Pentagon angered by photos from military mortuary

[Dippo]

A Web site published dozens of photographs of American war dead arriving at the nation's largest military mortuary, prompting the Pentagon to order an information clampdown Thursday.

The photographs were released last week to First Amendment activist Russ Kick, who had filed a Freedom of Information Act request to receive the images.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/04/22/mortuary.photos.ap/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117878,00.html

All of the photos can be found at:
www.thememoryhole.org (http://www.thememoryhole.org)

Any thoughts or opinions?

[MongoTheGeek]

A few thoughts.

1) Its a bit grim, crude and tasteless.
2) Its a valid political point and a powerful statement.
3) The only pictures I have seen have been tasteful flag draped anonymous coffins. Which since there is nothing to distinguish the people inside is good because it allows the dead to rest and the family of the dead to move on.

Would I complain about the pictures, no.
Would I take/use them, no.

[caveman_uk]

I fear the unwillingness of the Pentagon to allow these to be seen has a lot more to do with political expediency than the feelings of the relatives. After all pictures of smart bombs are a lot more appealing to voters than those of brave young sons coming home in a wooden box...

[PalmHarborTchr]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/04/22/mortuary.photos.ap/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117878,00.html

All of the photos can be found at:
www.thememoryhole.org (http://www.thememoryhole.org)

Any thoughts or opinions?
I think it is understandable for the WhiteHouse not to want the coffins
exposed...in order to support this war without end we must not see
the consequences of war. The defense of the Fatherland oops I mean
Homeland...will be taken to ever nation that opposes Herr Bush, oops
I mean President Bush. If we have an election in November, opps I mean
in the election in November, we must show our support for this war
by electing our leader to a life term oops I mean a new term.

[eyelikeart]

I can't get to the site, but I would have to say that this is a bit disrespectful. Even I think they should leave this alone.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I can't get to the site, but I would have to say that this is a bit disrespectful. Even I think they should leave this alone.

I disagree. There is a historical precedent for this in past wars. It serves two purposes IMO. First it is a final respect that Americans can pay to the fallen. Second it also shows the American people the true cost of war. Not sanitized images of bunker bombs, or troops working the towns of Iraq. Or made for TV images of the President landing on an aircraft carrier.

Simply hearing mortality reports from Iraq means nothing to most. We are a visual nation, and this brings the message home.

[JesseJames]

Funerals are for the living; not the dead.

Get me?

[rueyeet]

I can't get to the site, but I would have to say that this is a bit disrespectful. Even I think they should leave this alone.Is it more disrespectful to show the coffins of those who have given their lives for this war, or to allow their deaths to be invisible, swept under the rug and forgotten?

America needs to know that our people are dying over there, and in what numbers. We need to know that our people are being injured, that 28,000 wounded have gone through Walter Reed alone, and that there are soldiers coming home without eyes or limbs. As unfortunate as it is to come back in a box, how awful must be the future of the 22-year old who has lost his sight and his arms, and has a young wife and three children?

If we can't stomach these things, then we have no business supporting this war. Period. If the numbers and images of the dead and maimed shake our resolve, then we have no business saying we have any resolve. And that goes whether you agree or disagree with our being there in the first place, whether you think that makes these casualities of war heroes of our republic or martyrs of our politics.

edit: 28,000 is the number my mom said she saw on CNN. I have since seen an estimate that says 4000 wounded American soldiers...so she may have gotten the decimal point off. Still, that only highlights how under-publicized the human costs of this war are (and that's not even going into how many Iraqis have died or been injured...)

[mactastic]

Isn't this in the wrong forum?

I think it stunk that Clinton didn't allow coffin photos, and I think it stinks that Dubya won't either. If you're going to send them over into harms way, have the testicular fortitude to deal with the flak from them coming home in caskets. (Are they really wooden caskets?)

[takao]

i think it is disrespectful to actually hide (or try to hide them) the coffin photos...when there were an attack on german soldiers in afgahnistan(4 were killed with car bomb) a few months ago there was big media coverage of those coffines coming out of the plane with flags and of course military salut and politicians etc.

perhaps there _too much_ of killed soldiers over there to show them all

[Dippo]

I can't get to the site...

