Military Blocks Photos Of US Dead

The case of a freelance photographer in Iraq who was barred from covering the Marines after he posted photos on the Internet of several of them dead has underscored what some journalists say is a growing effort by the American military to control graphic images from the war.

Zoriah Miller, the photographer who took images of marines killed in a June 26 suicide attack and posted them on his Web site, was subsequently forbidden to work in Marine Corps-controlled areas of the country. Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the Marine commander in Iraq, is now seeking to have Mr. Miller barred from all United States military facilities throughout the world. Mr. Miller has since left Iraq.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[kapauldo]

Military blocks war dead photos: Fair or Foul (VOTE):

http://snurl.com/35ecd

[mouselion]

The "imbedded" reporters are a result of the Bush administration's innovative attempt to control the information coming from the war zones. If you agree to their terms, you get to be "imbedded" and if you don't, "hit the road, Jack". This is why at the onset of the Iraq invasion certain reporters and photographers refused to be a part of it, as they obviously lost their journalistic independence.

Do I need to see photos of dead soldiers to know what's going on? No.
Does that help the debate, for or against Iraq? Minimally, at best.
Still, do I agree with the military controlling what can and can not be reported or shown in photos? Only if it endangers troops or gives away tactical information which could harm or kill soldiers. Otherwise, the military needs to be transparently reported upon. This keeps it honest and operating by the values that we, the citizen taxpayers, deem necessary. The military "is" us (whether we agree with its actions or not). Likewise, journalists are our "eyes". (Think: Abu Gharaib -- without even what few photos we have -- taken by a soldier, no less, we would not know about abuses.

A fine nuance needs to be made between sensationalism and journalistic activism. I'm not sure that photos of dead GIs serve a greater purpose, but I do know that this matter should be about journalistic ethics and self-restraint, and not military censorship (beyond tactical security concerns).

[peacekitten]

if people are going to cheerlead for this disaster, and insist on furthering a needless, ILLEGAL and immoral war, they MUST be made to see the consequences of their beliefs. it's the least they can do. as well as drafting every able-bodied, physically fit young republican into the armed forces.

[guntotinganglion]

War, what war...I don't see any war. No photos means no reality to expose people to. No exposing of what is being done in their name. Americans don't have time to be guilty of war crimes, they're too busy CONSUMING.

[JackTar]

As a former 20-year, hard-news journalist, I'm ashamed of American media today. Kudos to the NYT for this story, but it will die as in issue after a few days. The fault for withholding the truth from fellow Americans lies solely with the media.

The military can't order them not to publish anything. The president can't either. We used to have journalists who wanted all Americans to know about the sobering reality of the ultimate sacrifices made by U.S. soldiers in behalf of the nation. Now only European news organizations have that kind of courage.

It's just a fact: By and large, American journalists have, with clear eyes, joined in the narrow and malignant causes of government propagandists and the self-interested corporate values pushed by the wealthy owners of their media organizations.

The truth is out there, thank God, but today we cannot routinely rely on journalists to deliver it. Shame on them for destroying a once-proud profession.

[MsDoc]

I've read these posts twice...and still hold the same conclusion: scattershots are being fired and the real point is getting lost in the smoke.

We know that our soldiers are being killed in the service of our country whether or not we agree with the reason for that service.

We suspect, those of us who have never personally come under enemy fire, that death by war is messy and discomforting to the viewer.

We realize that a constant exposure to the carnage such as Walter Cronkite provided during the Vietnam War might prove disquieting to a populace already disconcerted by this seemingly endless "stabilization" effort and

We suspect that our esteemed leaders might want to shield us from the realities of what is happening to our troops over there since PTS syndrome does not come from sand fleas and

Our same esteemed leaders certainly do not want a repeat of the protest movement of the '60s and letting us see/know the truth might just ignite civil unrest...

Therefore, since pictures speak louder than words and even the illiterate can understand and react to them, let there be few pictures...particularly those which are uncensored.

Just remember, boys and girls... Dulce et Decorum Est... Wilfred Owens 1918 "It is sweet and Fitting to Die for One's Country." Find it and read it.

Loves....

-AMD

[abouttime]

I have read a lot of these posts and have come to the conclusion that the censor of dead and severely injured troops is obvious. The sight of seeing our troops dead and maimed on the battle field conjures images of what war does to us. The inescapable reality of emotional and physical pain that they suffered in combat and our response to it. We ask the big question: Why this War?

