America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by ksbodman. 65 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Pentagon angered by photos from military mortuary
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
penzt8 Offline
#1 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 4:07 AM EST
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/04/22/mortuary.photos.ap/index.html

Excerpt: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

Here's my comment and question. The defense department allowed military photographers to take these photos. They had over 350 of them. Now the question. Why? If nobody is intended to see the photos why take them in the first place?

Is it so the Washington bigwigs can see them. You can bet these photos were circulated to the Pentagon brass and to congress and the president. Are they better than us and have more of a right to see the photos?
dbguru Offline
#2 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 7:10 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Look, IMHO as long as these type of photos don't involve body bags and parts or identify the deceased I see nothing disrespectful about showing them and no reason other than political ones to hide these images from the public. We had relatives of the deceased on our local radio yesterday endorsing the right to publish these photos.

And for those that say that it breaks the rules... and rules are rules.... What about when rules break the rules?? When the Pentagon creates rules to obscure images like these from the public these rules are most definitely violating the 1st Amendment in most everyone's opinion. Basically this rule was invented while Cheney was Secratary of Defense, Repealed by the Clinton Administration and reinstated when Dubya came into power. Isn't the 1st Amendment still part of the Constitution and aren't the values that created the Constitution pretty much what we fight for??
DrMaddVibe Offline
#3 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 7:25 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
When did Clinton repeal that?

He could've simply put in an Executive Order.

Rules are rules.

Some play by them, and some like to blur them or bend them with their own agenda.
dbguru Offline
#4 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 7:29 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
So what about when rules break rules and the rules they break is the Constitution??

Answer that one DMV????
dbguru Offline
#5 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 7:32 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
See I told you there would be right wing extremists like DMV out there who insist on "rules are rules"

How short sighted can you get

The NAZIs had rules, Stalin had rules, Saddam had rules, Pol Pot Had rules, Osama has rules too

Typical Fascist arguement!!! Rules are rules!!

lukin Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 7:43 AM EST
Joined: 03-31-2004
Posts: 2,205
>>Is it so the Washington bigwigs can see them. You >>can bet these photos were circulated to the Pentagon >>brass and to congress and the president. Are they >>better than us and have more of a right to see the >>photos?

While I agree with you that it is a violation of our first amendment rights, I would ask that you also consider the families of these soldiers. Perhaps they don't want the thought that their deceased son/daughter be flashed al over the nightly news. Perhaps they don't wan't pictures of coffins being unloaded while some reporter trashes Bush or the war. The comment that somehow the "bigwigs" in Washington are hoarding pictures of dead soldiers because they feel they are better than us is ridiculous no matter what side you are on. I have a question since the pictures are out now and you get a chance to see them, do you feel somehow better about yourself? Are you feeling that those politicians finally got knocked down a peg or two? Fact of the matter is, that the reason that these pictures were not allowed to be out is because people would use them to make political statements or use them for their own gain. These men and women sacrificed their lives and they deserve better than for people on some message board to be making a political issue out of the pictures of their coffins returning home
DrMaddVibe Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:00 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
When did Clinton try to repeal the Pentagon request?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:05 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
Another part of your statement makes me wonder if you ever served in uniform. While the Constitution is the framework for the US, it does not apply to soldiers. You are constantly told that you're a soldier first, and a citizen second. When you swear the oath to defend the Constitution you also enter the world of the UCMJ. The Uniform Code of Military Justice. I don't expect you to comprehend the UCMJ, but at least be informed of it.
ksbodman Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:09 AM EST
Joined: 07-05-2006
Posts: 57
Thank you, Lukin. You read my mind.
dbguru Offline
#10 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:11 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Lukin...
To answer your questions
do you feel somehow better about yourself?
How I feel about myself is completely irrelevent to this conversation. How I feel about myself is my own personal matter... Why would you even care about that and what prompted you to pose such an irrelevant question??