Well, it seems the site is down, maybe too much traffic.

I went on it yesterday and they had some 500+ pictures of flag drapped coffins...

[topicolo]

The coffins should be shown.
Keeping them from the public is showing contempt for the sacrifices these soldiers made for their country.

[rainman::|:|]

The coffins should be shown.
Keeping them from the public is showing contempt for the sacrifices these soldiers made for their country.

My thoughts exactly. There should be parades for these caskets, there should be people holding candles at the airport when the planes arrive, there should be some recognition that these people died following orders. The idea that we can't see the photos makes me think Bush knows that the cost is too great for us, and that the ends are not justifying the means here. But to step back from the political rhetoric, these people are more than just heroes (as are their surviving comrades), they're martyrs for US, and we deserve to know that and see the price that WE didn't have to pay. The pentagon has no right to "shelter" America from seeing this. Hell, we're lucky we don't have to see the coffins (or raw burials, or mass graves) of the "enemy casualties" (people we kill). The Iraqis have to count their losses, I think we do too.

paul

[JamesDPS]

I agree with topicolo and paulwhannel et al. These people need to be honored, and the country needs to have a slightly less sanitized picture of the outside world. I wouldn't be against showing actual combat, Saving Private Ryan style. As someone who has never faced such horror (and hopes never to have to) it is the only way to even glimpse what it means to go to war with another country. In other words, it will show people that there had better be a damn good reason to do this stuff.

At the same time, showing the atrocities that Saddam is accused of committing would be equally important. Are American lives really that much more important than the lives of non-Americans? Everything must be given perspective...

[mactastic]

But lets not forget how hard Team Bush fought to justify their use of a coffin photo from the WTC wreckage in their political ads. I guess it's ok if it's just a firefighter and it's for the re-election of Bush, but not ok if it's a soldier and might not be beneficial to Bush?

[JesseJames]

There seems to be basically two camps on this issue. People who think that the public display of the coffins would honor the troops and their sacrifice.
Then there are the others - including the military stance - that families should be allowed the utmost privacy in their bereavement.
The cynic would say that the military just doesn't want to show bodies in their alarming growing quantities to upset public opinion that yes- the war is going well.
I guess it all depends on your sense of righteousness and desire for the whole truth.

[SPG]

Several clarifications on this thread:
1. There were no photos that identified the deceased soldiers.
2. It was not pictures from a "mortuary" but from the ceremony of the arriving flag draped caskets.
3. There was a photo run in the Seattle Times of flag draped caskets being loaded onto a plane in Kuwait taken by a worker there who was fired under orders by the Department of Defense after the photo ran.
4. Bush Sr instituted the ban on photos and video of the returning dead after CNN cut to a split screen to cover the return ceremony while also showing a Bush press conference where he was smiling and answering questions. No fault of Bush Sr for not showing the respect due the moment as he had no idea CNN was showing both, but to the public watching it didn't look good.

Opinion: The current Bush Administration tries very hard to keep up appearances, from disregarding the law (Valerie Plame) to lies (State of the Union, Iraq, uranium) to secrecy (Cheney's 2001 energy commision is still being fought over) to stonewalling the 9/11 commission.
That they would hold on to a convenient rule of a previous administration is hardly surprising. Despite all the tough talk these guys are very afraid that the public will lose support for their dirty deeds if the truth comes to light, and that's what flag draped coffins are...the least offensive glimmer of the true cost of this war. Now look at the pictures and realize that this happens almost every day, with almost 700 coffins so far and no end in sight.

[topicolo]

The ban on showing coffins and some of the more graphic scenes in Iraq is an attempt to keep up public support for the war.

TV networks outside of the US (including here in Canada) have aired documentaries that show the horrible consequences of the war on the Iraqi side. Seeing a real person getting shot in the head and oozing blood from his wound definitely does not make a person support the war. The fact of the matter is that none of the benefits that Bush promised at the beginning of the war has been realized--no WMDs have been found yet, there is actually decrease in stability in the region and there is still no true democracy. The soldiers have stopped Saddam's executions, but replaced them with "civilian casualties."

