Old news.

[Superlative]

This has most likely been covered, but Im curious how people feel and if they care about the US Government's media control in regards to US military deaths.

Anyone care to defend this as anything other than public manipulation?

Out of sight Out of mind........



..........Since 1991, the media have been banned from covering the arrival of remains at Dover. The air base houses the military's largest mortuary, where bodies are prepared for burial before they are sent to the families' hometowns.

In March, before the Iraq war began, the Pentagon clamped down on similar coverage from military installations around the world, such as Ramstein Air Base in Germany or in Afghanistan. "The prohibition includes ... the movement of remains at any point," the Pentagon guidelines say.

The result is that images of caskets being returned to U.S. soil are not shown to the American public. This policy contrasts with Italy's national display of grief last month when 19 of that country's troops died in an Iraq suicide bombing and received a state funeral through the streets of Rome.............


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-12-31-casket-usat_x.htm

 

[red states rule]

The liberal media goes out of its way to cover this non issue.

Why not demand to have open caskets as they are brought off the plane?

Or how about bringing cameras into the morgue?

The left wants to do anything to undermine the war - and the hell with the families of the deceased soldiers

 

[Superlative]

The liberal media goes out of its way to cover this non issue.

Why not demand to have open caskets as they are brought off the plane?

Or how about bringing cameras into the morgue?

The left wants to do anything to undermine the war - and the hell with the families of the deceased soldiers

So its better to stick our heads in the sand and not witness the grim reality of whats going on in Iraq?

These soldiers dont deserve recognition for losing their lives?

What the fuck has Paris Hilton done for the US lately?

Why dont we all know the names of every american that has lost their life in this occupation?

Maybe because the grim reality is, that much death, is bad for business.

And if the Media was allowed to show the caskets returning, Bush would never have had a chance for a second term.

 

[red states rule]

So its better to stick our heads in the sand and not witness the grim reality of whats going on in Iraq?

These soldiers dont deserve recognition for losing their lives?

What the fuck has Paris Hilton done for the US lately?

Why dont we all know the names of every american that has lost their life in this occupation?

Maybe because the grim reality is that much death, is bad for business.

And if the Media was allowed to show the caskets returning, Bush would never have had a chance for a second term.

Is this what you want more of?

Images of dying Texas soldier ignite debate

Jan. 31, 2007, 12:23AM

By MICHAEL HEDGES and JAMES PINKERTON

WASHINGTON — A photograph and videotape of a Texas soldier dying in Iraq published by the New York Times have triggered anger from his relatives and Army colleagues and revived a long-standing debate about which images of war are proper to show.

The journalists involved, Times reporter Damien Cave and Getty Images photographer Robert Nickelsberg, working for the Times, had their status as so-called embedded journalists suspended Tuesday by the Army corps in Baghdad, military officials said, because they violated a signed agreement not to publish photos or video of any wounded soldiers without official consent.

New York Times foreign editor Susan Chira said Tuesday night that the newspaper initially did not contact the family of Army Staff Sgt. Hector Leija about the images because of a specific request from the Army to avoid such a direct contact.

"The Times is extremely sensitive to the loss suffered by families when loved ones are killed in Iraq," Chira said. "We have tried to write about the inevitable loss with extreme compassion."

She said that after the newspaper account, with a photograph of the soldier, was published Monday, a Times reporter in Baghdad made indirect efforts to tell the family of the video release later that day. The video was still available for viewing on the Times’ Web site Tuesday night, when the newspaper notified clients of its photo service that the photograph at issue was no longer available and should be eliminated from any archives…

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Robert Lobeck, serving as the Army’s casualty assistance officer with Leija’s family in Texas, said seeing the images of Leija on the Internet was very upsetting to the relatives.

"Oh God, they shouldn’t have published a picture like that," Leija’s cousin Tina Guerrero, who had not seen the images but was aghast about them anyway, told the Houston Chronicle on Tuesday in Raymondville. She said the images would be especially hurtful to the soldier’s parents, Domingo and Manuela Leija, who have remained in the family’s home on the edge of town. ”It’s going to devastate them," Guerrero said. ”They’re having enough pain dealing with the death of their son."

Accompanying the Times article was a picture of Leija on a stretcher, an Army medic using his right hand to compress the sergeant’s wounded forehead. Leija was alive in the photograph. The story noted that he died later in the day.

