Iraq Caskets: To Show Or Not To Show?

There’s been a lot of talk about how allowing the flag draped caskets coming back from Iraq to be shown on TV or pictured in the print media would violate the privacy of the soldiers who sacrificed their lives, and would compound their families’ grief.

The standard rejoinder to that has been: but the caskets are anonymous, so no one’s identity would be revealed, no one’s privacy would be violated.

From there the debate descends to: but each grieving family would have some idea when their loved one’s casket is expected back, and so when they see photos or video of the returning caskets they would naturally think “That could be my daughter or son or husband or wife”, and they would burst into tears.

I never actually thought about this till today. But when I did, here’s what I came up with. I would love to see a survey where (after a decent interval) the families of those who have laid down their lives in Iraq are asked: “What would you have preferred, given a choice? That your loved one’s casket was sneaked back into the country in the dead of night, invisible and anonymous? Or that it was brought back openly, your loved one identified on TV and in the newspapers, and their sacrifice recognized and honored?”

And it doesn’t have to be framed like that. It can be framed to make both alternatives sound as bland and non-judgmental as possible. Let me tell you, I have no doubt whatsoever which alternative would win hands down. And let me also tell you, I don’t think anyone in the Bush-Rumsfeld-Pace military has any bloody doubt about it either.

Because if they do, if they really think that identifying our war dead, and recognizing their sacrifice, invades their privacy and is traumatic to their families, then why do we violate the memory of our bravest soldiers and torture their families with the full publicity glare of an Arlington burial?

Just another example of how the Divider-in-Chief mocks his own campaign promise. A uniter would be able to raise his head and see beyond the narrow political advantage to himself from not letting the caskets be seen in the media, and the political advantage to opponents of the War on Iraq from letting them be seen. He would be able to focus on what is right and proper, what actually honors the memory of those he claims to be chiefly concerned for.

Comments

  1. JimC says:

    “What would you have preferred, given a choice? That your loved one’s casket was sneaked back into the country in the dead of night, invisible and anonymous? Or that it was brought back openly, your loved one identified on TV and in the newspapers, and their sacrifice recognized and honored?”

    You need to add on to that “and most assuredly, your son or daughter’s casket would end up being used as a political attack ad…” Then let’see how many takers…

  2. matt says:

    awfully worried about political attack ads. funny coming from a republican, no?

  3. JimC says:

    awfully worried about political attack ads. funny coming from a republican, no?

    You sugget worry when there is none, the problem is that it is disgusting that the anti-war crowd squawk about wanting thse photos pretending it is for patriotic reasons when we all know there is only one reason they want them, and that is to turn these dead soldiers into anti-war posters without respect for those inthe casket and their familes…..that’s the objection.

  4. matt says:

    your continual mention of caskets being used politically indicates worry. what is disgusting is you thinking that you can read peoples’ minds while simultaneously chastising us for analyzing anything we don’t have firsthand proof of. so present some proof, or shut your damn mouth.

  5. JimC says:

    or shut your damn mouth.

    You have anger issues, don’t you….you must be a real fun guy to be around…

    Anyway, it is not worry, it is an absolute. If the caskets photos are allowed to be used publically, they would be used as a political attack, not that is the problem in itself, the problem is the disrespect the soldiers and their families could endure…I’m not worried about the negative press they would cause Bush or GOP, I’m not as shallow as you….seem to think I am….

  6. matt says:

    Anyway, it is not worry, it is an absolute.

    nice word games. you’re worried about the effects. that is clear to everyone but you. but then you’re the one wetting his bed about a terror strike in bumblefuck ohio.

    the problem is the disrespect the soldiers and their families could endure

    as opposed to the total respect they are shown by an administration who already uses them as political pawns. how many speeches did bush give in the last few years in front of captive military audiences? is using them only ok for republicans?

  7. jamie beth says:

    if you are worried/concerned about the families that will be offended by casket photos showing up in political ads, let those families make their displeasure known, if an ad as you describe comes to pass. it’s called freedom of speech. in my opinion, using the photos would only make the people using photos for political gain look crass. but those of us who feel that showing caskets is a necessary and concrete way to show the abhorrent loss of life caused by the war, as far as i’m concerned, we’re the ones treating the dead with respect.

    stopping the freedom of the press because the images MAY be used later for political gain is akin to prohibiting gay marriage because it MAY lead to polygamy or man on beast action – it’s a smoke screen. you are again hiding your own beliefs and claiming you are standing up for the families of the dead. disgusting.

  8. matt says:

    you are again hiding your own beliefs and claiming you are standing up for the families of the dead. disgusting.

    surrrved.

  9. JimC says:

    Ok, answer me this, if someone had used a photo of your family member’s casket being delivered to the grave for anything other than a memorial, would you be ok with it? Would you claim “free speech” then?

  10. jamie beth says:

    you might not realize you are talking to two people who recently lost their dad….and would use a photo of him hooked up to tubes to fight any number of battles. as there was no casket, that’s not an option, but trust me, if there were and it could do any good for anything i beleive in, i’d be happy to provide the photo myself.

    death (and taxes) = inevitable. if any good can come after the fact, i’m all for it.

