By Carlos Miller
The death of U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard wasn’t that different than the hundreds of other Americans killed in Afghanistan since the beginning of the war. Nor the thousands of Americans who have been killed in the Iraq war.
Bernard was wounded August 14 by a rocket-propelled grenade during an ambush by Taliban soldiers. He later died on an operating table as doctors tried to save him. He was 21 years old.
His name would have barely broken into the news cycle had it not been for a photograph taken by Associated Press photographer Julie Jacobson in the seconds after he was wounded showing his fellow Marines trying to rescue him.
And that photo has now stirred a controversy reaching the highest levels of the Pentagon after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asked the Associated Press not to publish it.
But the A.P. stuck to their guns and distributed the photo to its clients anyway, allowing them to decide.
Most of the news organizations decided against running it. Even MSNBC decided not to run it before changing its mind.
However, MSNBC blacked the photo out, giving readers the opportunity to decide for themselves. Perhaps that was the best way to handle it. Kudos to them for running it.
Sometimes news is not pretty. Sometimes it is gruesome. Sometimes it is tragic. And sometimes it is shocking.
But it should always be true. It should always be honest. Even if its brutally honest.
While Bernard’s father wished that the photo would not run, believing it would demonstrate a lack of respect for his son, the opposite is true.
We can now stop for a moment in our busy lives to absorb the situation in Afghanistan. Whether you agree with the war or disagree with it, you cannot deny that Bernard paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Whether that sacrifice was to his country or to his government or to the corporations profiting from these wars, that will always be a point of debate.
But most of us will be able to empathize with Bernard and his family after viewing the photo, which is the only way to pay our respects.
However, the significance of that photo is far greater than this one death. It represents all the deaths in our two current wars, which total 5,130 as of today. It is not much different than the video that showed the slaying of Neda Soltani during the recent protests in Iran.
The photo gives us a taste of the wars that go beyond the usual press conference given by high-ranking military officials. It reveals a rare realism at a time when the Pentagon sets strict restrictions for journalists embedded with the military.
The Pentagon learned during the Vietnam War that an uncensored press is a powerful press. A press that is capable of changing public opinion. To them, an uncensored press is a dangerous press.
And that is the real reason why the Pentagon didn’t want this photo released.
So the real significance of this photo – and the fact that I am able to show it you tonight - is that Bernard truly did die defending our freedoms.
And maybe, just maybe, people can begin to understand why some of us choose to stubbornly cling to those freedoms.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Related posts:
Support Photography is Not a Crime by buying your electronics through this ad.
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
Much respect.
Everything that I have read about the 92Ms (mortuary technicians) emphasizes the utmost care and respect that they show our fallen troops. It’s sad that the Pentagon and some families think that our troops’ service is disrespected or trivialized by showing these sorts of photos.
The action photos really underline the sacrifice that LCpl. Bernard made, and the photo of the Marine kneeling in front of the field cross is heartbreaking.
I do think that the AP has every right to publish the photos, but why? How many pictures of dead or dying Taliban have we seen? Wouldn’t pictures of dead enemies be more appropriate for an American audience? It seems the AP and its stringers have a narrative they’re following, a narrative opposing the US-led wars, and this is just another line of that narrative.
Donkeyrock: Because only showing the enemy would be deceitful.
When we see one of our own die, we know that there is a COST of war, not just an effect on the world.
This cost showing its ugly head… that’s what these photos show. Thank you for publishing them here, Carlos.
TY
those that serve need to be shown paying the cost of our freedoms………..
Maybe it will wake up some of those bull headed asses who think the police/ goverment or other entity have the right to trample our freedomes to think twice when we defend that witch others have died for THANK GOD for those men and women cause i know i cant fight like they do……………………
genewitch: They don’t show the enemy dead at all unless it’s claimed they’re “civilians”. I haven’t been searching for pics of dead Taliban, but I honestly can’t recall any being published.
We know the COST of war: individually it’s high, financially it’s high, but casualty-wise, the cost has been low. I really do wish the valor of our soldiers was more wisely spent, but the idiots in office don’t know how to win a war anymore.
Carlos misses the point. This was not the pentagon asking that a picture not be taken or published–this was a young Marine’s father asking. The first amendment protects us from the government, not from a dying Marine’s father.
The AP didn’t stick a finger in Gates’ or the pentagon’s eye, they gave the finger to a grieving father–that’s a horse of an entirely different hue.
because of how much i COULD say! i will limit myself to saying that i agree with carlos, when someone hears the words, “WAR IS HELL, or “anything goes in war” . Most dont know what the words mean, this brings it home so perhaps others out there can even get close to what WAR really means, i lost an uncle in WWII [before i was born], and the one that did come back, well he was never the same[meaning of course i never really knew who he really was as i was born in 1953], he never did and never would talk about it!
Donkeyrock: Perhaps because I am old enough to remember the Vietnam War, I don’t agree with only showing pictures of the enemy. We remember all too well the inflated enemy body counts – if we went by the statistics and images the military was feeding us early in the war theoretically they had killed the VietCong off three times over… We all know that was not the case. What brought the war home to Americans and started the movement to end it was the fact that reporters started showing the truth (i.e. that Americans were dying).
So I say lets see it all – good and bad – and lets make a decision on that basis as to whether or not it is worth staying there.
@NYCPhoto:
I don’t see where Donkey called for /only/ showing enemy dead. My take was that he would like to see less of an anti-war (and a more pro-victory) bias in the press. That’s my take, and it is also my position. Seems to me that DR is making the same call as you are: let’s see it /all/ (my emphasis), not just the bad, so we can decide for ourselves.
The Pentagon is right to be suspicious, if not hostile, to the mainstream news orgs when said organizations are actively working (IMO) to aid and abet enemy interests with an ongoing stream of criticism of their Mission.
As for Vietnam, the press took an active role in ensuring a US defeat, naively (or maliciously) portraying the resounding defeat of the NVA and VC during Tet as a great victory for them. That’s not reporting the news, that’s issuing pro-enemy propaganda.
Top: Not to be disrespectful but I a PJ and the father not waiting the picture published is a non issue. He asked and that is all that he can do and all that he should be able to do. He should be proud of the efforts made by the Marines Corps men as they attemted to save his sons life underfire.
