Fallen GIs return unseen

[Hoss68]

BY JAMES T. MADORE
STAFF WRITER
April 19, 2004



The coffin of an U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan is carried off a C-17 transport jet to a waiting hearse at Ramstein air base, Germany, Tuesday March 5, 2002. U.S. Army chaplains held fallen-soldier ceremonies Tuesday in Ramstein for seven American soldiers killed Monday in Afghanistan by al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. The bodies of the U.S. soldiers were brought to Germany for transfer to the United States.
(AP File Photo) April 19, 2004


The aluminum casket, draped in a U.S. flag and held by an honor guard, is slowly removed from the cargo plane at Dover Air Force Base and placed into a waiting ambulance bound for the mortuary, where the body of the dead soldier will be prepared for burial.

It's a familiar tableau repeated tens of thousands of times throughout recent wars, from Vietnam and Panama to Somalia and Kosovo. The deceased's family often is looking on, and in some cases, the president. Millions bear witness through television and photographs in newspapers and magazines.

But not in the current war with Iraq.

The honor guard rituals always take place. However, for more than a year, the Bush administration has strictly enforced a ban on media outlets taking pictures of soldiers' coffins being returned to U.S. military bases on grounds that it upsets mourners.

Critics say it's part of the White House's attempt to downplay the human cost of the war, which this month alone has killed at least 99 U.S. troops. As the casualties mount, the prohibition, whose origins date to 1991, has come under renewed scrutiny.

"We are disappointed and we protest the government denying news organizations access to those events of returning caskets," said Jon Banner, executive producer of ABC News' "World News Tonight." "We all remember when the various attacks against the United States occurred and the pictures of those coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base were something no one easily forgets. It's difficult to try to match that emotion and visual" with other footage, he said.

At the Washington Post, executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. also decried the news blackout, saying, "We would like to provide our readers access to all aspects of the war in Iraq, including the photos of those who have given their lives for their country."

The current ban is in sharp contrast with recent history. During the 1970s, '80s and early '90s, the Pentagon encouraged coverage of its increasingly elaborate events for those killed in Egypt, Lebanon and Grenada. President Jimmy Carter was photographed praying over the remains of airmen killed in the failed hostage rescue mission in Iran, while his successor, Ronald Reagan, was shown pinning Purple Hearts to the caskets of Marines slain in El Salvador.

Ban started in 1991

Publicity for such ceremonies continued until Jan. 21, 1991, when officials started to prohibit filming at the Dover base in Delaware, home to the military's largest mortuary and the primary arrival point for remains.

There is disagreement about the reasons for the ban. Historians say then-President George Bush was angered when TV networks used a split screen to air his news briefing with reporters, in which he was seen to laugh at one point, and the coffin ceremonies during the 1991 Gulf War.

Department of Defense officials, however, say the restrictions were to protect mourners.

"Over the years, the families [of deceased service personnel] have told us that their privacy is very important in the immediate aftermath of being notified of their loss," said an official, who requested anonymity.

Despite this, exceptions were made for the return of caskets from Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown's 1996 plane crash in Croatia and the 1998 terrorist bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya. Officials also permitted public distribution of photos from the coffin ceremonies for those killed in the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000. And during the first two years of the current Bush administration, journalists photographed remains arriving at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

But the Pentagon now says those pictures violated a total ban instituted in November 2001 on casket pictures at all U.S. bases and led to reiteration of that ban in March 2003 - the month the Iraq war began.

One survivors' group, at least, supports the ban. "We really feel to ensure the privacy of the families is paramount," said Kathy Moakler, deputy director of government relations at the National Military Family Association. The Virginia-based group didn't request the ban but she said "at the devastating time [of loss], being sensitive to the families is what needs to be done."

Still, critics point to the prohibition, along with renewed enforcement of restrictions on media access to funerals at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, as further evidence of the Bush administration's effort to manipulate the media to its advantage in this conflict.

Matthew T. Felling, media director at the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, said, "The administration seems to be making decisions on behalf of people with a fallen family member that they should be allowed to make on their own."