Still, now that Saddam has been captured, the coalition must stay to ensure that Iraq regains stability before leaving to prevent the country from being infested with terrorist groups. Hopefully this will happen sooner, so that we can cut down the number of casualties.

There, sorry about the rant.

[numediaman]

There, sorry about the rant.

You're in the political area now, you never have to apologize for rants. Right guys? (and girls).

By the way SPG, I like that you have a list of blogs in your signature. If everyone (are you listening Sly?) listed the blogs they read every day, it would reveal a lot.

[Ugg]

I'm all for showing those pictures as long as all we see is a coffin draped with a flag and nothing identifying the individual within. These people deserve this at least. If we are not allowed to see even the most sanitized results of war and to mourn these men and women in our own way, then their deaths become just another number. My one enduring memory of Vietnam was the nightly news announcement of how many died that day. I hope we never see those numbers again but those who have died in gw's folly in Iraq should be acknowledged on a daily basis.

One thing I agree with gw on, ok this is a first but don't expect it to happen again ;) is that the actual funerals should be private and personal. If gw were to attend it would make it into a media circus and expose the family and friends to a lot of unwelcome attention. I do believe though that he should in some way or another pay his respects to those who have died. He has totally and utterly failed to do this so far and should be ashamed.

[zimv20]

let's not kid ourselves -- the issue isn't really about respect, it's about political damage.

actions have consequences. society needs to be aware of these consequences if it expects to be a responsible, accountable society.

[IJ Reilly]

From an interview with Bryan Whitman, Deputy Secretary of Defense this evening on the NewsHour:

TERENCE SMITH: Bryan Whitman, what's the problem with those photographs? In other words, what way to in what way do they possibly invade the privacy of the families or anything else?

BRYAN WHITMAN: Well, you know, we don't-- we should all be concerned that we don't do anything at a time of grief for one of our fallen comrades, that we make it-- that we make it more difficult for them.

TERENCE SMITH: Do you think those pictures do?

BRYAN WHITMAN: I think that those pictures have a potential to do that.

TERENCE SMITH: How or why?

BRYAN WHITMAN: Well, because it is an invasion into their privacy as they have received word of a missing or a killed loved one. I think, you know, we should all take a look at this, perhaps in the shoes of the mother or the father who has lost a son or daughter or a husband who has lost a wife or a wife who has lost a husband.

Our service members don't ask much of us. They ask to be well trained. They asked to be well equipped and they ask to be well led. And if something should happen to them, they ask that we take care of our families. And this policy is designed to take care of their families.

TERENCE SMITH: Is-- I have to ask you this. Is the policy also designed to soften the impact of the casualties in the war?

BRYAN WHITMAN: No, I think that's an unfair argument. I guess I'll tell you why. I mean this conflict we put some 600 reporters out on the battlefield at the commencement of combat operations. Every time we have a casualty as a result of combat action, every time we have somebody that's been killed, we put out a news release on that. The command puts out a release on that and then we, in the Defense Department, we follow that up with a release that gives the name of the individual, their hometown, their age, and we do that for every service member that's killed in action. On the Defense Department web site, daily we post the casualties.

So the idea that somehow we're trying to not let the American people have the information about the cost of this war in terms of the human sacrifice, I think is not a true reflection of what the facts are.

[Stelliform]

.....

[Chip NoVaMac]

And in their Zeal for political damage they have released 73 photos of the Columbia crew dead and have labeled them as Iraq causalities.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/04/23/iraq.photographs.nasa.reut/index.html)

Besides, I don't think the dead should be used as a political weapon, and I don't think this will hurt Bush anyway. I certainly proud of our soldiers liberating the Iraqis, the photos only increase my patriotism.

I also think it will only hurt Kerry by someone trying to use these pictures against Bush.

It appears that the US Air force erred in releasing those images, when the FOIA request was for those images from the military personnel that died in Iraq. I am sure that it was an unfortunate oversight on everyones part.