This photo is less graphic then some of my own photographs that my paper paper has ran with traffic accidents or shootings. Did the victims familes get upset ? Sometimes they did sometimes they did not. Did it show the reality of life ? 100 precent.
War is horrible the end. It needs to be shown.
The reason the white house did not want the photograph to be released is because the public is begining to see the current wars as the public saw Vietnam. The answer to that is to attempt to control the flow of infromation out of the conflict.
People forget as journalist we must be the witness for the world.
The photograph is just a record of what happens and not releasing it would be an attempt to cover up the fact that Marines die in combat.
It is not the old GI Joe cartoon where everybody walks away from a firefight.
Good Job Julie
Thank you for posting these, Carlos.
MB–no one knows better than the Soldier or Marine that war is hell–been there, done that and deal with the VA to prove it. I can’t believe that YOU are going to try and educate ME on the horrors of war.
The father not wanting the photo published may be a non issue to you, but I promise it is very much an issue to him.
You want to stick a finger in the eye of the administration–go for it. You want to publish photos of war dead–go for it. You want to give the finger to a grieving dad–go for it. But don’t try to make publishing this picture, that the family asked to be withheld, some noble stand or mission. The journalist and the AP had a chance to stand by the family of a fallen Marine and chose not to.
I am a strong advocate of the government not censoring the press. Ramp ceremonies of closed caskets should be fair game. This is not the government trying to censor the press, THIS was a grieving father asking for compassion. You can spin it how you like. Cloak it in some noble PJ BS, but I’m not fooled.
You tell ‘em, Top!
“They are fighting for our freedoms.”
Really? How so?
I think it was horrible that they published the picture after the father asked them not to. It isn’t a legal issue but a moral one. I am sure there are plenty of other pictures of our soldiers dying that have been taken that at least one family would of given permission if they really wanted to do so. For all of you saying how it shows war is hell and we need to show this I doubt on 9-11 you were speaking out or calling your local tv stations demanding to see the people jumping out of the windows and people splattered on the street.
Yes, the father did ask that the picture not be run, but nowhere in the history of journalism does a grieving father get absolute veto rights on a story or picture. His concerns can be weighed against the good of publication, but it does not automatically trump editorial judgment.
As for the DOD letter, that is clearly a flagrant attempt at government censorship.
NYCPhotorights: Nemo has it correct. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my opinion, but I don’t object to seeing/publishing US Military casualties, I do object to seeing/publishing mostly, even only, US Military casualties.
The father of the soldier doesn’t have a right to block the photo from being published, and it’s not wrong for the gov’t to request a picture not to be published (no force behind the request), but there’s still the question of “why?” Why does the AP publish mostly US casualties? Why do news organizations give detailed lists of US dead while completely ignoring enemy dead? Maybe they do have some sort of Vietnam complex, like they’re crusading for something right, but they destroy morale at home with that narrative.
Regardless of the issue of right and wrong when it comes to the recent wars, the coverage has not been fair and balanced from any news outlet.
arthur dent:
I find i have no choice but to say again how important the last part of your post is, and repeat it again, “As for the DOD letter, that is clearly a flagrant attempt at government censorship.” the fact is way too many miss it or decide that is not the issue, but its right on point!
I will stop now before i do as i sometimes do, and say a word or two too much.
I agree 100% with # 7 and # 16. To us the young man in the first photo is merely a symbol of soldiers, Iraq, the real cost of war—whatever your personal feelings on the issue might be. To his father that’s his kid, his baby. I can see why he feels that representing his sons life by a photo of his death–by tragedy only–is disrespectful.
It’s sort of an interesting commentary on how we view people in the media as objects; even those who didn’t ask to be known.
I’m for sick fucker’s right to protest-like fred phelps, but it doesn’t mean they get front row seats at the funeral.
It’s a tough issue for sure. I guess it’s like only the right wing media showing TK’s car at Chappaquidik-we only want to see things that support our worldview.
Look, the issue is very clear. The father of a dead Marine asks that the photo not run. The media has a choice–be respectful of the father’s wish or not. They chose not. They chose not for several reasons. The photographer gets fame. The AP gets to advance its anti military bias. Various apologizers and self importortant photo journalists get to pontificate on how the photographer and the AP have struck a blow for journalistic freedom, and one even gets to lecture me about the horrors of war.
None of them gives a damn about the dead Marine or his father’s wishes. It’s a free press, and they get to make the call–but I call BS. A request is not censorship–the photog did not go to jail, the presses were not confiscated, the photo ran.
Most of us appreciate a free press and are capable of seeing this for what it is.
Well said, Carlos. The bottom line is that war is a tragedy.
As tough as it is for the family of a dead soldier, honest and harsh reality slaps everyone in the face in moments like these. What it ought to do is prompt people to ask questions and demand answers….Without offering an opinion on our presence in the Middle East, I believe that the majority of lazy, gullible, video game playin’, American Idol watchin’ fools aren’t even remotely aware of how f’ed up things are. And they are getting worse every day. Why these fools in D.C. keep getting reelected is proof of apathy. People need to get bitch slapped with reality in order to pay attention. I don’t know if it helps to try & wake folks up, and its a sad testament to this country that it takes photos like this to even generate some type of dialogue…..Prayers and sympathy to the families of all who’ve come home dead or mangled.
Janie,
Maybe the post went over your head. Yes, it was a cliche but it was an intentional cliche.
That fact that the photo ran was a vivid reminder that we still have a free press in this country.
Unfortunately, it took his death to prove that.
Top,
Obviously, you haven’t spent a single day in a newsroom, so let me explain how it works.
A grieving parent does not have any say in whether a photo runs or not.
The media has a much larger duty on hand. It’s nothing personal. But it has a job to do. And that is to report the truth.
This incident, this photo, this issue is much larger than a father’s wishes.
Imagine if newspapers never ran the photo of the napalm girl in Vietnam because her father requested them not to.
http://quakeragitator.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/napalm-vietnam.jpg
Or if the wife of the man who was executed at point blank range had the same request.
http://www.cs.brown.edu/courses/cs024/images/canon/06.jpg
Besides, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Pentagon pressured the father to request that the photo not run.
I think that if the government did not want the pictures to run they would of censored it after it was taken since they have to clear the pictures before they are sent back to the editors for publishing. I don’t see how the issue is about a free press at all, it is more of an elitist’s attitude with people in the media who for whatever reason believe they have some kind of higher moral character then everyone else and they are always right.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if the Pentagon pressured the father to request that the photo not run.”
