Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Photo of GIs' caskets costs worker her job
Chicago Tribune ^ | April 23, 2004 | By Jessica Kowal

Posted on 04/23/2004 7:51:46 AM PDT by sakic

SEATTLE -- The photograph on the front page of Sunday's Seattle Times captured a moment rarely seen publicly since the start of the Iraq war. Coffins holding dead American soldiers, draped with U.S. flags and placed in rows, nearly filled a cargo plane for the journey home to the United States.

(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...


TOPICS: Washington; Issues
KEYWORDS:
Photos of reality trouble some people.
1 posted on 04/23/2004 7:51:47 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sakic
bump
2 posted on 04/23/2004 7:57:50 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sakic
Interesting to note that the lady getting paid for the pics has previously sued Haliburton and Cheney. But I'm sure no political agenda was intended.
3 posted on 04/23/2004 9:27:38 AM PDT by AMNZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sakic
Photos of reality trouble some people.

Violating the terms of your employment will get your fired, every time.

4 posted on 04/23/2004 10:54:56 AM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AMNZ
This is apparently a two way political agenda. Suppressing info or photos from coming to the public's attention by a government is most certainly a political decision also. In my opinion, a far more heinous situation.

Government control of information that is not a risk to our national security is downright scary, indefensible, and should be actionable in court.

5 posted on 04/23/2004 10:57:46 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
My quarrel isn't with her getting fired. It's with a governmental policy of suppression of information.
6 posted on 04/23/2004 10:58:45 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sakic
Usually people here voice the need for government to be less involved in our lives. Political agenda sometimes softens their zeal.
7 posted on 04/23/2004 11:00:02 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sakic
It's with a governmental policy of suppression of information.

What "information"? You know how many GIs have been killed.

One flag-draped coffin looks just like the next one.

Only those with agendas seem to want to gaze like ghouls at caskets.

8 posted on 04/23/2004 11:01:00 AM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
So it's okay with you for your government to ban photos of the coffins of our dead soldiers? What else should they have the right to block the public from seeing?
9 posted on 04/23/2004 11:04:08 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sakic
So it's okay with you for your government to ban photos of the coffins of our dead soldiers?

Yes.

There's plenty to get upset about, but this ain't on the list.

10 posted on 04/23/2004 11:17:18 AM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sakic
It really depends on the use of info. This pic was for the most part was accepted as a tribute to our fallen. After learning the history of the party putting it out there, I'm not sure that was it's intended use.

Must admit I am torn both ways by the policy. I hate to see this kind of stuff used to undercut our resolve.
11 posted on 04/23/2004 11:20:20 AM PDT by AMNZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
It ain't on your list. We all have different lists.
12 posted on 04/23/2004 11:26:31 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AMNZ
It appears that the original intent was one of tribute and it got hijacked for political purposes. No matter the intent, I don't think our government should be in the business of suppressing information (photos are information).
13 posted on 04/23/2004 11:28:58 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sakic
It doesn't make sense. Those pictures do not take away from the heroism of those servicemen. There doesn't seem to be any real malice behind taking those pictures. I heard on the radio last night that this policy of not allowing photos of caskets started during the Clinton years.
14 posted on 04/23/2004 3:32:32 PM PDT by Commander8 (Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Commander8
To me those photos are incredibly moving and beautiful despite the horrible reality of the situation.
15 posted on 04/23/2004 3:50:52 PM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The answer is simple. THE GOVERNMENT HAS TOO MUCH POWER. We need Conservative individuals in government that will eliminate this power. We need Conservative judges on the bench, and no matter how insignificant this issue may seem it is still taking away our right to view that which belongs to America, her soldiers. They are ours, they represent us. I am one and these are my brothers and sisters, do not place a price upon their coffins. They deserve to have America see that they gave everything so that America remains free from fear.
16 posted on 04/26/2004 2:40:18 PM PDT by freebush (Why should I care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freebush
They are ours, they represent us.

Well, I disagree with you. Once these people have died, they belong to their families.

Restricting the media from exploiting them is perfectly acceptable, to me.

17 posted on 04/26/2004 3:37:04 PM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Commander8
It was in 1991 during the first Gulf War that Bush the Elder's DoD issued a prohibition against taking photos of the coffins of servicemen returning home. Clinton relaxed this rule and not only allowed photographs but took part in ceremonies honoring our arriving fallen heroes.

In March 2003, the DoD issued a directive it said was established in November 2000, saying, "There will no be arrival ceremonies of, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from" air bases. However, investigation after the Seattle Times photo episode has shown the November 2000 directive to be MIA.

Instead, in the news conference in which the White House reported that President Bush was "moved" by the published photos of coffins containing U.S. military personnel slain in Iraq the White House fell back on the 1991 prohibition in explaining why the policy would be continued.
18 posted on 04/27/2004 3:35:10 PM PDT by ljmiii (Bush the Elder's 1991 prohibition against taking photos of coffins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AMNZ
Tami Silicio's two lawsuits named Cheney because he was CEO of Halliburton, corporate parent of Brown and Root, her employer.

The first claimed it was discriminatory for Brown and Root to maintain 'separate but equal' bathrooms for host country nationals and Americans. The second was an EEOC sexual harassment suit which resulted from being fired for reporting sexual slurs and propositions received from co-workers.

I think Ms. Silicio is certainly principled. She is perhaps overly litigious as well. And her claim of having taken the pictures only to reassure the families of servicemen is difficult to take at face value. But I think it much more likely she released the photos because she thought the policy was wrong than because Cheney happened to be CEO of her ex-employer's parent company.
19 posted on 04/27/2004 4:07:37 PM PDT by ljmiii (Tami Silicio's photo conviction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ljmiii
Almost. Actually, the Clinton Admin also suppressed the release of these photos unless one received prior approval. Sometimes they granted it, sometimes not...depending on the political situation.

I am trying to figure out why folks think taking pictures of caskets in movement IN MILITARY PLANES AND ON MILITARY BASES is somehow their right, and if they can't protect that right that government had become a threat. I can think of a lot of overreach by government to worry about, but this is not it. The military has many, many bans on use of photos on their installations and on their planes.

You can still take photos...just not on government property. All of these caskets are sent by commercial aircraft to their final destination. If it is really that important to you, go take a picture while they are loaded onto or off a commercial plane.

Let's at least all be honest. This lady has a long record of being an anti-Bush and an anti-war activist. She did not take these photos as a tribute to the troops...she was trying to push her antiwar agenda. Fine with her if that is what she wants to do, but not by breaking military rules about when and where she can take photos while on military property.
20 posted on 04/29/2004 8:07:54 PM PDT by Proud Legions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Proud Legions; sinkspur
I agree with you. I believe she took took the pictures for political purposes. It's a similar argument to Koppel's disgraceful show last week (didn't watch but read about it). These people are exploiting our brave soldier's deaths for their own personal or professional gain. Pure and simple. That's a good point about taking the pictures once released by the military.

In time of war when our soldier's lives are on the line (not OUR lives, theirs), we should do everything in our power to protect them. Feeding the propaganda war is the wrong thing to do.

21 posted on 05/02/2004 7:42:46 AM PDT by kdot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson