then you're mistaken. I couldn't care less about politics.
All i've said was that it to me it seems unnatural, cold, emotionless.
Banning everything that may spark discussions or can be uncomfortable for some is not a way to go.
But hey, i don't want to argue, i don't want to get involved in discussion about that war, i was simply sharing my personal opinion.
... and NO, I do not think using the coffin footage from the WTC was appropriate.
It's not like we did not know that people were dying before these pictures came out. Dan Blather tells me every night the new death toll.
Originally posted by Jubelum
A "Bushie"? The Chimp-in-Chief? No. I am ambivilent about GWB. He's not great, he's not awful. I'm more concerned with his "war room" than him.
... and NO, I do not think using the coffin footage from the WTC was appropriate.
It's not like we did not know that people were dying before these pictures came out. Dan Blather tells me every night the new death toll.
Dan can spend 2 minutes spewing 30 words about the toll, but we all know pictures are far more telling. You know "A picture is worth a thousand words."
----
The photos themselves are not political. What could potentially be done with them is, but that's no reason to deny people the right to take them.
Originally posted by Jubelum
What if someone took pictures at the funeral for your son/daughter/wife/parents and then used them for political reasons?
-------------------
Anti-war zealots love these things. They are an emotional tool. Need a tool? Fine. But don't use the coffins of people who you wanted nothing to do with when they were alive.
It angers me that some people's first reaction upon seeing these photos is political capitalization.
It works both ways: The banning of these pictures by the Pentagon/admin is also politically motivated. The images of dead American service people returning from Vietnam fueled the antiwar sentiments then, and the antiwar movement this time started before the troops were deployed...whereas in Vietnam it took nearly a decade, but a major factor in ending that spell of lunacy. This has NOTHING to do with protecting the feelings of the bereaved families. Their commander in chief who sent them on this (crazy) mission hasn't attended a single soldier's funeral. Thats how much he cares.
Another thing: to ban the free dissemination of images (flag draped coffins in a cargo hold), which have no "national security" sensitivity sounds suspiciously "soviet-like" to me. To put it another way, un-American.
I suppose that funeral processions are exploitative of the dead as well, correct? Under this flawed logic that would indeed be the case.
Not sure but I believe that this is the original article:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...kuwait18m.html
Controversy ensued after that was published because it is against Pentagon policy and so it got a lot of attention and ire from certain groups. Here are some followup articles, one that details the photographer's firing and then an article about the other set of photos which the Air Force took in Dover:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...coffin22m.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ntagon23m.html
The ones that you see in the link someone posted at the beginning of this thread are the ones that the Air Force gave out in response to the FOIA request. It seems they were actually requested and received before the one that appeared in the Times, however that one was published first and in a major newspaper causing controversy before the ones obtained from the FOIA request started garnering attention on the internet.
Originally posted by drewprops
They're not "just coffins", they're our brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers. I don't like there being a ban on showing images of our dead coming home.
And I don't like the exploitation of the dead coming home. That's what this is -- someone building ratings by treating the fallen as some kind of political device. Disgusting.
Originally posted by piwozniak
I'm not saying they are being disrespectful, they follow military protocol. It just strikes me as cold. That's it.
Hey, i just found out these ,take a look...
I'm not sure what the political purpose of the site that has these images is. . . . and I don't really care.
These are very very powerful images.
I think these images let me grieve for those lost. . . and grieve with them.
I couldn't help but cry . . . I think that we loose something profoundly when we are not allowed to reflect on the human cost of war . . . we stand to losse our humanity when we can see only statistics.
politics or not.
Originally posted by pfflam
I'm not sure what the political purpose of the site that has these images is. . . . and I don't really care.
These are very very powerful images.
I think these images let me grieve for those lost. . . and grieve with them.
I couldn't help but cry . . . I think that we loose something profoundly when we are not allowed to reflect on the human cost of war . . . we stand to losse our humanity when we can see only statistics.
politics or not.
Amazing contrast isn't it..?
thank you, that's what i'm trying to say.
Originally posted by finagain
And I don't like the exploitation of the dead coming home. That's what this is -- someone building ratings by treating the fallen as some kind of political device. Disgusting.
people need to see the realities of Bush's war.
it's BS that this person lost their job
"Chimp-in-Chief"
i wasn't going to vote for president this year but now i might (not only because of this issue) vote for Kerry even though i don't like him
Originally posted by Jubelum
What if someone took pictures at the funeral for your son/daughter/wife/parents and then used them for political reasons?
What if someone took the life of your son/daughter/wife/parents and used them for political reasons?
Originally posted by Randycat99
The pictures may be reality, but their use by the media will most certainly be politicized and sensationalistic. That is the greater protection being served by not making them trivially accessible. To trust that the media would use them responsibly and respectfully is plainly ridiculous.
That argument could be used for just about anything.
Originally posted by Randycat99
The pictures may be reality, but their use by the media will most certainly be politicized and sensationalistic. That is the greater protection being served by not making them trivially accessible. To trust that the media would use them responsibly and respectfully is plainly ridiculous.
But GUNS for example, that's different. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. You can't deny people the freedom to have a gun just because some people won't act responsibly and respectfully.
That's what Bush would say.