Should President Bush prohibit access to casualties?

[otis-willie]

Results of yesterday's 24 hour Survey: Should President Bush prohibit media coverage of returning casualties?

TOPIC/HISTORY: For generations the American public has honored its war dead upon arrival back in the United States. Recently, President Bush has declared that public viewing and media coverage of America's war dead prior to their bodies being turned over to their families is
disrespectful to the dead and to their families. Critics of Mr. Bush have called his decision an attempt to prevent the American public from seeing the cost of the war in Iraq since his announcement on May 1st, 2003 that major hostilities had ended.

QUESTION 1/2: Do you agree or disagree with president Bush's decision to prevent media coverage of America's returning casualties?

Agree... 1.7%
Disagree... 98.3%

QUESTION 2/2: Did you serve in the miiltary?

Yes... 57.2%
No... 42.8%

http://home.pacbell.net/veterans/x-casu.htm

[StarvingStudent47]

Critics of Mr. Bush have called his decision an attempt to prevent the American public from seeing the cost of the war in Iraq since his announcement on May 1st, 2003 that major hostilities had ended.

If "major hostilities" had really ended, then maybe we wouldn't be seeing so many flag-draped coffins. Let's face it, his ****ouncement was wrong.

Nobody's interests are served by pretending that our soldiers are not in harm's way in Iraq right now. Count me among the 99% of Americans who thinks Bush is way wrong with that declaration.

[Seoulstriker]

Critics of Mr. Bush have called his decision an attempt to prevent the American public from seeing the cost of the war in Iraq since his announcement on May 1st, 2003 that major hostilities had ended.

If "major hostilities" had really ended, then maybe we wouldn't be seeing so many flag-draped coffins. Let's face it, his ****ouncement was wrong.

Nobody's interests are served by pretending that our soldiers are not in harm's way in Iraq right now. Count me among the 99% of Americans who thinks Bush is way wrong with that declaration.

no, he was right to say that major hostilities had ended. can you think of any large scale operations involving heavy air assets? what about tank battles?

[EvanL]

Can you think of many that happened during OIF?

[Ratamacue]

There were some major combat operations, just nothing like Desert Storm. An Nasiriyah, Basra, Umm Qsar, all those could be considered major combat operations.

[EvanL]

yes but i was reffering to seoulstrikers references to tank battles and air operations.

[Fioraon]

There were some major combat operations, just nothing like Desert Storm. An Nasiriyah, Basra, Umm Qsar, all those could be considered major combat operations.

Liberation of Samawah by the 82nd Airborne. There were many large scale operations. All Major Conflict has ended but that doesn't mean American Soldiers are not subjected to being fired on and killed by Syrian fanatics and elements of Saddams Loyalist. Its ignorant to think so but its also ignorant to think that such attacks are done on a large scale because quite frankly they are not.

Critics say "his decision an attempt to prevent the American public from seeing the cost of the war in Iraq since his announcement." I'd like to know what position they are in to make such a statement. There are many key points in the text one being the public viewing, and coverage of bodies. Doesn't stop there but viewing the lifeless bodies before the family get's their son, father, sister, mother, or brother's turned over to them. What concent does the family get? Does the poisoned, currupt media have more rights to a fathers son then the father himself? Prevent Americans from seeing the real cost of war is bull****. We see the tally, what matter or business is it to the public to know the names, see the pictures, and marvel over the dead body before their family gains knowledge or the body is turned over to them.

The question is bull**** as well. Do you agree or disagree with president Bush's decision to prevent media coverage of America's returning casualties? Thats not what the you said, thats not what the President said. The question should ask weather or not you agree or disagree with president Bush's decision to prevent media coverage of America's returning casualties prior to their families knowledge and prior to the turning over of the body to the family?

Where is your god damn respect?

[He219]

If "major hostilities" had really ended, then maybe we wouldn't be seeing so many flag-draped coffins. Let's face it, his ****ouncement was wrong.

