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.

 

AP Photo of Marine Sparks Controversy

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I agree with your point, Slayer, but in my mind the question was in who had the right to authorize/disallow the image from being publicized. In my mind, the Marines with the deceased were the ones to exercise their best judgement in the situation. The family, blood relatives, should have had a say, but which group would have known the best wishes of the soldier better? To me, that is the core of the problem. If my son were killed in combat, I know that those with him in his final moments would carry out his wishes, protect his wishes as best they could. In this case, one of those men was embedded with that Marine's unit.

Our families do not always want what's right, but what is best. There's a good chance that this conversation is exactly what that Marine or his unit would have wanted.




posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 


Fair enough but...

Showing a dead soldier is one thing. Again I'm not for censorship. Plastering his name and service photo along with this death is a bit too much. We have all seen dead Iraqi's/Afghans but we don't get their names or their whole bio. Anonymity that should be observed. That's all I'm talking about. They didn't have to give up all the personal information.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by deepred
 

Question, what about the Afghans and Iraqis. I'm assuming the Western population don't give a damn about them compared to their own people and that is a shame.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Again, I agree with you.

I didn't think there would be, but searching through the laws of the US which would prevent the disclosure of identifiable information without consent of either the subject or the subject's signed executor/beneficiary turned up zero results.

While they may have erred in judgement, there's no law against the disclosure of information. I tried to catch a loophole here in the release of PII as related to Naval laws concerning proper treatment of the deceased, but came up empty handed.

If the press' goal was to inspire sympathy for this Marine, I believe they succeeded. I just can't help but wonder... Why?



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by deepred
 

Question, what about the Afghans and Iraqis. I'm assuming the Western population don't give a damn about them compared to their own people and that is a shame.


And thus, Slayer69's observation is proven.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by StevenDye
Well then why does this man get any better, there is no legal reason anyone can stop the papers publishing the pictures. (Is there??)


Yeah, something called a civil suit. You can file them if a party thinks there were damages, and I think this Marine's family could claim that. And I hope the family nails APs ass to the floorboards.



Originally posted by StevenDye
If you think its wrong to see our guys dieing, then we shouldn't be there....if you can't look at a picture of the man dieing, he shouldn't have been there. I saw that footage, and it digusted me because I don't think that man needed to die.


It's not about that; it's about the AP defying what his father wanted. He didn't want the pictures published, AP went a. and did, anyway.

And then the press scratches their .s and asks themselves, "Geez, I wonder why the military doesn't trust us?"



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

You... disagree with my personal experience..?
I meant not all Americans feel that way... I am sure you didnt. Just who I was with. Not just Americans either lots of nationalities I personally experienced.

I kind of disagree it is the family's decision I think it would be his comrades' (friends) decision. At least that is how I would have it. I agree with Arrowmancer.

I agree with you on the respect Slayer, let me put it this way, if they show the picture online, with no Ads, would you find it okay? I think if they were not Capitalising off of his death I would be fine with it. It is just that with Ads they have turned it into a issue of making money.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arrowmancer

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by deepred
 

Question, what about the Afghans and Iraqis. I'm assuming the Western population don't give a damn about them compared to their own people and that is a shame.


And thus, Slayer69's observation is proven.


I don't understand this line of thinking, sorry if I keep posting about it but I just can't seem to understand this situation.

It's alright that there's countless videos and pictures of insurgents getting killed in horrific ways (some which made it to the media even), but a photo of a mortally wounded marine is a big deal because of his family? If he is a marine he doesn't belong to his family, he belongs to his country. Personally I don't see why there isn't more media of Americans getting killed just to show those people in the safety of their concrete mainland American cities that WAR IS NOT A FREAKING GAME AND DEATH IS AN ELEMENTAL PART OF IT.

It's like what someone wrote on here earlier, this stuff is banned from the media because if the American people saw enough of it the war would be abandoned already. The way it is now, it was a trend that got old and now people are focused on the stupidest crap like Michael Jackson. The war in Iraq is now a side game of the US government and Afghanistan isn't in most people's minds either.

So explain to me how this double standard works? Are your enemies worth less than your soldiers so you can parade their deaths around but cry at a photo at a wounded soldier? If I get shot or blown up I want it to be front page news in all of Canada - "Patriotic Soldier Dies For His Country and People", let them see the hell that war is and let them make their own opinions in an objective manner, not make opinions based on controlling what they should or shouldn't see.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 



Originally posted by SLAYER69

Plastering his name and service photo along with this death is a bit too much. We have all seen dead Iraqi's/Afghans but we don't get their names or their whole bio.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by deepred
Hi All,

After reading this article I started to think about how sanitized and whitewashed the coverage of war by the media has become.

