| 0 |
Subject: Bring out your dead
Posted by: Tree
- Donor [599393013] Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 11:02
not a big fan of Kucinich, but this bit of website animation is right on...
hard hitting, but the truth... |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 112 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 14826271 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 22:06
|
:)
|
| 113 | James K Polk
ID: 329341615 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 22:07
|
And if you're talking about constitutional rights, then yes, we are not granted greater freedom of access. If something takes place on public property, or in a publically accessible place, we ought to be allowed to cover it.
|
| 114 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 22:12
|
PD 97 I saddened by your comment. :) You cannot run out of steam against a tree argument. He makes it too easy. And sporting events and presidential press conferences ..... in a discussion about viewing caskets?
AGAIN, show me where I am wrong. Not, YOU DON"T LIKE IT or IT IS YOUR RIGHT. When you go to court you have to use the Constitution or case law to prove you have the right. I said the Courts upheld the governments Constitutional right to not allow cameras for family privacy. I JUST ASKED SHOW ME.
BUT NO! My argument has lost steam. Let's see. Who is not watching caskets on TV? Whose argument has lost steam? Case Law says NO RIGHT.
============
tree 98 - now that is a statement from someones argument that has run out of steam [or never had any]. I need to reprint this sewction just for the laughs:
are you f*cking kidding me? find it in the Constitution where you're allowed to walk down the street, or type on a computer or eat tv dinners or fart in the privacy of your own home...jeez louise.... - Are you f*cking kidding me? That's the best you can do? Keep your day job if you were planning on a career as a stand up comedian. :):)
|
| 115 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 00:31
|
Toral, so the government should invite the press in, is that your understanding of the freedom of the press? Note that I did not say the Press does not have limits, but a free people need to enjoy free access to information, even information which can be politically damaging to the Administration.
MBJ, I did not, of course, say anything about journalists protecting sources. Perhaps you have gone astray yourself?
Steve: They were just examples. But I certainly believe that the government keeping the public completely away from images of returning dead soldiers is prior restraint (heck, it's practically the definition). Images of returning caskets is also the very definition, for many conservatives, of how we "lost Vietnam." Given the efforts to spin the media reporting as much as possible, the blanket ban is much like any other zero tolerance rule: Designed to shield the wielders from having to think.
Nonethless, it's important not to distort my position: I don't believe the Press can go and do anything without limit (sorry Mr. P). As Earl Warren put it in a mid-1960s case upholding a U.S. ban on travel to Cuba, “The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.” [italics mine]
pd
|
| 116 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 14826271 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 08:44
|
the government keeping the public completely away from images of returning dead soldiers is prior restraint (heck, it's practically the definition)
No. Maybe in your own lexicon; but, again, First Amendment prior restraint refers to a prohibition on publishing, not access. If you don't want to ubderstand, that's fine. But the gov't keeping reporters off of a miltary airbase has nothing to do with First Amendment prior restraint.
BTW, "gone astay". No. But your insistance on believeing the myth that the press has some inalienable right to back stage passes everywhere brought to mind the other myth, asa an aside. That's why I put the comment in (), 'cause it was parenthetical to the discussion.
|
| 117 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 09:35
|
If you don't want to ubderstand...
...your insistance on believeing the myth...
Feeling a bit sharp this morning?
Sorry we disagree, and more sorry that I seem to have insulted you in doing so. I've re-read my posts, and have nothing to add to them: One can't publish without access to the news. And any rights (Constitutional or no) are in balance with others. Insulting thoughts when spoken aloud, it appears.
pd
|
| 118 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 108231015 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 10:34
|
Come on PD. Disagreement, even calling your (in this case, tree's) position dead wrong, doesn't mean I'm being "sharp" and I know you know that.
I really don't know if the press should be taking pictures of those caskets. I just know they don't have a Constitutional right to do it.
|
| 119 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 10:43
|
As I pointed out myself, MBJ, I don't know either--in fact, I was just about to ask if Steve knew the procedure there (are the families there, maybe in a viewing area? Are the caskets identified at all?).
"If you don't want to understand" however, is a sharp phrase, unworthy of your usual posting style and level.
pd
|
| 120 | Toral Sustainer
ID: 2111201313 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 13:45
|
I believe the problem may arise, PD, because you don't distinguish between what the free-press guarantee has been understood to mean, both in jurisprudence and history, and what it should mean. If you want to take the position that the guarantee should extend to this situation, at least presumptively, subject to a balancing test, fine; that's your interpretation of the Constitution. But it hasn't been understood that way in law or history. To me, it seems like a prototypical example of the liberal approach: if I think it's a good idea, it must be in the Constitution somewhere, and I'll find some place to shoehorn it in.
