« No. | Main | Ooooooooooooooooooooo... »

September 04, 2009

Own It, Mr. Secretary

When you decided to allow journalists to photograph the coffins of returning service members at Dover, you broke down a barrier that should have been left intact.

Since the dawn of time, human societies have had taboos. They exist for a reason. They exist because some things simply ought to be unthinkable, and nothing short of a total ban will prevent some people from pushing the envelope.

The media have contended, over and over, that the photographing of coffins and dead bodies and wounded soldiers or Marines thrashing about in agony are necessary to help the American people understand the cost of war. Evidently, the availability of graphic war movies depicting fountains of blood and oozing gore are insufficient visual aids.

The Associated Press took all of one hour to balance the newsworthiness of graphic photos of a fellow human being's last moments against the wishes of Lance Corporal Joshua M. Bernard's grieving family. In the end, compassion and human decency gave way to the profit incentive. Of course, the AP will claim they were motivated by elevated concerns that the American public, despite being exposed to violent and graphic footage on TV, cable, and at the movie theater on a daily basis, are too stupid to comprehend that explosions often result in shredded body parts, blood, agonizing pain, and death.

If that makes no sense to you, you're not alone.

So if we buy into the notion that we need to see the results of violent episodes to truly understand their consequences, does this mean the media will now begin showing graphic footage of rape victims who have been beaten or tortured or cut to shreds by their attackers?

Rape - and the tolerance of it - has a cost, both to the victim and to society. How can we fully understand the tragic cost of rape unless we are allowed to view their injuries and vicariously understand their pain? According to the press, we can't.

Child abuse has a cost. Therefore, if a child is sexually abused or beaten, we need to see graphic close-ups of their torn vaginas or rectums. We need to see graphic photos of that little boy whose father ate his eyes. Otherwise, it's just too easy to gloss over the horrific damages - both mental and physical - done to these innocent victims. We have a right to know.

Would this further humiliate and traumatize the victims and their families? Undoubtedly. But the public's "need to know" outweighs silly concerns about the victim or family members who may be equally traumatized.

Now that I think of it, how many journalists have been killed or wounded in the war on terror? How many unauthorized photos of journalists has the Associated Press splashed all over the Internet?

Oh, but you see that is different. Journalists, unlike Marine Lance Corporals and their grieving families, are real people (not tools to be used to further your political agenda). Those of us who are shocked and grieved beyond measure by the callous and cynical exploitation of a young man who died in the service of his country will no doubt be comforted to know that the Fourth Estate, unlike public servants, need not obey the rules of common decency that govern the rest of humanity.

And we were supposed to trust these people? Give me a break.

Posted by Cassandra at September 4, 2009 02:27 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3130

Comments

Brava, Cassie, Brava!

Posted by: FbL at September 4, 2009 04:06 PM

(that was me, standing and cheering)

Posted by: FbL at September 4, 2009 04:07 PM

Ernie Pyle weeps.

Posted by: spd rdr at September 4, 2009 04:25 PM

A short visit by the Lance Corporal's mates are in order. There is a price to pay for your actions.

Posted by: russ at September 4, 2009 04:57 PM

And we were supposed to trust these people?

Old Vietnamese tale:

Once upon a time, a frog was swimming across a river. A scorpion on the near bank called out to the frog and asked to be taken to the opposite side.

"No," said the frog. "You're a scorpion, and If I let you climb on my back, you'll sting me and I'll die."

The scorpion replied, "That makes no sense -- if I sting you while we're crossing the river, you'll sink, and I'll drown."

The frog agreed that the scorpion had a valid point, so he allowed the scorpion to climb onto his back and proceeded to swim across the river.

In midstream, the scorpion stung the frog.

"Why did you do that?" asked the frog. "Now we're *both* going to die."

The scorpion just shrugged and said, "Xin loi."

Reporters are like scorpions -- it's just something they do, even if they say they won't, but at least a scorpion will see the irony...

Posted by: BillT at September 4, 2009 05:20 PM

Bravo! You eloquently put this into terms that make sense of this very awful situation. Prayers to the family who must endure this salt in their wounds

Posted by: Greta at September 4, 2009 05:37 PM

Of course, we never show photos of dying Iraqi or Afghan soldiers, right? During WWII, we never published photos of dying Japanese or German soldiers? Since when is the press supposed to be a US propaganda machine? Or are we supposed to pretend that only the enemy dies, and only our soldiers deserve privacy?

