The Great Coffin Debate

[Wulfran]

I see the row over photographs of the coffins of Iraq War dead has subsided, and the Pentagon seems to be getting their way in this and I have to ask if you guys think it is right?

Should the Pentagon be able to suppress coverage of the returning remains of those killed in action? Furthermore is it disrespectful to report on them?

I know I am not an American and also I am not convinced in the validity of the action (that whole WMD thing...), thus my perspective is going to be a little different than many of you. I fully support the right of families who have lost loved ones to grieve in private, but the Pentagon banning all photography (even that which is respectful and maintains the privacy of the families) smacks of censorship and information control that a free press should not be subject to, especially in a country that is trying to project an image as the "Protector of Freedom and Democracy". At the same I also respect the right of the US Dept of Defense to fire someone like that civilian employee/contractor who took the pictures that started the debate: she violated a regulation set forth to her by her employer (i.e. she was noty a reporter thus it was not part of her job).

This whole issue seems to be forgotten/ignored for some reason and I am just curious what you guys think.

[kyoukan]

Of course they should not be able to show coffins of the dead on the news. It makes Bush look bad. He is a war president you know.

[Boogahz]

I think that the pictures that were reproduced on most of the news sites were not bad images. Sure, having all of the flag-draped coffins in front of you isn't exactly a GOOD image. The only thing that really bothers me about it is "What's Next?". I fully understand the reasoning of the Pentagon saying no to the release of the photos. Once they were cleaned up and the FoIA request went through, I am sure that they could have still stopped it if they felt it was necessary.

[Drasta]

i say let em show it

[Winnow]

They could always have coffin cams in every coffin for you conspiracy people.

Prying media. The names of the dead are reported everywhere and in a timely fashion. Pictures of coffins is not a big deal. People whine about everything.

[Kelshara]

Show it. The full impact of the war should be shown, and a textual list of names wont do it. Most of the time you just hear a news report saying "2 soldiers were killed in blah blah", and that is too easy to ignore or push to the back of your mind.

[Voronwë]

They could always have coffin cams in every coffin for you conspiracy people.

Prying media. The names of the dead are reported everywhere and in a timely fashion. Pictures of coffins is not a big deal. People whine about everything.

the names of the dead in print has a profoundly different effect than seeing row upon row of coffins.

the Pentagon will allow pictures taken of coffins at individual funerals (only 1 at a time).

they are particularly afraid of the psychological impact of seeing dozens of flag-draped coffins.

There is no comparison to the effect that an image like that has to a list of typed nameds.

i don't think that news organizations should roll credits everynight at 7pm over images of coffins coming off the back of a C-130, but on the other hand, I think it is only playing into this whole notion that the American electorate does not have the stomach for war by concealing them.

A photo gets out, and it is immediately all over the international press, because it is such a secret thing. The secrecy only makes the impact of the photo that much more dramatic. I don't think many people changed their minds about the war based on the front page of the Seattle Times, but I do think that it is unfortunate that the Pentagon views the American public as lacking the intestinal fortitude to support a military campaign.

[Winnow]

I agree that pictures of coffins make more impact than names in a paper. Pictures of soldiers right after being killed in action would make even a bigger impact.

I suppose coffins are just a stepping stone to more dramatic pictures. To argue against myself, we did take pictures of Saddams sons and released them to the press after they were killed. There's no reason we shouldn't take pictures and release them of our own dead although I'm opposed to it, the arguement could be made.

[Voronwë]

well, the media isn't prohibited from the battlefield. So any news outlet can take pictures of dead american soldiers and broadcast/print them. Most do not until the families have been notified except for extraordinary circumstances (the contractors burnt bodies hanging from the bridge in Fallujah on the cover of the NYTimes). so that is basically 'editorial discretion', that most domestic news agencies adhere to.

the issue here is not really our government taking pictures and releasing them, but not allowing the press access to the AF Base that the coffins come into. It is the perogative of the government to restrict access for any reason to military bases, so there isn't a legal argument here.

[Kelshara]

Of course complaints were also raised when pictures of American POWs were shown.. double standards is nothing new.

[Mak]

Show it. The full impact of the war should be shown, and a textual list of names wont do it. Most of the time you just hear a news report saying "2 soldiers were killed in blah blah", and that is too easy to ignore or push to the back of your mind.

But the exact opposite argument is given when used in relation to the abortion debate. Supporters of abortion will vehemently argue against the use of pictures, saying that they're not germane to the intellectual debate of the basic abortion right.

Without derailing the coffin debate, is this a double standard on the left?

[Kelshara]

Not even close for two reasons:

1. You are not showing pictures of the mutilated soldiers, blown up, shot to pieces etc. You show a picture of a coffin under an American flag, which can be taken as the most patriotic thing possible. I would not have any problem with a picture of a childsize coffin.

2. The whole debate about when a cell becomes a child yada yada.

[Voronwë]

start a seperate thread if you want to debate the abortion thing.

[Ashur]

I would not have any problem with a picture of a childsize coffin.

Because of the sheer magnatude of coffins purchased for aborted fetuses?

[Mak]

Nope, not interested in an abortion discussion. My point was that in that debate pictures aren't ok since it's apparently "not relavent" to the discussion, but in this debate pictures are apparently ok.

I'm of the opinion that it's either ok to explore all aspects of a topic or it's not, and this situational bullshit is just that- bullshit. I'm not even interested in the details of what's shown; I'd just like there to be a standard.

[Ashur]

I'd just like there to be a standard.

There is one. It's the "whatever furthers my particular cause the best" standard.

[Arborealus]

I would not have any problem with a picture of a childsize coffin.

Because of the sheer magnatude of coffins purchased for aborted fetuses?

Waste of perfectly good stem cells...

