The Ban on Dover is Lifted

For those of you who have been following this story, the ban on media access to Dover has been lifted, with one caveat - the families of the fallen will make the final determination.

If you stay with the video, around the 07:25 mark (and again at 19:16), Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen respond to reporter's questions about what drove their thought process, the politics surrounding the ban and the logistics of implementing the policy. Apparently, Secretary Gates has tasked a "working group" to "quickly" put a plan in place to implement the new policy. I will be interested to see how, in practical terms, this will be implemented. What happens when one family passes and another agrees, yet their loved ones are arriving on the same flight, for instance? Looks like we'll soon find out.

I truly thought the policy would stand, as is. I knew I'd be sick if I heard the policy had been overturned outright. And I thought I would be okay with the families making the final determination, but truthfully, I feel a little queasy right now. It feels like the camel just busted into the tent.

Comments

[Andi]

I see the potential for adding another field to the SGLI forms, and/or will...

[Tucker]

I think the important thing is that we still have the choice. Some MilSpouses I know would want people to see the sacrifices they have made, and that is their right. For those of us who don't want it, we can say no. That is the beauty of this compromise. And from what I understand any photos would be anonymous in nature, so while this isn't what many wanted, we all still have the ability to say no. They left this one up to us, and I think that is a big step forward. Just my 2 cents.

[joyce]

but, what happens, like another blogger pointed out, when parents vote no, and wife/brother/uncle votes yes?

This is sad, in my opinion, to further burden families at a time of deep grief. And Gates indicated he asked for a review of the policy a year ago.

[liberal army wife]

I agree. We can still say no. It's a choice we have, the government is trusting us with the choice to do what we want, at the worst time of our lives. It seems this isn't the first time SecDef thought about this ban - he is quoted as saying he thought it was not a good thing before. I would also be interested in his thought process, if he thought about or took into consideration the views of the families and the troops.

LAW

[Tucker]

It seems to me though, that this is something (much like wills and POA's) that we need to discuss as a family with our service members BEFORE a deployment. Whoever is in charge legally (ie, POA or will) gets to choose. And if it is a wife or parent(s), one would hope this issue was discussed prior, just like any other legal/ceremonial issue we all deal with prior to a deployment. So, ideally it wouldn't be a decision made in the midst of grief. We are MilSpouses, we plan for everything. This is just one more item on the list. They are letting US choose what is best for US... that doesn't happen too often so I for one am glad that this is our choice now.

[liberal army wife]

Joyce, I think this is part of what the SecDef said has to be worked out. This is what is also done at Arlington, and at every funeral for a fallen soldier in Iraq that I have attended.

LAW

[The Army Wife]

I agree with Tucker. As MilSpouses, we don't have a lot of CHOICE in what happens in our lives. So personally, I'm grateful for the choice to decide whether or not I want pictures taken. And really, it depends on what your definition of "burden" is. Having an entire nation grieving with me doesn't seem like a burden in my eyes. To me it says that a nation is standing behind what our spouses are fighting for, and that they recognize the sacrafices that are made. You would be amazed at how many people out there are clueless of the extent to which everything is happening.

[Andi]

Tucker says,

"It seems to me though, that this is something (much like wills and POA's) that we need to discuss as a family with our service members BEFORE a deployment."

I agree.

[SeabeeSeniorWife]

For the most part, I think this is a good compromise. And I agree that a discussion beforehand is very important. My only thought for the families as they talk about this issue is to remember that once the photos are released, you will have little say in how they are used. Obviously, you hope they will be used in a respectful and honorable manner. But like all photos that suddenly become public domain, there is always the option for some group or organization to use them to promote their own agenda. I doubt you will be able to release them with stipulations on them as to the intent of use. It will probably be either release them to the press or not. Definitely a tough call to make and God Bless all those that have to make those decisions. My heart goes out to them.

[Ramie]

I appreciate that they are giving us the choice, but I think personally that its not something I would choose. I do agree that its something we should discuss before a deployment. I think I'll write DH's wishes on a post it note and stick it to his will, just so its there, and I don't have to try to remember what he said. If he decides that he would like it, I'd fulfill his wishes for sure, but I honestly don't think he'd want it. Its a sticky situation for sure. I pray for the folks bringing fallen family members home during this transition time.

[DL Sly]

I think y'all are putting a whole lotta trust in the media. http://www.spousebuzz.com/blog/2007/03/another_reason_.html

You really gonna trust that they will only take and use pictures of those consenting families?
Really?
You really think they will only ever use the pictures in a manner you and your loved one would want?

[HomefrontSix]

I am incredibly disappointed in the SecDef and the CongressCritters that pushed for this ban to be lifted.

[liberal army wife]

If you don't trust the media - you say NO to having pictures. Again, OUR CHOICE. No, I don't trust the media. But then, I don't trust certain members of the military - shall we remember those who leaked the Surge/extension information? Again.. it's OUR CHOICE. I'll be talking to Chief and then we'll make OUR CHOICE. As Andi has said, we have all planned these things, this is one more thing to add to the planning/discussion between the service member and his/her family. An Assistant SecDef talking on the BBCWorld News, made the point that the media will have to have the permission of the family and be cleared to enter Dover. Not the easiest place to get into.

