It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WAR: Louisiana National Guard Defies Pentagon Ban On Filming Coffins

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 03:08 AM
A Louisiana national Guard unit has allowed a news crew to film the arrival of the flag draped coffins of killed service men despite a Pentagon directive not to do so. A spokesman for the guard unit stated that they were honoring the request of the families to do so. All six had died when terrorist detonated a roadside bomb
A US National Guard unit has defied a Pentagon request that sought to stop television news crews filming six flag-draped soldiers' coffins arriving in Louisiana.

The Pentagon has barred US media from filming the coffins of US service members arriving at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

But the Louisiana National Guard allowed a CBS news crew on Wednesday to film the arrival of six soldiers' coffins at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Belle Chasse, near New Orleans, Louisiana.

Despite the Pentagon request, Lieutenant-Colonel Pete Schneider, a spokesman for the Louisiana National Guard told CBS: "What we thought was, we're going to do what the family asked us to do."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I for one do not see why the Pentagon wishes that we do not see this. The ghosts of Vietnam are long gone, and I think the sacrifice that these men and women make should not be allowed to go unnoticed. Kudos to this National Guard unit for honoring the wishes of the families. I hope that there is not backlash from Rums field who the last time I checked has a fit if his directives are ignored.

Related News Links:

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:45 AM
Yeah, but I'll bet you that if Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld was visiting Iraq and got killed by some insurgents, the media would not be allowed to film their caskets on the return home either, right? After all, the war over there is going so well, the administration would not want the mere death of a high head of state to get in the way, and cast bad publicity on all the progress, right? Well at least the widow could take comfort in that she could always call Lieutenant-Colonel Pete Schneider for a little publicity and post mortem glory.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by TrueAmerican]

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:00 AM
"what the hell, there´s been six people killed in the Iraq war?,"

"No Mr. President, " ...whisper ...whisper

"Yes, yes, I know all about those poor bastard Iraqis - but this is six of OUR men - can´t you send them some bullet proof vests or something?,"

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:06 AM
The same loving and devoted media that adores GW would never, ever, use such images for anti-war propaganda. Oh no never...............

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 04:36 PM
My son, Sergeant Armand Luke Frickey, Louisiana Army National Guard, was one of the six men buried in the televised funeral. The news crew set up their camera across a bayou (a waterway large enough to be a "creek" or small river in other places) and two small highways from the funeral home. So the CBS camera crew and all the other newsies with cameras had to use lenses large enough for amateur astronomy.

Viewing the footage later, I felt degraded and my privacy affronted. But it wasn't my decision as to whether to permit cameras, it was the dead's next of kin, the wives of the married troops (including our daughter-in-law, who is a terrific person), and they were unanimous in wishing to allow the newsies in. I respected that opinion, and so did the Army National Guard.

I totally support freedom of the press, but not when it involves catching people in the throes of grief and using it in a way that foreseeably works against what the men who died believed in. All of those men were there because they believed in what our country was doing in Iraq.

Not two weeks before he died, my son voiced his frustration at the press' decision to completely ignore the good the Coalition (including our Army) is doing in Iraq and the almost complete support our troops have among local villagers. They were free to speak about this good news but until the elections a few months after my son's death, they did not. I have difficulty respecting people who tell the news selectively, not reporting stories which don't confirm their ideological biases.

Making it difficult for the for-profit, leftist partisan news industry to invade the lives and privacy of bereaved family members when they're already in the special hell known only to those who have lost sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives is not in any way against the Constitution. Our suffering is, or ought to be, none of their business. I envy the people who were able to say goodbye to their lost loved ones without the press standing by.

Besides, other family members made themselves available for the press - people who lived in the area and had almost no social contact with my son because of needless conflicts fomented by Luke's maternal grandmother. Said grandmother whined and sniffled throughout an entire local television interview in which she gave no indication that her last correspondence with my son was a vindictive screed to him about his failure to stay long enough at a "farewell party" she hosted right before Luke left for Iraq. She and my son were by no means close.

The longest and one of the most horrible days of MY life - when I learned one of my sons had died - was made unnecessarily worse when said maternal grandmother of my son called, and called, and called, and called our home demanding we put "her" memorial service (one conducted by clergy and members of a church to which my son did not subscribe and had made a point of not attending while he was alive) in my son's obituary.

I had no influence over that decision, but even if I had, nothing would have set my face against it harder than Luke's maternal grandmother's behavior on that day, when civilized people were offering their condolences, not shouting demands over the telephone to me. I attended only the memorial service my son would have wished, the one provided by the National Guard at the funeral home because my son would have expressed nothing but contempt for the "other" memorial service.

The press' decision to make an "event" of the funerals of my son and his squad may have precipitated this behavior, or it may simply have been one of countless cases in which my mother-in-law exhibited controlling behavior (which later included lies told to members of my family and others) to get her way.

Regardless, it would have been much better if we had been left to grieve in privacy - it might have removed the temptation to self-aggrandize for the benefit of the press from certain people.

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 04:51 PM
Thank you for that personal account. My condolences to you and your family for your loss and my gratitude for your and your son's sacrifice. It is sad that those who claim to be so sensitve to the feelings of others always seem to be willing to trample the feelings of others when their agenda can be furthered by doing so.

[edit on 2005/6/21 by GradyPhilpott]


log in