Woman loses her job over coffins photo

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Apr 22, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

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

    Attached Files:

  2. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #2
    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."​
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    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.
     
  4. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #4
    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."
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    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?
     
  6. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    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!
     
  7. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #7
    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!
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #10
    I was.
     
  9. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #11
    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.
     
  10. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #12
    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
     
  11. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    just so we're clear on the facts:
    link
     
  12. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #14
    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.
     
  13. Mr. G4 macrumors 6502

    Mr. G4

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Location:
    Rohnert Park, CA
    #15
    As of curiosity when did the Dictator in the White House can use their bodies for his own purposes?
     
  14. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #16
    See post #5 above for a clue.
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    No Iraqi body count, no US bodies seen. Strange thing, this deathless war. :mad:
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    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.
     
  17. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #20
    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.
     
  18. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #21
    WHen he sent them to Iraq in an illegal and immoral war... :rolleyes:
     
  19. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #24
    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...
     
  20. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #25

    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.
     

Share This Page