Posted by: DavidD. at September 4, 2009 05:42 PM

Bravo, and thank you!


Cpl. USMC
1966-70

Posted by: Comrade Terry at September 4, 2009 05:57 PM

I agree, Cassandra. If my warrior son's dying is captured and broadcast for zombie food, the persons responsible can expect my rage to find them, where they live. These ghouls are Jeffrey Dahmer class. The media has become the fifth column, enemies to The Republic and to those who died for it. They must be punished. Shame and humiliation for poor taste is insufficient justice for this crime.

Nice StrawMan, DavidD, but I'll let someone else strike a match to it. It's not worth my effort.

Posted by: twolaneflash at September 4, 2009 06:07 PM

Actually David has a point, I remember Michael Yon's famous picture "little girl" and remember feeling pain for her family that the photo was out there, regardless of the context of the photo.

But David you forget that this journalist even admited that it broke the media's ROE in a war zone AND that she chose to ignore the wishes of the parents, who begged and pleaded for it to not be shown. This was not about showing the realities of war, this was stricty war pornography.

Posted by: Mrs G at September 4, 2009 06:54 PM

Reading the title I was poised to be offended. Reading the content I feel avenged. This is the way gladiators would've explained the outrage to the scribes.
Well written!!

R.I.P. DevilDog and Semper Fi.

Posted by: Solidus at September 4, 2009 07:56 PM

To DavidD above: You just don't get it, these filthy profit mongrels SHOULD have respected the wishes of the family pure and simple! It's not a matter of only showing the enemy dead, it's a matter of total disrespect and greed. Our press has degraded into nothing more than insolent and cold hearted "humans" that heaven forbid anything similar every happen to them as I'm sure then the story would be different. Great article Cassie, only a moron would see it any other way.

Posted by: BillL at September 4, 2009 08:38 PM

Of course, we never show photos of dying Iraqi or Afghan soldiers, right?

I have addressed this several times in previous posts. It's NEVER right. And I have criticized the practice just as much, even if it applied to our enemies.

So that dog won't hunt here, my friend. Peddle your "two wrongs make a right" crap somewhere else. I'm not buying it.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 4, 2009 08:41 PM

Shame we can't import the filthy journalists that chose career over family wishes to Russia and let Putin handle them his way... This is a criminal act and is absolutely disgusting. Shame our current administration (above Gates) could care less, that alone speaks volumes about "decency".

Posted by: Karl at September 4, 2009 08:43 PM

Hey DavidD you're an idiot! YES our heroic warfighters deserve privacy. NO the filthy murdering terrorists do not, they are scum on the lowest possible level so get a life!

Posted by: bladerunner at September 4, 2009 08:46 PM

AP is racing to destroy their business for quick boosts, aren't they?

Posted by: Foxfier at September 4, 2009 08:58 PM

I don't know who this we happens to be David. But to run with we... We did not waste much ink, time or film on illegal combatants hiding in amongst the civilian populations during WWII. I have that from several good sources. Two uncles in Europe and a father in the Pacific. Oh, but you said solders.

Ok, yes there were stories and pictures of the carnage during WWII. But in those days it took a fair amount of time to propagate through the censors and from there to publication. That is IF a story or picture was deemed by the censors to be appropriate for publication. Yeah, the demi-god, FDR, censored press photos and their coverage of the war with a very heavy hand. But then FDR was familiar with the concepts of win versus lose and what lose would mean. To his credit, he intended that America win that war, regardless.

Now, if you imagine that by not honoring the wish of a grieving family, the press is somehow speaking truth to power, that it is instead fighting the "US propaganda machine". I would ask if such a machine really exists? How can anyone support such a claim when all one ever sees produced from the news machine is one anti-American screed after another. Why even our POTUS goes abroad on a regular basis to apologize and grovel before other heads of state and profess our alleged sins before the world.

Being a knuckle dragger, I'm going to call BS on any attempt to justify the AP's action. If you think you can justify the publication, we have no common ground from which we can proceed with further discussions. Nor will I participate in the inevitable, follow on, yeah but, wack-a-mole exercise.

I just have to wonder how devoid of awareness, imagination, or decency the ghouls must be to revel in this sordid affair.