I note the policy itself was universally panned on the comment shows over the weekend. My solution is to let the next of kin decide for each soldier. If we're talking about moral (not legal) "rights", I think the next-of-kin has a much higher standing than the "public's need to know".
Toral
|
| 121 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 14:05
|
And you certainly might be right--I'm not disagreeing with the balance being tilted in the favor of the family, particularly when they (and the soldier) can be identified.
On the flip side, I don't see a privacy issue at all when soldiers or family members are not identified.
pd
|
| 122 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 15:16
|
PD - one of the other reasons given is the families would feel compelled to come to Dover [or point of entry] if it was covered on TV. Dover is a mortuary. It prepares the bodies for release to family. The remains are then taken [and accompanied] to whatever funeral home the family desires.
From DOD link in post #96. =============== The Carson Center [DOVER] is a mortuary, Falk said, and it is inappropriate for media to be at a mortuary.
"The mission of a mortuary is to prepare remains with dignity, care and respect," she added. "If we expose that process to the media we lose that."
The court's decision was based on reducing the hardship of families and friends of the deceased, who may feel obligated to travel great distances to attend arrival ceremonies if such ceremonies were held, Falk said.
... Falk added that until the remains go through "a very careful, methodical process," it is not known whose remains are in which casket [I do not think this is normally the case - PD: I am sure in most cases there is a tag on each flag drapped casket identifying remains - which are verified at Dover and prepared for shipment to family]. "It's unfair to ask a family to go through this when you don't have 100 percent identification," she said.
============ [But usually the remains are not ready for release or shipment to the family].
|
| 123 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 15:22
|
Thanks, Steve. It's better to know the background on these things. I appreciate the insight.
pd
|
| 124 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 17:28
|
PD - I looked and it appears families would have to travel to point of entry at own expense [with assistance and coordination of a CAO/CACO]. Dependants are authorized travel on normally scheduled Military Transport Aircraft. I do not remember ever seeing any arrangements made by CAO/CACO officers for families wanting to meet remains at point of entry when I stood duty as CNO Area Rep for the Casualty Assisatnce Program. But I am sure some families do.
Some interesting reading if you do searches for [did not link because there were numerous items]
Military or Army or Air Force Casualty Assistance Officer [CAO in Army & Air Force] [Program]
Military or Navy or Marine Corps Casualty Assistance Call Officer [CACO in Navy & Marine Corps] [Program]
|
| 125 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 75249 Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 22:57
|
This may stir a previous debate, but...
NY Times article that has the "A U.S. Marine carrying a dead comrade after a gunfight today in Ramadi" picture.
I chose not to post the image here.
|
| 127 | Baldwin
ID: 20337320 Sat, Apr 10, 2004, 13:18
|
For those who just gotta see caskets and pictures of human remains, Iraq is the place.
|
| 128 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 14:15
|
Woman loses her job over coffins photo
just for you Baldwin. The cost of war.
|
| 129 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 17:56
|
How cheerful you must have been after finding that pic Tree. Eureka!
|
| 130 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 17:59
|
Baldwin, i wasn't looking for it. but government censorship is news...
|
| 131 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 10:25
|
Kerry Condemns Firings Over Coffin Photos
|
| 132 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 13:06
|
Now that the Dover photos are out, I'm curious about some of the opinions that were expressed way back when, when there was a debate on the boards over whether they should be kept out of the public's sight. I know steve houpt was a passionate believer in not releasing the photos, but I'm not sure he's around the boards much now.
So for anyone else who didn't support releasing these photos, do you think they are disrespectful, or an invasion of privacy? Do you think they are simply intended to stir up antiwar sentiment?
|
| 133 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:07
|
Their release was of course intended to stir up anti-war sentiment. I expect the release at the same time as the news of the Tillman death will do the exact opposite.
|
| 134 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:10
|
The release by whom, Baldwin? The government? The media? I saw those photos all over supposed right-leaning media. You're arguing that the reason that Matt Drudge and FOX News Channel bombarded us with them was to stir up anti-war sentiment?
|
| 135 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:16
|
I am speaking of the motives of the women who got fired for doing so. I am correct on that and it's been posted in this forum. Do I really have to dig it up again?
|
| 136 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:26
|
No, I believe I heard the same. So what? My point is that her intentions aren't the issue. Did you think that the media's use of the photos was disrespectful to the families of the fallen soldiers? Was it an invasion of their privacy?
|
| 137 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:27
|
The motives of the woman who provided the photo in post 128? You're wrong.
|
| 138 | sarge33rd
ID: 16329266 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:34
|
indeed JKP. The photos were NOT taken for political purpose, in that the intent had nothing to do with stirring up much of anything. That is, outside of a sense of empathy for the families. The photo was taken because the woman in question, found the sight to be a stirring one. A sentiment, I would have to agree with.
In answer to MITH's question, No. I do not find the photos offensive. No names are included to ID the fallen. They are (in terms of the photo), anonymous personnel. I fail to see how I can be insulted, when I am not identified.
|
| 139 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:38
|
...[They] say their decision to go public had nothing to do with politics.
But it turns out that four years ago the duo, Tami Silicio and Amy Katz, sued Halliburton, then run by Vice President Dick Cheney, naming Cheney in the suit. __________________________________________________
Radio host Siegel said on Friday that the Katz-Silicio lawsuit against Cheney raises questions about the politics behind the casket-photo story, saying the two women likely had an ax to grind against the Bush administration.
He also chastised the press for not noting the Katz-Silicio lawsuit, asking, "What does that say about the Seattle Times, which printed the photo without doing any investigation?"
Ms. Katz insisted last night that neither she nor Silicio had any political motivation, telling MSNBC that they thought publishing the photo was a good way of honoring the fallen troops.
She admitted, however, that she has retained an agent to help sell the casket photo, with the proceeds to be divided between charity and a fund to help pay Silicio's debts in the wake of her firing. If you believe the action was not meant to harm the Bush/Cheney war effort I have a bridge to sell you.
|
| 140 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:41
|
I don't have a blanket position on the use of the photos however. If it was done to make the sacrifices those boys made futile then that would be disprespectful in the extreme but I am sure not every report had that thrust.
|
| 141 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:53
|
but I am sure not every report had that thrust.
This indicates that you felt there was a strong presence of such a thrust. Or is that not how you are leaning?
|
| 142 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:57
|
Knowing how liberal the media is, I have no doubt many reports were intended to fuel the 'let's cut our losses and run like little girls' POV which makes the sacrifices those boys made less than worthless.
I of course can't monitor every report.
|
| 143 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 15:03
|
Interesting. I'd beinterested in seeing some mainstream reports that used the photos to further that POV. How about just one?
|
| 144 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 15:09
|
First of all, it's false on its face to say the Seattle Times printed the photo without doing any investigation. I've read plenty on the process they went through in making the decision to run the photo.
Second, did you read what Silicio's lawsuit was about?
"Tami Silicio drove a truck for the company, which she noted is traditionally a male profession. When she refused sexual propositions from co-workers, they started calling her names like 'bitch' and 'whore,' according to a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.
"Additionally, the coworkers told her 'you should be at home pleasing a man and not at work trying to be one.' After reporting this to upper management, she was fired in retaliation, according to the complaint." So your argument is that because she filed this lawsuit over her firing and sexual harrassment four years ago, she now can't possibly be honest when she says she thinks this photo honors our war dead? Wouldn't that be kind of like arguing that it's impossible for George W. Bush to have decent intentions in Iraq, because he has an ax to grind from the early 90s?
Nobody has come out and disputed any of the current descriptions of Silicio as one who has great respect for U.S. soldiers and their families. Bringing up an unrelated lawsuit from before the war is a classic smear. And the way Newsmax reported it is classic Newsmax (which is also to say "classic smear.") Notice how the characterization of the suit goes from "sued Halliburton, naming Cheney" to "complaint against Cheney's company" to "lawsuit against Cheney."
I think you are the gullible one on this, Baldwin.
|
| 145 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 15:12
|
I may when I have the time. I would however point out how sure Tree is that these photos made that point. Why were liberals clamboring for these photos? It's obvious.
|
| 146 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 15:13
|
I'd be curious how she feels about her son joining the marines. The reports haven't said.
|
| 147 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 15:21
|
Well, her son says she'll be proud of him. Do you have any reason to doubt him?
When you get around to doing your research, there's plenty of links to start from here. Be sure to hit this link, which will give you a list of places that ran the photos front-page.
I've been reading plenty on this Baldwin, and I just don't think your assumptions match up with the reality of coverage. The photos are solemn, respectful, dignified. The coverage has reflected that.
|
| 148 | sarge33rd
ID: 16329266 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 17:55
|
...and I just don't think your assumptions match up with the reality...
Nothing new there though, is there really?
|
| 149 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 21:09
|
I'm sure most of them are careful. Being obviously disrespectful would be a real broadcasting third rail. I am also sure most of them share the feelings of NPR which has been beating the retreat drums as hard as they can since the beginning.
|
| 150 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Tue, Apr 27, 2004, 10:39
|
I am also sure most of them share the feelings of NPR which has been beating the retreat drums
If you mean to accuse the media of wanting to see the US pull out of Iraq, I don't understand where you are getting this. I don't believe I've noticed any mainstream outlets implicitly (or otherwise) in support a pullout. Even most leftist columnists that have commented on the issue have made clear that they don't support a pullout. In fact, I can only think of a handfull of recognizable people that espouse leaving Iraq, and none of them is taken any more seriously than Dennis Kucinich.