Nobody's interests are served by pretending that our soldiers are not in harm's way in Iraq right now. Count me among the 99% of Americans who thinks Bush is way wrong with that declaration.
"Let's face it", there will be flag-draped coffins in a war against terror.

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2003/10/29/image580655x.jpg
The whole CV exhibition was a salute to our troops.
The 'mission accomplished' was the removal of Saddam's Regieme in Iraq.

He never said it was the end of the war against terrorism.


And for you left-wing fruitloops:



http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/04/iraq.objectives/clinton.jpg
Clinton claims 'mission accomplished' in Iraq
-- but is it? (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/04/iraq.objectives/)
September 4, 1996
From Correspondent Wolf Blitzer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Following the second cruise missile strike against Iraqi air defense targets, President Clinton quickly returned to the Oval Office to declare the operation a success.

"The targets were either destroyed or sufficiently damaged, so that we can say that our mission has been achieved," Clinton told reporters Wednesday.

Clinton claimed that expanding the "no-fly zone" south of Baghdad has altered the strategic equation, reducing Saddam Hussein's ability to threaten oil-rich Persian Gulf states.

"He is strategically worse off than he was before these strikes began, and I am satisfied that this was an appropriate, measured response," Clinton said.

The president's advisers say the United States has three strategic objectives: to contain Saddam's ability to threaten his neighbors, to stop the repression of his own people and to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction.

But critics both in and out of the administration suggested the president may rue the day he declared this mission accomplished. They claimed the mission remains unfocused and could easily escalate, depending on the unpredictable Iraqi leader's response.

"I hope that the president will explain what the end game is here, as far as what the ultimate objectives are," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.

Other critics charged that while U.S. cruise missiles were destroying some of Iraq's air defense sites in the south, Saddam's forces were ruthlessly consolidating their grip in the Kurdish north.

In the process, they said the big losers have been those Kurds and Iraqis who have cooperated with the U.S. and the West -- scores of whom reportedly have been rounded up and summarily executed in recent days by Saddam's troops.

Some critics also suggested the latest crisis could have been avoided.

"We should have been doing more -- a lot of it's now after the barn door is locked -- to produce peace among the Kurds, said Paul Wolfowitz, foreign policy adviser to Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole.

"That should be a major effort. Now it's much, much more difficult, but something should be done. We shouldn't have ignored it in June when Saddam started closing the door to U.N. inspectors."

But the White House said direct U.S. intervention in the north was simply not worth the price.

"We deliberately did not enter into the equation in north Iraq on behalf of either of the warring factions within the Kurds," said White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry.

"Our national interests were not sufficiently engaged to attach ourselves to one side or the other in that fight."

For U.S. pilots, patrolling the "no-fly zone" is hardly risk-free. For Clinton, especially during these final weeks of the campaign, Iraq represents a potential political mine field.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/04/iraq.objectives/no.fly.zone.map.sm.jpg

[Flagg]

The whole CV exhibition was a salute to our troops.

I completely disagree.

It was a stage managed affair that gave Bush a BIG re-inforcement boost politically, albeit only for a limited time as the shooting war "ended" and the media war has just begun.

If it was REALLY about the troops media involvement would have been limited.

From what I understand the Pres and First Lady have made a number of visits to troops in hospital that have gone "under the radar"....events like that, I think, are REALLY for the troops.

[Durandal]

Last time I checked. freedom of speech was protected inthe United States. If he tries to prevent the coverage of american casualties/deaths he simply adds more fuel to the "loss of freedoms" opponents.

If he wants to be a one term president, go ahead. _I_ would even refuse to vote for the bastard.

Idiot....what ishe thinking.

[StarvingStudent47]

yes but i was reffering to seoulstrikers references to tank battles and air operations.

And I was referring to the human cost of the war. If you define "major hostilites" as "operations involving major tank and aircraft battles," then yes, major hostilities ended around May 1st. But if you define "major hostilities" as "combat where our men are dying," then hostilities have stayed constant, or perhaps even increased, since May 1st.

Using your definition of "major hostilities," would the Battle of Mogadishu even count as "major hostilities"? After all, it primarily only involved Humvees, Black Hawks, Little Birds, and 100+ infantry. No Abrams, no artillery, no fixed-wing aircraft, no air-to-air combat.

[EvanL]

yes but i was reffering to seoulstrikers references to tank battles and air operations.

And I was referring to the human cost of the war. If you define "major hostilites" as "operations involving major tank and aircraft battles," then yes, major hostilities ended around May 1st. But if you define "major hostilities" as "combat where our men are dying," then hostilities have stayed constant, or perhaps even increased, since May 1st.

Using your definition of "major hostilities," would the Battle of Mogadishu even count as "major hostilities"? After all, it primarily only involved Humvees, Black Hawks, Little Birds, and 100+ infantry. No Abrams, no artillery, no fixed-wing aircraft, no air-to-air combat.

Once again i wasnt reffering to that.

[Fioraon]

Last time I checked. freedom of speech was protected inthe United States. If he tries to prevent the coverage of american casualties/deaths he simply adds more fuel to the "loss of freedoms" opponents.

If he wants to be a one term president, go ahead. _I_ would even refuse to vote for the bastard.

Idiot....what ishe thinking.

Try reading the post. Then try thinking for yourself. Then try posting your thoughts. I only pray that you are not old enough to vote.

[jizzmonkey]

I think the "hostilities" are worse now than they were at the begining of this whole thing, dont get me wrong, I dont see things in black and white. There is some grey, sometimes the means do justifie the end.In this day and age you have to be a realist. What concerns me is what the american public is going to think if they see the flag draped coffins. Are they going to support me less? Is my son going to grow up and think that his dad went to an unjust war? I dont hold strong opinions about things I dont fully understand. But I dont have a warm and fuzzy about this one.

[He219]

The whole CV exhibition was a salute to our troops.

I completely disagree.

It was a stage managed affair that gave Bush a BIG re-inforcement boost politically, albeit only for a limited time as the shooting war "ended" and the media war has just begun.

If it was REALLY about the troops media involvement would have been limited.

From what I understand the Pres and First Lady have made a number of visits to troops in hospital that have gone "under the radar"....events like that, I think, are REALLY for the troops.

I do believe it simultaneusly was a prime photo-op, but you can't say it was 'completely' about the President and not our troops. He could have done that from the White House or Capitol Hill. The President focused attention on the men and women of the Abraham Lincoln with his visit. Certainly everyone recalls those images vividly, in lieu of some DC venue.


Mr. Bush lingered on deck, shook hands and posed for photos. He pointed a thumb toward the pilots in a tribute to "these heroes."

I'm not going to say he didn't Showboat.


Amid cheers from the 5,000-member crew of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush declared the battle of Iraq had ended in victory. "Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free," he told the military.

In a nationally televised address, Mr. Bush sought to cast the conflict in Iraq as one aspect of a broader war on terror. He said Saddam Hussein's defeat "is one victory in a war on terror" that still goes on.

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," Mr. Bush said from the deck of the carrier, which has sent thousands of jets into war. "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror," the president said. "We have removed an ally of al-Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime because that regime is no more."

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," he said.


"Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we."

Mr. Bush stopped short of declaring victory or an end to the war.

"In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained," he said. "We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals and educate all of their children. Yet we also have dangerous work to complete."

"And as I speak, a special operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of terrorists, and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. America and our coalition will finish what we began," he said.

The focus on his speech was Iraq.

"We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools for the people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551825.shtml

[mocking_loudly_died]

Sorry......I just came in here looking for the toilet. :oops:

[Durandal]

Try reading the post. Then try thinking for yourself. Then try posting your thoughts. I only pray that you are not old enough to vote.

Not too sure what got your dander up, but hey what they heck. I reread it, just incase I missed somethig. I come to the same conclusion.

The statement is this:


Recently, President Bush has declared that public viewing and media coverage of America's war dead prior to their bodies being turned over to their families is disrespectful to the dead and to their families.

