Woman loses her job over coffins photo

[zimv20]

link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001909527_coffin22m.html)


A military contractor has fired Tami Silicio, a Kuwait-based cargo worker whose photograph of flag-draped coffins of fallen U.S. soldiers was published in Sunday's edition of The Seattle Times.

Silicio was let go yesterday for violating U.S. government and company regulations, said William Silva, president of Maytag Aircraft, the contractor that employed Silicio at Kuwait International Airport.

"I feel like I was hit in the chest with a steel bar and got my wind knocked out. I have to admit I liked my job, and I liked what I did," Silicio said.

Her photograph, taken earlier this month, shows more than 20 flag-draped coffins in a cargo plane about to depart from Kuwait. Since 1991, the Pentagon has banned the media from taking pictures of caskets being returned to the United States.

(more)


i guess there's no longer any doubt that the photo is real...

[numediaman]

A shame, isn't it.

"They were good workers, and we were sorry to lose them," Silva said. "They did a good job out in Kuwait and it was an important job that they did."

[mactastic]

Sometimes that's the price you gotta be willing to pay to show the world this kind of thing. Maybe enough public pressure would get her her job back, but I'm sure she knew the rules when she sent that picture to the newspaper.

[Thanatoast]

I wonder what that line in her contract said.

"Any photos revealing 'negative' results of military action in Iraq, thus pointing out the full consequences of policies and actions taken by the US government are verboten, and grounds for dismissal."

[mactastic]

Didn't Dubya's controversial ad using the wreckage of the twin towers show a flag-draped coffin being brought out? I understand it wasn't a soldier killed in action, but how is it ok for him to use the emotional power of a casket photo for his re-election efforts, but it's not ok for casket photos to be shown in newspapers?

[IJ Reilly]

Because taking pictures of flag-draped coffins violates the privacy of the soldier's families, doncha know? This is actually the DoD's official explanation for the policy. I'm late, I'm late, I'm late for an important date!

[Neserk]

Because taking pictures of flag-draped coffins violates the privacy of the soldier's families, doncha know? This is actually the DoD's official explanation for the policy.

Wow, are they full of crap! How the hell are we suppose to know *who* is in the coffin? :rolleyes: I don't see how it violates their right privacy... and aren't the names of the people who die in Iraq a matter of public record?

I love how the Dictator in the White House can use their bodies for his own purposes but when it comes to a picture like that it is a violation of something!

[Stelliform]

....

[Stelliform]

....

[pseudobrit]

Also it isn't Bush's policy, it has been the military's policy over the last several administrations. So, were you upset when, under Clinton's administration, the Somalian casualties were not shown?

I was.

[numediaman]

Also it isn't Bush's policy, it has been the military's policy over the last several administrations. So, were you upset when, under Clinton's administration, the Somalian casualties were not shown?

Actually, this is incorrect. It was Bush's policy -- Bush I. The policy was created when the first Bush was embarrassed when, in the middle of a televised event, the TV networks split their screens in order to show live the return of the dead from Panama.

[zimv20]

I think the problem is she works for a company with a lucrative government contract. She broke a rule.
yes, she violated company policy and defense department rules. so she was fired. so was her husband, who had nothing to do w/ it.

fwiw, her motivations were not political, at least according to an editor at the seattle times, who received the picture from the woman's friend. he says her message to the mothers' of the soliders was that they would feel better if they knew w/ how much respect the remains were being treated.

i got all this info from npr, where you can listen to the piece:
link (http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1848793)

[zimv20]

Also it isn't Bush's policy, it has been the military's policy over the last several administrations. So, were you upset when, under Clinton's administration, the Somalian casualties were not shown?
just so we're clear on the facts:

But in early 1991, at the time of the Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon said there would be no more media coverage of coffins returning to Dover, the main arrival point; a year earlier, Bush was angered when television networks showed him giving a news briefing on a split screen with caskets arriving.