That is just silly liberal media paranoia. You are saying then that the father really wanted pictures of his dead son printed everywhere and used as a device in the nasty and divided politics of this country and that the government had to convince him otherwise?
“Liberal, elite media”?
Sarah Palin, is that you?
““Liberal, elite media”?
Sarah Palin, is that you?”
C’mon, Carlos.
“The media has a much larger duty on hand. It’s nothing personal. But it has a job to do. And that is to report the truth.”
Then what about when editors decide to not print something, such as the Dutch Mohammed cartoons? Wouldn’t that be the media hiding the truth?
lol of course name calling instead of answers, typical.
You guys need to check out this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpp4AiGRKiA
What was the point of me watching that video?
Carlos, the video was very enlightening…thanks for sharing it.
TOP…your an idiot!
if the media respected everyone, the pages would be blank. oh hell why am i even wasting my time on the likes of you?
oh ya, top, heres a tissue for all the tears you had thinking of the dad!
Tony–How quickly it devolves to name calling. I’ve been called worse than an idiot–I’ve also cried tears over the dead, from Beirut, through Somalia and OIF. I’m certainly not ashamed of that fact. Is that the best you can do? OK, I’m an idiot.
However, I’m an idiot for standing up to the police when they overreach; I’m an idiot for supporting Carlos’ legal fight; I’m an idiot for believing that the first amendment is as important as the fourth and second–not for pointing out some flack’s pontification on the horrors of war.
Carlos, I’ve never been in a newsroom. I’ve also never been a police officer but that doesn’t stop me from calling BS when they taser a tractor driver, beat up a teenager or arrest a photographer. And cops say the same thing–you’ve never been on the streets, or you don’t know what it’s like out there. It’s not personal; we’re just enforcing the law. We’ve got a job to do.
I wasn’t aware that the napalm girl’s father had asked that her picture not run–same with the executed viet cong prisoner. I guess I learned something today after all.
Nobody dying in the AfPak occupation or Iraq occupation is “defending our freedom.” They defend only the military industrial complex’s profit margins and the rights of boardroom chairmen to ride in Gulfstreams.
Take the word of a Marine General and the only 2 time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient.
WAR IS A RACKET
Major General Smedley D. Butler – USMC Retired
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
thank you Kol> Klink well said and again right on point, like i said, some will always disagree with whatever you say, or just flat out love to argue! BS is also used to grow roses, so i guess its not all that bad! (and even though i know he/she will never get i) that “idiot” comment was for what you said, i am old enuff to know that there are always common ground where opposites would find they agree…..duh! but some of what is being said here is pure idiotic in my opinion. [and that wasnt for you, that was for others that may even understand where i am coming from, but then again, they perhaps wouldnt have needed me to say that!]
P.S. thanks top for supporting Carlos!
War may be a racket, but the raceteers are the civilians in charge, not the soldiers, sailor, airmen and marines who execute those orders.
If you hate war, hate those that start it, and not just the ones in D.C.
Sorry, Carlos, honestly I wasn’t referring to you, but to commenters who are outraged over the publication of a photo of a dead American soldier, but are not at all outraged over the fact that he is dead. Apparently he had to die because war is hell or something like that. They don’t want anyone to see images of dead soldiers or the tiny coffins of the “enemy” because it may turn people against our fake wars and we can’t have that. They are glad the American body count is low (which it isn’t) and let us not dwell for a nanosecond on the millions of dead and displaced Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis who don’t count anyway because war is hell and people die.
Mr Bernard, should you read this comment at some point down the road, please know that seeing these pictures gave me nothing but the utmost respect and gratitude for your son’s sacrifice.
Janie
Don’t forget about the Kurds. Oh wait, you did already-never mind.
Janie
I’ve seen pictures of our dead American soldiers from the European theater of WWII. You know, from when we fought Hitler.
Interesting thing though, he never attacked the US nor did he give orders to the planes that killed over 3,000 Americans.
Wow, history does really repeat itself.
P&P
Kurds…Hitler… what? Well, what’s important is that YOU know what you’re talking about.
If the press put one tenth the effort into exposing the corruption,entitlement, and excesses of Congress as they do the Defense Department, our country would be WAY better off.
Do some of you (Janie) REALLY believe that Muslim extremist really don’t want to kill every non-Muslim they can get – and that if we didn’t keep them busy at home, they wouldn’t be attacking us (U.S.A.) in other ways – planes, ships, IEDs on Americas Highways, rail lines, etc.???
I would probably sleep better if I was as naive (detatched) as you.
PROUD father of a U.S. Marine!!
Kemosabe – I believe that there exist Muslim extremists that want to kill every non-Muslim they can get, but I also believe that there exist Christian extremists that want to kill every non-Christian they can get. AND I believe that the vast majority of said extremists (on both sides) haven’t got the brains OR the funding to pull off anything like attacking the USA or any other country with planes, ships, IEDs, etc.
There aren’t NEAR as many extremists as the media reports would have you believe, just as there aren’t near as many mass-murderers in the US, or as many abductions by strangers, or as many armed robberies, etc as the media reports would have you believe. Fact is that bad news sells papers (and TV and radio advertising), and also works to bring people around to certain viewpoints, so bad news is almost exclusively what you hear/read in the media.
I knew a woman that moved here from the middle east, and before she arrived, she was convinced that all American women walked around in bikinis everywhere all the time, because in her country, every time there was a news story about America, they showed only images of people at the beaches. When she arrived and saw the reality, she was appalled at the inaccuracy in the news reporting. Then when she saw what they were reporting here about her country, she was equally appalled at the inaccuracy of the portrayal of her home country. Propaganda goes both ways, I’m afraid.
And I don’t believe that attacking other countries without provocation is the way to keep extremists from hating us and wanting to kill Americans. Or do you really believe that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11/01?
Kylie: you are so right on point its almost frightening, i may add to that this, [i may age myself with this but,] in what you say we usta have a saying knowing how to ‘read between the lines” as it were, it goes to exactly what your saying, i have known for years that our reporting here in the USA is alot of BS and they do it for very good reasons. that is why i think the governments in the world are scared of the internet and are doing what they can to attempt to control it. Hell they are so stupid to think they could ever, they cant and never will. but what they seem to be trying to do is tell everyone, you cant believe them, you can only believe us, we would never lie to you. ya sure..just some more of their BS!
