Pixiq

Much respect.

Everything that I have read about the 92Ms (mortuary technicians) emphasizes the utmost care and respect that they show our fallen troops. It’s sad that the Pentagon and some families think that our troops’ service is disrespected or trivialized by showing these sorts of photos.

The action photos really underline the sacrifice that LCpl. Bernard made, and the photo of the Marine kneeling in front of the field cross is heartbreaking.

I do think that the AP has every right to publish the photos, but why? How many pictures of dead or dying Taliban have we seen? Wouldn’t pictures of dead enemies be more appropriate for an American audience? It seems the AP and its stringers have a narrative they’re following, a narrative opposing the US-led wars, and this is just another line of that narrative.

Donkeyrock: Because only showing the enemy would be deceitful.

When we see one of our own die, we know that there is a COST of war, not just an effect on the world.

This cost showing its ugly head… that’s what these photos show. Thank you for publishing them here, Carlos.

TY
those that serve need to be shown paying the cost of our freedoms………..
Maybe it will wake up some of those bull headed asses who think the police/ goverment or other entity have the right to trample our freedomes to think twice when we defend that witch others have died for THANK GOD for those men and women cause i know i cant fight like they do……………………

genewitch: They don’t show the enemy dead at all unless it’s claimed they’re “civilians”. I haven’t been searching for pics of dead Taliban, but I honestly can’t recall any being published.

We know the COST of war: individually it’s high, financially it’s high, but casualty-wise, the cost has been low. I really do wish the valor of our soldiers was more wisely spent, but the idiots in office don’t know how to win a war anymore.

Carlos misses the point. This was not the pentagon asking that a picture not be taken or published–this was a young Marine’s father asking. The first amendment protects us from the government, not from a dying Marine’s father.

The AP didn’t stick a finger in Gates’ or the pentagon’s eye, they gave the finger to a grieving father–that’s a horse of an entirely different hue.

because of how much i COULD say! i will limit myself to saying that i agree with carlos, when someone hears the words, “WAR IS HELL, or “anything goes in war” . Most dont know what the words mean, this brings it home so perhaps others out there can even get close to what WAR really means, i lost an uncle in WWII [before i was born], and the one that did come back, well he was never the same[meaning of course i never really knew who he really was as i was born in 1953], he never did and never would talk about it!

Donkeyrock: Perhaps because I am old enough to remember the Vietnam War, I don’t agree with only showing pictures of the enemy. We remember all too well the inflated enemy body counts – if we went by the statistics and images the military was feeding us early in the war theoretically they had killed the VietCong off three times over… We all know that was not the case. What brought the war home to Americans and started the movement to end it was the fact that reporters started showing the truth (i.e. that Americans were dying).

So I say lets see it all – good and bad – and lets make a decision on that basis as to whether or not it is worth staying there.

@NYCPhoto:

I don’t see where Donkey called for /only/ showing enemy dead. My take was that he would like to see less of an anti-war (and a more pro-victory) bias in the press. That’s my take, and it is also my position. Seems to me that DR is making the same call as you are: let’s see it /all/ (my emphasis), not just the bad, so we can decide for ourselves.

The Pentagon is right to be suspicious, if not hostile, to the mainstream news orgs when said organizations are actively working (IMO) to aid and abet enemy interests with an ongoing stream of criticism of their Mission.

As for Vietnam, the press took an active role in ensuring a US defeat, naively (or maliciously) portraying the resounding defeat of the NVA and VC during Tet as a great victory for them. That’s not reporting the news, that’s issuing pro-enemy propaganda.

Top: Not to be disrespectful but I a PJ and the father not waiting the picture published is a non issue. He asked and that is all that he can do and all that he should be able to do. He should be proud of the efforts made by the Marines Corps men as they attemted to save his sons life underfire.

This photo is less graphic then some of my own photographs that my paper paper has ran with traffic accidents or shootings. Did the victims familes get upset ? Sometimes they did sometimes they did not. Did it show the reality of life ? 100 precent.

War is horrible the end. It needs to be shown.