Now, have I done any research on it? Nope. I am taking the person who posted this comment at face value for the purpose of the conversation. Public viewing of America's War dead sounds pretty open ended to me. It sounds like, a news reporter cannot film or take pictures of a body of a dead American soldier in the streets of some Arab town and the post them to a public audience.

Now, that may not have been the actually meaning behind the statement and either as a misquote, a screw up in the news source, or an error on the person making the news release to the media agent, but the current statement as it stands is broad and to far open ended.

I was simply adding my opinion. If you do not enjoy my opinion, fine.

To answer your rather insulting question/statement...

Yes, I do vote, unlike most Americans I stay informed, I do read, and have yet to miss a national or local election during the 15 years I have been legally allowed to vote. Which is more than most of America can claim.

I think media coverage of the war has been awful, but that does not mean some one should prevent them from doing so.

You can sit around and discuss the finer points of "major conflict" all you want. That really is not the issue.

[He219]

Sorry......I just came in here looking for the toilet. :oops:

Find yourself a nice shrubbery instead!

:P

[Fioraon]

I think media coverage of the war has been awful, but that does not mean some one should prevent them from doing so.


To what expence?

Though it is absolutely necessary for the American Public to realize the outcome of their actions at what expense is our media willing to travel to make their story? At the expense of the families who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, for Iraq? (Ultimate sacrifice being willing to serve, to stand up and stand his or her watch, and knowing fully the hazards they may endure.) Where is their consent, shouldn’t the families have a say in weather or not they wish to have their deceased father, mother, son, or sister paraded in the media, in the public?

[NcDeuce]

I think media coverage of the war has been awful

Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. :|

[Guttorm]

Well, to see it all from a NON emotional level.

The brave young men and women who die in Iraq are not FORCED to go there.

They join by their own free will, they are soldiers, and a soldiers JOB is to die for his/hers country.

But then again... This dosen't mean that I have no sympathi with the ones left behind.


I think the media forgett this when they go ape**** everytime someone get's hurt/killed.
The media needs to remember that theese brave souls have promised to support their country no matter what.

[Durandal]

They join by their own free will, they are soldiers, and a soldiers JOB is to die for his/hers country.

Actually their job is to make the "enemy bastard" die for his country. :|

[Durandal]

To what expence?

That is not for you or I to judge. Freedom of speech is one the very basic freedoms these men and women are protecting. I believe that their actions will allow the Iraqis to have it in the future. To violate that, to me, violates and belittles their death just as much or more than seeing their body dragged around the media.

Saddam prevented the bodies of Iraqi soldiers from being shown on their TV network and it is one of the reasons why there was no sat TV links allowed in the country. Control of the media.

Like it or not, the media has a right. No matter how distasteful you and I might think they use that right.

[Fioraon]

Yes it is for you or I to judge.

Every freedom has its boundaries, there is no such thing as Freedom of Speech in which we are granted to say anything we damn well please. We are free to stand up to our government, we are free to support whatever party we please, we are free to denounce leaders, religion, and so on. But when that freedom is in endanger to another citizens rights it is no longer your freedom to excersize. These men and women are protecting the rights of the Iraqi people, I dont think it would bother them one bit to know that their families rights are being protected while they are half way around the world.

[Durandal]

Yes it is for you or I to judge.

Every freedom has its boundaries, there is no such thing as Freedom of Speech in which we are granted to say anything we damn well please.

This is true, you should not be able to commit libel, slander, or shout fire in a crowded theater. All of these are covered in American law... why? Because they cause harm...deliberate harm. Meaning, the person saying or writing said offenses is doing so to cause harm, deliberately.


We are free to stand up to our government, we are free to support whatever party we please, we are free to denounce leaders, religion, and so on.

We agree on something. We are also (to put a more positive spin on it) we are free to support those same issues as well.


But when that freedom is in endanger to another citizens rights it is no longer your freedom to excersize. These men and women are protecting the rights of the Iraqi people, I dont think it would bother them one bit to know that their families rights are being protected while they are half way around the world.