Iraq and 911, didnt we go to war because Iraq also had WMD’s….heheheh and the BS never ends! {and some even say, well with what the leaders over there were doing to their people, the world is a better place for what we did in Iraq,..the BS with that alone is about four feet deep!}
No Kylie, I do not believe that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.
However, they remained a threat to the entire region as long as Hussein remained in power, and they certainly had the motive and ability to provide a great deal of support and assistance to Al Queida, et al. under the “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” doctrine.
Remember that the U.N. had imposed sanctions on Iraq that it was then unwilling to enforce. Why? Because too many member countries of the Security Council had under the table deals going on with Iraq. Had the U.N. put our money where its’ mouth is, enforced the sanctions it had imposed, and sanctioned those members who ignored and/or circumvented those sanctions and continued to pour money into the Hussein Boys banks, we would NOT have had a reason to invade Iraq.
Before we get on to WMDs, lets not forget that Hussein had months to get rid of them while the U.N. sat on their hands.
I do realize that the media no longer reports the facts. They report their interpretations of events and issues. That is why I have no faith in the objectivity of our “journalists”.
I sure don’t recall much discussion in our media of how Al or the Taliban treat their prisoners, but put a pair on underpants on the head of a detainee – and we have to listen too it and see pictures of it for weeks. At least the POS SOB had a head to put his undies on!!
I suggest, to resolve many issues, both foreign and domestic, that we require that the first participants (the Beta Group) in our new National -uh-health (not insurance) care Program be a) All members of Congress and their families and heirs; b) all “journalists”; and c) the Taliban and Al Queida.
I am a non-practicing Agnostic (unorthodox) so I have no dog in the religious fight, but I do agree with you there. Zealotry in all forms is a dangerous thing.
Oh – and Kol. Klink, there are 19 double recipients of the C.M.H., not just one. The most famous might be Georgie Custer’s brother, Thomas, who died on the Greasy Grass with his brother. Tom got them during the Civil War, I believe.
What do you mean the sanctions against Iraq didn’t work? Why did Madeleine Albright say the price of the sanctions was worth it (that price being the deaths of half a million Iraqi children), if they hadn’t worked? Maybe they didn’t effect a regime change (the real reason for the sanctions) but they certainly helped rid the world of half a million tiny, future terrorists that we don’t have to fight “over here” OR “over there.”
Here’s those 23 seconds of Madeleine “It Was Worth It” Albright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
War, hell, etc.
Kemosabe – I got news for you. The “public option” that is the biggest sticking point in the current health care reform bill is basically the exact same option that ALL federal employees, INCLUDING congress, already have access to. And in the current health care reform bill, said “public option” is exactly that – AN OPTION. It means that NO ONE HAS TO TAKE IT. So unless your statements are about a health care reform proposal that is not currently being prepared for vote, your statements make no sense. And if you are referring to some other proposal, your statements are irrelevant.
You’re also showing your ignorance by implying that there was no prisoner abuse beyond putting a pair of underwear on someone’s head. I challenge you to undergo waterboarding, temperature and posture extremes while you are stripped naked except for a hood over your head, sexual and psychological abuse, and other abuses that those prisoners were put through and see if you then think that it is ok to treat people that way. Personally, while I do not have a death wish, I would rather be killed than put through months or years of that kind of abuse.
And now to the subject of WMDs and Hussein, I will remind you that the USA put Hussein into power in the first place, trained him up real good in how to wage war and gave him money and arms. Further, the good old USA is the ONLY country that has ever used WMDs against another country, we hold the worlds largest stockpile of WMDs, and our last president and vice-president were teetering dangerously on the edge of that slippery slope towards the rest of the world viewing them as fascist dictators. To borrow a phrase from the Christians, I’d say there but for the grace of God go we (except that I don’t really believe god has anything to do with it).
WMDs. We have ‘em, we’ve used ‘em, and I’m pretty glad we did. Truman was the last democrat with any huevos.
The “Public option” won’t be an option after a few years of socialized health care. For this ponzi scheme to work, we ALL (those who make any money) have to pay in for all of those who don’t pay taxes. You trust these people?????
And I don’t think our Senators and Congressman have the same program as all other federal employees. When my wife was sick – she didn’t get to go to Bethesda Naval Hospital.
Why don’t you ask a POW survivor if he wishes he’d been killed. I can tell you that the survivors of the Bataan Death March, while feeling terrible for those who perished, are damn glad to be alive.
The last President a fascist dictator??? You’ve been listening to too much NPR. Its the current admin in DC you better keep an eye on,
Kemosabe – Obviously your reading comprehension needs some work. I said that the last president and vice president “were teetering dangerously on the edge of that slippery slope towards the rest of the world viewing them as fascist dictators.” Read it again. Here, I’ll even simplify it for you – I didn’t say they were fascist dictators, I said that they were dangerously close to the rest of the world seeing them as such.
As to the members of congress and health care, do you think when they are in their home states and need to have medical attention they go to Bethesda Naval Hospital? No. They have health insurance and see a doctor in their home state. And they have several options of insurance to choose from, just like you would have with your job, except for the fact that their employer (the federal government) pays for their premiums and the fact that they have an insurance option that is extremely similar to the proposed public option.
The current proposal that is on the table has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with “socialized health care”, and is nothing like a ponzi scheme. It is an INSURANCE option, very similar to the insurance that you can currently buy through your employer, with its own preferred network of providers, just like your that you can buy through your employer. If you opt to BUY the public option insurance, you have to pay insurance premiums just like the insurance that you buy from corporate-run insurance through your employer.
Now, why don’t YOU ask a POW survivor if he thinks its OK to torture people because they were on the other side in a war? I can tell you that at least SOME of them would say that is no way to treat any human being – at least the ones who haven’t been brainwashed into believing that the only way to have peace is by being the biggest bully on the block and terrorizing and beating everyone else into submission.
Of course Kemo admires Truman and thinks he is a real “man.” After all, he nuked unarmed civilians and that seems to be the only requirement in the conservative/neocon Real “Man’s” Club. That is why they worship Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld; their shared passion for endless, decades long wars mostly on civilians. That is the only thing they like about Obama. The three words “hope and change” became “business as usual” as far as forever wars are concerned and who knows? Maybe we’ll bomb those Persian monsters yet!
