I don't necessarilly blame the woman's company for firing her since they obviously must have thought their continued business with the miltary was threatened, but I do have a problem with the way the US Miltary/Government appears to be going out of its way to minimize the impact of American service people dying in Iraq.
By the pricking of my thumb,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
The policy of trying to kill the dead again, this time with keeping silent about them, is extremly offending. This is actually the first photo of that kind, I see from Iraq.
Defense officials said the purpose of the policy is to protect the privacy of the soldiers' families - not to circumvent or violate the Freedom of Information Act or any other law.
``Quite frankly, we don't want the remains of our servicemembers who have made the ultimate sacrifice to be the subject of any kind of attention that is unwarranted or undignified,'' said John Molino, a deputy undersecretary of defense.
Defense officials said the purpose of the policy is to protect the privacy of the soldiers' families - not to circumvent or violate the Freedom of Information Act or any other law.
``Quite frankly, we don't want the remains of our servicemembers who have made the ultimate sacrifice to be the subject of any kind of attention that is unwarranted or undignified,'' said John Molino, a deputy undersecretary of defense.
Seriously such bullshit unless her said website is nothing more then sensationlism.
These people gave their lives, if they get some attention for their actions...all the better. Keeping death toll under wraps because the occupation isn't hunky dory is just sick.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!
Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all
Silicio said she never sought to put herself in the public spotlight. Instead, she said, she hoped the publication of the photo would help families of fallen soldiers understand the care and devotion that civilians and military crews dedicate to the task of returning the soldiers home.
"It wasn't my intent to lose my job or become famous or anything," Silicio said.
The Times received Silicio's photograph from a stateside friend, Amy Katz, who had previously worked with Silicio for a different contractor in Kosovo. Silicio then gave The Times permission to publish it, without compensation. It was paired with an article about her work in Kuwait.
The article also says that the company she worked for also fired her husband who (obviously) also worked for the same company.
By the pricking of my thumb,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
Hmmm, I see what they're trying to do (goverment) but I disagree with the path they've chosen to go about it. On the woman, she did the crime, she'll do the time.
If I was in charge, I'd have let a pool of photojournalists in to take the pictures and then have an attack dog team (political, not real) ready to smack down the evivitable barrage of political opertunists.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
Tribun wrote:The policy of trying to kill the dead again, this time with keeping silent about them, is extremly offending. This is actually the first photo of that kind, I see from Iraq.
would you want a news phographer riding around in the hearse taking pictures of your coffin or the coffin of your family members?
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” -Tom Clancy
Defense officials said the purpose of the policy is to protect the privacy of the soldiers' families - not to circumvent or violate the Freedom of Information Act or any other law.
``Quite frankly, we don't want the remains of our servicemembers who have made the ultimate sacrifice to be the subject of any kind of attention that is unwarranted or undignified,'' said John Molino, a deputy undersecretary of defense.
Is it just me, or is there some discrepency between this and the photo? I don't think anyone really has to worry about their privacy in this photo because there is nothing in the photo that could identify the dead soldiers or their families. All the coffins are covered, there are no labels that I can see, and the soldier closest to the camera if facing away.
-Damien
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap. Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow. My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits. "Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
Defense officials said the purpose of the policy is to protect the privacy of the soldiers' families - not to circumvent or violate the Freedom of Information Act or any other law.
``Quite frankly, we don't want the remains of our servicemembers who have made the ultimate sacrifice to be the subject of any kind of attention that is unwarranted or undignified,'' said John Molino, a deputy undersecretary of defense.
Seriously such bullshit unless her said website is nothing more then sensationlism.
These people gave their lives, if they get some attention for their actions...all the better. Keeping death toll under wraps because the occupation isn't hunky dory is just sick.
They aren't keeping the death toll under wraps though. They are protecting the privacy of the soldiers and their families. Sure, some might not mind but there are others that would and when you have them all in a plane like that you can't give the photographers the freedom to do as they will when there may be families that object to that.
In the end, this woman's problem boils down to whether or not she knowingly violated the terms and conditions of her employment.
If the rules specifically stated 'No Cameras or Photography Allowed', then I have no sympathy for her as she knew the penalties if she got caught.
If there was no such prohibition on the part of her employer, then I'm much more sympathetic to her. Though it doesn't matter much as sympathy and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.
Unless her husband helped her violate the rules, firing him as well is simply bullshit.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
I don't buy the privacy issue for several reasons. First of all, as someone else pointed out, there are no identifying markers on the caskets. Secondly, these aren't photos taken of private funeral proceedings for the soldiers. We don't see grieving spouses, parents, children, etc. just soldiers paying their respects to their fallen compatriots.