The reason the white house did not want the photograph to be released is because the public is begining to see the current wars as the public saw Vietnam. The answer to that is to attempt to control the flow of infromation out of the conflict.

People forget as journalist we must be the witness for the world.
The photograph is just a record of what happens and not releasing it would be an attempt to cover up the fact that Marines die in combat.

It is not the old GI Joe cartoon where everybody walks away from a firefight.

Good Job Julie

Thank you for posting these, Carlos.

MB–no one knows better than the Soldier or Marine that war is hell–been there, done that and deal with the VA to prove it. I can’t believe that YOU are going to try and educate ME on the horrors of war.

The father not wanting the photo published may be a non issue to you, but I promise it is very much an issue to him.

You want to stick a finger in the eye of the administration–go for it. You want to publish photos of war dead–go for it. You want to give the finger to a grieving dad–go for it. But don’t try to make publishing this picture, that the family asked to be withheld, some noble stand or mission. The journalist and the AP had a chance to stand by the family of a fallen Marine and chose not to.

I am a strong advocate of the government not censoring the press. Ramp ceremonies of closed caskets should be fair game. This is not the government trying to censor the press, THIS was a grieving father asking for compassion. You can spin it how you like. Cloak it in some noble PJ BS, but I’m not fooled.

You tell ‘em, Top!

“They are fighting for our freedoms.”

Really? How so?

I think it was horrible that they published the picture after the father asked them not to. It isn’t a legal issue but a moral one. I am sure there are plenty of other pictures of our soldiers dying that have been taken that at least one family would of given permission if they really wanted to do so. For all of you saying how it shows war is hell and we need to show this I doubt on 9-11 you were speaking out or calling your local tv stations demanding to see the people jumping out of the windows and people splattered on the street.

Yes, the father did ask that the picture not be run, but nowhere in the history of journalism does a grieving father get absolute veto rights on a story or picture. His concerns can be weighed against the good of publication, but it does not automatically trump editorial judgment.
As for the DOD letter, that is clearly a flagrant attempt at government censorship.

NYCPhotorights: Nemo has it correct. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my opinion, but I don’t object to seeing/publishing US Military casualties, I do object to seeing/publishing mostly, even only, US Military casualties.

The father of the soldier doesn’t have a right to block the photo from being published, and it’s not wrong for the gov’t to request a picture not to be published (no force behind the request), but there’s still the question of “why?” Why does the AP publish mostly US casualties? Why do news organizations give detailed lists of US dead while completely ignoring enemy dead? Maybe they do have some sort of Vietnam complex, like they’re crusading for something right, but they destroy morale at home with that narrative.

Regardless of the issue of right and wrong when it comes to the recent wars, the coverage has not been fair and balanced from any news outlet.

arthur dent:
I find i have no choice but to say again how important the last part of your post is, and repeat it again, “As for the DOD letter, that is clearly a flagrant attempt at government censorship.” the fact is way too many miss it or decide that is not the issue, but its right on point!
I will stop now before i do as i sometimes do, and say a word or two too much.

I agree 100% with # 7 and # 16. To us the young man in the first photo is merely a symbol of soldiers, Iraq, the real cost of war—whatever your personal feelings on the issue might be. To his father that’s his kid, his baby. I can see why he feels that representing his sons life by a photo of his death–by tragedy only–is disrespectful.

It’s sort of an interesting commentary on how we view people in the media as objects; even those who didn’t ask to be known.

I’m for sick fucker’s right to protest-like fred phelps, but it doesn’t mean they get front row seats at the funeral.

It’s a tough issue for sure. I guess it’s like only the right wing media showing TK’s car at Chappaquidik-we only want to see things that support our worldview.

Look, the issue is very clear. The father of a dead Marine asks that the photo not run. The media has a choice–be respectful of the father’s wish or not. They chose not. They chose not for several reasons. The photographer gets fame. The AP gets to advance its anti military bias. Various apologizers and self importortant photo journalists get to pontificate on how the photographer and the AP have struck a blow for journalistic freedom, and one even gets to lecture me about the horrors of war.

None of them gives a damn about the dead Marine or his father’s wishes. It’s a free press, and they get to make the call–but I call BS. A request is not censorship–the photog did not go to jail, the presses were not confiscated, the photo ran.