LAW

[Tucker]

I agree with LAW... and no, I don't trust the media either, but that goes along with what SeabeeSeniorWife said... when we go to make these choices- how these images may or may not be used is something we need to think about. No matter how you personally feel about this, the point is that WE still have the CHOICE to say no(and when's the last time the military gave us MilSpouses a choice about anything?).

[loquita]

Good discussion... I have to say that DLSly makes a good point -- the media hasn't proven itself worth of trust, and this "choice" policy seems to leave a lot up to their scruples.

To go with that, here's an opinion article written by a journalist:
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opinion/military-funerals-ban-022609

[Kanani]

I'm very sorry this decision was made. I very strongly felt that they deserved this one moment of privacy, since once they go through the gates of Dover, everything about their loss will be quite public.

However, now that the decision has been made, let's hope they limit the number of photographers, as well as the scope of time when they're able to take photos.

My bigger worry is people photoshopping the pictures to make a point either way on some blog.

[Mare]

I think it should be up to the soldier being deployed and them alone. It is their image that will be broadcast. Granted a flag covered casket is 'anonymous'. However obtaining permission from a family member means getting the family name when they sign a release.

In this day and age all it takes is a few moments on Google to find out where they went to high school and get a photo. Or a Myspace page with some personal photographs not meant for national consumption. Trust the media to do the right thing? Maybe 10 years ago when they were still an institution worth respecting. Now they'll just slice and dice the fallen soldier's reputation to make a buck.

It shouldn't even be the families decision. It should just be the soldiers. People make questionable decisions in the midst of grief. Sometimes they regret them later. What if you have a wife who is so angry and overcome with grief that her husband and father of her children has been taken from her and ignores her husbands wishes? What about a parent who never agreed with their child joining the service to begin with?

This should not be about anyone elses's agenda. This should be about what the soldier wants and how they want their remains treated.

And I actually believe that on occasion the American public should see those photographs. To remind them that a war is going on. To remind them that people exist that will lay down their lives to defend our way of life. To remind them of the care and reverence that a fallen soldier is treated with. But the appropriate time may be once a year on Memorial Day. Certainly not the moment they touch American soil again for the final time.

[The Army Wife]

Again, though, if you have a problem with it, and you and your spouse don't want the media there, you want your moment of privacy, then you say no. Plain & Simple. To fully trust the media to do exactly what you say is is idiotic. So yes, you have to think about that prior to giving your wishes.

I guess I'm just not really seeing what the big deal is. You say NO if you don't want the media there. If the spouse or the parents WANT the media there, than that's there choice, and we as viewers will have to live with that. Or don't watch. Or don't look up the pictures. We complain about the government having too much control over things, and here they are, giving US control over a PERSONAL matter. In my eyes, that's a step forward.

[The Army Wife]

Mare, you are right in that it's easy to obtain information on a fallen service member via the Internet these days, but I don't think THIS issue, having pictures at Dover, is going to make any difference in that, for better or worse. Typically, after a service member passes, and the family member is notified, that name is released to the media. I've read COUNTLESS articles giving the names of fallen soldiers a day after the death, if not the SAME day. And, they all typically give name, where they are from, how old they were, who they were survived by, etc.

And, really, it's unfortunate. I don't agree with it, but it already happens. I don't think having a few pictures taken of an anonymous casket is going to make any difference in that whatsoever. The information is typically out there long before they touch American Soil again. And I believe that is a whole OTHER issue that needs to be tackled.

[airforcewife]

The Army Wife - while I applaud the choice aspect, it's a catch-22 in and of itself.

What if two family members don't agree? Who gets veto power over the pictures? What if Mom says yes and wife says no? Or vice versa?

What if a servicemember forgets to change his notification and next of kin information and the ex-wife has that power? What if there is already tremendously bad blood in a family? Can a grieving wife (or mother) be subjected to news photogs who flash in their faces because the mother (or wife) gave permission? Where do children, especially adult children, fit into this equation?

As I understand it, the families have always been able to release personal pictures if they so wish. The difference here is who takes the picture. And unless they are going to bring Michael Yon to Dover to personally oversee this media program, I do not trust any media camera crew to treat either the family or the fallen with any degree of respect.

And I simply can't accept on the face that this decision should be made by the service-member alone. Because it is their body - but it is our grief. We will have to live with the results of whatever happens. Forever.

It is in my nature to be ecstatic whenever the words "choice" and "military" are connected. But the problem here is that we can't really ever define whose choice it truly is. And we're (aggregate, not personally) arguing over a "right" that was really already present. There are pictures available of the fallen coming home to Dover. Were there restrictions in place on the family releasing personal pictures before? I don't believe there were, although I may be wrong.

The family photos may not be as "pretty" as professional, but in the end they may be a lot more healing and meaningful. Maybe the ability to release photographs while still banning journalists may have been the only fair way to go for everyone.

In any case, it doesn't matter now. The decision has been made. I just hope that one of the first results of it we see isn't journos crowded outside base clamoring to be let in while a grieving family drives past trying to shield their faces.