Yes, being reminded every day on TV and the radio and in news papers causes discussion in school, church, on the job and in the mall. Yes, many people do not want to see the pictures of the unlucky dead soldier. It is painful, but the denial of our responsibility to affect an end to this illegal and immoral war becomes almost inescapable when our eyes and ears see these pictures and hear the moans. Society becomes outraged and we ask: Why this War?

That is why the Department of Commander-in-Chief doesn't want these images seen. It protects them from our outrage because we our ignorant (even) about our denial of the calamity they hide from our souls.
In other wodrs, they are afraid of "We the People"
US out of Iraq!

[FogBelter]

The War Industry is the most lucrative industry America has left ... after WWII, when business and the Government decided that a state of perpetual war, overt or covert, was in the best financial interests of the country, the main goal from the fascist perspective, has been to frame war as glamorous, heroic, patriotic, vital to our survival, and without human or moral cost from the American perspective.

Showing coffins of American Military Dead, or even footage of dead Iraqis, damages the endeavor in the minds of the American people ... that is why we have found, since Vietnam, the prohibition of showing casualties, American or Iraqi; a press tightly managed through "embeds"; the reliance on a volunteer Military force, instead of outright conscription (except in the case of the National Guard, which is a case of backdoor conscription) in order to limit the number of American families directly impacted by war; and footage of heroic firefights to underscore the video game quality to those young people who might consider joining, without the personalization of casualties.

Showing Military Coffins damages the sale of the war, plain and simple ... prohibiting their showing has nothing to do with the privacy of the families ... if the US Government felt showing the soldier's bodies would benefit their goals in the War, we would see stacked body bags, and fly covered corpses every night.

[gevan]

It's a good thing that they never allowed photographers to take photos on Omaha Beach or else we never would have had the gumption to defeat Hitler.

[peacekitten]

wrong. there were legitimate reasons for that war, at least as close as there can be for any war, and those soldiers WERE fighting for our country.

the troops in iraq are there fighting so the rich can get richer. PERIOD. they aren't there "defending america." they are there because the ruling class has decided to make the u.s. military its own private army. the only meaning that could be derived from their deaths and those of countless innocents, is if we the people TAKE BACK our country from the people who stole power nearly eight years ago, restore the rule of law, and honor our own constitution once again.

[AzRealProgressive]

History will record if the Iraq war was wrong or right or something in between. Your opinion of its rightousness is irrelevant.

What laws need to be restored ?

[seanTB]

Sometimes I really wish HuffPo would back off the boilerplate and pay a little more attention. In this case, to two very important issues (the coverage downshift in the press and dwindling public interest) that are just as important as what the Marines are up to:

http://digg.com/politics/The_point_my_pedigree_chums

[Ramirez]

That's a pretty good blog and you made a decent point. You should have c/p'ed a teaser.

[cdnnewsjunky]

I've been making somewhat of a false statement, and thanks to Hume, I have a chance to correct it.

I've been stating that America is not a signator to the Geneva Convention. In fact America is a signator to the convention however articles 5 and 6 were never ratified by the US.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_762529232_2/geneva_conventions.html

The two articles relate to the protection of civilians in a combat zone and to the persecution of war crimes.

[thedirtman]

I didn't know that articles 5 and 6 were never ratified. So it has been a good day after all for two of us.

[Ramirez]

Re: Geneva Convention (sic) and ongoing confusion

There are four Geneva Conventions. Each of them has an article 5 and an article 6. The US has signed and ratified all four of the Geneva Conventions.

The US has not signed on to Protocol I and Protocol II, which were added in 1977.

[Ramirez]

Thanks for clearing that up.

So, what do you think about the military restrictions on battlefield photography?

[cdnnewsjunky]

If it is done to highlight the tradgedies of war and to demonstrate to the public the horrors of the battlefield then I'm not against it.

If it is done in an exploitive manner to boost readership and capitalize on the death of troops then I'm against it.

[Rendon76]

Out of sight, out of mind seems to work well on Americans.

[k6007]

That's for sure.

[LorettaSingbiel]

February 2007 ... Laura Bush: "Many parts of Iraq are stable now. But, of course, what we see on television is the ONE bombing a day that discourages everybody."

Well... if Iraq was so stable... why was the surge (SCOURGE) needed?

What WE THE PEOPLE are "ALLOWED" to SEE on television is the ONE bombing a day ... that's discouraging.

And because "it's common knowledge that IRAN is training Al Qaeda" ... we MUST "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb" them!

