Censorship?

by **Jim0322** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:41 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/bush.caskets/index.html
…Recently, a military contractor fired a cargo worker for taking a photograph of coffins on board a cargo plane that was about to depart Kuwait in violation of the no-pictures rule….

…Photographs of flag-draped cases bearing American casualties from Iraq should not have been made public under a Pentagon policy prohibiting media coverage of human remains, officials said…

****************************
I think this is censorship. I respect the privacy of the families but there are showing flag draped coffins, not human remains. Some of the photos from Viet Nam war are quite gruesome. On the other hand, if people can't stomach war, they should not allow it. (I also believe that people who can't stomach slaughtering an animal should not eat meat and I am not a vegetarian.)

The quote below from the url above is interesting.
"We need to stop hiding the deaths of our young; we need to be open about their deaths," said Jane Bright of West Hills, California, whose 24-year-old son, Evan Ashcraft, was killed in combat in July.

by **Murgatroyd** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:16 pm

I thought the same thing when I read the article. It's as if our government would rather pretend that our guys don't die.

by **Jim0322** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:18 am

Originally posted by Murgatroyd
I thought the same thing when I read the article. It's as if our government would rather pretend that our guys don't die.

It is even worse when women get killed.

by **Bagginses** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:54 am

So then is it against the rules for the History Channel to show us sailors' remains being buried at sea? Before you know it, movies won't be able to show it at all because it'll disrespect America...

-Bagginses

by **Jim0322** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:57 am

It is about politics/censorship, not protecting family members of deceased soldiers. The paragraph below was from an editorial in the local university paper I read today.

http://idsnews.com/story.php?id=23061

...What is clearly at stake is the threat the photos will carry with them some political implications. Interestingly enough, the administration had no problem using images of firefighters removing a flag-draped stretcher from Ground Zero in a political advertisement when it stood to benefit, but it does have problems with the images which may have a negative political impact....

by **{CN}Doomfarer** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:19 pm

This is not a new policy. It has been around for a long time. I am not sure of the initial reason for it, but the idea that this is something done to hide our casualties is ridiculous. We know almost daily what our losses are and what the enemies are speculated to be. I would be interested in seeing when this policy was put into place, anyone care to go digging?

by **Murgatroyd** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:25 pm

Originally posted by {CN}Doomfarer
This is not a new policy. It has been around for a long time. I am not sure of the initial reason for it, but the idea that this is something done to hide our casualties is ridiculous. We know almost daily what our losses are and what the enemies are speculated to be. I would be interested in seeing when this policy was put into place, anyone care to go digging?

I'm willing to bet you're right, and I'm going to assume that it came into practice during WWII.

As far as the current application, though, I think that they're more concerned about the arab media bastardizing the images and using them for their own propaganda purposes than they are concerned with the impact that it'll have on the US public.

If the US public was so concerned about people dying needlessly, I tend to think that they'd focus more on drunk driving accidents (which kills an average of 14,000 Americans a year) as opposed to the conflict in Iraq which has accounted for 500 American deaths so far. That's a 28:1 ratio. Not trying to diminish the tragedy of the deaths in Iraq, but people who purport themselves to be concerned about needless death really need to re-examine their priorities.

As far as the issue at hand, doesn't our government realize that the more they hide from us, the more suspicious and untrusting we get?

by **Jim0322** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:28 pm

Originally posted by {CN}Doomfarer
This is not a new policy. It has been around for a long time. I am not sure of the initial reason for it, but the idea that this is something done to hide our casualties is ridiculous. We know almost daily what our losses are and what the enemies are speculated to be. I would be interested in seeing when this policy was put into place, anyone care to go digging?

From http://idsnews.com/story.php?id=23061
The photography ban is not new. It began in 1991, when Vice President Cheney was Secretary of Defense and cited a need to protect the privacy of and respect for soldiers' families.

by **{CN}Doomfarer** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:33 pm

Two words for you as to why I agree with this policy: Hanoi Hannah.

by **Ralph Wiggum** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 1:24 pm

I think the point with this lady was that she was expressly prohibited by the terms of her employment from taking photos. I don't think that is unreasonable, and I don't think it is censorship if she gets fired for taking them.

On the question of why news photographers aren't allowed, I think the issue is that while most of them are professional you can't count on all of them to be. Other than the few photos taken by this lady, I think all of the other photos that have been released lately were of taken by military photographers. The policy isn't trying to hide them, only to keep the process dignified.

Censorship?

Censorship?

Who is online