[The Army Wife]

airforcewife -- I've been very lucky in that I have not had to deal with something of such a nature like this in my life. However, you act like this would be the ONLY time that a family -- wife, mother, father, aunt, uncle, whoever -- would argue over what happens to the remains afterwards. It happens whether or not the press are involved anyways.

And also a reminder, Dover is still a MILITARY installation. Which means that the Press, the Media, Journalists all need to be INVITED on post. They can't simply walk on whenever they feel like, and even then, they need to be escorted by a member of the installation POA. The likelihood of a grieving family who has said NO being bombarded with flashes and photographers while trying to "shield their faces" is very unlikely. And while there may be one person who says yes, and one who says no, and while the media sometimes are jerks, they still have a code and ethics to live up to. If they don't have a release, they don't take pictures of the person who said no.

But if it's the wife's decision, then it's the wife's decision! If the parent is left with the decision, then it's theirs. We all know that there is typically one person attached to the soldier who has these rights -- not an entire family.

[airforcewife]

No, The Army Wife, I don't think this is the ONLY time the argument would happen. I think that it might (because of the emphasis the press has put on this particular moment themselves) be the most public time. At least for the first few to come home while the policy is figured out.

There have actually been several instances where family strife over a fallen service-member's last wishes in other matters have led to public and terrible fall-out. In such cases the family is grieving and wounded and the press has acted like slavering animals.

After seeing some of the aftermath from that, I can't help but wonder if the arguments and recriminations would have been less protracted if they hadn't been on camera. Certainly there might have been more chance to heal, as there wouldn't have been video or photographic evidence playing publicly.

And it is precisely "outside the gate" that I was talking about. News crews are allowed outside the gate. I've seen them stake-out non-military news stories with horrifying invasion of privacy - standing centimeters from the edge of a property line and crowding a sidewalk, because the story is of far more importance to them than the people who are living the story. I haven't seen them display a lot of journalistic ethics in recent child abduction cases.

Service-members are notorious for not updating information. And even if the wife has the ability to say yes or no, the wife is not the only family member grieving and affected.

My point is not that pictures should never be allowed for release. My point is that it may be better for everyone involved if the pictures that get released are not taken by news agencies and that news agencies are not allowed near the flight line. Period.

It might protect everyone more that way.

There is no perfect answer. There are only the rules. And no matter how the rules are enforced there will be ugliness, because there always is.

Like I said, it doesn't matter now. The decision has been made. While it was a relief to hear that there was choice involved in the matter, I can't help but think this might complicate things quite a bit more. And just for myself, that's not the time in my life I would want to deal with any more complications.

[DL Sly]

Well, alrighty then.....it's OUR choice, eh? It's supposed to be MY choice, not OUR. So, let's try that scenario out, shall we?

We are both at Dover. The casket holding the remains of your loved one preceeds mine. You have chosen media coverage. I have not. Fine. But what happens when the casket with the remains of MY loved one are next, and YOUR media circus is still there? Now YOUR choice has been forced upon me. Now I must not only deal with the in-your-face reality of this loss, I must also guard to make sure that none of the paparazzi YOU have chosen to let aboard the base turn their long lenses toward MY direction. So much for MY choice in the matter.

Do you honestly believe that all of those rag mag pix were obtained AFTER a consent form was signed? Do you honestly believe that the photographer was even in close proximity of their subject?
Again, I think y'all have placed waaayyy too much trust in the "code and ethics" of the jourons who infest the MSM these days.

[Tucker]

But if you all recall, Sec'y Gates did say that the details had to be worked out... I am guessing that many of the scenarios you have all pointed out will be amongst those details. Do you really think that our military family would allow the situation that you described (DL Sly) to happen? Do you really think one grieving MilSpouse who chose yes would do that to another who chose no in their time of grief? I have no problem with you not giving the media credit, but I would hope you would give your fellow MilSpouses some credit to do the right thing and support eachother's wishes.

[Snarky Navy Wife]

I wasn't going to say anything because LAW, Tucker, and The Army Wife said everything I wanted to say about this issue.

However, I see that some folks don't seem to understand my perspective, so I want to take the anti-photos argument and twist it back around.

You talk about your right to privacy, which I completely respect and which will be honored on threat of punishment by gnarly lawsuits, I'm sure. But what about MY rights? Why hasn't my family been allowed the opportunity (and thank the gods we haven't been confronted with this situation) to share this slice of our lives with the public?

Pro-war or anti-war, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that a picture of some random guy posing by a picnic table at a family event means *nothing* to the television-viewing public these days. Those photos are everywhere, and they have become meaningless except for a cooed "Oh, I feel so bad for that family" followed by the thought, "Should I have cheese on my burger or not?"

The public knows we're at war, but they don't really get it. They certainly don't get that it means much, much more than some bombs going off in some dusty country over yonder. They don't even get the sacrifices mil-families make on a daily basis to support the war, and news of more deaths ends up being just a number that's easily forgotten.

If, gods forbid, anything happens to my sailor during one of these IAs, *I want people to know what has been sacrificed on their behalf*. I want them to see this (and my husband agrees). I want the sucker-punch photo of a casket with a sobbing wife looking on. I want them to see, in a way they haven't been allowed to see during the last so many years, what the cost of their lifestyle really is.