But the photos of coffins arriving at Andrews and elsewhere continued to appear through the Clinton administration. In 1996, Dover made an exception to allow filming of Clinton's visit to welcome the 33 caskets with remains from Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown's plane crash. In 1998, Clinton went to Andrews to see the coffins of Americans killed in the terrorist bombing in Nairobi. Dover also allowed public distribution of photos of the homecoming caskets after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

The photos of coffins continued for the first two years of the current Bush administration, from Ramstein and other bases. Then, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, word came from the Pentagon that other bases were to adopt Dover's policy of making the arrival ceremonies off limits.


link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55816-2003Oct20?language=printer)

[numediaman]

Here's another view of the same story:

But it was during the Panama conflict, in 1989, that the first president George Bush dropped his media guard.

At the precise moment that servicemen's caskets were being offloaded at Dover, Mr Bush did a goof-walk for the cameras of the White House press corps, to demonstrate the effect of pain he suffered in his neck.

At least three of the national networks split their screens, showing viewers an apparently thoughtless commander-in-chief acting the fool as the bodies of the men he had sent to war were borne from a military transport.

Retribution was swift. The media was banned from Dover and the traditional repatriation ceremonies were ended. Over time the ban came to be ignored, but in the days before this year's Iraq war the Pentagon ordered that it was to be observed in full.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/14/1068674382290.html?from=storyrhs

I misidentified the date of the Panama invasion as 1991 -- I've corrected my previous post to protect my sensitive ego.

[Mr. G4]

Wow, are they full of crap! How the hell are we suppose to know *who* is in the coffin? :rolleyes: I don't see how it violates their right privacy... and aren't the names of the people who die in Iraq a matter of public record?

I love how the Dictator in the White House can use their bodies for his own purposes but when it comes to a picture like that it is a violation of something!

As of curiosity when did the Dictator in the White House can use their bodies for his own purposes?

[toontra]

As of curiosity when did the Dictator in the White House can use their bodies for his own purposes?

See post #5 above for a clue.

[skunk]

No Iraqi body count, no US bodies seen. Strange thing, this deathless war. :mad:

[Stelliform]

.....

[skunk]

What gives you that idea?
The White House seems to think that images like the ones shown are too graphic for their PR effort. If the true number of Iraqi or Afghani dead was known (nobody has even tried to estimate the number of Iraqi or Afghani troops or allied fighters killed in Afghanistan or either Gulf War AFAIK) I believe it would horrify many of those in favour of this warmongering. Ditto a large collection of US coffins. The impact of the numbers is lessened by dealing with individual losses serially. I'm surprised nobody has produced a mock-up of 750 flag-draped coffins. The picture of Bush made up of dead servicemen's images which someone posted was a start, but it needs to be emphasised how many lives these adventures cost, and not just US lives.

[Neserk]

Also it isn't Bush's policy, it has been the military's policy over the last several administrations. So, were you upset when, under Clinton's administration, the Somalian casualties were not shown?

I rarely watch the news and not having internet at that time I would have been unaware of any such thing So your "point" is pointless.

We live in 2004 with the Supreme Dictator making choices. He could have changed the policy his father started but it suits him. What Clinton did or did not do is irrelavant. Clinton is not in power, the Supreme Dictator is. Try and stay on topic and in the current administration, please. Distraction techniques do not work.

[Neserk]

As of curiosity when did the Dictator in the White House can use their bodies for his own purposes?

WHen he sent them to Iraq in an illegal and immoral war... :rolleyes:

[Stelliform]

.....

[Stelliform]

.....

[Neserk]

And by the way, pointing out that you are uninformed doesn't do much to bolster your credibility.

Wow, spinning things really is part of your party platform isn't it?

I said that in the early 90's there was no internet so I wasn't aware of Clinton's stance on photo taking. That would have been over 10 years ago, genius. Try and keep up with the facts. Oh, wait. Facts and truthfulness is *not* part of your parties platform. Telling lies and being deceitful is the prefered way for you to go...

[Neserk]

(Remember he isn't a democrat, so everything he does isn't for personal gain.)


You've confused your platforms. It is the Republicans (especially this one) who do everything for personal gain. The whole war is about Bush's personal gain.

[skunk]

(Remember he isn't a democrat, so everything he does isn't for personal gain. ;) :D)
Isn't that a non-sequitur?

[pseudobrit]

(Remember he isn't a democrat, so everything he does isn't for personal gain. ;) :D)

Try and keep up with the facts. Oh, wait. Facts and truthfulness is *not* part of your parties platform. Telling lies and being deceitful is the prefered way for you to go...