Later Monday, the Times posted on its Web site a five-minute, 52-second video taken at the scene of the shooting, showing an interview with Leija before he was wounded, then the frantic moments after he is downed by a single shot…

The agreement that journalists are asked to sign as a condition of embedding has 14 rules. Rule 11 covers military casualties: "Names, video, identifiable written/oral description or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without service member’s prior written consent."

The ground rule goes on to say, "In respect for family members, names or images clearly identifying individuals ‘killed in action’ will not be released." The rule says names of soldiers killed can be released a day after family notification, but it does not address photographs or video images.

Chira said as far as she knew, the journalists had signed the forms. But she also said: "This issue has never been raised before when the New York Times has shown photographs of wounded soldiers." …

Chira also said she had been told by the reporter in Baghdad that he had reached out to two people with Texas connections to act as intermediaries to alert the family that a video was going to be posted. They were Kathy Travis, a press aide to Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, and Principal Gilbert Galvan of Raymondville High School.

Travis had a different account.

"Whoa, that isn’t what happened," she said Tuesday night in a telephone interview. "The reporter called me late Monday afternoon and said he understood that the family was upset and that he wanted us to know that he had the utmost respect for the soldier and wanted us to let the family know that."

Galvan said a New York Times reporter called Monday, saying he could not reach Leija’s relatives and asking Galvan to notify the family of the story and the impending release of the video.

Galvan said he went to the Leijas’ house and relayed the message. "They looked upset," he said…

http://www.sweetness-light.com/?p=2075

 

[Superlative]

Is this what you want more of?

Images of dying Texas soldier ignite debate

http://www.sweetness-light.com/?p=2075

I guess the Right doesnt want people to see whats happenning in Iraq.

People dying.

Your right wing Op-Ed is a perfect example of partisan politics.

If the Gen pop was exposed to the amount of staggering death occurring in Iraq, you would be one unhappy NeoCon.

 

[red states rule]

I guess the Right doesnt want people to see whats happenning in Iraq.

People dying.

Your right wing Op-Ed is a perfect example of partisan politics.

If the Gen pop was exposed to the amount of staggering death occurring in Iraq, you would be one unhappy NeoCon.

So is that what you want to see on the network news every night?

I say we should be playing video from 9-11

But libs said it would upset folks

The article is based on facts - something you "overlooked"

And this we have this gem from CNN

Video shows snipers’ chilling work in Iraq

(CNN) — Chilling scenes from a videotape made by insurgents show the work of snipers in Iraq, targeting and killing American troops, taking them down with a single bullet from a high-powered rifle.

The graphic video of 10 sniper attacks was obtained by CNN — through intermediaries — from the Islamic Army of Iraq, one of the most active insurgent organizations in Iraq.

In one scene, U.S. soldiers mingle among Iraqi civilians on a city street as a U.S. Humvee with a gunner in its turret stands guard nearby.

From a distance, possibly hundreds of yards away, a sniper watches for his opportunity to strike as a fellow insurgent operates a camera to capture the video for propaganda purposes.

In the video, street sounds mix with male Arabic voices as the sniper and his spotter talk off-camera.

"People are around them," warns the spotter, who seems to be operating the video camera. "Want me to find another place?"

"No, no," comes the reply, "give me a moment."

And then, the crack of gunfire is heard and the soldier in the turret slumps forward.

"Allahu Akbar (God is Great)!" is the exclamation as the sniper’s vehicle starts and they slip away.

The deadly tactic is one the U.S. military also uses to take out insurgents.

Retired Gunnery Sgt. Jack Coughlin was one of the top U.S. Marine Corps snipers in Iraq and has written a book about his experiences — "Shooter: The Autobiography of the Top-Ranked Marine Sniper."

"I have over 60 kills," he told CNN’s Gary Tuchman. "We seek out the enemy and eliminate them with precision fire."

Tuchman used Coughlin’s critical eye to analyze the Islamic Army of Iraq video.

Coughlin said the time lapse between the sound of the shot and the man getting hit indicates the gunfire is coming from about 300 to 500 yards away and probably from a higher angle.

But Couglin said he’s sure this team of at least three people has been trained well because they’re so calm.

