WAR: Families Angered by Crosses at War Protest

Cross placed on the road to President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch have drawn the ire of many families of fallen U.S. solders. The crosses are similar to those places on graves mirror a similar protest known as "Arlington West" in Santa Monica, California. The crosses were erected by Veterans for Peace whom some families accuse of making a political statement.



Well it is a political statement. However, it is allowed under the first amendment. If the crosses contained actually names I would draw the line especially if it was a loved one of mine and they did not get permission. I have stated before in several threads, this is one for the classrooms to discuss int he future. A simple meeting without committing to anything would have taken the wind out of the sails of this protest which now looks like it has serious legs. I expect that when the vacation is over, the camp will relocate to Washington with the President.

According to the posted article the crosses do have names on them. I respect their right to peacefully protest the war, but do they have the right to use the names of casualties? I would hope not. I mean what if I were to name a tank "The Cindy Sheehan"? They should have to have signed authorization from the next of kin to be able to use someone's name. Another question I have is are they violating the local laws by posting these crosses along the road? Are these crosses affecting the visability of drivers in the area?

Even if it's protected under the right of free speech, and even though I support the anti-Iraq-war protest, I think it's in very bad taste and bordering on serious disrespect to use names without the permission of the families.

You can be assured that if they were violating any local laws, they would be warned, arrested or otherwise corrected. THis is the president's neighborhood. The crosses are less than 2 feet high and there are probably 2 drivers per day driving by. It's a VERY rural area.

spelling

[edit on 24-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

The crosses at Crawford do display the names of the fallen, and I know of one member of a family who lost their son, a Marine, in Iraq that requested his name removed from the cross representing him. I'm sure there will be more as the polarization regarding the expression of anti-war sentiment increases and the backlash begins. The "You don't speak for us, Cindy" tour is in San Diego today, and reaches Crawford Saturday.

I saw one of the organizers of this tour on 'Crossfire' yesterday, and he was extremely hostile to the lady (a candidate for Congress) representing the anti-war movemment. I think things will get uglier before they settle down. It gives me chills now to listen to Neil Young's "Four Dead in Ohio", about the Kent State incident. I have a bad feeling about this coming confrontation.

Family of fallen Marine removes name from Texas war protest

[edit on 24-8-2005 by Icarus Rising]

My commet regarding this is patently against the new, more stringent rules for posting, so those who know me may extrapolate from the story some approximation of what I would have to say of this practice and those who engage in such.

I would speak your mind here Grady.
Ok, you might get a warning for it, but if it has to be said , then it has to be said.
This type of symbolic action by the arm chair briggade goes against all the morals of the families that have lost loved ones.

If any of my families name was on a cross at this place, you can bet your a$$ that i would be well pissed off at it.

Guys, its a memorial in honor of the fallen at a war protest. Your objection is not to the memorial, but to who is sponsoring it, and is motivated I'm sure by the 'baby killer' diatribe that returning vets faced during Vietnam war protests. I understand and commiserate with your discomfiture, but lets get this into context and perspective, shall we?

I would really like to state my opinion on the crosses being used as a memorial but I agreed to abide by the descision on the posting of inflamitory remarks. I will stand by that pledge.

The privacy of the names is a non-issue. A quick Google can get you all of the names of the military members killed in Iraq, with pictures, and how they died. Their names are hardly a national secret.

This reminds me of the time 'Nightline' tried to honor the fallen by listing their names, and was somehow twisted to be a bad thing. It really sickens me that some could be so petty to think that they alone have a right to honor dead soldiers. I guess it makes sense in a way though. These are usually the same people who believe that only a certain segment of Americans deserve any kind of rights whatsoever.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I mean what if I were to name a tank "The Cindy Sheehan"?

Hey I like that thought.


AS I recall in the past several members did name tanks, at least during WWII they did. Perhaps those that have family members driving or commanding tanks should suggest they use her name and see how she likes it. Boy She would be real but who cares

What she and others are doing is disrespectful.

Or how about this, what say we convert the old saying used also during WWII "Kilroy was here", only in this case they should insert Cindy Sheehan was here

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I would speak your mind here Grady.
Ok, you might get a warning for it, but if it has to be said

WRONG

If he is incapable of expressing his feelings without resorting to political partisan rubbish than he is right to keep it to himself.