My heart goes out to those serving. If you are proud of how the troops are serving in Iraq, you might want to see how some are really showing the American compassion: http://www.punchbaby.com/media/gitfakt/clips/sick/DontLoot.wmv .

It seems that we all will want to see what we want to see. I hope that 700 more bodies don't come home before a change happens in Washington.

[voicegy]

Well, it seems the site is down, maybe too much traffic.

I went on it yesterday and they had some 500+ pictures of flag drapped coffins...

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

[Desertrat]

I lost highschool classmates to fighting in Korea. Had somebody gotten photos and used them as political material against Truman, I'd have been happy to provide lunch: A knuckle sandwich. My classmates volunteered to go, believing it was the right thing to do.

Nobody who's griping about the Pentagon and the Administration seems to have any knowledge or concern about the feelings of the compadres of the slain. To most of them, it's a misuse of those photos and that usage dishonors their buddies.

People are dying in the belief that they're making it safer here. You don't have to agree with that view to honor those people.

'Rat

[mactastic]

I lost highschool classmates to fighting in Korea. Had somebody gotten photos and used them as political material against Truman, I'd have been happy to provide lunch: A knuckle sandwich. My classmates volunteered to go, believing it was the right thing to do.

Nobody who's griping about the Pentagon and the Administration seems to have any knowledge or concern about the feelings of the compadres of the slain. To most of them, it's a misuse of those photos and that usage dishonors their buddies.

People are dying in the belief that they're making it safer here. You don't have to agree with that view to honor those people.

'Rat

No one's suggesting we use them for political material against Bush. I guess our difference is in how we go about honoring 'those people'. I think supressing the photos of the fallen is dishonoring them, particularly when the photos are anonomous as to who is actually in the casket. To me it is a potent reminder for many who aren't personally connected to the war of the human realities of combat.

[IJ Reilly]

Honor is where you find it. I don't see how soft-peddling the individual sacrifices being made in Iraq necessarily honors the people who are making them. I agree with you that using the photos for political purposes would be wrong, but then again, hiding the very real effects of this war from the American people is equally political, and equally wrong.

[pseudobrit]

I lost highschool classmates to fighting in Korea. Had somebody gotten photos and used them as political material against Truman, I'd have been happy to provide lunch: A knuckle sandwich. My classmates volunteered to go, believing it was the right thing to do.

Would you be just as quick to punch Truman's people in the nose had they used the photos for political gain? Why stop at photos?

Would you punch everyone in the nose who uses the sacrifice of a soldier to further their political cause? I think you owe Bush a swing.

Nobody who's griping about the Pentagon and the Administration seems to have any knowledge or concern about the feelings of the compadres of the slain. To most of them, it's a misuse of those photos and that usage dishonors their buddies.

Did you ever stop to think that people want the troops out of there? To bring them home where they won't be killed?

People are dying in the belief that they're making it safer here. You don't have to agree with that view to honor those people.

What kind of sick mentality allows us to value someone else's "honor" over their lives?

[JamesDPS]

After talking about this whole thing with some friends, I do have to say that how photos of flag-draped coffins will be taken (i.e. as honoring the dead vs. any kind of politicalization) depends on the point of view. After all, in the U.S. I think most people would consider it honoring the dead to show anonymous coffins being ceremoniously unloaded from a plane, even if it also opens some peoples' eyes to the cost of war. On the other hand, how would these pictures be received if they were broadcast on, say, Al Jazeera or some other anti-American network? What would be the reaction of those FIERCELY opposing the US in Iraq to see hyped-up media coverage of US casualties? Also, although I'm no fan of Bush, it's clear that if he showed the coffins arriving, perhaps even greeting them himself to honor them, he would be accused of USING the coverage for political ends, 9-11 style. Or people would accuse the media of having a liberal bias or a conservative bias -- it has a lot to do with point of view.

So it's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation in some ways. I think, overall, that any kind of censorship of the media is only going to be perceived cynically by the public at large -- that they want to suppress the negative aspects of the war, and honestly I don't know which stance to take on the issue; as for honoring the dead, clearly that must be done, and public acknowledgment of these peoples' sacrifices is needed; it's just kind of tricky to know how the media is going to present things. Personally, I think it's very fitting and proper to report casualties in a moment of silence each night, as done on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer... very powerful stuff... Wonder if Al Jazeera does anything similar...