You started off ont he right foot, but unfortunately it went downhill. Freedom of speech ends when it endangers the lives of the soldiers in harms way. That means no reporting on troops locations in the middle of combat, no pre-mission data going to the public, and so on. If that was your argument I would agree completely.

However, you claim someone's rights are being violated, in this case, I think ( I could be wrong, your last statement was sort of fuzzy) you need to prove to us exactly what Right is being violated.

I'll even help...

According to the Constitution of the United States of America, the 10 Amendments, qalso known as the Bill of Rights are there to protect three things: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Have you ever had a Constitutional Law or Theory class in college or law school (not knowing what your career or education is)? Topics like this are discussed ad nauseum...

The Constituion does not gaurantee Happiness, only that you are free to pursue it. The Constitution, possibly unknowingly, but I would wager the founding forefathers knew, allows freedom of speech to a point that it is another check and balance to the three divisions of Federal Government...the legislative, judicial, and the executive branch. Each fo the three provide each other, in theory, a check and balance. If one does something that is unconstitutional or generaly bad, in theory, the other(s) can fix it or prevent it from happening. The very essence of freedom of speech puts a fourth in place. This has become over time a role held by the media, like it or not.

Now, what I want to know is what is the Right(s) being violated? How is the news/media coverage, regardless of whether you think it is bad or not, of fallen soldiers, a violation of civil liberties?

Before you answer I want to say one thing. When you start limiting civil liberties regardless of how absurd or in poor taste you may think they are you are opening a Pandora's box that will not be closed.

It is either all or nothing.

With that, I will wait for your reply.

Note: I find this a stimulating discussion so please do not be offended because I do not agree. I am just curious why you think the way you do.

[Fioraon]

I’m glad we meet eye to eye, well sort of.

To start off I'll answer your question regarding my knowledge of Law. Yes, I have taken general Business Law in which we studied crimes against people amongst other things.

To clear one thing up; Freedom of Speech ends when it endangers the god given rights of the Soldiers and their families. Their life does not have to be endangered.

Without taking your post apart piece by piece I will try to make myself as clear as I can. First you are correct in that America doesn't grant or guarantee Happiness, but the possibility there of.

Without digging up any notes I do believe I can wing this.

All members of our society are entitled to certain rights (no news there but stick with me.) Be them the right to be free from bodily harm, enjoy a good reputation, or to conduct business without unwanted interference. Torts, or the wrongful harm to others through intent, negligence, or strict liability.

First, this case could close with a Nuisance; anything that interferes with the enjoyment of life.

Second being Invasion of Privacy; which is the right to be left alone. This also includes the right to be free from unwanted publicity.

(if the victim is deceased it falls to the consent of the family)

Third, and this may be a stretch, Defamation. Though I do believe you must prove the damaging statement must be false, not 100% sure.

With that feel free to question me, I do believe I am clear and no offence will be taken if you disagree because I am wrong. This isn't about me and you, its about the truth. Its about the law. If I am wrong then I'll be right next time, I dont look down on that.

[Durandal]

Here is the problem, there is no endangerment to the family, or the soldier.

There has been a long history of recording military engagements, first in writing and painted pictures, lithographs, wood cuts and the like. Then photgraphs. Then film and audio. Finally, video (both analog and digital).

This to some degree (though certainly no door shut, case closed) sets a certain amount of precendent. Why these select soldiers and not others? Why then and not now? One could probably coome up with a dozen or so arguments supporting this claim.

I mean, let's look at the reality. A news crew is filming a firefight. Two U.S. service men are killed. The video is aired across the nation much like what we saw in Somalia. Is this irresponsible? No not necessarily, though I personally would find tasteless and turn off the TV. Other's may not think so. I would argue that it IS important for some, especially those that never consider images like these or events when they make decisions...or vote. Who knows...that is opinion though obviously.

The question though is...

Does it endanger the soldier that is already dead? A hard and seemingly cold question to ask. But a relevant one none the less.