|
| 151 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 11:18
|
'Nightline' Devotes Show to Reading War Dead Names
|
| 152 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 14:27
|
This is 'respectfully' banging the retreat drums. You can't call them on it but if they had their way they'd make every one of those deaths go for nothing.
|
| 153 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 15:17
|
Baldwin: our resident thought-cop.
|
| 154 | bibA Donor
ID: 261028117 Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 15:53
|
So Baldwin - Why do you think they believe as they do? Stupidity? Love of terrorists? Death wish?
|
| 155 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 18:01
|
Instapundit on Nightline...I'LL NEVER TRUST NIGHTLINE AGAIN -- because its producer, Leroy Sievers, claims to be unaware of when ratings sweeps take place:Koppel, also in the announcement, acknowledged that Memorial Day might have been "the most logical occasion" to do the program. Ya think?
"But we felt that the impact would actually be greater on a day when the entire nation is not focused on war dead," he said.
Ah yes, and, of course, Memorial Day falls outside the May sweeps, when viewer levels are used by the networks to set advertising rates. Memorial Day is also traditionally a day of very low television viewing. He forgot to mention that stuff.
Sievers and others we spoke with at ABC News insisted they did not realize that the May sweeps start tomorrow. - WP
So Nightline is staffed by either clueless idiots unfit to work in TV, or by shameless liars who think we'll fall for anything. Which is it?
Who cares? - Instapundit
|
| 156 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 18:02
|
bibA
Start a thread on it. It's a good question.
|
| 157 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 20:15
|
You have got to read this. The last ride of Lance Corporal Chance Phelps.
|
| 158 | Tree
ID: 403512920 Thu, Apr 29, 2004, 22:54
|
Sinclair Stations to Boycott 'Nightline' Tribute
the only people who think this is a bad idea are those who are fearful that the American public might actually see a light switch flicker on when they realize that there are names to go along with the numbers.
i mean, while we're at it, why don't we knock down the f*cking Vietnam Vet monument in D.C. - i mean, we don't need to know their names, don't we?
get real people...
|
| 159 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, May 03, 2004, 16:16
|
Koppel to Read Names of Saddam's Victims
(2004-04-30) -- ABC-TV journalist Ted Koppel, who caused a firestorm of controversy with his plan to read the names of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, today announced that in the interest of balance and fairness next week he will read another list on his show, Nightline.
"I would never want anyone to accuse me of bias. After all, I'm a journalist, devoted to accurately portraying world events," said Mr. Koppel. "So, next week I will read the list of Iraqis who were raped, tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein's regime after President George H.W. Bush declared victory in the Gulf War on February 28, 1991."
Mr. Koppel said next week's Nightline will be a "special extended episode starting Friday and running non-stop until the day I retire from ABC." -
Scrappleface
|
| 160 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Thu, Feb 26, 2009, 16:13
|
Pentagon to allow photos of returning war dead
|
| 161 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Jan 09, 2012, 05:43
|
Tony Blankly, dead at 63. From 1990 to 1997, he served as press secretary and general adviser to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, ultimately earning a reputation among political friends and foes as one of Washington’s most genial, quick-witted and effective operatives.
Mr. Gingrich, campaigning in New Hampshire on Sunday for the Republican presidential nomination, called his former press secretary a “very dear friend” and a key part of the team behind the 1994 Contract With America.
“His father had been the accountant for Winston Churchill. Tony grew up with this deep passionate commitment, that I think he got from his dad, for freedom,” Mr. Gingrich said. “Tony was a very special person. He was more than a great professional. He was a great human being. He was a caring and loving person. He was a tremendous amount of fun, remarkably erudite and educated.”
Born in London, Mr. Blankley became a naturalized American citizen after his parents moved to California after World War II. As a child, he acted in such television shows as “Lassie,”“Highway Patrol” and “Make Room for Daddy,” and appeared in movies with such stars as Humphrey Bogart and Rod Steiger.
He met Ronald Reagan at a 1950s-era USO performance and later volunteered to work on all of Reagan’s campaigns for governor and president.
A Loyola Marymount University law school graduate, Mr. Blankley later served six years in the Reagan administration in a variety of positions, including speechwriter and senior policy analyst. He also spent 10 years as a prosecutor with the California attorney general’s office.
Mr. Blankley joined the staff of John F. Kennedy Jr.’s George magazine as a contributing editor before taking over The [Washington] Times‘ editorial section in 2002. His clear simple and surefooted writing revealed his mastery of political analysis.
How does one family figure in the lives of Winston Churchill, Reagan and Gingrich [at the peak of his influence]? Remarkable good fortune, humble, pleasant, a character of integrity in all aspects of life as far as I can tell.
|
| 162 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Mon, Jan 09, 2012, 10:30
|
Sad. Didn't know he was sick.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: Bring out your dead
|