DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Woman fired over photographing coffins from Iraq
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 103, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/23/2004 08:46:32 AM · #76
I can't get the "More photos" link posted by emorgan49 to work.
 04/23/2004 08:48:53 AM · #77
And that is a wholly different argument.

I think Tracy had been confused as to why photos could be shown but someone got in trouble. The way I understand it is that if you or I could use a telephoto lens and capture a frame or two of flag draped caskets "over the fence" at a military installation we could then sell those with no repercussions. The news isn't restricted in publishing existing photos. To manage this situation it seems like they keep the coffins under tight visual security and then require that any civilian contractors do not photograph them (I'm sure there are numerous other considerations as well). In this case, the woman appears to have violated the terms of her contract rather than any law. Thus, once she was able to get the photos to a valid news agency, there was nothing that could legally be done to stop the publication of those images. Perhaps if the person to whom she reports found out about this infraction of her contract they could have confiscated the photos as "work for hire" or based on private property issues or any number of reasons that the could have argued in court when she sued them over it. As it turned out, she did get the photos to a public news agency and, thus, the photos can and have been used with no legal repercussions to those news agencies.

I've never commented on my personal feelings about this other than to say that I found the photos moving and newsworthy from my perspective. I've merely tried to point out the vagaries of the law as I've heard it discussed by a couple of Senators on a morning news show. It appears that it is completely legal to have the photos and completely legal to disseminate the photos (if you're a news agency) but it is against the person's contract to take the photos if they are going to have access where they could take the photos. Suddenly I'm reminded of John Travolta's character discussing drugs in Amsterdam in one of the opening scenes from Pulp Fiction.

I happen to agree that its a gerrymandering of law and it appears to be designed to keep these photos from being distributed but there are other sides, too. While I think the photos are newsworthy I still haven't lost anything personal to me when one of those coffins is filled and someone else did. I think 3 rows of flag-draped caskets should be presented in some outlet because it moves me. However, I'm sure someone who lost a husband, father, wife, sister or whatever might be overcome with grief at seeing such a scene. I don't think it has to do with Bush or Kerry or Clinton. I think anyone would want those photos to never see the light of day while they were in office.

I apologize to anyone who has lost someone during this war as sometimes the clinical side of a legal discussion seems to forget the personal tragedy suffered. I promise that the sacrifices made by these soldiers and their families weighs on me (as it appears to with others in this post). I don't think anyone has made light of what they or you have given up and I want to personally thank anyone for the service of themselves and their family.

Kev
 04/23/2004 08:53:06 AM · #78
I doubt you'd get very close to a military installation, with a telephoto lens.

I know if I tried that in the UK, I'd be met by some armed guards and asked to politely leave. I suspect (without evidence) that it is the same here. I know a similar situation exists around the President's ranch in Crawford - you aren't allowed to stop your car in the vicinity for example. I would expect a military base to be under more security.

As someone mentioned earlier, all this sudden sensitivity of feelings happened around the time that the images started swaying public opinion. It is a convenient reason to use though.
 04/23/2004 08:58:07 AM · #79
More photos? maybe this will work

//rogis.net/ee/index.php/C4/

and then click on the text in blue about how the airforce sent a CD with 361 photos. This guy requested them under the freedom of information act. I can't get his link to the More More photos to work, though.
 04/23/2004 09:00:15 AM · #80
Originally posted by achiral:

i totally agree, but why do we need pictures? are you assuming most people are ignorant of the casualties in iraq? there should be some standard for this type of photography. you seem to be saying that using photos of coffins somehow advances some political opinion, and i have a problem with that. just doesn't seem right. i guess i just have too much faith in people to be smarter than this


We live in a mostly visual society. I suspect that pictures like these tend to have more impact, than for example, a ticker tape along the bottom of a CNN broadcast saying '21 killed in Iraq'

I would not be surprised if many people are ignorant of the casualties in Iraq.

Actually, I think there is more of a politcal agenda in suppressing these images, but that is just a different side of the same coin, and probably betrays more of my opinion than anything.