Most of us appreciate a free press and are capable of seeing this for what it is.

Well said, Carlos. The bottom line is that war is a tragedy.

As tough as it is for the family of a dead soldier, honest and harsh reality slaps everyone in the face in moments like these. What it ought to do is prompt people to ask questions and demand answers….Without offering an opinion on our presence in the Middle East, I believe that the majority of lazy, gullible, video game playin’, American Idol watchin’ fools aren’t even remotely aware of how f’ed up things are. And they are getting worse every day. Why these fools in D.C. keep getting reelected is proof of apathy. People need to get bitch slapped with reality in order to pay attention. I don’t know if it helps to try & wake folks up, and its a sad testament to this country that it takes photos like this to even generate some type of dialogue…..Prayers and sympathy to the families of all who’ve come home dead or mangled.

Janie,

Maybe the post went over your head. Yes, it was a cliche but it was an intentional cliche.

That fact that the photo ran was a vivid reminder that we still have a free press in this country.

Unfortunately, it took his death to prove that.

Top,

Obviously, you haven’t spent a single day in a newsroom, so let me explain how it works.

A grieving parent does not have any say in whether a photo runs or not.

The media has a much larger duty on hand. It’s nothing personal. But it has a job to do. And that is to report the truth.

This incident, this photo, this issue is much larger than a father’s wishes.

Imagine if newspapers never ran the photo of the napalm girl in Vietnam because her father requested them not to.

http://quakeragitator.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/napalm-vietnam.jpg

Or if the wife of the man who was executed at point blank range had the same request.

http://www.cs.brown.edu/courses/cs024/images/canon/06.jpg

Besides, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Pentagon pressured the father to request that the photo not run.

I think that if the government did not want the pictures to run they would of censored it after it was taken since they have to clear the pictures before they are sent back to the editors for publishing. I don’t see how the issue is about a free press at all, it is more of an elitist’s attitude with people in the media who for whatever reason believe they have some kind of higher moral character then everyone else and they are always right.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if the Pentagon pressured the father to request that the photo not run.”

That is just silly liberal media paranoia. You are saying then that the father really wanted pictures of his dead son printed everywhere and used as a device in the nasty and divided politics of this country and that the government had to convince him otherwise?

“Liberal, elite media”?

Sarah Palin, is that you?

““Liberal, elite media”?

Sarah Palin, is that you?”

C’mon, Carlos.

“The media has a much larger duty on hand. It’s nothing personal. But it has a job to do. And that is to report the truth.”

Then what about when editors decide to not print something, such as the Dutch Mohammed cartoons? Wouldn’t that be the media hiding the truth?

lol of course name calling instead of answers, typical.

You guys need to check out this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpp4AiGRKiA

What was the point of me watching that video?

Carlos, the video was very enlightening…thanks for sharing it.

TOP…your an idiot!
if the media respected everyone, the pages would be blank. oh hell why am i even wasting my time on the likes of you?
oh ya, top, heres a tissue for all the tears you had thinking of the dad!

Tony–How quickly it devolves to name calling. I’ve been called worse than an idiot–I’ve also cried tears over the dead, from Beirut, through Somalia and OIF. I’m certainly not ashamed of that fact. Is that the best you can do? OK, I’m an idiot.

However, I’m an idiot for standing up to the police when they overreach; I’m an idiot for supporting Carlos’ legal fight; I’m an idiot for believing that the first amendment is as important as the fourth and second–not for pointing out some flack’s pontification on the horrors of war.

Carlos, I’ve never been in a newsroom. I’ve also never been a police officer but that doesn’t stop me from calling BS when they taser a tractor driver, beat up a teenager or arrest a photographer. And cops say the same thing–you’ve never been on the streets, or you don’t know what it’s like out there. It’s not personal; we’re just enforcing the law. We’ve got a job to do.

I wasn’t aware that the napalm girl’s father had asked that her picture not run–same with the executed viet cong prisoner. I guess I learned something today after all.