These kind of sweeping generalisations, whether used in jest or in outrage, are what bring down the level of discourse here.

[skunk]

These kind of sweeping generalisations, whether used in jest or in outrage, are what bring down the level of discourse here.
'S true! Not helpful.

[Stelliform]

.....

[Stelliform]

.....

[skunk]

:rolleyes: I was a Democrat when I was your age. 10 years of voting and following the news, and I switched to republican last January.

Here is my favorite political quote. I think it would do you some good to dwell on it. You could stand out in your party and think for yourself and not just spew propaganda.
A tiny bit patronising, don't you think?

"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." - Winston Churchill
Oh well, that takes care of Gladstone, then. No brains, eh?

[Neserk]

:rolleyes: I was a Democrat when I was your age. 10 years of voting and following the news, and I switched to republican last January.



What age would I be?

and I am not a Democrat or a Republican.

[Neserk]

These kind of sweeping generalisations, whether used in jest or in outrage, are what bring down the level of discourse here.

My comment was not a sweeping generalization. We've been discussing on several threads the lack of truthfulness in the Republican powers that be. The poster I was responding to was having the same problems.

[mactastic]

Wow, spinning things really is part of your party platform isn't it?

I said that in the early 90's there was no internet so I wasn't aware of Clinton's stance on photo taking. That would have been over 10 years ago, genius. Try and keep up with the facts. Oh, wait. Facts and truthfulness is *not* part of your parties platform. Telling lies and being deceitful is the prefered way for you to go...

Neserk, I gotta say that your name calling and general belittlement of your opponents are a serious detriment to getting a rational discourse going in here. Your posts are often filled with the kind of generalizations I rail on our more ideologically driven rightists for, and I can't let you employ the same tactics on the left without voicing my displeasure at it.

I know you are going to have another big rant on me for this, but I suspect I'm not the only person around here who finds this to be the case as well. I'm not saying this to deliberatly piss you off or to offend you in any way, but quite frankly your type of posts give ammunition to those on the right and a reason to ignore the points of others who want serious debate.

Please don't construe this to mean I don't want to see your posts, or hear your point of view. I want to hear your voice around in this forum, as I feel you have many valid points and a unique perspective to offer. I just want to see it done in a manner that contributes to raising the level of discourse.

[voicegy]

You may pay your respects here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/2clearing2/gallery.htm

720 American Deaths in Iraq and counting. Here are the faces our fallen:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm

[billwest9999]

Neserk, I gotta say that your name calling and general belittlement of your opponents are a serious detriment to getting a rational discourse going in here. Your posts are often filled with the kind of generalizations I rail on our more ideologically driven rightists for, and I can't let you employ the same tactics on the left without voicing my displeasure at it.

I know you are going to have another big rant on me for this, but I suspect I'm not the only person around here who finds this to be the case as well. I'm not saying this to deliberatly piss you off or to offend you in any way, but quite frankly your type of posts give ammunition to those on the right and a reason to ignore the points of others who want serious debate.

Please don't construe this to mean I don't want to see your posts, or hear your point of view. I want to hear your voice around in this forum, as I feel you have many valid points and a unique perspective to offer. I just want to see it done in a manner that contributes to raising the level of discourse.

Don't take it personally mactastic, this is not the first time Neserk acted this way. If you've been around the political forum long enough, you will realize that Neserk tends to be a little uptight when the topic and/or subject deals with woman. Remember the thread "Who watches The Apprentice" and "Equality for women - how far has it come"? Neserk was attacking mostly everyone who made a comment that had an opposite stance than hers. I have mostly gotten over her cynical attitude by not reading her posts or just completely ignoring what she says. And you know what? By skipping her posts, the whole argument (of the thread) becomes a lot more democratic and worthwhile to read because of the difference views and ideas that various posters post. I know that Neserk will probably refute all the points that I've just outlined, but what the heck, I am gonna say what I wanna say.

We are all entitled to our opinions, and that's what make it a forum. But I see absolutely no point at all when a poster has to belittle his/her fellow posters to make a point. A political discussion is interesting because of the different opinions different posters have regarding the issue. But what makes it enjoyable is the respect that everyone have for their fellow posters. Neserk's posts are interesting, but it would be much more enjoyable if she doesn't post.