So yes - the use or hiding of these images would advance or detract from a political position. I do not see how they could not. I don't believe for example that the Pentagon tries to hide these images, purely for the feelings of the families involved. That may well be part of the reason, but the propaganda aspects I feel are pretty self-evident. The military quotes on the 'Dover test' are common for example. If you control those images, you can reduce the public impact of the war on those who are indirectly affected.
 04/23/2004 09:15:38 AM · #81
From my point of view if those were images of my family member's remains, I would be outraged if they were to appear in the media, identifiable or not. I'm sorry, but there is no need to make the return of remains a public event.
04/23/2004 09:21:08 AM · #82
Originally posted by BurgyBoy:
One thing that seems to have slipped by everyone's attention is the fact that our nation's dead are delivered during nightime hours only, in the middle of the night, on a darkened airfield. It's almost as if someone were ashamed of them...


Hey Burgyboy, maybe you had better take a look at some of those photos again...It's obvious the soldiers are marching behind a hearse in the DAYTIME!

You have nothing but your lies and smears to argue with.
 04/23/2004 09:45:05 AM · #83
Hi to everyone who has an opinion. I would like to say that I do have a brother serving in Iraq. He is on a very dangerous mission as are all soldiers fighting for our country. However, fighting for his country is not his only job. He has a wife and two very young children to fight for as well. I know that if my brother had died or dies, God forbid, fighting in Iraq, I would grieve for a very long time. I also know that having something, a photo, to see would remind me what it was that he was fighting for. I do not believe it was fair nor appropriate to fire that lady for doing what any of us family members would have done. I have not seen anywhere where names of fallen soldiers has been displayed in correspondence with the photos. Therefor, it is merely that, a photograph. Some like photographs of cute kittens and some like them of there lost loved ones. I don't see how merely taking the photo was against any law that has been written. I do see how the right to take the photo is what those brave men and women are fighting for even as we speek. Wether you agree with the photographs or not, the war either, you can't forget that it's not over. Nor can we forget that thre are still men and women that will fall as a result to the "War on Terror" I just hope someone else has enough guts to take a picture that I might be able to hold on to if it were to be my brother. What an honor it would be!!! Also, Please check out my very new site www.operation-love/.012webpages.com. Not alot there yet but would like for someone to start a post in there as well.
 04/23/2004 09:49:45 AM · #84
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
From my point of view if those were images of my family member's remains, I would be outraged if they were to appear in the media, identifiable or not. I'm sorry, but there is no need to make the return of remains a public event.


I do believe ther is a need to make the return public... HELLO.. There is a real war going on over there!!!! People are really dying!!! This is not just some every day story! The public needs to know that it is not fake. And that you don't have to be the son or daughter of someone "important" to make the news when you die! I think if I were one of the soldiers, I would want EVERYONE and I mean everyone to know that I died for them and this war!
 04/23/2004 09:55:40 AM · #85
From today's N.Y. Times:

Since 1991, the Defense Department has prohibited taking photographs of the coffins of members of the armed services while they are being transported back to the United States. The reverent portrait Ms. Silicio produced demonstrates how irrational that policy is. The theory seems to be that the pictures are intrusive, or possibly hurtful, to bereaved families. But it seems far more likely that the Pentagon is concerned about the impact that photos of large numbers of flag-draped coffins may have on the American public's attitude toward the war.

That certainly underestimates the fortitude of average citizens, who are able to accept the cost of war whenever they are confident that the cause is right. American men and women are currently suffering danger, death and injury every day in Iraq. The least those of us back home can do is to bear witness to the sacrifice of the real soldiers as well as the fictional.
 04/23/2004 10:42:48 AM · #86
I see this has made the front page of the USA Today web site... at least at the moment.
 04/23/2004 10:45:16 AM · #87
I am not so confused now thanks yall!
I think they are,,,No no I know they are going way over board with the issue, and they should have never made that policy anyways,,,
Just another way for them to candy-coat everything as if we were children....Yes people need to know someones died for them, and sacrificed themselves for others to stay safe....
Its a real eye opener for people who are sitting at home not losing anything but time.
For them to cut us off from seeing what goes on in the war
What else do they hide?
I too want to be able to thank are soldiers,
and I grieve for the ones that have fallen.
The picture of the coffin draped flags showed so much
more than the old saying "A picture is worth a 1000 words".
This could turn into a book if I knew how to write one, cause I have thought of enough to fill one after reading the threads here watchin the media, and net....
 04/23/2004 10:56:30 AM · #88
Originally posted by pitsaman:
They have rich dads who give them lot of toys and Japanese cars and bikes...
They don't know what is to have and not to have and be hungry for a while...
Very sad !