We get plenty of lip service - yellow ribbons on the backs of gas-guzzling SUVs, "we support the troops!" signs, and nice comments. But it's only lip service as long as people remain ignorant.

It's much easier to remain comfortable in your life when you ignore the cost of your comfort. I don't want people comfortable with war. I want them to understand how awful it is, and what some people have given up on their behalf. It's only fair.

[DL Sly]

"Do you really think that our military family would allow the situation that you described (DL Sly) to happen?"

In a word, yes. Now. Most especially now.

"Do you really think one grieving MilSpouse who chose yes would do that to another who chose no in their time of grief?"

I believe that anyone grieving the loss of a loved one will NOT be thinking of anyone else. Period.

"...but I would hope you would give your fellow MilSpouses some credit to do the right thing and support each other's wishes."

Well, given the vast and various personalities and opinions (a number of which I greatly disagree with) on this website alone, I would have to say that "credit" requires trust. Trust must be earned.

[Tucker]

It makes me sad to see that, even though we may not all agree on everything, you think a fellow MilSpouse in the same boat would throw another under the bus. I won't speak for anyone else, but I for one have faith in our ranks. I have faith that we will support one another during our hardest times regardless of political/personal/etc opinions. I have faith in this diverse, unique group that we will be there for eachother when it is most needed. But that's just me.

[LAW]

And me.

LAW

[LAW]

From the transcript of the SecDef briefing.

"But the thrust of this is that if the family of one of the fallen says that they do not want media coverage of the return, of the dignified transfer process, then that will be the decision. There will be no media coverage."

LAW

[CR]

Well, this discussion surely shows that our community is not the homogeneous herd often portrayed. I, too, am apprehensive about the implications of a new policy, but we must give credit where credit is due. The transfer/preparation of remains is a sacred practice carried on by our government (military and civilian) with honor and dignity. And while we see examples of disfunction in some of what surrounds us in our military lives, this is one thing where the powers that be have done it right. We can feel confident that they will implement a new method with that same care and respect. They will consider the needs of Families--whether the wish is to receive the remains of your loved one in blessed solitude or to include the world in a shared grief.
I hope we can continue this dialogue once we know, for certain, what the new policy is.

[DL Sly]

"...even though we may not all agree on everything, you think a fellow MilSpouse in the same boat would throw another under the bus."

For that, I would direct your attention to the comment immediately prior to mine -- Milspouse meet Bus.

If you feel that you can't grieve without media coverage of your loss, if you have a point to make with the death of your loved one, do what has always been your privelege to do -- invite them to YOUR PRIVATE funeral services. Stay the hell away from me and mine!

[LAW]

Sly - again, here is what the SecDef said. I know you don't want to trust the media, your fellow mil spouses. I assume you'll consider trusting him? He's got the right credentials, I assume.

From the transcript of the SecDef briefing.

"But the thrust of this is that if the family of one of the fallen says that they do not want media coverage of the return, of the dignified transfer process, then that will be the decision. There will be no media coverage."

LAW

[Marine Wife]

CR, our community has never been a "homogeneous herd." We are as different (if not more so) as any other community. The difference is we usually learn to focus on our similarities and our common experiences. For many of us, we aren't in any one place long enough to let our differences keep us from accepting friendship and support regardless of how different the other person might be. I know I count a number of women as close friends that I probably would not have chosen to be friends with before becoming a military spouse.

Loqui, thanks for the link.

[Andi]

I like what you wrote, Marine Wife. That's exactly what I was thinking. We are not monolithic with our views, and that's perfectly fine. I enjoy the discussions we have, even the very rare ones which become a little heated, because I enjoy reading other people's perspectives, whether or not I agree with them. In a forum like this, we do strive to focus on our common experiences. But, occasionally, a topic comes along that we all feel strongly about and we retreat to our corners and dig in. That's okay, too. Showing passion for a position that you feel strongly about is important.

Let's just keep it civil, passion and all....

:)

[The Army Wife]

Marine Wife, I think CR was trying to say what you were saying as well; that we're often mistaken as one big lump of the exact same thing just because we're military wives, but this discussion is indeed proving that we are not all the same, that we all have our view points, and while we find common ground in being military spouses, that doesn't mean that we all think exactly the same, as is commonly portrayed and/or thought by people outside of this "circle."

[CR]

Marine Wife, Absolutely. I treasure very much the diversity of my friends. I want to clarify that I do not believe we are a homogeneous herd but rather we are "often portrayed" in this fashion.

[CR]

Does anyone know how many Families actually go to Dover to receive the remains?

[The Army Wife]

This article from the LA times makes it sound like a lot of families DON'T go to Dover to receive the remains. I can't find any numbers, though.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-war-dead-photos27-2009feb27,0,3073377.story

[CR]

Thank you Army Wife.

[DL Sly]

"Sly - again, here is what the SecDef said.....I assume you'll consider trusting him? He's got the right credentials, I assume."

Didn't your Mom ever teach you not to assume?

And, your initial comment wasn't posted when I commented last.

[LAW]

My mother taught me a great deal. thanks for asking.

LAW

[CR]

Sly, the SecDef's comments actually say the same thing you are saying. The crucial part is will it translate into policy. I believe it will. You seem a bit more skeptical.