And the same gang, those who would throw a graphic image of a dying son before the face of a grieving family, <sarcasm> the same superior beings possessing enlightened intellect and the only truly humane instincts, which are missing in the common person, the peasantry,</sarcasm> want the power to order and control every aspect of our economy, our health and our wellbeing. *spit*

Posted by: bt_the-curmudgeon_hun at September 4, 2009 09:02 PM

I have mixed feelings about this. I think the AP should not have gone counter to the family's wishes, period. But, I have seen some folks respond with great animosity toward the photographer. I am glad the picture was taken. Some day, it should be published in a history of the war in Afghanistan. Say, 20 years from now.


But, in the paper... today... no, definitely not.


Posted by: GWB at September 4, 2009 09:02 PM

It is never right to show the remains of uniformed soldiers who fell in a war. However, this reporter not only did this, but also did it against the wishes of the Marine's family. But at this time, no army is fighting with the US. Only worthless terrorists. As human beings, we should not be holding up images of the dead to push a political agenda, ours nor the terrorists.

To the reporter I say, haven't you learned anything from your time spent embedded with the Marines? Honor is what we live for and you lady have none.

RIP LCpl Bernard, I'll see you when its my turn to guard the gates. Semper Fi Marine

Posted by: Zug at September 4, 2009 09:25 PM

To respond to DavidD-

Where do you get the idea that the press is SUPPOSED to be ANTIWAR? Where do you get the idea that the media is SUPPOSED to be OPPOSED to the United States' military activities? Or opposed to the United States' interests? Or that media attention that isn't "antiwar' is somehow 'propaganda'?

Your question about the U.S. Press being a 'propaganda machine' reveals a lot about your character, and none of it good.

Posted by: DaveP. at September 4, 2009 09:51 PM

"Where do you get the idea that the media is SUPPOSED to be OPPOSED to the United States' military activities?"

I think Mike Wallace enunciated the idea some years ago on one of those PBS Talking Heads shows. He only put to words what has been an SOP for certain people in the media, since at least Viet Nam.

What an appalling thing to do to the memory of Joshua Bernard and to his family. One more thing to divide us. One more thing to make people choose sides on a false premise of some sort of moral equivalency.

Which, I think, in the end, is what is part of the AP's agenda. Nothing is by accident.

We already see what those noble souls at the Huffington Post think of this, thanks to Carrie's link.
Any guess as to what Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann or any of a host of our media personalities will think about this? Anyone?

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at September 4, 2009 10:31 PM

GRRRRRRRRR.

Words fail me, but I think Michelle Malkin or Pamela Geller hit it squarely on the head when they referred to the AP as the "Associated (with terrorists) Press.

Someone needs to take AP supervision/leadership out to the woodshed for a few lessons. Maybe they can have the special duty I reserve for my hard heads. Field latrine clean up. Nothing like setting crap on fire; it's a great character builder....or an effective method of communicating my disappointment/disgust with my trooper/troopette.

AP? A-hole Press!!

Posted by: kbob in Katy at September 4, 2009 10:46 PM

Journalists should not be allowed period in a "war zone". There are certain things the people do not need to know. How do you think rumors get started, and do you not think that our enemies watch the news and keep up with the latest? My husband served a tour in Iraq recently and if that would have happened to him I would have been furious... Mind your own business and have more respect for our fallen soldiers and their families, if it wasn't for them this wouldn't be a free country, and there would be no freedom of anything. I think these people should put out a public apology, and compensate the family for any grief they may have caused.

God Bless our troops and their Families.

Posted by: appaled in Texas at September 5, 2009 12:26 AM

It is interesting to me that the same people who believe that it is their right- nay- DUTY! to post images of fallen or fatally wounded soldiers, also feel it is their duty to censor any and all photos of aborted fetuses.

...just making an observation...

Posted by: Jewels at September 5, 2009 12:50 AM

During WWII, we never published photos of dying Japanese or German soldiers?

Nope. We published photos of *dead* enemy soldiers, and the photographer usually had the human decency to take his pictures from an angle that didn't show their faces. And it was only in late 1944 that FDR *personally* authorized the publication of photos showing US casualties -- again, with no view of their faces.

The photo of Ernie Pyle's body wasn't made public until sixty years after he had been killed.

Posted by: BillT at September 5, 2009 04:53 AM

I'm so glad you wrote this, Cass.

Posted by: Carrie at September 5, 2009 07:55 AM

Anyone up for drafting a letter to SecDef Gates? One balancing outrage with a respectful tone in order to convey an adamant suggestion that the AP be embedded with a boot to their collective arse. That instead of the likely wrist-slap followed up with no action.