Keep your fingers crossed Kemo.
So – you let the rest of the world do your talking for you? “I didn’t say it – they said it.”
That is because “the rest of the world is perfectly content to let us be the world’s police force – while they rest on their phony laurels.
I do not believe a word that the current administration – including Congress, says, except for the need for sacrifice – OUR sacrifice.
I feel like I should get a tattoo – “Not for human consumption” before my generation is turned into Soylent Green.
I just don’t see the federal government doing anything well – especially running any kind of social program. Just look at how much the “Great Society” has accomplished. We’ve created a subculture which is utterly dependent on the federal government
If they run this thing like they’ve run Social Security (raided a “Trust fund” to pay for other government activities) or VA hospitals (I wonder if they’ll do as well with mental health care for the general population as they have for veterans?) I believe we’re in B I G trouble.
I know I won’t change your mind – I don’t really care to. I know the pain of having illusions evaporate in the glare of reality. I used to believe in the infallability of our government too. I have come to realize it is ALL smoke and mirrors.
You seem to be the ONLY person who knows what is in THE Health Tax bill(s). None of my Congressmen (they all happen to be men) or Senators do.
Of course, WWII is about as relevant as ancient Rome to some, but I suspect many Europeans still appreciate having a bully on their side. If not us, who(m)? The U.N.??? They won’t even use the word genocide when it is staring them in the face.
I like to fall asleep with a chuckle!
Janey – you may call me Kemosabe.
I admire Truman not because he killed “innocent” civilians, but because his action kept thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Blue Star Mothers from becoming Gold Star Mothers.
The invasion of Okinawa (10 miles wide and Sixty miles long) demonstrated the lengths the Imperial forces (those would be the Japanese) would go to if we undertook an invasion of the main islands – probably twenty to one hundred times more costly in ALL lives than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had we invaded the main islands of Japan, many of us debating this might not be here today – those who became our fathers would have been killed in the effort – perhaps doubling the US death toll for the entire war.
So much for my chuckle thinking about the U.N.
Now I’m gonna worry about what if Truman hadn’t done it – or worse – W.W.F.D. – What would Franklin have done had he lived. After all – it was his commitment to build atomic bombs that got us there. I suppose if FDR had lived and dropped the bombs – well – there would probably be no controversy at all, just as if President Clinton (who you may be surprised to know I voted for – twice – each time he ran) had taken some serious action against anybody, rather than the Bush crew..
Janie @44
So you admit that you don’t care about the Kurds? What did they ever do to you? They don’t count because war is hell?
Janie@49
Margaret Sanger would be so jealous.
Well, Kemo, I never said “innocent” civilians, I said “unarmed” civilians, making a distinction except for children, who are always innocent. (And you may call me Janie, not Janey.)
The myth of the “saved lives” wasn’t started until after the war, maybe in 1946, definitely by 1947. At first it was hundreds, then hundreds of thousands, and has been 1.5 million for some years now. It is odd, isn’t it, that Truman never mentioned these saved lives before, during, or right after dropping the bombs. (Well. Not really odd, since the myth hadn’t been thought of yet.) Is the saved lives myth also the reason we firebombed entire cities? Dresden (or was that England’s doing?), Tokyo, Hamburg? — well, I’ll have to google the firebombed cities.
But what do made-up numbers matter? Are you not just making the argument that since the US committed war crimes in WW2, we can commit them anytime, anywhere, even during a completely trumped up war? We also waterboarded Filipinos during the Philippine Genocide, so, of course, we can do it now, duh! Going back even further, Ulysses S. Grant mentioned in his second inaugural address that he wanted “to bring the aborigines of the country under the benign influences of education and civilization. It is either this or war of extermination…” That applies here, doesn’t it, since it is obvious we will never be safe as long as there is an Iraqi left alive. Oh, wait, I forgot the Mexican-American War, also a trumped up war to relieve Mexico of half its land.
Now that I think about it, Thomas Paine wrote a letter to George Washington and accused him of letting him (Paine) rot in a French prison for political expediency.
War crimes, torture, genocide; it’s all there, so there’s nothing wrong with torturing terrorists at Gitmo even though they are mostly innocent of the charges against them. The REAL crime, as we all know, is showing photos of that torture, as that may change people’s minds, God forbid.
Your chances of being killed by a cop are greater than your chances of being killed by a terrorist, and people would still be calling cop-torture and cop-killing “isolated incidents” if it weren’t for — what? the photos and videos.
I’m weary of this subject, WW2. I can understand your obsession with it, the “saved lives” and all. After all, your son is a Marine with your blessing; maybe you feel a need to justify that, something more substantive than keeping them “busy” over there.
Good morning – Janey!
The “saved lives” observation is merely an unintended consequence of dropping atomic bombs on unarmed civilians (who were busy building war materials used to kill Americans and our allies). It is NOT a justification for bombing them. The idea was to end the war as quickly as possible – not just to use a nuclear device because the Japanese were different from us, or any other reason. End the war as quickly as possible and fewer people (ours and their) will end up dead. You use the tools in your toolbox (or knitting box).
Sure you’re weary of WWII. You can’t really find a way to make America the bad guy.
Please tell me how YOU know that the detainees at Gitmo are innocent? Did Cindy Sheehan tell you? Had you read the “Geneva Convention” you would know that they are NOT entitled to the protection under that document.
My son is a Marine because he chose to be a Marine. I support his choice. Simple. You are welcome to KMA if you think it is an unworthy vocation.
You may go.
Kemosabe,
Truman extended the war while Japan was trying to surrender in May 1945. The bomb dropped on Japan was meant as a demonstration of power.
The Hiroshima Myth
by John V. Denson
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html
Kemosabe,
War is a racket.
Then the bankers collected their profits.
But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
Now you wouldn’t disrespect Smedley Butler’s word, would you?
WAR IS A RACKET
by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
Major General Smedley D. Butler – USMC Retired
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Janie,
Sorry, but the “saved lives” come from estimates made long before the atomic bombs were dropped. The estimates were derived during planning for the invasion of Kyushu (1/3 of its land area was to be made an Allied base) scheduled for Nov. 1, 1945. Our troops were under training for that operation until the Japanese surrender on the 11 th (IIRC). The original estimates put Allied deaths at approx. 500,ooo and Japanese at 1.5 million based on experience at Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. These estimates climbed as planning went on. Truman knew these numbers and they were part of his decision to drop the bombs.