Nobody dying in the AfPak occupation or Iraq occupation is “defending our freedom.” They defend only the military industrial complex’s profit margins and the rights of boardroom chairmen to ride in Gulfstreams.

Take the word of a Marine General and the only 2 time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient.

WAR IS A RACKET

Major General Smedley D. Butler – USMC Retired

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

thank you Kol> Klink well said and again right on point, like i said, some will always disagree with whatever you say, or just flat out love to argue! BS is also used to grow roses, so i guess its not all that bad! (and even though i know he/she will never get i) that “idiot” comment was for what you said, i am old enuff to know that there are always common ground where opposites would find they agree…..duh! but some of what is being said here is pure idiotic in my opinion. [and that wasnt for you, that was for others that may even understand where i am coming from, but then again, they perhaps wouldnt have needed me to say that!]
P.S. thanks top for supporting Carlos!

War may be a racket, but the raceteers are the civilians in charge, not the soldiers, sailor, airmen and marines who execute those orders.
If you hate war, hate those that start it, and not just the ones in D.C.

Sorry, Carlos, honestly I wasn’t referring to you, but to commenters who are outraged over the publication of a photo of a dead American soldier, but are not at all outraged over the fact that he is dead. Apparently he had to die because war is hell or something like that. They don’t want anyone to see images of dead soldiers or the tiny coffins of the “enemy” because it may turn people against our fake wars and we can’t have that. They are glad the American body count is low (which it isn’t) and let us not dwell for a nanosecond on the millions of dead and displaced Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis who don’t count anyway because war is hell and people die.

Mr Bernard, should you read this comment at some point down the road, please know that seeing these pictures gave me nothing but the utmost respect and gratitude for your son’s sacrifice.

Janie

Don’t forget about the Kurds. Oh wait, you did already-never mind.

Janie

I’ve seen pictures of our dead American soldiers from the European theater of WWII. You know, from when we fought Hitler.

Interesting thing though, he never attacked the US nor did he give orders to the planes that killed over 3,000 Americans.

Wow, history does really repeat itself.

P&P

Kurds…Hitler… what? Well, what’s important is that YOU know what you’re talking about.

If the press put one tenth the effort into exposing the corruption,entitlement, and excesses of Congress as they do the Defense Department, our country would be WAY better off.

Do some of you (Janie) REALLY believe that Muslim extremist really don’t want to kill every non-Muslim they can get – and that if we didn’t keep them busy at home, they wouldn’t be attacking us (U.S.A.) in other ways – planes, ships, IEDs on Americas Highways, rail lines, etc.???

I would probably sleep better if I was as naive (detatched) as you.

PROUD father of a U.S. Marine!!

Kemosabe – I believe that there exist Muslim extremists that want to kill every non-Muslim they can get, but I also believe that there exist Christian extremists that want to kill every non-Christian they can get. AND I believe that the vast majority of said extremists (on both sides) haven’t got the brains OR the funding to pull off anything like attacking the USA or any other country with planes, ships, IEDs, etc.

There aren’t NEAR as many extremists as the media reports would have you believe, just as there aren’t near as many mass-murderers in the US, or as many abductions by strangers, or as many armed robberies, etc as the media reports would have you believe. Fact is that bad news sells papers (and TV and radio advertising), and also works to bring people around to certain viewpoints, so bad news is almost exclusively what you hear/read in the media.

I knew a woman that moved here from the middle east, and before she arrived, she was convinced that all American women walked around in bikinis everywhere all the time, because in her country, every time there was a news story about America, they showed only images of people at the beaches. When she arrived and saw the reality, she was appalled at the inaccuracy in the news reporting. Then when she saw what they were reporting here about her country, she was equally appalled at the inaccuracy of the portrayal of her home country. Propaganda goes both ways, I’m afraid.

And I don’t believe that attacking other countries without provocation is the way to keep extremists from hating us and wanting to kill Americans. Or do you really believe that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11/01?