Thats funny I distinctly remember growing up poor... I had to actualy work hard for what I have, it's your fault not mine that I'm more successfully at a young age. My guess is I work harder than you even pretent to!

This comment makes mine above look smart you fool!

Originally posted by jab119:
question for El-Roi and Russell2566
have you lost a family member in military service due to war?

Yes I have, my grandfather and a cousin, and I've lost 2 friends so far in the Iraq war.

I would also join the MARINES tomorrow if President Bush came out and said we needed more troops.

Message edited by author 2004-04-23 11:02:48.
 04/23/2004 11:24:54 AM · #89
Originally posted by brineymarlin:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
From my point of view if those were images of my family member's remains, I would be outraged if they were to appear in the media, identifiable or not. I'm sorry, but there is no need to make the return of remains a public event.


I do believe ther is a need to make the return public... HELLO.. There is a real war going on over there!!!! People are really dying!!! This is not just some every day story! The public needs to know that it is not fake. And that you don't have to be the son or daughter of someone "important" to make the news when you die! I think if I were one of the soldiers, I would want EVERYONE and I mean everyone to know that I died for them and this war!


The point is not to hide their death from the public, but that the public display of their remains is a decision that should be left to the family of the deceased and not a journalist looking for an exclusive.

Maybe you would want everyone to know that you died fighting a war for them and that is your decision. It's obvious that not everyone feels that way and their wishes should be respected.


04/23/2004 11:36:47 AM · #90
Having skimmed over both articles, am I right in thinking no names are actually revealed?

I think it's a stunning shot, which I don't think the photog should have been fired over.
 04/23/2004 11:42:40 AM · #91
I saw some interviews of parents/families of some of the soldiers who have been killed there and they were of the opinion that photos like these should not be released to the public. They felt it was disrespectful to use their loss for political gain. They cited that the government is releasing plenty of information to inform the public of how many soldiers are being killed and were strongly in question of the motivations of this girl.

I know if it had been my son/brother/father that had been killed I wouldn’t want pictures of their coffin to be used to try to sway public opinion away from the cause that my loved one gave his life for.

I think there are some subjects that are ok to be off limits. For instance I was recently out trying to take some pictures of birds not too far from a refinery. As soon as I got out of the car and started taking pictures a police car rolled up and a very stern police officer asked me what I was doing. I explained that I was taking pictures of birds. He informed me that I could not take pictures at this location because people might try to take pictures of the refinery in order to plan a terrorist attack. I moved on and at that moment I was angry because I knew I wasn’t doing anything wrong and felt that I had been unjustly denied. After a few minutes I thought about what the results would be if someone did attack the refinery and my anger over being run off quickly subsided. Yes it is a shame that we can’t take pictures of anything we like but sometimes there are more important issues at hand.

My personal opinion was that firing this girl was appropriate. It would be a different case if the government was saying that no one is getting killed over there and trying to cover up the death toll and she had exposed some lie.

Greg
04/23/2004 02:22:08 PM · #92
Pat Tillman died today in Afganistan. I don't need to see a photo to know America lost an extraordinary person. Truly a man among men.

04/24/2004 10:19:38 AM · #93
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
Originally posted by BurgyBoy:
One thing that seems to have slipped by everyone's attention is the fact that our nation's dead are delivered during nightime hours only, in the middle of the night, on a darkened airfield. It's almost as if someone were ashamed of them...


Hey Burgyboy, maybe you had better take a look at some of those photos again...It's obvious the soldiers are marching behind a hearse in the DAYTIME!

You have nothing but your lies and smears to argue with.


Easy with the "Lies and smears". Take a deep breath and calm down, man. First of all the photos in question, the ones that people got fired for, were taken during the loading in Kuwait. Second of all I was referring to an article written by a serviceman whose job it is to unload the coffins. Apparently he and I were both incorrect.