Above all that though, the American people have a right to see more than just the raw number of fallen. Every single one of those flag-covered caskets contains the body of a soldier who died trying to secure the same rights we take for granted for people they don't even know and who, in some cases, violently hate them for it. They died for every person who believes in freedom and this is the only way most of us will ever get to see them. They are part of my extended family, and I have as much of a right to see them off as I do any of my own kin.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, when he said, "I drank what?" -- Chris Knight, Real Genius
Cromag wrote:I don't buy the privacy issue for several reasons. First of all, as someone else pointed out, there are no identifying markers on the caskets. Secondly, these aren't photos taken of private funeral proceedings for the soldiers. We don't see grieving spouses, parents, children, etc. just soldiers paying their respects to their fallen compatriots.
Above all that though, the American people have a right to see more than just the raw number of fallen. Every single one of those flag-covered caskets contains the body of a soldier who died trying to secure the same rights we take for granted for people they don't even know and who, in some cases, violently hate them for it. They died for every person who believes in freedom and this is the only way most of us will ever get to see them. They are part of my extended family, and I have as much of a right to see them off as I do any of my own kin.
Why would she be fired then? Why would the government have such an issue with this? As for them being a part of your extended family, that may be so but that doesn't grant you the same right as if they were your own kin.
Wow, we're real sophisticated a culture to fire people over censorship to make the presidential administration look good.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
Meh. I am bothed by the apologism. The rules themselves are bullshit to make Bush's ass shiner come election day, and now a couple's unemployed because of it.
Fuck them.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Why would she be fired then? Why would the government have such an issue with this? As for them being a part of your extended family, that may be so but that doesn't grant you the same right as if they were your own kin.
My understanding is that she was fired for going against the policy of not taking photos of the caskets. I don't really have a problem with someone being fired for doing something they were explicitly told not to do, but I do have a problem with the policy itself. As to the motives of Shrub and his cronies? It's an election year and in past wars, Vietnam in particular, pictures of dead soldiers being prepared for the trip home were thought to be a large part of the reason that public opinion turned against the war. Both the Pentagon and Shrubby would much rather no one see what the human cost of this war is, might make people think about what lousy reasons they had for sending so many of our young men and women off to their deaths and he may not get to serve an undeserved second term.
I tried to make it obvious in my first paragraph that I would consider photos of private funeral processions an invasion of privacy (unless, of course, permission were granted by the family beforehand). I would indeed find that unacceptable. I realise I don't have the same exact rights as the soldiers' biological family, but I don't see why I should be totally denied a chance to see the sacrifice they made and to honor them.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, when he said, "I drank what?" -- Chris Knight, Real Genius
Col. Crackpot wrote:
would you want a news phographer riding around in the hearse taking pictures of your coffin or the coffin of your family members?
what´s the problem with taking photos of a coffin. it´s a box made out of wood. i can´t see how it would be degrading to the body inside.
do you watch cnn or some other news occasionally. they show dead people there all the time, even without cofins surounding them. so if you really think it´s so bad i suggest you quit watching the news and start boycotting cnn and fox news for being so utterlly unethical to show shot, exploded, and squished people.
this is even less "bad" since the soldiers are all in totally anonymous standard ami cofins.
Wow, we're real sophisticated a culture to fire people over censorship to make the presidential administration look good.
This policy has been around for VERY long time about the prohbitiation, blaming this on the current adminstration is kind of like blaming it for say letting prohabition be overturned
Frankly as a servicememeber it offends the heck out of me that this women did it for two main reasons
First the dead are to be treated with dignity, espically those that gave their lives for a cause as they did
Second, I know... I KNOW it won't be to long before I see some FUCKFACE of a protester with this on his little carboard holdup sign with a caption like, They got what they deserved or some other such bullshit.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Mr Bean wrote:
Second, I know... I KNOW it won't be to long before I see some FUCKFACE of a protester with this on his little carboard holdup sign with a caption like, They got what they deserved or some other such bullshit.
Too late, the left has started to use these.......why am I not surprised, Bean?
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
These people have paid teh ultimate price in defense of their country,
and they don't need images of their mortal remains being used by political
hacks ala Vietnam.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Wow, we're real sophisticated a culture to fire people over censorship to make the presidential administration look good.
Hey, Tell that to the poor newsboys who couldn't publish pictures of dead
Americans in World War II until about 1943.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
MKSheppard wrote:Hey, Tell that to the poor newsboys who couldn't publish pictures of dead
Americans in World War II until about 1943.
WWII was a defensive total war whereas Iraq is a comparatively minor war of choice as such we don’t have to accept the same restrictions upon our liberties whilst fighting it.
MKSheppard wrote:Hey, Tell that to the poor newsboys who couldn't publish pictures of dead
Americans in World War II until about 1943.
WWII was a defensive total war whereas Iraq is a comparatively minor war of choice as such we don’t have to accept the same restrictions upon our liberties whilst fighting it.
I don't really understand why the nature of a conflict should affect whether or not we should allow for images of fallen soldiers, or should affect what images of any sort are permissible or not permissible.
Moreover, by allowing the government to claim that any defensive war automatically creates additional protections, you are in fact advocating censorship and encouraging the government to deceive people: anathema to the ideals of a free press.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