Do we really need to bring anyone's mothers into the conversation?

LAW--I appreciate your restraint.

[Snarky Navy Wife]

"For that, I would direct your attention to the comment immediately prior to mine -- Milspouse meet Bus.

If you feel that you can't grieve without media coverage of your loss, if you have a point to make with the death of your loved one, do what has always been your privelege to do -- invite them to YOUR PRIVATE funeral services. Stay the hell away from me and mine!"

I can honestly say I've never been compared to a bus before. Sweet.

Let me address your comments point by point to make sure you understand where I'm coming from.

1. I don't like the media particularly, but I don't believe every journalist is a scum-sucking slime ball. I have friends who are journalists, and their ethics are high in standard and integrity. I can certainly grieve without media coverage. Perhaps the novella I wrote wasn't explanation enough, and I need to take this step by step for a better understanding of my point. I don't need the media there. I don't need the media at all. If something were to happen to my husband, the world would suffer for his loss, and I would want them the opportunity to really and truly understand that when we say "fallen" it means there's an actual person who is GONE. I want them to grieve, too.

2. The point I need to make? That's a rather trite way of condensing my words, and not really fair to what I wrote. I don't feel the need to repeat myself, but I can do so if necessary. As for private funerals and my privilege.... Apparently, it hasn't been uncommon for the media to be fettered at private funerals at Arlington* even when they're there at the request of the family. I wouldn't be surprised if this has happened at other cemeteries. It's a bit how the former administration rolled, and given how the VA treated Pagans (google Patrick Stewart if this never showed up on your radar) on the basis of Bush's pre-election smack talk, it's no surprise a memorial site(s?) followed suit on the anti-media stance.

3. Throwing under the bus. You clearly don't know anything about me, or you'd be very aware that I take privacy issues very seriously. As I perhaps didn't state clearly enough in my last comment ("your right to privacy, which I completely respect"), you absolutely have the right to privacy. In fact, if I were at a funeral in which a family's wishes and rights were being flaunted, I would pull out a can of whup ass on principle alone. Military services deserve even more respect IMHO and would receive even more pitbull-ery from me. And even though you've been unpleasant and unkind in the extreme here, I would do so for you because you're part of my tribe and even more deserving of privacy and respect as a milspouse.

To summarize, since I want to make sure any summarization is fair to my intent and my words:
When the media sucks, they do so with the force of a two thousand horsepower vacuum.
I do want the world to grieve with me should the absolute worst ever happen.
I do believe the only way they'll actually grieve is if they understand - at a gut level - the loss.
I absolutely respect everyone's right to privacy.
I take tribe seriously.

Normally, I'd ask for an apology from someone who has attacked my integrity, but I'll consider your words the unfortunate byproduct of a highly emotional topic.

*www.ipralliance.com/newsroom/details.cfm?article=89

[LAW]

SNW - well said. For anyone at all to imply that a milspouse would ever "throw one of us under a bus" makes me sad, and wonder who that person has had the misfortune to associate with. I don't agree with a lot of people on this site politically, but try to attack anyone here who is one of my military family, and you'll have to get through me first.

The right to privacy is absolute, especially at a time like this. Most of us have been taught good manners, my mother was very clear on those.

There are so many who pay lip service to the fallen, to the dead members of MY military family - they don't understand what that phrase "the fallen" means, it's an easy shorthand for them, they don't have to say DEAD. Not deceased, not fallen, not any other nicety. DEAD. and if that's my husband or my son, they need to understand what is lost, and the depth of my family's loss.

LAW

[DL Sly]

"*I want people to know what has been sacrificed on their behalf*....I do want the world to grieve with me should the absolute worst ever happen. I do believe the only way they'll actually grieve is if they understand - at a gut level - the loss."

Sounds suspiciously like 1) you have a point to make; 2) you will use your husband's death to make it if you can. And I'm the one who is being trite and unfair? Further, when I point out what you typed, I'm attacking your integrity?
Interesting.

"You clearly don't know anything about me, or you'd be very aware that I take privacy issues very seriously...But what about MY rights? Why hasn't my family been allowed the opportunity (and thank the gods we haven't been confronted with this situation) to share this slice of our lives with the public?"

No, I don't know a thing about you, and I would never presume to think so.

However, where does your right to have media there end and my right to have privacy begin? How are you going to guarantee that your desire for "people to know" won't take away (in the blink of an oh-so-*ethical* shutter click) my desire for privacy? You can't. No one can.

Do you seriously believe that we can trust an industry that has shown not one shred of evidence that they deserve such trust -- especially in matters military? SeebeeSeniorWife said it very well, "...remember that once the photos are released, you will have little say in how they are used. Obviously, you hope they will be used in a respectful and honorable manner. But like all photos that suddenly become public domain, there is always the option for some group or organization to use them to promote their own agenda. I doubt you will be able to release them with stipulations on them as to the intent of use." Of course, this also assumes that the only people and caskets they will photograph are of those who have granted consent. Or are you just going assume that the media will hold to, and honor, traditional journalistic ethics? We've gone down the road of assumption already....