Kylie: you are so right on point its almost frightening, i may add to that this, [i may age myself with this but,] in what you say we usta have a saying knowing how to ‘read between the lines” as it were, it goes to exactly what your saying, i have known for years that our reporting here in the USA is alot of BS and they do it for very good reasons. that is why i think the governments in the world are scared of the internet and are doing what they can to attempt to control it. Hell they are so stupid to think they could ever, they cant and never will. but what they seem to be trying to do is tell everyone, you cant believe them, you can only believe us, we would never lie to you. ya sure..just some more of their BS!
Iraq and 911, didnt we go to war because Iraq also had WMD’s….heheheh and the BS never ends! {and some even say, well with what the leaders over there were doing to their people, the world is a better place for what we did in Iraq,..the BS with that alone is about four feet deep!}

No Kylie, I do not believe that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

However, they remained a threat to the entire region as long as Hussein remained in power, and they certainly had the motive and ability to provide a great deal of support and assistance to Al Queida, et al. under the “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” doctrine.

Remember that the U.N. had imposed sanctions on Iraq that it was then unwilling to enforce. Why? Because too many member countries of the Security Council had under the table deals going on with Iraq. Had the U.N. put our money where its’ mouth is, enforced the sanctions it had imposed, and sanctioned those members who ignored and/or circumvented those sanctions and continued to pour money into the Hussein Boys banks, we would NOT have had a reason to invade Iraq.

Before we get on to WMDs, lets not forget that Hussein had months to get rid of them while the U.N. sat on their hands.

I do realize that the media no longer reports the facts. They report their interpretations of events and issues. That is why I have no faith in the objectivity of our “journalists”.

I sure don’t recall much discussion in our media of how Al or the Taliban treat their prisoners, but put a pair on underpants on the head of a detainee – and we have to listen too it and see pictures of it for weeks. At least the POS SOB had a head to put his undies on!!

I suggest, to resolve many issues, both foreign and domestic, that we require that the first participants (the Beta Group) in our new National -uh-health (not insurance) care Program be a) All members of Congress and their families and heirs; b) all “journalists”; and c) the Taliban and Al Queida.

I am a non-practicing Agnostic (unorthodox) so I have no dog in the religious fight, but I do agree with you there. Zealotry in all forms is a dangerous thing.

Oh – and Kol. Klink, there are 19 double recipients of the C.M.H., not just one. The most famous might be Georgie Custer’s brother, Thomas, who died on the Greasy Grass with his brother. Tom got them during the Civil War, I believe.

What do you mean the sanctions against Iraq didn’t work? Why did Madeleine Albright say the price of the sanctions was worth it (that price being the deaths of half a million Iraqi children), if they hadn’t worked? Maybe they didn’t effect a regime change (the real reason for the sanctions) but they certainly helped rid the world of half a million tiny, future terrorists that we don’t have to fight “over here” OR “over there.”

Here’s those 23 seconds of Madeleine “It Was Worth It” Albright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

War, hell, etc.

Kemosabe – I got news for you. The “public option” that is the biggest sticking point in the current health care reform bill is basically the exact same option that ALL federal employees, INCLUDING congress, already have access to. And in the current health care reform bill, said “public option” is exactly that – AN OPTION. It means that NO ONE HAS TO TAKE IT. So unless your statements are about a health care reform proposal that is not currently being prepared for vote, your statements make no sense. And if you are referring to some other proposal, your statements are irrelevant.

You’re also showing your ignorance by implying that there was no prisoner abuse beyond putting a pair of underwear on someone’s head. I challenge you to undergo waterboarding, temperature and posture extremes while you are stripped naked except for a hood over your head, sexual and psychological abuse, and other abuses that those prisoners were put through and see if you then think that it is ok to treat people that way. Personally, while I do not have a death wish, I would rather be killed than put through months or years of that kind of abuse.

And now to the subject of WMDs and Hussein, I will remind you that the USA put Hussein into power in the first place, trained him up real good in how to wage war and gave him money and arms. Further, the good old USA is the ONLY country that has ever used WMDs against another country, we hold the worlds largest stockpile of WMDs, and our last president and vice-president were teetering dangerously on the edge of that slippery slope towards the rest of the world viewing them as fascist dictators. To borrow a phrase from the Christians, I’d say there but for the grace of God go we (except that I don’t really believe god has anything to do with it).