Electronic signatures, legal name and state, could be collected over a period of the next week at Milblogs far and wide. Maybe Ms. Malkin, Drudge and a few other high volume sites could collect signatures too. The signatures could then be forwarded, with the letter, to the SecDef. Maybe in time for the September 12 event.

Every individual and all private businesses have to suffer breech of contract consequences --DodD Directive 5122.5 if I'm reading this correctly--. AP should not be exempt!

It is high time for a change. But I don't think it's going to be quite the change the Administration had in mind during their campaign.

Posted by: bt_the-curmudgeon_hun at September 5, 2009 11:18 AM

I have one of those DE-motivational posters one of my troops sent me with a terrorist who was a victim of his own device. Never saw pix of that via AP. Can you say "Double Standard?" It shows us where your sympathy lies.

I would attach it, but out of respect for our hostess and people I dare call my friends (albeit electronic), I will refrain. Needless to say it is graphic and to the point.

Semper Fi Debbil Dawg. You will be missed in ways not fathomable to the masses. I guess it is why you are one of "The Few. The Proud. The Marines." And you will not be forgotten.

Posted by: kbob in Katy at September 5, 2009 11:36 AM

I read the smarmy, self-serving article on Yahoo. The journalist described how she had gathered his friends around to show them the pics she had taken of their friend, and that they seemed to understand (like their collective cranial thickness was the size of the Hoover Dam and housed only a pineal and pituitary gland)'that it was him dying.' As if they were a bunch of three year olds or teens in need of a mentor.

If I could have shredded it, I would have. I think I would like to have a cyber shredder for such things, or a toxic waste dump to put it in.

Well put, Cassandra.

Posted by: Cricket at September 5, 2009 01:12 PM

Can you say "Double Standard?"

MSM.

Posted by: BillT at September 5, 2009 03:25 PM

Those initials also work for "Double Cross"...

Posted by: BillT at September 5, 2009 03:26 PM

I guess we should be thankful that the AP & rest of the MSM are on our side. Think how bad the reporting could be if it were state run like Pravda...

I am ashamed to say every edition of Pravda had at least one word of truth in every edition, because "Pravda" means "Truth." What does MSM mean? Moron Story Makers? I took journalsim courses and what you see today rarely represents what I learned, even if you did have to use a reed and wet clay tablet as in my day. Gave a whole new meaning to "breaking news."

Posted by: Kbob in Katy at September 5, 2009 05:09 PM

Where was this 'tell everything you know' mentality when New York Times reporter, David Rohde, was being held by the Taliban. His employer specifically asked reporting on his story be quelled in an effort to save his life. That request was honored.

It is no secret how much value and respect a majority of the mainstream media place on the men & women who serve our country. This is a glaring example of that which is why I was so bemused by those thumping their chests and declaring it a wonderful thing for the DoD to lift the ban on photographing caskets. As a former member of the media, I knew inches become miles in the blink of an eye.

Thanks for writing this.

Posted by: Guard Wife at September 5, 2009 06:22 PM

Kbob, you were light years ahead of Bill. Back when he went to school they were still drawing pictures on the wall.

Posted by: Cricket at September 5, 2009 08:28 PM

DD, congratulations on learning 'rhetoric.' Now try applying some'truth' to that. As in: atrocities committed by the enemy combatants. Check out the archives at Life. Margaret Bourke-White's work. She was one of the first to photograph the death camps.

Posted by: Cricket at September 5, 2009 08:33 PM

Cricket, some of the basic texts we were taught were lessons from BillT.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. But I bet he can still fly a OH-6 or UH-1 bettern me. I will keep my wings to port and starboard. If they get ahead of me and parallel to my intended path...yikes. But for a rotorhead, that's the norm...

KP

Posted by: kbob in Katy at September 5, 2009 08:47 PM

Back when he went to school they were still drawing pictures on the wall.

We still do.

You can't explain differentials of lift to a student when the pretty PowerPoint slides can't be projected because the generator seized up because of the heat.

Posted by: BillT at September 6, 2009 01:01 AM

But I bet he can still fly a OH-6 or UH-1 bettern me.

And an AH-1F.

But the last time I flew a T-42, I caught myself trying to land it to a three-foot hover...