I prefer to err on the side of caution. I prefer not to take that risk with MY privacy or YOURS -- especially when you are free (as you have been throughout the duration the ban) to call in as much media as you want for your own private services. I will not leave MY privacy in the hands of others. As a milbrat and milspouse, I have long ago learned that if I want a job done right, don't leave it to someone else. Do it yourself.

If that makes me unkind and unpleasant....there are worse things I could be.

[liberal army wife]

I'm still trying to figure out - what part of the SecDef's statement is unclear? If one family objects, there is no media. Full Stop. Period. How one person grieves is not up to anyone else to criticize. Ever.

LAW

[The Army Wife]

CR: You're Welcome

DL Sly: Let's make it simple.

If GOD FORBID, you're spouse or SNW's spouse ever came in on the same plane at Dover ... she wanted the media there, and you did not. You would win. There would be no media coverage. There could be twenty spouses there who wanted media coverage, and you could be the only one who didn't. You would still win. No media coverage.

So talking about somebody's right for media coverage vs. your right to privacy is a completely MOOT point right now. Because as SecDef has said ... "But the thrust of this is that if the family of one of the fallen says that they do not want media coverage of the return, of the dignified transfer process, then that will be the decision. There will be no media coverage." And as I stated earlier, the liklihood of media getting onto a military installation without an escort is unlikely. So if the media isn't allowed to be there, it's not like they can hide in the bushes or anything.

But if all 20 of those Spouses want media coverage, and you're not there, then how those pictures get used afterwards falls on the media, and it falls on the individuals who made that choice to let it happen. Not you. And that's something that they will have to live with. I'm sure you make choice every day that you have to live with, whether they turn out good, or bad.

[liberal army wife]

As a State Dept. Brat, Army Wife and Army mom, I have to do most things myself. And it's great to finally be acknowledged as having a choice, instead of being told what to do every time I turn around.

LAW

[CR]

I think that we can expect more choice in the future. The Military is beginning to embrace a more open source approach to leadership and communication. We can see this in the emergence of DoD sponsored online communities similar to Facebook, Linkedin, etc.

I, for one, look forward to it.

[Snarky Navy Wife]

Army Wife, LAW - Thank you.

I must not be using English words. Then again, neither must SecDef.

I fully admit I would have a point to make re: the photos. The thing is, you have a point to make as well. It's just a completely different point and *is no more noble than mine*. It really doesn't matter, anyway. You have as little right to question my motives for wanting a photographer there as I have to question your motives, and it's as germane to this conversation as the price of coffee in Columbia. We clearly come from two different and irreconcilable perspectives on that issue. It's an equine carcass, already.

But attacking my integrity? Yes, indeed. When you *assumed* that I would throw you under the bus just because I don't share your opinion on this issue, that was most definitely an attack.

I have two pieces of advice for you (not that I expect you to take either one, but I'll offer it anyway since you're clearly in need):

1. Don't counsel others on making assumptions when so many of your arguments have consisted of some rather sweeping assumptions.

2. Stop with the incessant generalizing. Not every journalist is scum. Milspouses with dissenting opinions are not certain to throw you under the bus. Your use of generalizations only weakens your argument because they're so very easy to refute with just a wee pinch of logic.

I'm done with this conversation since it's clear that voicing my opinion with civility will only result in vitriol and adolescent rhetoric.

Peace out, and may the gods spare you from being confronted with this situation outside of (what should have been) a friendly debate.

[Ann - AF spouse]

This sounds like a choice to be made by people not clouded by grief. Death is very personal and everyone grieves differently.

The choice to have media or not should be made well in advance. As some one mentioned much earlier in the blog, this is something to be discussed before deployment. WAY before deployment. It is something on that lengthly "what to do if...." list that everyone has.

This topic becomes so heated because it is obvious that some have had extremely negative experience with the media (I can join that list). Others have had negative experience with the "powers that be" taking personal decisions away from military families (also a member of that crew).

It is sad, but very true that military members and their families give up certain "rights" and "freedoms" when they volunteer to fight for the preservation of those rights and freedoms for others.

[Cassandra]

""But the thrust of this is that if the family of one of the fallen says that they do not want media coverage of the return, of the dignified transfer process, then that will be the decision. There will be no media coverage."

With all due respect for your absolute right to your opinions, this is incredibly naive.

I spent several years with a Reserve bn. What Reserve bns *do* is attend military funerals, notify the next of kin, perform CACO duty. So I have several years of hearing, on a daily basis, of the thousand things that CAN AND DO go wrong when families are notified. All this, despite the best intentions and best efforts of some very dedicated people.

The military is an enormous bureaucracy. Just think about it: how many times has your pay been screwed up over the years? How many times have YOU complained about how hard it is to fix anything wrong with your pay, benefits, or paperwork? And yet you all are assuming the simplest possible case: an intact nuclear family as NOK. The reality is far, far different.

Many soldiers and Marines come from broken homes. One of the biggest problems in notifying is incorrect information and/or inability to find the NOK. Families squabble in the immediate aftermath of hearing the worst news of their lives. There is often preexisting bad blood between family members, and this is only exacerbated during a crisis.

Also, for those of you who are painting a perfect world where milspouses always act with care and consideration for each other, I'd like to know what you're smoking?

