Tami Silicio
 

Tami Silico was fired for taking pictures of coffins at Dover Air Force base.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...616268111.html

One of these pictures was on the front page of today's Washington Post. The acompanying article made it sound like they were approved by the US military. They made a big deal about it in the article, because normally it isn't allowed.

I didn't read the entire article, but the first few paragraphs made it sound like the US military expressly authorised the photographs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/print/image/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...s/fp_front.jpg

I thought it was an excellent piece of photojournalism. And the caption above the photo in the Seattle Post was so true and so honest.

Why would anyone get fired over the truth? No wait...don't answer that. I should know better living here (in the good old "free" US of A).

*dripping with slight sarcasm* :mad:

I understand why they don't want people to take photos of coffins. But I too believe that a good made photo like this one should be published once in a while to remember that war is deadly and I think this picture is very emotionally an that is important.

I understand why they don't want people to take photos of coffins. But I too believe that a good made photo like this one should be published once in a while to remember that war is deadly

What is the reason they don't want people taking photos of them, exactly? Because people might actually figure out that war is dangerous and that people die because of it?

Too lazy looking it up, but somewhere was a iotd and the discussion gave, if I remember correctly, some good arguments

If I understand properly, the pictures that just came out were taken by Defense Dept. employees and were obtained by The Memory Hole via FOIA. The photos taken by Tami Silico are not included in that and were not released through official channels (though, of course, they are now saying that responding to the FOIA request was a mistake too.)

I understand why the administration didn't want photojournalists to show America the returning fallen, but the fact the administration forbade it is just another piece of evidence, among many, that George W. Bush keeps a copy of the US Constitution on a cardboard roll next to his presidential toilet.

Actually, the ban dates back to the last Gulf War, but Clinton didn't enforce it.

Ok, so George W. inherited the Constitution-themed poop-paper from his daddy. It doesn't change the fact that Jr. is all too happy to smear our symbol of freedom across his pasty white ass.

*clapping* Very well put, although now the visual of cottage cheese is going through my mind...:D

I have read somewhere today that the ban originates from the Vietnam war when photos such as these were used on a daily basis by those campaigning against and protesting the draft etc.

I have lost someone dear to me in another war and spent long hours wondering where he was and if someone was watching over, carefully bringing him home. I would not presume to imagine what these photos might mean to family waiting at home, but I have an idea that it might have proved a comfort. This is too sad isn't it.

The government has learned by the mistakes it made in giving journalists free access to film and photograph the Vietnam War. Every night for three years the American public was subjected to nightly news casts which showed in graphic detail the suffering the war inflicted on both sides. Especially disturbing was the footage of our troops, caught in fire fights, wounded, dead, being evacuated out by helicopter. All this was shown at the dinner hour, right when everyone got home from work or school. My Dad did two tours in Vietnam. In those times it took 10 days for a letter from a soldier in Vietnam to reach the US. I can remember sitting glued to the TV, terrified that tonight it would be my Dad's turn to be filmed as one of the wounded or dead soldiers. The nightly news was a major factor in turning public opinion against the war. Bush will not make the same mistake of allowing us to see what our troops in the Gulf are enduring.

The goverment could use the same broken logic to prevent people from publicly speaking against the war at all, which would violate our right to free speech. They're trampling our Constitutional rights regardless of what positive side-effects may exist alongside the numerous negative ones. Every once in a while the American goverment does something alarmingly Orwellian, and this is one such thing. Too many such things have occurred under the reign of George W. Bush, and whenever he vacates the White House, it won't be soon enough.

She's right, it's politically powerful stuff. Take a look at the stuff coming out of Iraq, compared to what I hear from guys on the ground or have been on the ground the pictures are bland as hell, every time something major happens, no pics. How did 600 odd iraqis and a pile of US troops die in the last week without seeing one pic of the fighting. Don't tell me the PJs don't want to be there, hell, some of them live for the thrill, there is a concerted campaign going on to make sure just how hellish it is doesn't get out. Pictures are powerful. The right picture can change the course of public opinion, this administration is scared of that happening.

this is a sample of what we saw each night from vietnam. such imahes from the gulf are now censored

Unfortunately, the Democrats have thrown away the war as an issue by embracing Kerry, although Dennis K. hasn't dropped out yet.

This kind of control has been going on since Day 1 in the most recent Iraq war. The "embedding" is done so that *we* can control the press, instead of them controlling us with what they report.

I watched a lot of the stuff from the embedded personnel at the beginning of the war. You almost exclusively saw us kicking ass.

Now that we are down to urban street fighting, and losing dozens per week, where are the images? On Al Jazeerah, unfortunately.

I know war is bad, but I resent having the images withheld just so the polls won't skew too far against a sitting President. We're a free country, so let's have some free information. The argument about being sensitive to the families, in my opinion, is a nice idea, but somewhat spurious. After all, it isn't like the name of the contents is emblazoned across the coffin. They're generic, all alike, the same way our government and military views the contents. They are only dear to someone once the container reaches its destination.

If there was positive political hay to be made over these coffins, you can bet your ass that GW, Kerry and anyone else who was looking for a boost would be parading these boxes down Main Street on a caisson with a brass band playing and the local minister shouting that God was on our side.

By the way when I mentioned watching footage of the Vietnam conflict when my Dad was over there, I was not trying to say that pictures of wars be censored out of respect for families. There should be a little decency about it (oxymoron, I know), and not show close ups of the faces of the dead, but other than that, the films should be shown. The American public got at least some inkling of the savagery of the Vietnam conflict, and I, personally, got to have a hell of a lot of respect for the heroism of my father going thru the nightmares that were revealed on the evening news.