Posted by: BillT at September 6, 2009 01:33 AM

Desecrating the death of a Patriot is an indictment of the person doing the reporting. It is a telling view into the soulless vacuum where the heart used to reside. We are dealing with people who are constantly on the prowl to justify their lack of morals, ethics, and misplaced values in their secular GODless existence.

Many of us here have met this enemy face-to-face in airports and other public places. The intensity of their actions against what we represent and hold dear is as startling as it is proof positive that their chosen path of life is devoid of the markers that guide the rest of us.

If we are to act on our visceral impulses we would betray that nobility of purpose which seperates us from them, namely, honor. Our antangonists lash out at us with increasing, and banal, attempts to brings us down to their level instead of rising to ours. They are unworthy of our position on the "higher ground" until they accept the immutable fact that their actions will be judged and they will be held accountable.

I pity them and their empty existence that glorifies nihilism, sensationalism for it's own sake. They bring dishonor to themselves and those who fight and die for their privilege to be unworthy beneficiaries and recipients of the very freedoms they take for granted.

The spirit of the recently deceased has taken it's place in the glory reserved for those standing against tyranny. I abhor the pre/post mortem photos splashed across the tabloids by these narcissists. I also understand that it celebrates the nobility that resides within and we are capable of resides in the spirit and not the corporeal entity.

We knew this was coming with the recent alteration of the Dover policy. Abuse of the policy is another nail in the coffin of these "Night Of The Living Dead" zombies who walk among us.

Prayers to the family and I hope they can fathom some sort of solace from the realization that their/our Patriot fights from the grave. That is true nobility.

Posted by: vet66 at September 6, 2009 09:10 AM

Maybe they should report on Van Jones who resigned late last nite.....

All slander and lies, according to him.

Truth will out!

Leave the guardians of freedom from thier ghoulish tomes.....

Posted by: kbob in Katy at September 6, 2009 09:46 AM

Kbob: Truth always prevails over lies. It is our strongest asset against those who constantly attack our honor and patriotism.

Posted by: vet66 at September 6, 2009 10:01 AM

Bill, how is the Quest for Fire going?

Yesterday was an anniversry date for me. For those of who you don't know, my son died on that date. Bear with me here: There were many, many pictures taken at the scene. It was necessary for the evidence and out of respect for us, the only pic that made it into the media was one of the interstate that was shut down for seven hours.

LCpl Bernard paid the ultimate price and the ghoul reporter is dining on his tab.

She is to be pitied.

Posted by: Cricket at September 6, 2009 11:05 AM

Warm, warm hugs, Cricket.
I didn't know that yesterday was the anniversary.

Posted by: Carrie at September 6, 2009 11:18 AM

I loves hugs!!! Thank you. If I may add one more thing: All the more reason to stick to our guns on this. It must strengthen our resolve to do the job and do it well. To pity the ghouls even though they deserve a stake through the pump that circulates the ice water in their veins.

They may say they are doing this out of compassion, but I fail to see the logic in it.

Posted by: Cricket at September 6, 2009 01:03 PM

Ms. Cricket,

Please accept my most sincere condolences. I had no idea. May you see no more loss in your lifetime and may your family be blessed with peace and security for all their days.

I am taken to the KJV of the good book where it is written:

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.

I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Posted by: kbob in Katy at September 6, 2009 02:34 PM

Kbob, the itching ears...do you think that means they listen to what they want to hear? That strikes me as so appropos of those who don't want to hear that a blob of tissue is really a fetus.

Among other things.

Posted by: Cricket at September 6, 2009 02:53 PM

Among other things....

Posted by: kbob in Katy at September 6, 2009 06:27 PM

Something I heard many years ago....

I know where my choice lies....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqxW6E24Jh8

Posted by: kbob in Katy at September 6, 2009 08:21 PM

Spit.

No, its not worth that much.

Spit.

Now we're even.

Posted by: spd rdr at September 6, 2009 08:30 PM

Sorry to go way off topic, but...Our Prez at work:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/obama_knew_about_lockerbie_bom.html

Posted by: kbob in Katy at September 6, 2009 11:10 PM

Um ... no offense meant, and I know this post will not be well-received, but the soldiers volunteered for duty (as you often remind us), so the comparison to the victim of rape or child abuse isn't quite appropriate ... and the soldiers are "on our payroll", so we taxpayers do have an interest of sorts in seeing the consequence of the government's policy decisions ... how is a photo of caskets with military dead in them so different from a casket with Ronald Reagan or Ted Kennedy or ... another public servant? If you put yourself into the public eye, you can't be very surprised that this happens, can you? really?