Are you feeling that those politicians finally got knocked down a peg or two?
Anyone who takes a position that defies the Constitution better have a good reason for doing so or they deserve to get knocked down. (Civil rights, Emancipation, etc. were good reasons) Quite frankly, I believe the motivation for obscuring these photos is promoted by this administration and the Dept of Defense as respect for the families but in fact is highly political and an attempt at cover up. And I find little eveidence that the families involved actually agree with the Pentagon on this one. The fact that it also defies the 1st Amendment is something these families are pretty aware of.

Quite frankly, I have always been pretty suspect of the Bush administration's respect for our Constitution and that is part of the basis for my oposition to them
DrMaddVibe Offline
#11 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:15 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
The oath to be taken by the president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

GW has stated this. What have you done to respect the Constitution?
dbguru Offline
#12 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:16 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Its not the pictures themselves that create a basis for a political statement.... Its the administration's support of rules which you, lukin, agree that violate the 1st amendment that create the political statement.

It is utter hypocrisy for the military to have rules that violate the constitution that they are sworn to defend.... This situation simply brings that to light.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#13 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:16 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
Nobody is asking for your approval on that matter.
dbguru Offline
#14 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:25 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Typical of your slime ball tactics DMV... Raise personal questions to belittle me??? I'm not playing that slimeball game. This is crap that Bush supporters are so good at. Its so slimy but so typical of the right wing.... People are becoming so aware of this crap..... Keep it up... you keep presenting yourself through the use of these personal attack tactics as the faschist right wing radical extremist that you are....

THESE ISSUES ARE NOT ABOUT ME...... GET IT OR DOES YOUR LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE NOT ALLOW TO DO SO???





dbguru Offline
#15 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:28 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
ITS NOT A PERSONAL ISSUE... ITS MUCH BIGGER THEN THAT!!!
ksbodman Offline
#16 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:31 AM EST
Joined: 07-05-2006
Posts: 57
dbguru,

Are you now or have you ever been in the military?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#17 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:31 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
What are you talking about? Personal attacks? It's a little early to be drinking isn't it?

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_milj.html

The person that took those pictures clearly falls into paragraph 5, sentence 4.

You don't have to like the rules, but they were meant to be obeyed. When it comes to military rules...they WILL be followed. Semantics don't apply.
uncleb Offline
#18 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:32 AM EST
Joined: 11-13-2002
Posts: 1,326
How is a person's military service relevent to this discussion?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#19 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:36 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
It's quite apparent that those that have served in uniform understand the UCMJ and the Constitution. Like I already stated, he might not have understood the UCMJ but you have to respect it.

A soldier is held accountable in a different manner than a civilian. A cilivian is held accountable to the military rules when traveling with the military or on their property.
dbguru Offline
#20 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:37 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Typical to draw my personal background into this... A slimey right wing Neo-con tactic
uncleb Offline
#21 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:37 AM EST
Joined: 11-13-2002
Posts: 1,326
Correct me if I am wrong, and I may be, but I do not believe a civilian can be court martialed. The picture that was published yesterday was taken by a civilian sub contractor.
dbguru Offline
#22 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:37 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
The person who took these picture was a civilian... remember??
ksbodman Offline
#23 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:39 AM EST
Joined: 07-05-2006
Posts: 57
"It is utter hypocrisy for the military to have rules that violate the constitution that they are sworn to defend.... This situation simply brings that to light."



uncleb,

I'll answer you when dbguru answers me. My response depends on his.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#24 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:39 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
On a military base...on a military aircraft...surrounded by military personnel...remember!!!
uncleb Offline
#25 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:42 AM EST
Joined: 11-13-2002
Posts: 1,326
Was this considered an "exercise"?
ksbodman Offline
#26 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:46 AM EST
Joined: 07-05-2006
Posts: 57
I asked a simple question, dbguru. Why did you answer with vitriolic name-calling? You sound a little defensive to me.
uncleb Offline
#27 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:51 AM EST
Joined: 11-13-2002
Posts: 1,326
Scott,

Why would you answering my question hinge on a response from DB?