And of course he wouldn’t have divulged these numbers until long after the end of the war. Hell, the Code Talkers weren’t revealed until 1968.
Currently, it is known that the Japanese had many, many more planes in reserve than we knew and had been militarizing the entire population in preparation for the invasion of Kyushu. They just didn’t know when but they knew where. Estimates now have grown to 750,000 to 1 million Allied deaths and up to 5 million Japanese. These numbers have not grown because of “myth” but because of more info released by the Japanese as to their preparedness.
As for war crimes, both sides were operating under “total war” which was to destroy the infrastructure, all infrastructure, of the enemy countries. Both Japanese and Germans worked desperately on how to bomb the continental US, from rockets to bombers, but were unable to build the needed long range equipment.
Google Operation Olympia (might be Olympus)regarding Kyushu. Your second paragraph comment #58 is just ignorance, while my comments come from memory having read. You might also google “japanese atomic bomb”, they were fairly close operating at a secret base on the Korean peninsula. They did plan to use them.
Kemosabe,
May your son be safe. I agree with your KMA statement.
1. Denson’s “Hiroshima Myth” is pure cherry-picked crap history.
2. Butler may express his opinion of course. I’m sure there are other Generals and Admirals that disagree with him, likely on the order of 10 to the third. By the way, it isn’t “the Congressional Medal of Honor” just “the Medal of Honor”. I hope the good General didn’t make that mistake.
Well, well, Kol. Klink! Libertarian?
Ariel: http://www.cmohs.org/
And i can’t even figure out what the rest of you are fighting about and to what end, or what side you are all on, just that you guys draw facts from very strange and suspect places.
genewitch,
Very familiar with the site, I read it from time to time to remind me of their sacrifices. They point out that the name is the “Medal of Honor” often called the “Congressional Medal of Honor”, the latter is not the official nor accurate name. You’ll notice it is called the “Medal of Honor”, not the “Congressional Medal of Honor” throughout their site. It’s unfortunate that they used the unofficial name for their Society, but then that was by legislation of Congress during Eisenhower. All previous Societies did not use “Congressional”.
There is another site that gives more detailed life stories of various Medal of Honor receipients, but I can’t find the link.
Kemosabe
Here’s an article on Cracked.com:
http://www.cracked.com/article_17416_7-most-bizarrely-unlucky-people-who-ever-lived.html
Number one is Tsutomu Yamaguchi-a businessman who was in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the bombs went off. He’s still alive today.
Kemosabe
You may find this one interesting as well: http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-bitch.html
I think that we all know quien no sabe-if you know what I mean.
Kemosabe – so, are you really that obtuse, or are you deliberately avoiding my points and trying to change the subject?
At comment 54, you said: “So – you let the rest of the world do your talking for you? “I didn’t say it – they said it.”” As I said before, your reading comprehension needs a LOT of work. The point I was making (since you obviously need things spelled out in small words) is that WE, THE USA, under Bush and Cheney, were getting dangerously close to being in the exact same situation as Iraq, which is to say that we had WMDs, we had leaders that the rest of the “free” world was starting to view as dangerous, and if things had been just slightly different, WE might be the ones fighting a war AT HOME. Don’t think it couldn’t happen. When the bully gets too bad, the rest of the neighborhood will eventually get sick of him and gang up on him.
Further you say: “You seem to be the ONLY person who knows what is in THE Health Tax bill(s). None of my Congressmen (they all happen to be men) or Senators do.” Well, I don’t know about YOUR congressmen, or about this “Health Tax bill(s)” you’re talking about, but there are PLENTY of people that know and understand what is in H.R.3200, titled “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009″, which is the legislation that is currently being prepared for vote. The reason it seems to you that no one but me knows what is in it is that (1) your reading comprehension sucks, and you seem to think everyone else’s does too, (2) the insurance companies have so many people riled up with outright lies that no one will let people that DO know what’s in it actually get a word in edgewise in any “discussion”.
And lastly, you say you don’t trust the government to do ANYTHING right, yet you’re willing to trust them with DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY and with HAVING WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION?!?!?! WTF?!?!?! You seriously need some mental health care!
“Soldiers are nothing but dumb apes to do the bidding of their political masters.”
Henry Kissinger
I tend to prefer these:
“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.” T. Jefferson
“The moral difference between a soldier and a civilian is that the soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member. The civilian does not.” R. Heinlein
“For it’s Tommy this an’ Tommy that, and “Chuck ‘im out, the brute.” But it’s “Savior of ‘is country,” when the guns begin to shoot.” R. Kipling
“But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.” A. Lincoln
To each his own I guess.
Jefferson was talking about the militias of the states (citizen soldiers), not about a standing army of regulars of which he said: “There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors…should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.”
Also from Jefferson: “It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours.” And: “In this country, [a draught from the militia] ever was the most unpopular and impracticable thing that could be attempted. Our people, even under the monarchical government, had learnt to consider it as the last of all oppressions.”
I wouldn’t put too much stock in what presidents say, since they all lie, including Jefferson.
Lincoln will always be a hero to war-mongers. Total war, war on civilians (not that the South didn’t deserve it!), imprisoning thousands of journalists and newspaper editors in the North, deporting a US Senator… what’s not to love? I know, I know, he did what he had to do to win the war (which is hell), blah, blah. He also set the stage for every war after that: erasing the distinction between soldier and civilian, total destruction, and the suspension of rights during wartime (or as now, rights suspended forever).
I love “Tommy” by Rudyard Kipling, which he wrote before WW1. Things changed after that.
This is from an article about him:
“Up until the war [WW1] Kipling had glorified the British empire and army and wars in many of his works. When the war came, he encouraged his son to join the army, and even pulled a lot of strings to get him admitted despite his physical disabilities. His son was killed in France in 1915, at the age of 18.”
This is from Kipling’s “Epitaphs of War,” 1918:
If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied.
[from headstone of a dead statesman who “lied them into war”]
I could not dig: I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?