I remember as a young child the adults watching the evening news in horror as pictures of young American soldiers with legs and arms missing or babyfaced teenage soldiers with their intestines spilled on the ground were part of the coverage of the Vietnam war.

While the images of war are disturbing I think it helps to portray the reallity of war and these graphic images were credited with helping to end the war in Vietnam.

The sanitized coverage we get today makes it easier to eat dinner while watching the evening news but, I think it also makes it easier to forget that young men and women are being killed, disfigured, disabled and dismembered in horribly brutal fashon.

What do you think, is this sanitized news coverage a positive or a negitive?

Do you believe Americans might be more opposed to our current wars if the media were to show the true graphic nature of what is happening to our yong men and woman?

Here in Italy it has happened the end of the World because of that pic, try to imagine how things work when you have Berlusconi and Vatican controlling media (not that i'm limited by them, just sharing my view of the situation about my country).
WAR IS WAR. War is made exactly by these things, or do we prefer to tell to ourselves some tales? There are a lot of footages of 20 YO U.S. guys dying just to come here to europe to rescue us: many are very disturbing.
way more than that

The point in my opinion is that the family of that man could suffer, it's not nice to attend the agony of one of your relatives, but definately this type of pictures should be spreaded EVERY DAY, and for EVERY victim, so people have some chance to realize what war means



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
SLAYER69 (awesome name btw)- And you still think this justifies this one sided response? Every soldier who dies for my country has his name put in the national media so I fail to see your grievance.

I'll agree only in the event if those stupid war protesters should up at his funeral and insult his family, because that is beyond unnecessary.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
This is a bit off topic so please forgive me.. But I think that for all those reading and participating in this thread, and who are trying to explain and articulate thier contempt for any war, I have a thought to throw out here..

I believe the first country that creates several elite units of all women especially mothers, between the ages of 28-42. and uses them in combat on 2week rotating basis (around the first of each month) will become the next "super power" (as far as a military fighting force)

The only proppaganda that you would have to tell theese elite units, is that the opposing force is all male, and they spent thier whole paycheck on beer and girls.. instead of thier wives and families...

after word gets around about theese elite units I doubt if anyone would want to go to war ever again.......

Actually it may be more humane to just nuke the whole enemy country...

Disclaimer...................
ok, now for those of you with no sense of humor, This was all said in jest. hopefully to lighten up this thread a bit...no disrespect intended to the OP. or the subject at hand,

[edit on 6-9-2009 by SideWynder]

[edit on 6-9-2009 by SideWynder]

[edit on 6-9-2009 by SideWynder]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
While I am in support of transparency of war and its ugly face that few of us ever see, this utter disregard for the wishes of the deceased soldier's family is outright ridiculous. The family made it explicitly clear that they did not wish for their loved one's tragic photo to not be used by the press, and instead of having any sense of decency, they decided to use the image for the effect that they desired, despite the family begging otherwise.

The idea that they only published the picture, because they "felt that the picture told a story that people needed to see and be aware of," is a poor excuse for their actions, and in my opinion, is just a justification for doing whatever the hell they want without any regard for what is right.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by deepred
 


Two things here... when you sign up to shoot bullets at other humans, and those humans shoot back, if you haven't considered, or told your close relatives that they need to consider the possibility that you might get injured or killed, then you are naive and so is your family.
Of course it's not bound to happen, but in that line of "work" it's a strong possibility.

Next there's the value of the story in photos like these. You shouldn't take special consideration just because we're dealing with a "poor young brave soldier, whose family if feeling much more hurt and sadness than all the other families" whose kids are blown away by war.
We HAVE TO look at images like these... we HAVE TO be stunned, cause if you don't you'll go on in your life in a pathetic little protected bubble thinking that the world is safe and noting bad ever goes on... and you will teach your kids and grandkids that that is the way the world is.
This is wrong... war is wrong, military occupation, liberation whatever you want to call it is wrong, and we really should stop meddling in it.
We saw the images from Vietnam, the little girl running naked, the prisoner executed with a gun to his .. This image is the other side of the story.

Photos from the wars are here to help us understand, not just the families involved but everyone else whose family has been smart enough not to raise up killers or those considering to do that.
Take the example of Iraq... how much did we really change? There's still tension amongst groups down there. We didn't even things out or taught people down there how to understand and respect eachother.
We taught them that if you have a situation, you handle it with brute force, and that is what parts of the population is experiencing now.

There was this big story in the Danish media about a group of illegal Iraqies who got sent back to Iraq and having been protected by a pastor in a christian church for some time.
When they got off the plane in Iraq, they were jailed, had their passport and money taken.
One of them is now homeless and has no where to go...