    “what is disgusting is you thinking that you can read peoples’ minds” exactly.

    you are so simple.

    you actually think that at the core everyone really thinks the same way you do no matter how much we protest. you are wrong. you’ve read this site for how long and you still think i’d have a problem with someone using the image of a dead love one to prove a point? trust me, if i had a photo of my friend who killed himself while driving drunk hanging out of his wrecked car, i’d email it to everyone i love every friday night to remind them what harm can come to people who drive drunk.

    you couldn’t get inside my head if you had a map and a key.

  11. JimC says:

    jamie beth said:
    June 17th, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    jamie, I don’t know if you realized this or not but you kind of confirmed my argument, you see, in your examples, there was one key element, you used “I”, as in you are the one making the choice to use the images of your loved ones.

    I agree with everything you said so long as it was your choice, but say someone else comes in and takes your photo and uses it for something other than what you believe in, as a matter of fact they use it to represent something you oppose severely, now how would you feel?

    If Cindy Sheehan wants to use images of her son’s casket, then she has the right to do that, but say I use it to promote something she is absolutely against, now wouldn’t you think she would be upset and try to stop me?

  12. matt says:

    I’ll make you a deal: identify the remains in any one of these caskets, and you win the debate.

    this isn’t about privacy. it is about politics, but not the politics of the left who have zero power in this case. it’s incredibly disingenuous to suggest that bush has anything other than hiding the war’s cost in mind when he demands the ban be enforced. those caskets don’t just belong to the families, they belong to all of us, and hiding behind the ridiculous claim of privacy is simply criminal.

  13. matt says:

    I think I see a pattern…

    November 2001: Department of Defense restated the ban on media coverage at Dover AFB and at Ramstein AFB.
    November 2001: The media was given access to Andrews AFB for the arrival and transfer of Johnny Micheal Spann’s remains; Mr. Spann was the first American to die in the invasion of Afghanistan.
    March 2002: The media photographed the arrival at Ramstein AFB of seven flag-draped caskets carrying the remains of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
    April 2002: The media was permitted to photograph the transfer of flag-draped coffins at Ramstein AFB that carried the remains of four U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
    February 2003: NASA released photographs showing the transfer of the space shuttle Columbia astronauts’ remains at Dover AFB.
    March 2003: Defense Department issued an expanded policy banning media coverage of fallen soldiers’ caskets.
    March 2003: The media was permitted to photograph the loading of six flag-draped coffins in Kabul, Afghanistan destined for Dover AFB. The soldiers were killed in hostilities in Afghanistan.
    March 20, 2003: Military action commenced in Iraq.
    March 26, 2003: Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy Molino Briefing on Casualty Notification discussed the policy barring media coverage as part of a broader discussion of casualty notification procedures. This appears to be the first public discussion of the policy by the military since the initiation of the 2001 Afghanistan and 2003 Iraq conflicts.
    November 2003: Photographs of a Korean War soldier’s remains as they were unloaded at Hickam AFB (Hawaii) are released to the media by the Defense Department. The coffin was draped with a flag — identical to those caskets currently returning from Iraq.
    [...]
    April 22, 2004: Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy Molino Briefing on Remains Transfer Policy in response to questions about exceptions to the media ban says “I don’t know that there’s a general standard or a threshold through which you have to pass to say by golly that’s the one we’d have to waive it for.” He further explains “There have been exceptions to the policy, you’re absolutely correct; and they’re directed by my superiors when that occurs. I don’t know what would go in to say that we’ve crossed that threshold.”

    seems that only photos of those returning from iraq are really banned. wonder why that is…

  14. jamie beth says:

    matt has already responded for me (re: all that matter’s is that GWB doesn’t really care about privacy (heard about the patriot act?), only about hiding the casualties of war), however, i’ll take it one step further. i mentioned my friend who killed himself driving drunk and that i would use a photo of him if i could to get other people to stop driving drunk: i can guarantee you his parents would not be happy about that and i would do it anyway. so as you selectively read and try to claim i’ve proved your point for you, once again, you are wrong. don’t you get tired of that shit?

  15. JimC says:

    Whatever, it doesn’t matter, you claim Bush is playing politics and we all know that you and your anti-war crowd want to the photos to play politics with…who is better than who…and who really cares what the families think, screw them eh, as long as “I” get my “message” out that war is ugly and people die…wait, I think everyone already knew that…

  16. sarabeth says:

    Will someone point out to this bloke (in terms he can understand) that:
    1) Bush claims not to be playing politics, and that’s the main point. He’s dressing himself up as a champion of the dead soldiers’ privacy and honor, and he’s nothing of the kind.
    2) If anyone uses casket images in anti-war ads or whatever, they’re not going to put on false robes of piety when they do it. So there’s no doubt “who is better than who”. Honesty trumps hypocrisy every time. Even bible verses (the word of god, remember) attest to that, I’m sure.
    3) None of the bereaved families seem to have appointed either Bush or this bloke as their champion and spokesman, and since there is scanty evidence that either of them possess any intelligence to speak of, let alone mind-reading abilities, their “we all know this is what the bereaved families would want” doesn’t exactly wash.
    4) “We all know” is not usually regarded as a synonym for “I think” or “I believe”.