DMV- From what I have read, it does not appear that the person that took these pictures would fall under the UCMJ. Also- if they did, wouldn't the military have arrested them and put them in the "brig" rather than just firing them?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#28 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:53 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
When an officer or an enlisted soldier gives a lawful order do you think for one second that they care about your Constitutional rights? You don't second guess the order, you carry it out. You don't offer your opinion, it wasn't asked for. You don't have to approve of the way the military operates, but it's the truth. If you refuse the order, you're put under arrest and someone WILL carry out the order. You don't have to like the military, but it WILL be respected!

Commands are given and in certain circumstances life and death decisions are made. They're not to be second guessed or discussed over. If it's capturing an enemy position or policing a field of cigarette butts you carry out the order to the BEST of your ability.

After Vietnam the US saw firsthand the will breaking determination of Kerry's anti-war demonstrators. It prevaded their own minds out in the field that they were just general issue and the orders that they were carried out went against what was going on back at Mary Rottencrotch's backyard pot war rally! This isn't a Bush initiative. It was there WAY before him. I'm still waiting for that Clinton repeal verification!

If this is some new discovery for some of you then swallow it in. I'm telling you the truth. Been there done that. I can tell when someone hasn't and won't!
dbguru Offline
#29 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:55 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Why should I answer a totally irrellevant question about my military background. It is nothing but a slimey tactic to bring my personal background into question... As I've said before this issue has nothing to do with my background ... My background is my personal and private business which I will share with you only if I choose to do so. Quite frankly I think it is absolutely shameful that you raise the question of my military background in the first place since it has nothing to do with the issues we are discussing and is nothing more than a slimey, shameful attempt on a personal attack.

But as a personal excersize you are welcome to tell us what your response would be if I answered yes and also what my response would be if I answered no so that people could see even more how irrelevant raising this kind of question is......

Have fun with that...
DB

And while we're on that topic Perhaps its a good time to reflect on Bush's and Cheney's military background. Why don't you focus on the integrity of their military background since they are in a public office. I'm a private citizen and your demand invades my privacy...
lukin Offline
#30 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:56 AM EST
Joined: 03-31-2004
Posts: 2,205
DBguru:
In your first post it seemed clear to me that you were angry because some "bigwigs" got to see those pictures and you didn't. I can see why you might think that this is somehow a political move for George W. Bush, but can't you just stop for one second and realize that these are soldiers who have laid down their lives in battle and you're throwing a fit because you want to see their pictures? Give it a rest man. Have some respect for the dead. Let the media continue to bash Bush and report numbers, but leave at least this for the families of the loved ones. Please don't turn this into a political issue. Its disrespectful and ugly.
dbguru Offline
#31 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:57 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Correction

But as a personal excersize you are welcome to tell us what your response would be if I answered yes and also what your response would be if I answered no
JonR Offline
#32 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 8:58 AM EST
Joined: 02-19-2002
Posts: 9,740
Yo dbguru: So what branch of the military service were you in and how long did you serve? Inquiring minds want to know. JonR
DrMaddVibe Offline
#33 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:00 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
Unc...around every base you'll find signs that state No Trespassing, No photography...yada yada yada. If this person(and it looks like she did!)violated that then the punishment suits the crime.
dbguru Offline
#34 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:01 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
What have I done to show disrespect for the families of the deceased? My repect for them runs deep for they're loss and my prayers are with them. The Exposure of these photos does nothing but amplify those feelings. Does hiding the photos which essentially trample on the 1st Amendment show them any respect for the Constitution they swore to defend (Under the UMCJ)???
dbguru Offline
#35 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:04 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
The only thing making angry is those of you supporting rules which violate our Constitution that have no reasonable justification other than a contrived assumption of respect for the families and a real political justification to hide images of the war and its truths from US Citizens.

DrMaddVibe Offline
#36 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:05 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
Did the dead soldiers sign waivers that authorized their likeness to be used without their permission?
lukin Offline
#37 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:06 AM EST
Joined: 03-31-2004
Posts: 2,205
Yes it does show respect for them. How far do you want to take it DB? How about instead we go out to the battlefeild? certainly YOU have a right to see everything under your first amendment. Lets just go to the military hospitals and photograph the dead as the arrive that way we can make sure that you are satisfied that your rights aren't being violated. I realize that this is a slippery slope arguement, but I would ask that you just drop this or at least that everyone else drop this thread in respect for the soldiers that have made the ultimate sacrifice and not give this guy some excuse to use the pictures of their coffins to make some political point.
uncleb Offline
#38 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:10 AM EST
Joined: 11-13-2002
Posts: 1,326
DMV- I have seen the signs you speak of.

