having_fun---Thank You!I have heard MANY soldiers complian that
all of the good things done are not reported.The media,sensation-
alises(sp?)all of the bad things & the people at home,don't realise
all of the good that is done! Irish
P.S. I would like to extend my condolences to Pat Tillmans fellow
Rangers!One of my Sons-in Law,was an Airborne Ranger,so I know,the respect,that they have for each other.Much respect is
felt,because they know,what each other,went thru,just in training
alone.Many don't know it,but he also had to pass the Final test,
of the Seals,Special Forces,etc.As his family said-He might not leave money,but he leaves a legacy!

Belial,

No photograph is respectful. No photograph is disrespectful. A photograph is a recorded image. A recording of what is. Reality is not respectful, nor is it disrespectful.

How an image is used or presented can be very disrespectful indeed.

For example, a few years ago, there was a picture entitled “Piss Christ” exhibited in several places, including Melbourne in 1997. Due to the way that the image was presented, it engendered such antipathy that it was seriously damaged, and the exhibit closed. A similar fate befell “The Holy Virgin Mary”. It was not that the images were themselves blasphemous; an image is after all only an image, but that they were presented in such a way as to antagonize people who had existing strong beliefs about the subject matter. As an aside, note that the responses elicited were so passionate that the exhibits were cancelled, thus depriving everyone of the opportunity to see the images. Most regrettable, and so avoidable.

Below is a link to a politically focused site. If you’ll take the time to follow it, you’ll see what has already been done with mere images. While some may take the picture in stride as an acceptable political “statement”, I suspect that others would consider it disrespectful. Composing a mosaic of a nation’s political executive out of images of dead people can plausibly be argued as disrespectful.

http://amleft.blogspot.com/archives...112087436221697

The last two American Presidents have had the dubious distinction of polarizing the political environment. The discourteous and nasty tactics which have become the political norm play into the hands of people on both the Right and the Left who seem to delight in savaging people with whom they disagree.

Now place yourself in the position of the Dover AFB commander. To make these images available on demand from a military facility is to be an accessory before the fact of a political statement. Is it fitting for the military to facilitate any particular type of political statement?

It is true that these images of coffins are only images. I believe that there is no prohibition of photography of the coffins once they have been released to the families of the deceased. Until then, how they may be used is very much within the purview of the managing organization, in this case the U.S. Air Force.

I do remember Piss Christ, and I recall being somewhat (pardon the pun) pissed off about what happened to it.

I saw the picture, and on a purely technical level I find it to be quite outstanding though I am very much a lay graphics person (read: I suck at graphics). I do think it could be, and probably was intended to be disrespectful towards George Bush Jr. I don't find disrespect to be an unacceptable political statement, however, and believe this to be central to any society offering freedom of political expression.

Isn't it the military's raison d'etre to facilitate - indeed, to act out themselves - political statements? If I were a commander committed to war I might be inclined, from a pragmatic point of view to not allow the photographs of the coffins to be released, because a pictorial reminder that soldiers actually die in war might not make me and my mission quite as popular with the citizens of my country, however, to not release the pictures obscures (in a pictorial sense) part of reality. To obscure information in any form that has no national security value, I believe, is not the function of the air force, nor military, nor any body puporting to act on behalf of "the people".

Belial,

In your first post to this thread, you raised the question of how photographing a coffin could disrespect the person in it or their family. Following my explanation of how easy it would be to use the pictures of the coffins in a fashion which could plausibly be described as disrespectful, your second post allowed that you thought that the linked mosaic could be, and probably was intended to be disrespectful. As the images used for the mosaic could just as easily have been little flag draped coffins (perhaps as the colors of a tie, or a little lapel pin), I submit that the issue of how a photograph of a coffin could be used in a fashion which disrespects the person in it or their family may safely be considered resolved.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this does not indicate my preference for, or for that matter against, the armed conflict from which these photographs are taken. While that could be an interesting issue to debate, it is one in which I am unwilling to engage. I think that doing so here would be rash.

I hope you do not take it amiss if I disagree with you about the raison d'être of the military of a democracy. Their function is to execute the orders given to them by the political rulers of the state. You and I entrust the military to the politicians. You may be aware that the throw weight of the nuclear weapons of an Ohio-class (Trident) submarine is, at 91+ megatons, many times in excess of that used during the course of World War Two – even when including the weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The last thing I want is a highly politicized crew of one of those vessels to broadcast their ultimatum. Come to think of it, were that to come to pass, the ultimatum would probably be one of the last things I would hear.

If you want examples of politically active military, you need only look at the sorry history of South America during the second half of the 20th century.

And in re limited success with graphics, I feel you pain. Having spent more on graphic tools than I should have, I must admit to being “graphically challenged” myself.

I see how the photographs could lead to disrespect, forgive me for being a little slow :) I concede that, but as I alluded to earlier, I think the risk of that is something we must accept if we wish to maintain freedom of expression.

Perhaps our definitions of politics and its scope are not in sync. To me, every statement made by a political leader in their political role is a political statement. No politician makes statements without considering and moderating those statements against the potential political consequences. So therefore, to me, when a country's military is only engaged at the behest of that country's political leadership, that military exists for the actioning of political statements. I do agree with you that this is/would be not a happy state of affairs, but unless my understanding is incorrect, it is a very real one.

Belial,

Freedom of speech/expression is not an absolute. My freedom to shout “Fire!” stops well before I am seated in a crowded cinema.

There is, I grant you, an unavoidable tension – a give and take if you will – between the freedoms customarily extended to our political leaders and their responsibilities to be honest and forthright about their policies.

In order to be effective they must be afforded sufficient room in which to maneuver into some consensus the various and sometime contradictory constituents they represent. At the same time, I will grant that they cannot expect the electorate to accept back room deals done at night in obscurity.

I do think we differ in how we see the role of the military in a democracy. I point again to 20th century history to emphasize the importance of segregating the military from politics.

I'll agree with you there. There has to be a line drawn, and it's tough to decide where. As long as there is open dialogue we have some hope of getting it "right".



I do see your point, and to quite an extent agree with it in terms of what I would like to see. However, what I would like to see and what I believe are in this case not necessarily the same. My contention is that if the government truly wishes the military to engage, one of two things will happen: One, commanders will comply, or two, they will not, and the likely result will be some sort of coup, with either the government deposing the military commanders and replacing them with commanders who will comply, or the military deposing the government who then become the government, giving us a situation where obviously the military will do the government's bidding as they would be one and the same.