[Neserk]

Neserk, I gotta say that your name calling and general belittlement of your opponents are a serious detriment to getting a rational discourse going in here. Your posts are often filled with the kind of generalizations I rail on our more ideologically driven rightists for, and I can't let you employ the same tactics on the left without voicing my displeasure at it.


How many other posters on here have you sent this same message to? Because I see all of us do the same thing from time to time. Yet I've been singled out here.


I know you are going to have another big rant on me for this, but I suspect I'm not the only person around here who finds this to be the case as well.


I wouldn't want to disappoint you. Here is an idea. You and "they" can put me on their ignore list.


but quite frankly your type of posts give ammunition to those on the right and a reason to ignore the points of others who want serious debate.


Those who are "on the right" could careless about about truth or reason. I see no reason not to respond to them in like. They don't seriously debate the one or two people who *never* name call or belittle.

I've seen it done to SH, The various G's, and especially, Frohickey. Yet you never have posted a word to them. In fact, you personally have attacked me before. Take the log out of your own eye, first...



I just want to see it done in a manner that contributes to raising the level of discourse.

And this post contributes to raising the level of discourse? It is an attack plain and simple. It was started by one person and is being carried on by you. You of all people here have not earned the right to speak to me about *anything.*

[Neserk]

We are all entitled to our opinions, and that's what make it a forum. But I see absolutely no point at all when a poster has to belittle his/her fellow posters to make a point. A political discussion is interesting because of the different opinions different posters have regarding the issue. But what makes it enjoyable is the respect that everyone have for their fellow posters. Neserk's posts are interesting, but it would be much more enjoyable if she doesn't post.


Gee, which is exactly what you have done here... wow... the hypocrisy here reigns supreme...

[pseudobrit]

Gee, which is exactly what you have done here... wow... the hypocrisy here reigns supreme...

You need to cool down.

[numediaman]

You need to cool down.

Neserk, billwest was a little out of line. Having said that, everyone (myself included) should refrain from "hot-headed" remarks. No reason for anyone to added to an ignore list or to be banned. (Though I'm still pretty angry at zim for cancelling the BBQ.)

[Neserk]

You need to cool down.
'

You are right, I do.

[Neserk]

Neserk, billwest was a little out of line. Having said that, everyone (myself included) should refrain from "hot-headed" remarks. No reason for anyone to added to an ignore list or to be banned. (Though I'm still pretty angry at zim for cancelling the BBQ.)

Click on his name and check out his posts... they are quite informative. And there aren't that many so it will take you but a minute or less.

[mactastic]

How many other posters on here have you sent this same message to? Because I see all of us do the same thing from time to time. Yet I've been singled out here.

Believe me, I've said the same thing to many others. I've not said anything to you because we're on the same side ideologically, which makes me something of a hypocrite. I should have called you on it sooner to be fair.

I wouldn't want to disappoint you. Here is an idea. You and "they" can put me on their ignore list.

I don't want to have to put you on my ignore list. I'd like to keep hearing from you. I'm hoping it won't come to that.

Those who are "on the right" could careless about about truth or reason. I see no reason not to respond to them in like. They don't seriously debate the one or two people who *never* name call or belittle.

Two wrongs don't make it right.

I've seen it done to SH, The various G's, and especially, Frohickey. Yet you never have posted a word to them. In fact, you personally have attacked me before. Take the log out of your own eye, first...

I hope I've never personally attacked you before. I really try not to do that, and if I have I apologize. I would hope that you would call me on it when you see it. I'm not perfect, I've posted out of anger before. But I've been called on it by others too. I'm sure I came close to getting banned with jonapete/mactacular. And as far as some of the other posters you mention, some have been attacked somewhat unfairly, but some have also fallen into the classic definition of troll.

And this post contributes to raising the level of discourse? It is an attack plain and simple. It was started by one person and is being carried on by you. You of all people here have not earned the right to speak to me about *anything.*

It's not an attack, it's a plea to help keep this forum around. If this forum causes too much trouble, Arn can and will shut it down.