In this case it strikes me as odd that, if there is such a strict rule against it, that none of the military personel that were present when she took the pics did not immediately confiscate her camera and remove her from the area. She was not disciplined at all until after the photo's became public. Perhaps this is one of those instances where "it's OK to take a pic just don't let anyone know we let you" type of things.
dbguru Offline
#39 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:11 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
These pictures do not identify any individual and hence do not convey any likeness to the deceased. My opinion does not extend to situations where pictures identify deceased indiviuals in any way. That is a different issue and really I think a matter for the families of those individuals to decide... not the military.
dbguru Offline
#40 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:12 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
I think I made that pretty clear earlier in this thread
DrMaddVibe Offline
#41 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:21 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
You're not the judge, jury and executioner either!
dbguru Offline
#42 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:30 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Did I ever claim to be......IT'S NOT ABOUT ME!!!!
DAMN.... I HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EXPRESS MYSELF HERE OK???
DrMaddVibe Offline
#43 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:33 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
LOL.


Blood pressure up?

Deep cleansing breath...step away from the situation...

What a hothead! Amusing in your ways, but a hothead!
dbguru Offline
#44 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:39 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
No I'm just calmly using capitals to express a point... And my blood pressure was just checked at 122/62 a couple of minutes ago pretty healthy....

DB

I may be a hothead in your opinion... for whatever that is worth... I know its not true.. I'm just trying to get you to think from a bit larger perspective than rules are rules.... (You do bring up valid situations where the rules matter... IMHO this is not one of them)

I guess one person's hothead is another person's passionate advocate..
DrMaddVibe Offline
#45 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:43 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
"Passionate advocate", now that's funny!

I still want to know about the Clinton repeal though.
JonR Offline
#46 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:45 AM EST
Joined: 02-19-2002
Posts: 9,740
Yo dbguru: My ears my ears ! Hey next time your going to shout at least warn us in advance. OBTW what branch of service did you say you were in ? JonR
Thom Offline
#47 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:51 AM EST
Joined: 12-08-2003
Posts: 6,117
Did anyone happen to notice that cbid took the pictures of the coffins off the picture post?
ksbodman Offline
#48 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 9:59 AM EST
Joined: 07-05-2006
Posts: 57
dbguru,

Thanks for finally answering my question. I already knew the answer, though.

As an active duty Naval Officer, I find it utterly ignorant for someone with no personal knowledge of the military and how it operates to pass judgement on how it carries out it's mission, which, by the way, is to protect your right to post nasty political screeds against our president/government and call people you don't know names on the internet.

Had your answer been, "Yes", I would have responded by asking you how you possibly misunderstood your service so completely.

There you go, uncleb.
dbguru Offline
#49 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 10:06 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_6783.shtml

Excerpt---------------------------------
The Pentagon has cited a policy instituted in 1991, during the Gulf War, as its reason for preventing news organizations from showing images of coffins arriving in the United States.

That policy was not consistently followed, however, and President Bill Clinton took part in numerous ceremonies honoring dead servicemen. In March 2003, the Pentagon issued a directive it said was established in November 2000, saying, "There will no be arrival ceremonies of, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from" air bases.
-----------------------------------------------------

The rule was established in the first Gulf war was not interpreted to be in effect after that war by both the press and the Clinton Administration from the end of the war and for the tenure of the Clinton Administration. According to this article The Pentagon claimed the rule to be established in November 2000 (when Bush was being selected for the presidency). Would the Pentagon state the rule was established in November of 2000 if it was in effect prior to that??

There you go...
-----------------------------------------------------

dbguru Offline
#50 Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2004, 10:08 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Scot...
You prove my point that the question you pose is nothing more than the basis for a personal attack which I maintain is a Slimey right wing Neo-con tactic... and irrellevant to this discussion.

Thank you so much for proving my point!!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top