  17. Ken says:

    JimC – would you answer a straight question? Has G W Bush ever done anything that you’ve disagreed with?

  18. JimC says:

    Ken said:
    June 19th, 2006 at 5:17 am
    JimC – would you answer a straight question? Has G W Bush ever done anything that you’ve disagreed with?

    YES!!! I’ve stated this before many times!!!

    And Sarabeth, I don’t care what reasons W has for doing it, the reasons I’ve stated are reason enough in my opinion, and since they match the stated reason of W, then so be it…again, I don’t care if W said he does it just to hack you off, it doesn’t matter to me, being a veteran, I feel, personally, that anyone wishing to use the photos to push their own agenda is disgraceful, if W is doing this by restricting access, well, fine you got ‘em, but that does not change the reasoning I have put forth as to why the photos should not be public fodder…

  19. matt says:

    sounds like an “ends justifies the means” argument. sure you want to get into that?

  20. sarabeth says:

    Will someone explain to this bloke that “I think it’s disrespectful” has never been looked on kindly for some reason as an argument that trumps the first amendment.

  21. matt says:

    the bill of rights is just a starting point. in cases where it conflicts with christianity, it can be chiseled where needed. except the deuce.

  22. JimC says:

    Will someone explain to this bloke that “I think it’s disrespectful” has never been looked on kindly for some reason as an argument that trumps the first amendment.

    Is showing a photo of a casket a free speech issue? Interesting…if that’s the case then why is porn illegal? Why can’t you splash hardcore porn billboards for all to see in the name of free speech? To say free speech is boundless is ridiculous…I can think up a brazilian different scenarios where your free speech argument would be shot down…

  23. JimC says:

    the bill of rights is just a starting point. in cases where it conflicts with christianity, it can be chiseled where needed. except the deuce.

    Whatever…

  24. sarabeth says:

    I can think up a brazilian different scenarios where your free speech argument would be shot down

    Yes, they’re pretty laid back about sex and nudity in Brazil, aren’t they?

    Anyway, what’s your argument here? That porn is disrespectful to the familes of the soldiers who died in Iraq?

    Or do you just want someone to blow the whistle and call a conflation foul?

    (Aside to Matt: how many conflation fouls = a red card?)

  25. sarabeth says:

    To say free speech is boundless is ridiculous

    And who is supposed to have said this?

  26. sarabeth says:

    Whatever…

    The last refuge of the empty-minded…

  27. JimC says:

    I do believe you were stating that using photos of caskets to convey your anti-war message is protected under free speech and I am just suggesting that using the pohotos may in fact not be, you can say what you want about the war but using the photos does not equate to free speech…

  28. JimC says:

    sarabeth said:
    June 19th, 2006 at 9:47 am
    Whatever…

    The last refuge of the empty-minded…

    Riiighhhhhtttt…..actually, if I were matt, I would have just thrown a few foul words out, called someone an f’ing idiot and summarily dismissed them, but instead, I simply said, whatever…get it?

  29. sarabeth says:

    I do believe you were stating that using photos of caskets to convey your anti-war message is protected under free speech

    What is truly ridiculous is you paraphrasing that as “free speech is boundless”

    I am just suggesting that using the pohotos may in fact not be, you can say what you want about the war but using the photos does not equate to free speech…

    If obscene abominations like that group which goes around taunting families at funerals of Iraq war victims are protected by free speech, it’s safe to assume that showing photographs of Iraq war caskets would also be. If it weren’t banned by the Bush-Cheney-Pace-Rumsfeld military, that is.

    Just because you suggest something does not make it true or give it any kind of credibility or validity.

  30. JimC says:

    If obscene abominations like that group which goes around taunting families at funerals of Iraq war victims are protected by free speech, it’s safe to assume that showing photographs of Iraq war caskets would also be. If it weren’t banned by the Bush-Cheney-Pace-Rumsfeld military, that is.

    Bush I believe recently signed a bill making that or at least within a certain distance ofthe actual funeral, not sure about the details…..and those people are a disgrace…

  31. matt says:

    Aside to Matt: how many conflation fouls = a red card?

    i’m thinking of adopting more fifa-like rules here.

  32. JimC says:

    fifa-like rules here

    ?

  33. sarabeth says:

    Bush I believe recently signed a bill making that or at least within a certain distance ofthe actual funeral, not sure about the details…..and those people are a disgrace…

    It’s still protected speech, though, isn’t it?

    Let me repeat, it might get through on the n’th repetition. If obscene abominations like those are protected by free speech, it’s safe to assume that showing photographs of Iraq war caskets on TV or in newspapers or over the internet would also be.

  34. Nick in Beantown says:

    FIFA = La Fédération Internationale de Football. Es-tu lent, mon copain?