Poll numbers change

Pollsters were reluctant to predict the impact of coffin photos on public opinion. But a recent Gallup survey found the number of people saying the war is going badly jumped more than 20 percentage points after an attack in Fallujah and the subsequent publication of photos of the bodies of four American contractors who were burned and mutilated.

War images often are upsetting, none more so than the sight of a dead U.S. soldier or their flag-draped casket. That's why the Pentagon censored such pictures during World War I and most of World War II; they were seen only occasionally during Vietnam.

"The casket has a strong impact because you don't even need a caption, at that point everybody immediately understands that this is death," said David Perlmutter, the author of two books on war photography and a Louisiana State University professor.

It would be a "public relations disaster" for the administration to have press coverage of hundreds of coffins arriving from Iraq, he said.

Still, journalists have been meek in objecting to the current rules.No lawsuits have been filed, and First Amendment advocates have been relatively quiet on the subject.

Associated Press spokesman Jack Stokes said the wire service is "nowhere near" taking the Pentagon to court. "We have periodically protested the ban and that will continue," he said.

Some news organizations have sought alternatives to the coffin arrival ceremonies.

At ABC, "World News Tonight" is airing "In Honor Of," a series of three-minute tributes that rely on interviews with family and friends to recall the life of a fallen serviceman or woman.

The New York Times last week circumvented the government restrictions by publishing a photo of a soldier's remains arriving at a civilian airport.
__________________________________________________ _____________________

This is not a Bush debate, it is a debate on Freedom of the press.

[sfga6970]

I believe that it should be a family decision. They are notified of the death and it should be their choice whether it is filmed or not. They are the ones who suffered the loss and should have the ultimate say if they want the media vultures to be present at the return of their loved one.

[kruser79]

Once again I am disgusted at the gall of the media. If there was public uproar at their not being able to cover some item or another, so be it, argue and push. There isn't, they're again taking it on themselves to decide what it is the public just has to see. What's next? The conception of the next heir to the Crown? Bunk, they're just looking for the next avenue to be tapped for sensationalism.

[82nd Airborne Dad]

Originally Posted by kruser79

Once again I am disgusted at the gall of the media. If there was public uproar at their not being able to cover some item or another, so be it, argue and push. There isn't, they're again taking it on themselves to decide what it is the public just has to see. What's next? The conception of the next heir to the Crown? Bunk, they're just looking for the next avenue to be tapped for sensationalism.

These are soldiers that died: people, human beings. They are brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. Their families have the right to privicy and to be left out of the media. I have said it before: the public, the media, and the "Quagmire Democrates" have no right to make the loss of life a political topic. Respect those that gave their all.

I am disgusted too Kruser, there is no honor among this low-lifes!!

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by kruser79

Once again I am disgusted at the gall of the media. If there was public uproar at their not being able to cover some item or another, so be it, argue and push. There isn't, they're again taking it on themselves to decide what it is the public just has to see. What's next? The conception of the next heir to the Crown? Bunk, they're just looking for the next avenue to be tapped for sensationalism.

The media are just ghouls and hyennas that show up and feast on grief. Just look at them whenever there is any kind of disaster....it's disgusting! They force their way into the surviving victims faces just so they can get their mug on tv or their byline in the papers. These bottom feeders are disgusting.

[JohnRN]

They force their way into the surviving victims faces just so they can get their mug on tv or their byline in the papers.

I hope the same **** happens to them when they lose someone...

But, even bottom-feeders have their uses I suppose...

[63DH8]

Sadly, someone is going to politicalize these warrior's deaths. Others want to see the blood and gore without going "there" and experiencing it themselves. These ghoul groupies need to go where everything happened and see for themselves first hand what it's like to get shot at and go through the same psycological damage as our warriors go through. Once there should be no whitewash or rose colored glasses for these ghoul groupies!

Sorry folks. I'm fed up with these people who have a morbid facination with what happened, but won't go there to experience it themselves. It's the reason I don't talk much about what I experinced. I have even been harassed by soldiers who didn't get to go back in 90-91 when they discovered I went and did what I had to do. F*ck it! I don't need the cr@p and neither do our guys who are there now!