See the article below.

//www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/front/7329383.htm?1c

I may have confused the coffin story with the story regarding america's returning wounded.

Here is an excerpt.

There are no public ceremonies for the dead coming back through the military receiving center in Dover, Del. The flights of wounded personnel heading for Walter Reed often arrive at night at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.

"The wounded are brought back after midnight, making sure the press does not see the planes coming in," U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said recently on the Senate floor. "These are not a broken wrist or scratched leg. These are terrible wounds: lost limbs, lost eyesight, lifetime disabilities."

It is "something the administration prefers not to talk about," Leahy said.

here is the link. //www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1784912,00.html

Message edited by author 2004-04-24 10:22:29.
 04/24/2004 10:48:03 AM · #94
Originally posted by louddog:
Pat Tillman died today in Afganistan. I don't need to see a photo to know America lost an extraordinary person. Truly a man among men.


All too often the pursuit and accumulation of wealth are the highest priority for Americans and America. Nice to see someone who had a better set of values getting the recognition they deserve, truly a role model in so many ways.
 04/24/2004 11:57:49 AM · #95
Originally posted by dadas115:
I saw some interviews of parents/families of some of the soldiers who have been killed there and they were of the opinion that photos like these should not be released to the public. They felt it was disrespectful to use their loss for political gain.

How do they feel about the suppression of the photos as a method of political gain? Because that's what the "complaint" is about.
 04/24/2004 02:35:11 PM · #96
I think she deserved to be fired. She had to know she would be before she did it. She sacrificed her job for her agenda.

What if they didn't fire her and someone came up next week and took some photos from a differant angle. Say a flag fell off a casket and someone walking by stepped on it. Or any other numerous things that could happin. If they fired that photographer would you say they only inforced the rules when they want to?

She broke a big rule. She was fired. Now her husband is another story. I dont know the facts on why he was fired so I wont speculate.
 04/26/2004 01:48:18 AM · #97
Whether newsworthy or not (and I happen to believe that the photos are newsworthy), this photographer violated the strict guidelines required of her employer by the client (the military). She clearly put in jeopardy the business of her employer, who fired her for that very reason. Whatever the reason underlying the military's policy, the fact is that the policy is there. She was properly terminated. I know that if I was running a business and my employees began disregarding client guidelines, I would be losing a lot of contracts and business. No employer should put up with that. This is not a political or constitutional issue. It is merely a business decision, and an appropriate one at that.

Chuck
 04/26/2004 02:41:23 AM · #98
Even if the "policy" is ultimately ruled to be an unconstitutional infringement of someone's First Amendment rights?
 04/27/2004 12:56:17 AM · #99
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Even if the "policy" is ultimately ruled to be an unconstitutional infringement of someone's First Amendment rights?


Until that policy is deemed uncostitutional, or in some other way invalidated, it stands. An employee does not have the right to choose which policies to ignore simply because he or she may feel they are uncostitutional. That determination is left strictly to the judiciary. The problem here is that this is not a First Amendment issue. The government, as can any other employer, prohibit certain types of conduct as part of its contractual relationships. The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to photograph anything, anytime, anywhere.

Message edited by author 2004-04-27 01:00:41.
 04/27/2004 12:00:03 PM · #100
Originally posted by Gordon:

So yes - the use or hiding of these images would advance or detract from a political position. I do not see how they could not. I don't believe for example that the Pentagon tries to hide these images, purely for the feelings of the families involved. That may well be part of the reason, but the propaganda aspects I feel are pretty self-evident. The military quotes on the 'Dover test' are common for example. If you control those images, you can reduce the public impact of the war on those who are indirectly affected.


i guess my point was more aiming at the stupidity of trying to politicize something like that because it will always be politically in favor of the party who isn't seated in the white house. If Kerry becomes president, nothing is going to change in Iraq, there are still going to be battles. Well hopefully not. But assuming so, soldiers are still going to be dying, then all of the sudden republicans can start to use the issue against kerry. that's all i was saying really
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:32:36 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:32:36 PM EDT.