The names written on crosses are just one of the many forms the information can take if someone wants to give it meaning. The names could be spoken in a monotone voice, or could be omitted (a list with all names except those of the dead), or written in the forehead of pigs sent to the slaughter. What then?
No one owns any names.
Their feeling is understandable as a form of sympathy for the dead, but from the report I notice there is also an element of disappointment connected with the gullibility that played a part in the unhappy destiny of their deceased relatives.

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I would speak your mind here Grady.
Ok, you might get a warning for it, but if it has to be said

WRONG

If he is incapable of expressing his feelings without resorting to political partisan rubbish than he is right to keep it to himself.

Thanks subz. You are correct!!! If anyone is incapable of expressing their opinion without the mudslinging and political bickering then their opinion isn't worth much to me.

You have voted subz for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by StarBreather

No one owns any names.

I think you might be wrong about that. Certainly, the unauthorized use of one's identity is the source of much litigation.

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I would speak your mind here Grady.
Ok, you might get a warning for it, but if it has to be said

WRONG

If he is incapable of expressing his feelings without resorting to political partisan rubbish than he is right to keep it to himself.

You want to know something, subz, your partisan rubbish offends me and I would appreciate it if you kept it to yourself, as you council others to do, and that goes for you, too, redhat.


[edit on 2005/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]

What really bothers me the most about this is that the anti-war protest in Crawford was mad up mostly of grieving family members of fallen soldiers. Not everyone in that protest has a "liberal agenda". Not everyone who is anti war has a "liberal agenda". There are MANY people who originally supported this war when it started, and when they found out that the actual reasons we went were NOT the reasons given to us orignally, they are upset -rightly so.

How can you say that families that are grieving are doing so with a political bias? That is what amazes me about some people. Do people not have the right to be upset when their sons or daughters will never come home again?

I lost a cousin to this pointless war about a year and a half ago from a road side bomb. The letters that he sent home to his family were not those of a proud soldier. He hated being there, but followed his orders none the less because that is what he signed up for. I can guarantee that his parents are very against this war and are upset because of their loss.

This whole war has been fueled by catch phrases and slogans and people have been eating them up. People are so blinded by patriotism that they dont even see when we have crossed the line. Now we are turning on families of fallen soldiers and calling their grief a political bias.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by StarBreather

No one owns any names.

I think you might be wrong about that. Certainly, the unauthorized use of one's identity is the source of much litigation.

I was speaking in the absolute sense, regardless of the current set of prejudices that passes as intellectual property law.
In that sense, names are just labels attached to objects. The same name can be given opposite meanings in different contexts.
We can even wonder if the dead would agree or disagree with the protest of their own families, were they alive.
I think the only solid basis to proceed here is to support free speech. The rest is just speculation based on temporary emotional reactions.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by StarBreather

No one owns any names.

I think you might be wrong about that. Certainly, the unauthorized use of one's identity is the source of much litigation.

Absoutely correct Grady, even film makers add a disclaimer at the beginning of the film stating that any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

Originally posted by shots

Absoutely correct Grady, even film makers add a disclaimer at the beginning of the film stating that any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

Yes, but I'm sure Britany Spears doesn't authorize the use of her name every time it appears on 'Entertainment Tonight', nor does Bill O'Reilly need permission to say Cindy's name every night on his program. The point being, writing a name on a cross, a piece of paper, or anywhere else, and I'm no lawyer here, but I'm pretty sure that isn't against the law. If you were to slander that name, then I could see some kind of legal precedent.

I have had the honor and experince of praticapating at an AIDS quilt presentation and I have been to the Vietnam Memorial....both were powerful and moving experinces, both in their own way deeply spiritual in nature amd both were mourning needless deaths...Arlington West attempts the same thing as does several other names memorials that have sprung up around the country. all such memorials are in essentially making a statement of grief regardless of whether the ones responsible for it were for the war or not. That being said what is so wrong about Arlington West besides it is being used to protest against the man most directly responsible for their deaths in the first place?