Keep in mind here as I have said before. I hate it as much as you. I hold myself in check though for one simple reason. I live in country where conflicting views and beliefs can coexist without bloodshed. If my opnion were more important than the actual law then there would be anarchy.

Sorry for the rambling, I am rushing, trying to get this out before the girlfriend comes to visit.

I'll respond tomorrow.

[Fioraon]

I’m sorry but yes it is endangerment to at least two of the elements I stated if not the third which I do have doubt in. I don’t see how you do not see that as invasion to privacy or the potential to become a Nuisance. Maybe you can elaborate?

Let us take a look at reality, 87% of rape cases in the state of Washington go unreported to officials. Of the 13% brought to the Washington courts two out of ten will be dismissed. Just because 87% of the cases go without report to the authorities it doesn’t make those that were criminalized innocent. Apply this to your camera crew that aired a fire fight in which they released prior to the consent of the family of the war dead or the soldiers involved in the conflict that were identifiable.

With regards to Operation Gothic Serpent, I believe the Misses could have easily filed a law suit and have won against media outlets previewing the horrific scenes of that battle in which their husbands were shown dragged around the streets and beaten. Does it make it right that they didn’t pursue action? No, that was their personnel choice.

To answer your last question, dead or alive, a citizen has rights. Not the same rights, and not nearly as many but they are there none the less.

But there is a loop hole in the law. Celebrities dismiss their right to be free from unwanted publicity. I’d hardly consider them to be celebrities though.

[Durandal]

I’m sorry but yes it is endangerment to at least two of the elements I stated if not the third which I do have doubt in. I don’t see how you do not see that as invasion to privacy or the potential to become a Nuisance. Maybe you can elaborate?

I think you need to look up the words/terms "Endangerment" "Nuisance" and "Invasion of Privacy". The two violations are hardly "endangering" the lives of the soldier or the family. If the families wich to press the issue, then they should. That is their right. The President of the United States does NOT have the right to censor though. The actions are completely different.


To answer your last question, dead or alive, a citizen has rights. Not the same rights, and not nearly as many but they are there none the less.

Just out of curiosity, when does the deceased finally give up these "limited rights" and which laws exactly are they? There is some consideration to be taken with wills and estates, but that is about it. These hardy cover the examples you have cited.


But there is a loop hole in the law. Celebrities dismiss their right to be free from unwanted publicity. I’d hardly consider them to be celebrities though.

Actually that is not necessarily true. Keep in mind also, this is not a private army. These are federal employees.

Ultimately the question comes down to which is more important, the freedom of the press and thus our nation as a whole (the very foundation of our great country) of the privacy of a corpse.

It disgusts me to break it down to that simple level, but that is what we are talking about. I am sorry if that last comment offended abyone, it certain offends me but needs to be said. The freedoms we have in this nation whether I persoanlly think they are right or not gaurantee that this nation will continur to be free. If you start mucking around playing dictator, then those freedoms will eventually disappear.

I did want to hear what you considered endangerment though. I thought I may have been overloooking something. Thank you.

[tthiel]

Thats an ignorant remakr. You've oviosuly never been in the military or in combat. I guess the hudnreds of soldiers who have died don't count. BTW air assets were heavily used just this past week.
[/quote]
no, he was right to say that major hostilities had ended. can you think of any large scale operations involving heavy air assets? what about tank battles?[/quote]

[Fioraon]

Don’t take the word endanger out of context, I said it was endangering to their rights. (Meaning their rights are exposed to harm or danger if you want to use the dictionary.)

Just look up the Torts "Nuisance" and "Invasion of Privacy." Don’t ask Webster ask Steven H. Grifs who wrote the Barron's "Law Dictionary." (I've already stated a brief summary of their meanings when I first posted them.)

I agree with you, the two violations are hardly endangering their lives, which is why I never said it. But it is "endangering" (destroying, exterminating, exposing to harm) their rights (in which I also stated.)

No, these aren’t celebrities. They are soldiers. The public doesn’t even know them. But people like the Defense Secretary and the President; they swore those rights away when they entered office.