It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Photo ban on Iraq war dead lifted

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama has ended the ban on news organizations photographing the flag-covered coffins of American soldiers killed in Iraq as they return to the United States through Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. The change will also apply to U.S. war dead from the growing conflict in Afghanistan.


www.upi.com...




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
This is a good thing in my view. It was horrifying and saddening that the former administration hid this from the public ... for whatever reasons. Now maybe the people in this country will be reminded of the sacrifice these men and women are making and what their families suffer for it, and we can all pay our proper respects.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Good.

This is how it should have always been. You want to start a war than you show the real consequences to the nation.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
but which MSM will publish the images?

Wait and see. If so, maybe the war will take on a new view by the masses.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


AP so far at least...

news.yahoo.com...

[edit on 27-2-2009 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Why on earth was such a ban enforced ?

Should the citizens not know what the cost is ?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Just a few reminders before you all blow a gasket gushing over this great idea.

1. It wasnt the last admin that stopped this - it has been in place since 1989 ( Bush 1 ) and left in place by the great dick-tater ( Clinton )

2. The families of the dead will have to ALLOW ( in writing ) the photography of their young dead.

Dorian Soran



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
wasn't he talking about withdrawal from iraq today in north carolina?

the cynic in me says, woop di do, easy to allow this if he's withdrawing anyway.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dorian Soran
Just a few reminders before you all blow a gasket gushing over this great idea.

1. It wasnt the last admin that stopped this - it has been in place since 1989 ( Bush 1 ) and left in place by the great dick-tater ( Clinton )


From UPI

The ban was one of the many controversial innovations of the Bush administration in its managing of the media coverage of the Iraq war.


Who's blowing a gasket?

And sure, I remember Bush-41 doing this to a degree during the Gulf War (not many deaths there), and Clinton leaving it (didn't exactly have to worry about it all that much).

And yes, everyone is split on the issue, but I agree with this guy...


"There has never been a greater disconnect between those who serve in harms warm and those back home," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "All too often, the sacrifices of our military are hidden from view."


[edit on 27-2-2009 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
wasn't he talking about withdrawal from iraq today in north carolina?

the cynic in me says, woop di do, easy to allow this if he's withdrawing anyway.


Our troops are still dying over there at the rate of approximately 15 per month. And when he reduces the forces by 2/3 this might drop proportionately to 5.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
OOPs it was 1991 and NOT 1989 - my bad - ( still under Bushy1 and held over by the great DICK-tater ) - glad I could help.


Take for example the 1991 policy barring the press from covering arrival ceremonies of American war dead at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, which was lifted Thursday.


Wash Times




That’s because in 1991, during the Gulf War, the Department of Defense established stated that “media coverage of the arrival of remains at the port of entry or at the interim stops will not be permitted.”


Open Congress


Dorian Soran


[edit on 27-2-2009 by Dorian Soran]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Dorian Soran
 


Thanks, but I didn't mean to say prove it. I adjusted my comment, which even as it originally stood acknowledged that it did occur during the two administrations previous to Bush-43 but really wasn't much of an issue. I'm rushing and probably shouldn't be. Sorry.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


No worries - I changed my post too - it came off a little harsh. You are right that it was never really an issue for Clinton and Bush 1 DID use it - I just wanted everyone to know that had we been at war under Clinton - it more than likely would have been used too because it was in place.

Dorian Soran



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I think it's a bad idea as it ...
1. Isn't necessary, especially to the familys involved.
2. SENSATIONALIZES what should be a solem occasion.
3. Gives freaks like code pink neat little pictures to out on their cowardice posters.
Just my 2 cents worth, but I wouldn't want a family members coffin picture used and trivialized by the facist organizations running rampant in the U.S. today.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Pound Sand


If the aim is to honor the fallen, then with the permission of the surviving family, the best way to honor a fallen American man or woman is to capture their indiviual coffin and procession. Name them. Explain who they were, what they did, why and where they served. That's honoring them.

[...] images of groups of coffins being unloaded from the backs of millitary cargo planes at Dover are the graphic equivalent of the same: body count. Rarely is that image intended to honor. If it were, there would be some honoring within the accompanying text of precisely who rests beneath the Colors, what they did, and how they served.

Show me - and the rest of the American public - where the media "honoring the fallen" has occurred in the past in comparison to incessant body count figures and anonymous, nameless mentions of casualties.

[...] the false premise that pictures of coffin-laden cargo planes are needed to "honor our fallen heroes." That's such a load of crap it would be laughable if the honor and memory of the fallen were not so closely and passionately guarded by brothers-in-arms.

Indeed, the media's 'military honor fund' (generally speaking, with a few exceptions) has a credit history that reaches back over four decades to Vietnam. It has maintained a consistent history of bankruptcy and default throughout the duration.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
just a followup with a piece of information i ran across yesterday, when they showed the first (?) one with the family's permission...

apparently bush-41 put this ban into effect when the media (don't know which) showed the first bodies returning to the gulf war on a split screen with him laughing at something or another.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
What is interesting will be how long this policy stays in effect?

Once things escalate in Afghanistan, will Obama still be open to this if US casualties rate starts increasing?




top topics



 
0

log in

join