Posted by: I Cal lBS at September 7, 2009 07:12 PM

... the comparison to the victim of rape or child abuse isn't quite appropriate

Bullshit.

The argument is that the public cannot "understand" the plain meaning of terms like "dead" or "legs blown off" without actually watching someone die or watching the blood spurt out of someone's severed limbs.

How can they (then) understand child rape without "seeing" graphic evidence of the damage it causes?

And you're right - your comment will not be well received.

My husband WORKS for his salary. You have a right to expect him to earn it.

You have no right to film his death simply because you are too lazy to pick up a newspaper and twig to the astonishing fact that people die in war - often horribly. Or even better, because you know these things damned well but want to see the blood and gore close up and personal.

God help us. None of us have any protection from people like you.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 7, 2009 09:17 PM

To add to what Cassandra said, Reagan, Ted Kennedy and most other public servants aren't getting killed on the job - they are dying of natural causes. Those public servants also chose their high-profile positions. Most of our service members aren't high profile, and these people are dying in the line of duty. The least we (ALL of us - INCLUDING the press) can do is try to lessen the burden on the grieving families. I'm sorry, but the kind of grief Ted Kennedy's family is dealing with, with him dying of a brain tumor as an old man is a bit different, IMO, than the kind of grief the family of a young service person who has died a horribly violent death in service to this nation.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 7, 2009 11:05 PM

The "on our payroll" is absolute BS... Or I suppose ICBS would be fine with his/her employer stickin' their nose into his/her most private and personal moments, up to and including his or her death. Then broadcasting those moments to the world.

Yeah, absolute, indefensible BS.

Posted by: bt_the-curmudgeon_hun at September 7, 2009 11:49 PM

...and the soldiers are "on our payroll", so we taxpayers do have an interest of sorts in seeing the consequence of the government's policy decisions.

Did you wake up this morning without a terr standing at the foot of your bed waiting to kill you?

If not, you've seen one of the consequences.

Posted by: BillT at September 8, 2009 07:07 AM

"God help us. None of us have any protection from people like you."

Yeah..I'd like "I Cal BS" to try and say that to my face..I've never punched anyone before but I am working on trying new things...


Posted by: Carrie at September 8, 2009 07:30 AM

how is a photo of caskets with military dead in them so different from a casket with Ronald Reagan or Ted Kennedy or ... another public servant?

Well for one thing, neither Reagan's nor Kennedy's families were forced to allow photos of their coffins, nor were photographers allowed to photograph them in the hospital or while they were dying without their consent.

"They're on our payroll" is just another way of saying "We own you and there is no limitation on the ways we can use you."

Posted by: Cassandra at September 8, 2009 10:55 AM

Speak for your self-interest in your ghoulish voyeurism as a taxpayer. Do NOT presume to speak for me.

You have no right to witness a dying moment that you think you bought and paid for, because your taxes sent someone to war.

Next, Reagan, and Kennedy were not photographed while they were dying. As to public viewing, that was the families' decision, not Joe Q. Public's. Huge difference.

Posted by: Cricket at September 8, 2009 03:50 PM

I am not talking about photos of identified/ identifiable soldiers, like the AP recently published; I'm talking about the array of caskets in the cargo planes.

Posted by: I Call BS at September 8, 2009 07:42 PM

"We own you and there is no limitation on the ways we can use you."

Isn't this just another (cynical) way of describing military service?

Posted by: I Call BS at September 8, 2009 07:43 PM

Isn't this just another (cynical) way of describing military service?

No. There are limits on what one's country has a right to ask of the military and their families. We are free men and women, not slaves to your whims.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 8, 2009 08:41 PM

Damnit, Cass, did you forget to tell me that it was stupid questions day?

Posted by: Carrie at September 9, 2009 01:46 AM

"We own you and there is no limitation on the ways we can use you."

Actually, there are quite a few limitations, all written into federal law, there are further limitations written into international law, and there are still further limitations written into military law.

Posted by: BillT at September 9, 2009 01:49 AM

"We own you and there is no limitation on the ways we can use you."

Isn't this just another (cynical) way of describing military service?

Posted by: I Call BS at September 8, 2009 07:43 PM

No. It is your way of saying that the taxpayers are going to try to use us because we are bought and paid for.

Wasn't that your implication?

Grow up.

Posted by: Cricket at September 10, 2009 10:05 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)