If your husband has ever had a command, if he is a senior staff NCO, if you have ever worked with family readiness you should know how utterly RIDICULOUS such a statement is. The truth is that military spouses often rise above their petty concerns and work together in ways that are inspiring and laudable. But in the end there is nothing magical about the military. Many milspouses have NO contact with the military. Some are even actively hostile to it. Over the years I've talked with milspouses who bitterly resent their husbands' careers and can't stand other military wives. But you blithely assume such people will react calmly, rationally, and with consideration after being told "the military killed your husband"?

I think not, and that exactly how some people take a death notification. I know. I've been there when it happened.

One of the biggest problems any family readiness unit faces is actively malicious or simply unthinking and immature spouses who cause trouble by spreading rumors about other wives or about what the command is doing.

So the idea the milspouses possess some special virtue is a canard. 30 years of married military life have taught me that, and I grew up in the Navy and it was no different for my Mom or my MIL. People are people wherever you go. Remember the furor over that wife who posed for a calendar? Some of the same folks who were livid about the way other spouses treated her are now mystically claiming that milspouses are little short of saintly!

It is never wise to make policy based on the simplest or best case scenario. Good policy plans for things to go *wrong* because they can and do.

And LAW, you've always had the option to invite the press to share the return of your loved one. You've always had the right to invite the media to the funeral, to write about your loved one, to give interviews to your heart's content. The only trestriction was one moment at Dover, when there was a very real risk that your choice might harm other military families at a painful and vulnerable time.

You blithely dismiss this risk because it wouldn't bother you to have the press there. How, pray tell, are you showing consideration for oyour fellow milspouses? By calling their very real concerns hogwash? It's obvious you haven't even tried to put yourselves in their place.

Let's face it: the press already have hundreds of photos BECAUSE OF A MILITARY PAPERWORK SNAFU. As the press reminds us daily, the original ban was put in place bPRECISELY BECAUSE THE PRESS MISUSED PHOTOS OF THE WAR DEAD TO MAKE A DISHONEST POLITICAL STATEMENT.

But despite the history associated with this issue, you claim "It's never happen"? The facts don't bear your optimism out.

It speaks volumes that this policy was changed BEFORE THEY WORKED OUT THE DETAILS. You don't change a long-standing policy without first knowing how it will be implemented and then gloss it over with fine-sounding statements like "the families will be protected". They haven't figured out how to do that yet, so any such statement amounts to little more than wishful thinking and passing the buck.

[SeabeeSeniorWife]

I think it's safe to say that the military would use common sense in how it applies this policy. If there are multiple families, It could very easily be worked out to do the media coverage ones and then stop, remove media and those families and then do the remaining families or vice versa. While I don't have faith in the media, I do have faith in the military personnel who will handle these situations and their upmost regard for the families and one of their own fallen members.

But while I understand SNW need for the whole world to understand and grieve with her, unfortunately that may not be what happens with the photos. Again, your intent and how those photos are used are two different things. I've seen it first hand, while the initial photo or moment may give pause to a person, usually it leads directly to how they feel about the war and thus politics, etc. As much as you want someone to feel your pain and see it from your viewpoint, that doesn't really happen in most instances. Plus, if there end up being many of these photos, they do lose their "shock" value. It's just a tough call and one I wish no family had to make.

[Sarah]

We have no idea how this could or will be implemented. It's possible it could be like what SeabeeSeniorWife said, where they do the media-wanting ones first and then the others afterwards. The Army Wife suggested that "there could be twenty spouses there who wanted media coverage, and you could be the only one who didn't. You would still win. No media coverage." I am thinking this latter one is the easier option and the one they are most likely to implement.

My question is this: Let's say there are 100 planes coming in (over time, of course) and on every single plane there is at least one family who doesn't want the media there. How does this change things then? If the one family dictates the parameters for the entire plane, couldn't hostility possibly arise? What if there's no media allowed at a single one of the first 100 planes that come home? Will people still think that this -- only allowing the media if all families agree -- is a fair solution? Will *the media* accept this, seeing as they have been eager to take these photos for years? Will Gates then have to revisit the decision and change it, because in effect under this scenario, still NONE of the coffins will be being shown?

It's just another aspect to take into account. Depending on how they implement the new rule, it's a real possibility that there will be at least one family each time who vetoes the media for the entire plane.

[Val]

I honestly don't know how I feel about it. I think some great points have been made on both sides. I also know that something visceral in me reacts to that moment being publicized. Regardless of the situation at Dover though, any aspect of a military servicemembers demise can be politically used. Not just THAT moment. We're not going to be able to change that with or without this ban. Visceral, vulnerable, grief-stricken moments are going to be used in ugly ways no matter what policies are on the books.

I *like* the aspect of choice, but I also think the questions Sarah raised at the very end are valid. I just don't know. Is this just the first step to it being inevitably media domain? That to me FEELS wrong.

The part of this discussion that MOST upsets me though is that one military spouse could think it ok to imply that another military spouse would use her husband's death for personal gain. To want the awareness and support of the general public when the worst happens is SO FAR from wanting to "use" the moment politically or personally. Whether that was the intent or not, to say such a thing strikes me as incredibly callous. NONE of us want to be in the position where our real or hypothetical Dover decisions have to become a reality. Though we do it with anticipatory grief, no one even wants to entertain the thought of the unthinkable happening to one of our spouses. But, in a discussion about political opinions it seems to be a particularly low blow to assume something so awful about another person with a differing opinion. Especially in regards to something so raw as the hypothetical thought of losing one's spouse.