This is from Kipling’s “Mesopotamia,” 1917:
They shall not return to us, the resolute, the young,
The eager and whole-hearted whom we gave:
But the men who left them thriftily to die in their own dung,
Shall they come with years and honour to the grave?
Sorry, Janie, but I’m not a war-monger, just not stupid enough to believe that war is always avoidable. Or that being technologically backward militarily is a good thing, as WWII showed.
The Jefferson, et al, animus to standing armies was partly from the experience with the British monarchy and its use of troops, from whence the 3rd Amendment. Yes, both Army and Navy were disbanded for a time (the USCG is the longest continuous sea-going arm of the military as the Revenue Marine Cutter Service). However, it proved impractical and suicidal when facing the European powers. There was also a belief against a political class; all elected were to be drawn from the best and brightest of all fields, those willing to give their time and fortune to the benefit of the Republic. That didn’t work out well either. Shame that.
As for Lincoln, given that the Union was losing the War for most of it, that many in the North worked as much for the South as the Union, his methods were understandable. I forget the quote, but Lincoln said, especially about habeas corpus (which Congress can do during wartime), that when the war ended should Congress impeach and remove, then the courts convict, he would suffer the punishment. But there were Presidents as bad or worse, in your terms, given the circumstances. Woodrow Wilson was as bad as Lincoln and his war was on foreign soil. He wasn’t fighting to maintain the Union. FDR broke the Washington tradition, set Hoover on political dissidents, and interned Japanese, Germans, and Italians who were foreign nationals (OK), naturalized, or native.
All people lie. Statecraft requires it during war. Or would you have a FDR answering yes in 1942 to “have we broken the Japanese military code”?
I think its American hubris or Amero-centrism to believe the tactics of the Civil War had that great an impact on European warcraft. The USA was a backwater in the 19th Century, let me repeat, we were a backwater, and viewed as such by Europe. Trench warfare wasn’t in Sherman’s handbook, yet the Euros readily adopted it in WWI. My grandfather served in the AEF and had to fight in that stupid European War. The modern war would, and likely did, evolve independently of anything going on in this 19th Century backwater.
From what I can see on all these subjects you have one hell of a prejudice, apply current views to judge past events (there is a term that historians have for that, I forget it, but it is similar in meaning to “dumb ass” no offense intended), and you therefore lack context on nearly every one of these subjects.
Have you read anything, yet, regarding the planned Kyushu invasion, or would that destabilize your weltangschaung?
OK, you’re not too bad if you like Kipling. I consider him misunderstood in most cases, again because of context.
WWI impacted many because, as bad as WWII was technologically, WWI was the worst as far as its impact on those who suffered it, soldier or civilian, parent or child. Kipling’s turn is understandable. The “Lost Generation” is an apt phrase.
Just to let you know, my “parents” were born before the Spanish-American War, the Titanic, and the Armistice. I wasn’t raised by one set or by “moderns”. I consider the early part of the 20th Century as much my home as the latter. I just wish I could forget “mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy”. And yes, I was taught the Charleston.
I was also taught that, for different reasons, Pacifists and Utopians are dangerous people. And nothing I have learned since has dissuaded me from that lesson.
I’m not a pacifist or utopian, but I don’t see how they could possibly be dangerous. I’m a recovering conservative war-monger, an ex-member of the John Birch “Support Your Local Police!” Society. I am now a total anarchist.
Concerning the subject of this post, the sanctimonious outcry that a photo was published of a dying American soldier, I got these two quotes from the internet:
“Following the first execution of Paul Berg, beheadings, with shocking and bewildering regularity, have proliferated, their numbers now in the hundreds. Each story – a precious life extinguished, in violent circumstance, and published to the world in pictures…”
I don’t remember an outcry from the pro-war-any-war crowd. I wonder why? Oh, here’s the answer:
“And once again, if seeing these videos helps fuel the warrior spirit which is required, then that’s reason enough to help make them available.”
Janie
“Concerning the subject of this post, the sanctimonious outcry that a photo was published of a dying American soldier…”
It was published of a dying Marine against his fathers express request and wishes.
Speaking of sanctimonious see the above posts about how this was just a fulfillment of a higher duty, a blow against government censorship, etc.
“I’m a recovering conservative war-monger, an ex-member of the John Birch “Support Your Local Police!” Society. I am now a total anarchist.”
Janie #76,
Have you consider that moving from one extreme to another is neither a good intellectual nor life choice? Have you really changed?
Utopias are based on harmony; the only way to achieve that goal is to remove the disharmonious. There is enough fictional, from Zamyatin’s “We” to Huxley’s “Brave New World”, as well as experiential (the New Communist Man) to illustrate the dangers of Utopianism. But then, its always the other guy that has to change, isn’t it?
I leave you to the issue with Pacifists, extreme or moderate. Kitty Genovese would be just as dead if it had been extreme Pacifists watching from the windows instead of apathetic cowards.
Top #77,
I am rather torn on this, but do agree with you regarding sanctimony. I have experienced first hand the “higher duty” of a newspaper (front-page quote-mine with my name in print and a misleading picture and caption right next to it).
If pushed hard, I would likely have gone with the father’s wishes, in both cases of Janie #76. One caveat though, Berg’s film illustrated the depravity of one more Utopian movement (a religio-political one) while the dying Marine needlessly illustrated the pain and tragedy of one family. However callous this may sound, that picture of a dying Marine adds nothing new to the dialog.
nix this i misread something earlier.
genewitch,
I’m still going to reply while not quoting your comment question. I think the difference between Berg and the dying Marine is the realization that the depravity of killing a truly innocent man, Jew or not (although he was killed in part because he was a Jew), was in their twisted minds furthering the purpose of a religio-political agenda, a typical sickness of the Utopian fanatic. Something we seem to not be reminded of often enough, and forget too soon.
The dying Marine however much illustrating the pain of war illustrates only that, and inflicts needless pain on his family. I’ve seen archival films of the trench-to-trench charges of Tommys and AEF against the equivalent of 50-caliber machine guns. They crumpled and died. Truly horrifying.
I have to hold back the tears watching Omaha Beach in “Saving Private Ryan”, a most realistic portrayal of that day. I can only imagine what that father has to do when he sees the picture of his dying Marine. But it has so many times been seen before…and is less, I believe, forgotten. I am making sure my children don’t.