"They have their stuff wired," he said. "They know what they’re doing." (Watch the ex-Marine describe snipers’ deadly work — 2:46)

The 20-year Marine veteran said the kind of body armor worn by troops in combat can be effective against a sniper’s bullet, and he added that there are other ways to defend against the horrifying attacks.

"The worst enemy of a sniper is another sniper," Coughlin said. "Our snipers are hunting these guys — I guarantee you this is happening as we speak."

Coughlin added that, in many cases, the best defense is a good offense.

Remember, this is the same one party media who will not show the victims of 9/11, the beheading of hostages — even the Mohammad cartoons — lest they offend.

But if they can encourage our countries enemies, they will at every opportunity.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/?p=1584

 

[CSM]

So its better to stick our heads in the sand and not witness the grim reality of whats going on in Iraq?

These soldiers dont deserve recognition for losing their lives?

Those that want can and do honor them.... without using them for political purposes.

What the fuck has Paris Hilton done for the US lately?

Not much.

Why dont we all know the names of every american that has lost their life in this occupation?

You can get that information easily, if you care to...again, those that want to can easily obtain all the names of fallen soldiers; some even have that info and refuse to use it for political purposes.

Maybe because the grim reality is, that much death, is bad for business.

Could be that the grim reality is that some use the names of the fallen to further their political agenda....of course nobody on this board would EVER do that...right?

And if the Media was allowed to show the caskets returning, Bush would never have had a chance for a second term. Oh, I guess some on this board would use the names of the fallen for political ends...how truly disappointing.

Well, I guess we know what YOUR motive for this thread is!

 

[red states rule]

Well, I guess we know what YOUR motive for this thread is!

Yea - smear Pres Bush and undermine the war effort

 

[CSM]

well dang that was difficult! Took a whole 2 minutes:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

I guess some folks really do post mere rhetoric. By the way. DoD has the complete list as well.

 

[no1tovote4]

Well, I was going to report that we DO know the names of the military people who have died in the war.... But it looks like somebody provided that information for ya.

 

[Gunny]

This has most likely been covered, but Im curious how people feel and if they care about the US Government's media control in regards to US military deaths.

Anyone care to defend this as anything other than public manipulation?

Out of sight Out of mind........



..........Since 1991, the media have been banned from covering the arrival of remains at Dover. The air base houses the military's largest mortuary, where bodies are prepared for burial before they are sent to the families' hometowns.

In March, before the Iraq war began, the Pentagon clamped down on similar coverage from military installations around the world, such as Ramstein Air Base in Germany or in Afghanistan. "The prohibition includes ... the movement of remains at any point," the Pentagon guidelines say.

The result is that images of caskets being returned to U.S. soil are not shown to the American public. This policy contrasts with Italy's national display of grief last month when 19 of that country's troops died in an Iraq suicide bombing and received a state funeral through the streets of Rome.............


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-12-31-casket-usat_x.htm

I'll defend the policy. There is absolutely NO point to the media covering the arrival of deceased servicemembers EXCEPT for media exploitation/manipulation.

 

[Superlative]

OK then, as long as I understand, everyone here, has no problem with government controlling what the media shows, and does not show.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The numbers are in fact published as soon as they are available, which is daily and in time for the nightly news from all I can tell. Other then being a ghoul there is NO reason to view, photograph for publication of video tape caskets arriving anywhere.

There is no law barring these "reporters" from other "graphic" means to impress on us the numbers they ALREADY report. Well except common decency and morals.

Whats next? A demand that journalists be notified when ever one of our dead military members is buried so they can be there to snap shots of the grieving family? Come to think of it, nothing stops them from that now, a certain crack pot preacher routinely protests at the burials around the country.

 

[Superlative]

Its seems perfectly acceptable for every major paper and news channel to show the dead bodies of al-Zarqawi, and Saddams two sons.

Dont you find that strange?

 

[kurtsprincess]

Perhaps the policy for the media should be that they are not allowed to show any pics or videos of anyone's death without the consent of the family.

Common decency doesn't seem to be the rule when it comes to the media.

As the wife of a career military man, I support the policy of keeping the media away.


Question for you superlative ........ why does your right to know supercede the rights of our soldiers' families and their right to privacy?

 

[kurtsprincess]

Its seems perfectly acceptable for every major paper and news channel to show the dead bodies of al-Zarqawi, and Saddams two sons.

Dont you find that strange?