[Val]

And now that I've posted that it strikes me that it's really none of my business. This is me retracting my last paragraph and this is me apologizing for it.

[Cassandra]

It seems to me that people are taking a general argument (i.e., that there may be some NOK who don't act as admirably as we'd all like them to) as a suggestion that THEY would do so.

The assertion was made (several times) that "no milspouse would act that way". Yet there are many more servicemembers who are unmarried, who have elected other family members as NOK. In some cases, their primary NOK were more interested in the money they were going to receive than the fact that they'd lost a family member. That can be hard to imagine if you wouldn't act that way yourself. It shocking and sad. I know I've been shocked over the years at some of the behavior I've seen. But as I said, we're dealing with a large group of people who aren't any less vulnerable to human foibles than any other group of people. Some primary NOK have had little or nothing to do with (let alone for) the servicemember for years. Think of all the guys who never get mail or packages. The NOK is on the paperwork b/c some guys/gals don't have anyone who truly cares about them outside the military but they still have to elect a NOK.

It's sad. But given than fact, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to assume everyone will act the way you would in their place. Few people, if any, of that mindset would see the point of participating in something like Spousebuzz and it's not really unreasonable for those who didn't want the ban lifted to bring up a legitimate issue, even if you don't share their concerns.

What concerns me is calling anyone who disagrees with you - on either side - names simply because they're not convinced by your arguments. The transcript (and I watched the original press conference as well as reading the transcript before my single comment) is far from clear on how this policy will be implemented.

So to the folks who are dismissing other spouses' concerns and effectively saying, "Just trust them" should perhaps pause and reflect on how many times they've said they don't trust DoD and how receptive they'd be to such a statement if the shoe were on the other foot? "Just trust them" is not a response to a "What if this happens" argument - it doesn't address the concern. It's just telling the other person to substitute your opinion (i.e., the best case scenario where everything works perfectly!) for their concern that an organization that often has problems implementing policy will never make a mistake. I don't think mistakes are unique to the military, but here it strikes me that many who are arguing, "Trust them - everything will be handled perfectly" have often complained in the past that the military can't get anything right! :p

Dover has never been the only opportunity - by a long shot - for grieving families to share with the media.

It just happened to be the ONLY time when your loved one's casket would be mixed in with others who might not share your views. Dismissing another spouse's concerns as stupid, illiterate, or unimportant seems to undermine the argument that no milspouse would show insensitivity to another at a painful and difficult time.

Sarah made an excellent point here:

"Depending on how they implement the new rule, it's a real possibility that there will be at least one family each time who vetoes the media for the entire plane."

To assume that no one - either in the press or from the military community - would challenge such a scenario doesn't strike me as realistic. Sorry, but that's my opinion. Others may not share it and that's certainly their right. But to dismiss dissenting viewpoints as stupid, uninformed or unimportant makes a poor argument for the willingness of military spouses to put aside their own desires and accede to the wishes of someone who disagrees with them on an emotional and controversial matter.

[Cassandra]

A final note:

It's difficult to discuss emotional or controversy-laden issues without tempers flaring.

For anyone who may have taken my single comment the other day amiss, I hope they'll re-read it with the thought that no disrespect was meant. We ought to be able to argue a position passionately without assuming someone who disagrees is out to get us.

I didn't expect anyone who felt strongly about their position to change their mind. I simply wanted to point out some issues I hadn't seen raised. Sometimes that helps people understand why they disagree. We're not always going to agree but I would hope that we can avoid imputing base motives to each other.

No person - on either side - can know what is in another's heart. That ignorance doesn't preclude us from explaining our own reasoning - in fact, it makes it more imperative if we're to try and understand each other.

Just a thought.

[LopsidedMom]

"But given than (sic) fact, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to assume everyone will act the way you would in their place."

Personally, it makes even less sense to assume they would not, but then I try not to live my life expecting the world or - worse yet - *the media* to screw my family in an unthinkable period of grief.

And really, it's not "difficult to discuss emotional or controversy-laden issues without tempers flaring." It's really not. You simply choose to be respectful and not use LOTS OF CAPS or words like "naive." And really, if you find yourself doing things like that, it's best to own it, not tell people that they must have taken something the wrong way.

SNW called it when she called this discussion an "equine carcass." Nice one. That almost made me fall out of my chair.

[PawFottprow]

Great prices, special offers for regular customers [url=http://www.mwsu.edu/forums/conservatives/forum_posts.asp?TID=571&PID=929]buy clonazepam online[/url] [url=http://www.mwsu.edu/forums/conservatives/forum_posts.asp?TID=572&PID=930]buy zolpidem[/url] [url=http://www.broad.mit.edu/mpg/wiki/index.php/User:Buy_Propecia_Without_Prescription]buy propecia without prescription[/url] [url=http://www.mwsu.edu/forums/conservatives/forum_posts.asp?TID=