Are you really making a difference between showing a dead Marine and a beheading? Google it — there were plenty of family members who didn’t want the world to see their loved ones getting their heads chopped off, and yet the coverage was almost daily. And you’re making a difference?
And not the REAL difference as quoted above, “…once again, if seeing these videos helps fuel the warrior spirit which is required, then that’s reason enough to help make them available.”
Okay, so, so, let me get this straight. The ones doing the beheadings were “furthering the purpose of a religio-political agenda,” but the ones killing Marines are NOT fanatics furthering a religio-political agenda? Oh, my God.
Janie *81,
You ignored this “If pushed hard, I would likely have gone with the father’s wishes, in both cases of Janie #76.” The push is to overcome the tear I feel between the First Amendment and the father’s wishes, knowing the pain it would spare him. It essentially makes your first paragraph of outrage meaningless. I explained the difference in the larger context, but I did not ignore either families’ pain and would side with them. How is it that you cannot see a difference in two acts taking place in two vastly different situations?
One of the problems with taking the quote from one and then claiming it represents all, “the REAL difference”, is that it’s unreasonable and unreasoning. TV networks showed those videos, and they weren’t doing so to fuel the “warrior spirit”.
However, it certainly fueled outrage around the world. I think the Italian died well, don’t you? Do I need to write that I wished he did not have to take his stand that day?
Your last paragraph puzzles me. Obviously, you set up a strawman so you could express outrage again. But why set up one so transparent? I never wrote or even implied “the ones killing Marines are NOT fanatics furthering a religio-political agenda”. The very word “Taliban” is synonymous with religio-political fanatics. Had the picture been of a Talibani murdering a fallen soldier, I would have written differently.
I had another take, but it would require viewing you as truly warped, so I declined it.
How are you doing on understanding the “saved lives” through avoiding the Kyushu invasion?
Have a good night.
Oh, nice try. “One giant leap for man, one giant non sequitur to me.” I don’t know what that means either.
Kyushu invasion, huge casualties predicted, millions. I see my mistake and admit that I was wrong. In light of this change of heart, I have altered my “Rules to Live By” list:
I have changed “It is wrong to target civilians during war” to “It is wrong to target civilians during war except when it’s right.”
See? I’m a reasonable person. Now you have said that you are “not stupid enough to believe that war is always avoidable.” I believe that too, war is not always avoidable (I don’t know you, so I can’t comment on the stupid part). I assume that you think the Iraq/AfPak wars were not avoidable, but looking back, neither you nor anyone else has said why this is so. There’s talk of “The Mission,” “Victory,” etc. but not much else.
So, be fair. Avoiding all insults, tell me why these wars are necessary.
Yes, I view your #81 as one long non sequitur.
Thank you.
Now to the Kyushu invasion. I was only pointing out that it wasn’t a myth and yes you were wrong, and it makes your conclusions erroneous also because it being a myth was central to your beliefs regarding why we dropped the bombs. I don’t believe that it actually had any impact on you, as your sarcasm clearly illustrates.
In the context of WWII, where the land war in Europe was lost (and almost lost again in 1944), the Soviet Union was supplying Nazi Germany and both were dividing up Europe (until Operation Barbarossa 1940), British cities were being bombed, Japan had taken most of Asia so the land war was pretty much lost there also (the Soviets had an Armistice with the Japanese) and were doing things even the Nazis found reprehensible; yes, bombing first their infrastructure and war-making facilities, then their cities was the right course. Again, in the context of the times. The rape of Nanking, and other cities, the systematic killing of Jews and Gypsys and Slavs, were not.
Again in the context of the times, the bombing of two Japanese cities to end the war was the right course. Their only other choices were: blockade (if I remember correctly they expected a million or so deaths from that) for up to two years; Kyushu (the Japanese already showed their response on Saipan and Okinawa, the Americans expected a fight to the death which was confirmed later with the release of info on how far the militarization of the CIVILIAN population had gone) with millions dead; or the conditional surrender which was never considered real (it was only one faction and could have been a stall). Also, by doing that and having the power we kept the Soviets from partitioning Japan ala Germany. This is what they had to go by then, and they can only be judged by that. Not your moral outrage 50 some odd years later. How many millions more would you have preferred dead to maintain moral purity at that juncture?
Personally, I like the Japanese people, and I’m predominately Germanic, so I would have preferred that WWII would not have gone the way it did. But the Allies were fighting for their lives and really didn’t know they were going to win. Hindsight is such a wonderful thing for fueling certainty and outrage..
Actually, I’ve avoided insults pretty much throughout, and stupid was not one of them nor was “dumb ass”. I don’t view your weltangschaung as valid, nor your method of interpreting history and therefore most if not all of your conclusions regarding events. I think you have moved from one extreme, Bircher, to another extreme, anarchist, and neither group has a valid dialectic. That doesn’t mean you can’t make valid points, but taken as whole, your conclusions won’t be.
I doubt that either clarity or agreement is possible, which makes further conversation pointless.
Pretty disturbing that you’d follow suit by publishing this photo.
Showing photo’s of soldiers honoring their fallen comrades is one thing, but to publish one of a Marine wounded, and just before death serves absolutely no purpose.
Even more disturbing, is that you’d go against the wishes of the family.
This doesn’t represent journalism. Simply put, it disrespects, that Marines family, and the morales of photo journalists whom do NOT cross such a sensitive line.
WHAT story is represented in this??
NONE
WHO does it glorify??
NOBODY
Repulsive, and a shame to find it here.
And just to clarify, this story doesn’t even go along with the theme of this site.
Nobody claims its a crime.
Nobody was arrested for it. (although, I’m sure very few would be upset if their had been)
There’s a huge difference between whats allowed legally, and what should be done by morale standards.
MOST journalists are aware of that distinction.
Only conclusion I can personally come up with for “joining the band-wagon” on this one, is for a way to spark debate.
The shame in this, is that it is being done at the expense of a family whose undergone the loss of a loved one serving their country.
And Carlos, before you repeat your rant concerning some “higher purpose”, and that objector’s to this “obviously have never” worked in a newsroom, you’d do well to remember all the photos that haven’t ever been aired nor published.
ALONG with the byline that their editors were refusing out of respect.
Hunt up a few of those links.
The response I’m particularly looking forward to, is how this mans death, and the publication of it relates to the purpose of this site.