No.

What I find strange is that you cannot see how publicizing war related deaths is a demoralizing tactic.............and which side do you want to demoralize????

 

[red states rule]

Its seems perfectly acceptable for every major paper and news channel to show the dead bodies of al-Zarqawi, and Saddams two sons.

Dont you find that strange?

Because the left would deny they were really dead as well as their terrorist allies

 

[red states rule]

No.

What I find strange is that you cannot see how publicizing war related deaths is a demoralizing tactic.............and which side do you want to demoralize????

Alright: brace yourselves, folks. Not for hurricane season -- for this update. It's not "easy listening." American military forces in Iraq found five Iraqis in a padlocked room. They had been beaten with chains, hoses, and cables. The youngest was a child, and he said terrorists had hooked electrical wires onto his tongue, and shocked him.

And, you know, not one European government expressed outrage. Not one Drive-By Media outlet splashed pictures on their front page or their magazine covers. The child's burnt tongue is not seen multiple times on cable and network news programs. Liberal human rights activists are not being quoted accusing the terrorists of committing "crimes against humanity." The Hollywood left? They've ignored the entire episode, too -- it's not as fashionable as demanding an end to genocide in Darfur.

No. As long as they're brown-skinned Iraqis, liberals don't give damn about rape, murder, torture, or terrorism -- even when the torturers share the same ideology of those terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11. There's no pontificating on the House or Senate floor from outraged Democrats with billboard-sized graphics behind them.

No. Instead, when it comes to the terrorists who commit these atrocities daily, liberals want to surrender. They avert their eyes [and] they focus their energies on recreating a big welfare state and winning in 2008.

Besides, why should we care? This little Iraqi with the burnt tongue is not our child. But I'm going to tell you something: it damn sure could be -- if the terrorists and the Democrats succeed convincing our nation to give in and give up in the face of this kind of evil.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052207/content/01125101.member.html

 

[Superlative]

Question for you superlative ........ why does your right to know supercede the rights of our soldiers' families and their right to privacy?

Its not my 'right' to know, its about the government controlling what gets shown to the public.

And if those images were in fact made public, the outcry against the occupation would be much louder.

I respect the families losses, and their right to privacy, but do you think they now feel the occupation is worth it?

Im sure there are many military wives and families, That wish more people knew their suffering, and understood fully, as they do the consequences of war.

Cindy Sheehan, for all the complaining the Right does about her. You have to admit, your life would be forever changed if your Father, husband, brother, or son, (God forbid) were killed in Iraq. She has suffered a tremendous loss, and is fighting for what she believes in.

But the public (imo) is being kept at a safe distance from exposure the consequences of whats going on. there is a conscious effort on the part of the Government to seperate the negative aspects of war by censoring negative imagery, of Dead Iraqi women and children, and the return of fallen soldiers.

Everyone here can say the numbers and names are posted, everyone can say "if you want to find out, the info is there."

To put it bluntly, sports scores, are more readily available, if I want to find out about, baseball, I know there are sites that publish that info, there is also a sports segment on the nightly news, and in every daily paper.

But a death toll is a lot different than finding out sports scores on my own time.
Is there a daily update of the Iraqi Coalition Casuality Count on your nightly news? or in your daily paper?

This is about Government turning death into numbers - 3431, US to date.

According to iraqbodycount.org from April 1 – 24th, 07 the Iraqi death toll reached 1223. Remember that’s only 24 days

Unmentionable is the idea that if those images were in fact made public at the rate they occur, which is daily, the outcry against the occupation of Iraq would be much louder.

I concede, there is a limit, and I believe that the media should not take advantage of the situation and turn it into a circus, Which I can sadly, and honestly admit, they probably would.

But if the Pentagon can take the liberty to censor ALL images, why not be selective?

if youre so worried about the familes, keep permissable images restricted to closed caskets, and no pictures of family. just censor identities.

If they can censor it ALL, they can obviously censor specific things.

Is the decision to censor media, up to the government, or the people?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are , of course , aware that Cindy Sheehan is despised by her entire family because of what she does with the memory of her dead son?

As for what families want, Hey I have an idea, as much as i despise Polls, you guys love them.... lets have a poll of American families that have service members in them and see what they think, perhaps even a poll of what the actual military members think... ohh wait, I forgot, they don't matter.