In re the coffins...if the point of showing coffins were to point out the mass of casualties...we could construct that photo with 700 coffins and flags...

I don't see any reasonable rationale not to show the actual coffins...It's not like they are taking photos of name plate on the coffins...

In fact I have seen DoD approved footage of burials at sea after the bombing of Midway...Flag draped bodies on the foredecks of PT Boats...

Not clear when it became a moral problem to see that the soldiers are generally treated with a sense of honour...

[Voronwë]

it became a political problem when Reagan had like what, 200 coffins, return from Lebanon on the same plane in the mid-80s.

that began the trend in the last 20 years that has gotten us to this point. Reagan actually went to the AFB to receive the coffins i think. I'm not sure if either of the last 2 presidents' handlers would allow them to be photographed overseeing a large group of coffins.

dunno though maybe Clinton did w/ Kosovo bodies, not really sure.

[Kelshara]

I'm of the opinion that it's either ok to explore all aspects of a topic or it's not, and this situational bullshit is just that- bullshit. I'm not even interested in the details of what's shown; I'd just like there to be a standard.

Eh if you don't see a difference in what is shown then you're not even worth discussing it with. You're a lost cause.

[Chmee]

it became a political problem when Reagan had like what, 200 coffins, return from Lebanon on the same plane in the mid-80s.

that began the trend in the last 20 years that has gotten us to this point. Reagan actually went to the AFB to receive the coffins i think. I'm not sure if either of the last 2 presidents' handlers would allow them to be photographed overseeing a large group of coffins.

dunno though maybe Clinton did w/ Kosovo bodies, not really sure.

The Pentagon's policy of not allowing photographs has been in place since 1991.

[Voronwë]

yep, i should have clarified that the Lebanon situation was perhaps the initial motivation for the current policy, which was not enacted until several years later (the next time we had any substantial risk of military casualties).

[Mak]

Eh if you don't see a difference in what is shown then you're not even worth discussing it with. You're a lost cause.

I didn't say I didn't see a difference. Obviously there's a difference in the physical pictures- any fucking retard can see that. I just don't think the difference is relevant to my question.

I'll restate it:

In an abortion debate, the pro-choice lobby definately says that pictures involving the procedure, etc. aren't improtant to the legal and ethical right of abortion. They will say that the question is purely one of thought and constitutional rights, and that the emotional aspect has no bearing.

This seems to be in stark contrast with your above statement of, "Show it. The full impact of the war should be shown, and a textual list of names wont do it." You seem to be advocating, even hoping for, an emotional impact to influence political agenda.

So, my original question remains unanswered. Should the use of emotionaly charged photos, be they of flag draped coffins, abortion procedures, or any other controversial debate be germane to a political discussion or not? And again, let me say that the subject of the picture is not the question.

I remember people decrying Bush's carrier landing as notihng more than a politically motivated phot-op. Isn't your advocacy of showing the coffins politcally motived as well?

[Arundel Pajo]

I believe the actual catalyst for the "no coffins" policy was a Bush, Sr. press conference or speech during the first gulf war. IIRC, some news channel aired a split screen with Bush's speech on one side and footage of coffins on the other. Kinda hacked the old man off. I'll see if I can google it.

edit::

From Newsday:

The current ban is in sharp contrast with recent history. During the 1970s, '80s and early '90s, the Pentagon encouraged coverage of its increasingly elaborate events for those killed in Egypt, Lebanon and Grenada. President Jimmy Carter was photographed praying over the remains of airmen killed in the failed hostage rescue mission in Iran, while his successor, Ronald Reagan, was shown pinning Purple Hearts to the caskets of Marines slain in El Salvador...

...Publicity for such ceremonies continued until Jan. 21, 1991, when officials started to prohibit filming at the Dover base in Delaware, home to the military's largest mortuary and the primary arrival point for remains.

There is disagreement about the reasons for the ban. Historians say then-President George Bush was angered when TV networks used a split screen to air his news briefing with reporters, in which he was seen to laugh at one point, and the coffin ceremonies during the 1991 Gulf War.

From CBS:

After the late 1989 invasion of Panama, the first President Bush complained about an incident in which three television networks (including CBS) broadcast split-screen images of the president speaking and coffins arriving at Dover. The president's remarks during the coffins' arrival were jocular, The New York Times reported.

It would appear that the moratorium on coffin photos has more to do with censorship than with respect, after all...

[Kelshara]

And again, let me say that the subject of the picture is not the question.

Heh right. You can't even compare the pictures because they have NOTHING in common. Even attempting to do it is.. well.. like trying to get the truth from Fox News.

[Siji]

we did take pictures of Saddams sons and released them to the press after they were killed. There's no reason we shouldn't take pictures and release them of our own dead although I'm opposed to it, the arguement could be made.

I would agree with that, definitely. We're talking about coffins versus actual dead body pictures.. just one more step of censorship from our favorite american psycho Mr. Bush.

[Ashur]

just one more step of censorship from our favorite american psycho Mr. Bush.

Hasn't it already been established this particular regulation was around prior to the election of the current President?

[Chmee]

Interesting article by Charles Paul Freund over at Reason on this.

http://www.reason.com/links/links042804.shtml

[kyoukan]

Hasn't it already been established this particular regulation was around prior to the election of the current President?

are you sure its even policy or is it just a no-no

either way its a violation of freedom of the press and/or speech, because coffins covered with flags aren't what I would call compartmentalized military secrets or a direct threat to national security.

[Voronwë]

it isn't a "law", so it is within the president's power to just say "ok to take pictures".

[Arborealus]

it isn't a "law", so it is within the president's power to just say "ok to take pictures".

Not that he bothers much one way or the other about what is and isn't legal...