ENOUGH OF THE "common knowledge" LIES!

OBAMA '08!
HOPE & CHANGE!!!

[Ramirez]

The photographer was embedded with the Marines. They provided his coverage, his transportation, his comforts and his food. And they protected his life at the risk of their own.

They told him not to photograph and publish pics of dea d Marines. He ignored them and did it anyway.

Now he can't ride with them anymore. He says that's not fair.

[notthistime]

It isn't fair. Why are the American people forbidden to see pictures depicting the results of the sacrifices made by our military men and women?

[AzRealProgressive]

Here is a clue. He was told not to do it in order to make sure the next of kin were notified before those pictures appeared. His reasons for taking those photos was to post them on his websire and ask for compensation. Our sacrifices were to enrich him personally before any oher consideration. Fair would have been for another soldier to crank off a round accidentally into a butt cheek for being such a POS.

[Ramirez]

Because the people demanding photos of fallen Marines do not care about the sacrifices of those Marines. They want to use the photos to push their own anti-war agenda.

You know that.

[springsm]

Actually I think it was a woman. The government here said NO PICTURES of coffins. The picture was a line of flag drapped coffins in the belly of a plane. And it was not only a haunting picture, it was heart grabbing. I think Americans could and would have multiple emotions over that. Why are we not able to have free press here....we are "fighting for the DEMOCRACY of Iraquis, who didn't ask for our type democracy ...and they won't have it either.

[springsm]

OOPS, I thought Zoriah was another story that happened early on. Sorry, I will read more thoroughly next time. My apologies. However, what my case happened too. Big uproar then, not much happened and obviously the censorship still goes on.

[mandalaina]

I don't know if my comment wasn't received or was blocked. Given the nature of some of the comments here, I can't imagine it was blocked.

My comment was something along the lines of as a mother, I would never want the picture of my child's dead body pasted across the internet and the world for anyone to use, comment on, disrespect or diminish.

You know, we don't always have the luxury of having a private death, and so it is up a soldier's comrades in arms to preserve the dignity of those fallen in combat and through terrorism. In my own opinion, that is what the military is doing. To those who will bring up freedom of the press, let me just restate:

No one, but NOT ONE person has a "right" to view the mutilated and defiled bodies of these brave men and women. We can know that people die horrifically without having to further insult the dignity of our citizens.

I am reminded of a "faces of death" type video making the circuits a while back--there are those who find looking upon these dear people with titillation. It makes me physically ill to think that there but for the grace of God goes my own beloved.

[NMdonkey]

Throughout history, scenes of war and atrocities associated with war have been made available for the public to view. There were Holocaust survivors, yet gruesome photos including some of their "mutilated and defiled" relatives who were not fortunate enough to live. We have seen horrific photos of mutilation and death from Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur.

I think the American people, who were sold this "war" on lies (including how long it would last and the ultimate cost, in dollars) have the right to see photos of the destruction being done on both sides. This is not done to appeal to sick individuals who may enjoy seeing such images, nor to shock and sicken anyone to promote an anti-war "agenda." Interestingly, I seem to have no shortage of emails coming to my inbox, depicting soldiers playing with and helping Iraqi children. Yet no one seems to comment that those photos have a pro-war agenda or serve as propoganda of any kind.

I am old enough to remember seeing flag-draped coffins and the images of war during Vietnam. I don't think Americans see enough footage from Iraq, including the brutal images of war. We're just told that the surge is working and that we're better off "fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here."

[HumeSkeptic]

Photographs tell the truth. One should never hide the truth.

We should honor all those who di-e for an honorable cause. It is the cause that determines whether the act is honorable, not the act of dy-ing.
.

[AzRealProgressive]

My brother inlaw, class of 93, Annapolis, is 5000 feet under the sea strapped into his helicopter. That is his resting place. And you have the arrogance to presume that you and others who hold your views should decide if his sacrifice is honorable? If it fits your definition of honorable???

And who are you to decide what is nonorable and not ?

[Ramirez]

A photograph tells whatever truth the photographer wishes to tell.

[cdnnewsjunky]

I usually agree with your posts, in this case I don't fully agree. It's their service to country and their conduct that makes them honourable or dishonourable. As far as their conduct goes, your poor troops don't have much of a choice, they don't have the protection of the Geneva Convention.

As to their service to country as long as they don't abandon their post, then they serve with honour.

[k6007]

I don't go as far as skeptic,