This is the kind of world we create with our selfrighteous "liberating" forces.
This is what images like these should teach us... we are accomplishing nothing by brute force, other than proving that action has a reaction.
What is the most logical thing to NOT do if you don't want your father/mother/kids killed in a war? You do know the answer to this...



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daemos
While I am in support of transparency of war and its ugly face that few of us ever see, this utter disregard for the wishes of the deceased soldier's family is outright ridiculous. The family made it explicitly clear that they did not wish for their loved one's tragic photo to not be used by the press, and instead of having any sense of decency, they decided to use the image for the effect that they desired, despite the family begging otherwise.

The idea that they only published the picture, because they "felt that the picture told a story that people needed to see and be aware of," is a poor excuse for their actions, and in my opinion, is just a justification for doing whatever the hell they want without any regard for what is right.



And what about all the many other images published through time of foreign soldiers and civilians? They were ok?

I'd say yes, but I'd also ask that poor little family to wear their martyrs dress at home instead of in public or atleast target the right people with their martyrdom.
# and so-called rights have been passed around for so long, that everyone is tainted and noone is special.

[edit on 7/9/09 by flice]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by internos
The point in my opinion is that the family of that man could suffer, it's not nice to attend the agony of one of your relatives, but definately this type of pictures should be spreaded EVERY DAY, and for EVERY victim, so people have some chance to realize what war means


Well said!

2nd line



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


ok, so you and I and most people on this thread do agree that WAR is WRONG.... that being said....how are "enlightened people" like us going to change "human nature"????

Sorry if this sounds smarmy and sarcastic... but seriously... How the hell are all of us on ATS going to change the humanistic nature of certain people, or "groups"(remember any orginisation is made up of individuals) in charge, from starting or participating in the money and power making opportunities of war????

We can sit here on our "puters" and bemone what has happened, and what may happen in the future... and we can point fingers in the comfort of our homes at those who we believe have done us wrong...

we can also expouse, articulate,and opine, as much as we want and desire, on this 20th century invention called the "internet" where we have instant access to all types of information, and everyone(so far) is able(not always allowed) to bitch moan complain, also search, find and learn.. instantly about what is going on WORLD WIDE!!!!!!!!

All of us sitting here on just this one website....ATS... (Ask yourself) do we really relize and appreciate the power,and opportunity, and to an extent the freedom. we have right here and now???? literally at our "fingertips"!!!!

I, ME personally, I have had the opportunity to talk (type,text) to people that are thousands of mile away from me, differant cultures, citizens from IRAQ,Afganistan, etc. people who, by just signin on to the internet put thier lives in jeopordy.. and you know what??? I have come to realize that alot of our "cultures" are way differrant, and there are some insurmountable differances.. BUT!!!! on a one on one basis... Almost all are willing to accept our differances... and are willing to work together to at the very least, come to a peacefull coexistance...IE "live and let live"!!!

So to all those that are here, on ATS, pointing fingers, blaming, and accusing "westerners" "Europeans" "Asians" "MiddleEasterners" "Browns" Blacks" Yellows" "reds" ETC........My post to you is..........

We are all the same... ATS. is a "Global Community" and despite our differances, our arguments, our snipes, etc we still manage to at the very least to tollerate each other... is there any way at all that maybe we might be able to set a friggin example for the real world??????????

sorry for the rant.. we have a good thing going here on ATS. I would just like to see it make it to the real world somehow.....

[edit on 7-9-2009 by SideWynder]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SideWynder
reply to post by flice
 
ok, so you and I and most people on this thread do agree that WAR is WRONG.... that being said....how are "enlightened people" like us going to change "human nature"????
[edit on 7-9-2009 by SideWynder]


War isn't wrong, the war on terror is though. It is a war based on lies to accomplish an ulterior motive. By showing the truth of the war to people through visual stimulation, something all people have and understand, then maybe they can understand the truth and turn the situation around. The US is still "we, the people", right?

Honest truth is that numbers don't cut it because only a few people have the knowledge to understand what they actually mean. You can tell someone that a million people were killed by genocide, but nobody will really care enough to do anything until they see a picture and are shocked to see how real life can be.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Actually Dimitri, I understand what you are trying to say... "but alas" (I have been in a war) and so I have seen the "horrors" Yet, honestly, I truly do not believe that any pictures, films, dvds, cds, or any "media" coverage of any war.. will dissuede anyone, or any country, or nation, from going to, participating in, or "starting" a "war"..

sadly, I do honestly believe that there are "bullies" that only understand "force"and also that there are "groups" (ie. nations, countries, corporations... whatever" that think the only way to achieve what they want is through the use of excesive force....

thus is the dillema that we live in... sorry to sound so pessimistic..(am having a bad "hair day") lol....



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 



Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 


Fair enough but...

Showing a dead soldier is one thing. Again I'm not for censorship.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join