[Dippo]

the media is only going to be perceived cynically by the public at large -- that they want to suppress the negative aspects of the war


The media is the one that has been pushing for pictures, and the media ran it as a top story when the pictures were released.

If you watch the news, you will see that the media reports mostly on the bad stuff in Iraq and very rarely do they show any of the many good things that are going on.

[Desertrat]

mac, IJ, I'm looking at it from the point of view of an ex-soldier and Army brat; and as one whos father fought in Europe and whose step-father fought in the Pacific. I'm the lucky one; I merely did Occupation duty in South Korea; my son was in Desert Storm.

To the photo-snappers, it's, "These are OUR dead. Leave'em alone." The OUR means their brothers and sisters in Service and their families. To the others, "We died for our beliefs. Don't you denigrate them."

You want to go to the funerals? Fine. You want to discuss the evils of war? Fine. But if you haven't worn or aren't wearing the uniform, leave it be. "Leave us alone, 'cause our world ain't yours."

;Rat

[pseudobrit]

But if you haven't worn or aren't wearing the uniform, leave it be. "Leave us alone, 'cause our world ain't yours."

;Rat

What a pile of elitist hore****.

[IJ Reilly]

I found this response to be pretty disappointing too. It seems there's always reasons why we Americans should not know about or talk about certain things. Dare I call it "political correctness?" Yes, that's what I'd dare to call it. And to what end, I wonder. To what end?

[Sayhey]

mac, IJ, I'm looking at it from the point of view of an ex-soldier and Army brat; and as one whos father fought in Europe and whose step-father fought in the Pacific. I'm the lucky one; I merely did Occupation duty in South Korea; my son was in Desert Storm.

To the photo-snappers, it's, "These are OUR dead. Leave'em alone." The OUR means their brothers and sisters in Service and their families. To the others, "We died for our beliefs. Don't you denigrate them."

You want to go to the funerals? Fine. You want to discuss the evils of war? Fine. But if you haven't worn or aren't wearing the uniform, leave it be. "Leave us alone, 'cause our world ain't yours."

;Rat

'Rat, if there was anything undignified in the pictures I would agree with you. It looks like these were honored dead handled with the utmost care and dignity. Why should the nation not see that? If we ask our fellow citizens to die for us in a war, the least we can do is acknowledge the sacrifice, not pretend it didn't happen.

I understand the political struggle that goes on over these photos, but I think the respect for the sacrifice gets lost when we hide these images. And yes, I can respect your position that if you haven't worn the uniform there are things you can't understand, but it was never the families or the soldiers that demanded we not show our respect for the fallen when they arrived home. That was done by folks who want us to not deal with the reality of war.

[mactastic]

mac, IJ, I'm looking at it from the point of view of an ex-soldier and Army brat; and as one whos father fought in Europe and whose step-father fought in the Pacific. I'm the lucky one; I merely did Occupation duty in South Korea; my son was in Desert Storm.

To the photo-snappers, it's, "These are OUR dead. Leave'em alone." The OUR means their brothers and sisters in Service and their families. To the others, "We died for our beliefs. Don't you denigrate them."

You want to go to the funerals? Fine. You want to discuss the evils of war? Fine. But if you haven't worn or aren't wearing the uniform, leave it be. "Leave us alone, 'cause our world ain't yours."

;Rat

You're right 'Rat. Those of use too chicken$#&% to serve should just shut up and let the real men (and women) talk here.

BTW 'Rat, do you ever talk about things outside of your 'world'? Should you? Ie. If you've never been a doctor or a woman, how can you justify entering 'their world' with your petty opinion on abortion? If you've never been a polititian, how dare you question any of their decisions? It's their world, not yours.

And when does the disrespect of photography start? When they show the photos of the fallen? Or only when the caskets of the fallen arrive? I suppose I should shut my hole about my admiration for Tillmans death. It's not my world, so I'm not allowed to express appreciation or respect for him, right?