Public or Private: A Policy Under Review

On the one hand, I didn't want to write about this, for reasons spelled out below. On the other hand, I couldn't ignore the fact that this is a legitimate issue for military spouses and one that many of you clearly feel passionately about. In the end, it was that passion that won out. So, here goes....

I have mentally buried my husband a hundred times. I'm willing to bet you have, too. In fact, if you have and you think you're weird, you're not. Click here to find out why. In the process of mentally preparing my husband's funeral, I always pictured the moment I received his casket to be a solemn and private moment. My husband's remains and me. Sometimes the dog was there. Sometimes he wasn't. I didn't even think about extended family being present. As I wrote long ago:

I would meet my husband's body when it arrived at Dover. I would run my hands over the casket, hug it even, but I would try to remain as composed as possible.

After President Obama's news conference Monday, the inevitable happened. The inbox pinged and the commentary began flying at warped speed across the electronic super-highway. I was even asked by a civilian to share my thoughts. In case you missed it, a reporter asked President Obama if he would push for a change in the current policy which bans access by the media to Dover Air Force Base when our fallen heroes arrive home. Secretary Gates has ordered a review of the policy.

Here's why I didn't want to write about this. This topic has political overtones and we never, ever touch politics here at SpouseBUZZ. I know regular readers understand this, and there's never an issue with them, but we acquire new readers all the time, so I always feel the need to spell that out.

With that said, I'd like to know, in non-political terms, what you think about this policy. Do you prefer the current policy to stand? Would you mind sharing the moment you received the remains of your spouse with the world? Please do not use this thread to launch into political attacks. Let's deal with our feelings and preferences, not who is responsible for making or changing the policy.  

As for me, I think I would order my dog to poop on the shoes of anyone who chose to intrude on such a horrendous, solemn and private moment. I think this is a decision best left to the families of the fallen. War is many, many things, and a photograph of a flag-draped coffin, powerful though it is, can never capture the many dimensions of war. Which is something that the families of roughly one percent of the population truly understand.  

Update: There's a poll here if you care to vote.

Comments

[Annalisa]

My instinct is that the last thing a grieving family needs at such a moment is the flash of cameras appropriating private mourning for public consumption.

[Eileen]

When my husband got orders to deploy to Afghanistan a couple of years ago, I was stunned by the number of people who thought the fighting was "pretty much over" there. Of course, relatively soon after 9/11, most U.S. citizens went back to their normal lives. But on 9/11, those of us married to the military knew that our lives would be changed for a very long time; war would be in our future. Wars, though philosophical and theoretical and political to the majority of U.S. citizens, are personal to people in the military. In our circles, we get daily, awful reminders that Americans are fighting across the globe.
I often wish the rest of the United States got those same reminders of the sacrifices made by American heroes every day. Reading about them, and more important, seeing visual images of them, keeps the safety of our troops in the thoughts and prayers of others.
When approved by family members, the Washington Post covers the funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. I read each story, look at the photos, think of the families, and silently thank the Post for using its shrinking news space to pay tribute to lance corporals or lieutenant colonels. With regularity, the Post and the Military Times (Army Times, etc.) run batches of fallen service members, with photos and snippets of their lives. I read each and every one of them. I want to honor those lives, even in the tiniest of ways, and I want to make sure that the print media that are still recognizing the military's sacrifices are somehow appreciated for their respectful tributes and coverage.
Photographing flag-draped coffins at does not have to be some kind of media feeding frenzy. There can be rules and regulations. It can be done with respect.
For me, there is actually something worse than a "media frenzy" after the death of an American soldier, and that is apathy and silence -- as if it never happened.
I, too, have mentally prepared myself for my husband's funeral. I would treasure a beautiful photograph of his flag-draped coffin at Dover. If his funeral were at Arlington, I would invite the media to cover it. I would want the world to know that he, like so many others, joined the military for the noblest of reasons. I would want everyone -- from average citizens to the powers-that-be -- to see the devastated people he left behind. But I would want them to know, as so many family members say in those Post stories, that he died for ideals greater than himself: democracy, freedom, patriotism. There are so few people who offer their lives for their country. It is the ultimate sacrifice, and it should be reported however possible. If the media were not interested (or banned, as they have been), then I would personally shout from the rooftops of my city.

[liberal army wife]

this has to be left up to the family. If they allow it, then fine. If not, then that should be respected. I haven't seen the much ballyhooed feeding frenzy at any of the 9 funerals I attended during the last deployment. The last time I was at Arlington and saw a funeral at section 60 - there weren't photographers falling all over themselves to take pictures.

The apathy angers me much more.

LAW

[SeabeeSeniorWife]

While my husband was deployed, a young soldier in our area was killed in Iraq and the events that ended up surrounding his funeral took on a life of their own. Not only did it turn into a media frenzy leaning toward a political three ring circus, but the lack of dignity and respect for the situation left me feeling angry. It was not at all the "plan" I had thought thru in my head in the event I had to face the same situation. At the time, I felt irritated at the family that they had let this happen. It was many months later that I found out how they had been manipulated into the situations. They too regretted the way it had been portrayed to the public. At a time when these families are most vulnerable, there needs to be a guiding military presence to prevent them from being manipulated and taken advantage of no matter how well meaning the perpetrator may actually be.

I remember a graveside photo taken of the 20 year old widow of this soldier that was in most of the local papers. I thought it was the most tragic and intrusive photo of a very private moment. Yet a non-military friend thought it was poignant and a testiment to the sacrifices made by not only the soldiers but their families as well. So I guess you just have to remember that everyones perspective of the events surrounding these tragedies will be different; and the perspective that will matter the most in a given situation has to be that of the family experiencing the loss.

I think the military owes it to the families and to the soldier to have rules and regulations that help to honor the families wishes while keeping the integrity of the sacrifice made by this soldier, and all those before and after him, in the proper format.

[tankerswife]

Wow, what an emotionally loaded situation. I am glad to find out I'm not the only one who has "mentally buried" my husband each time he walked out the door, whether it was for training, going downrange, or deploying to war.

I understand the thoughts and concerns about apathy. And to a lesser extent, I agree.

However, there are many factors that once you remove the inherently emotional aspects of this question, would lead back to the decision to not allow the media is the correct one.

First, the military is much too large, and hence much too bureaucratic, to make this a case-by-case basis rule.

Secondly, politics aside, the media and other groups have demonstrated time and again that they can't handle the responsibility. All too easily, those poignant moments of a families tragedy are twisted to try to represent thoughts or stances that our loved ones had fought against. Can you imagine the extra pain of having to battle for your spouses image to be removed from some groups website or newsletter espousing an idea or goal that went against anything or everything you and your spouse stood for? Unfortunately, it has happened all too often.

And finally...and this could could be off-base and may stem more from my upbringing in an AF family than based in fact. Flightlines are sacred places, for many reasons. Some of it is simple for the safety of flightline personnel and pilots and planes. FOD can do some real damage to people and equipment. And some of it is security. The families are focused on their loved one. Reporters aren't. And who knows what could be leaked, even unintentionally.

So, given just those issues, I think it is in the best interest for all parties that the media not be allowed on Dover. If the family wants to share their story, they can do so with their local media or at home. The story doesn't change just because its not written or taped at one location.

[Sis B]

My response turned into a blog post. The short version is: the media shouldn't be allowed anywhere near them without the consent of the families.

http://sissyben.blogspot.com/2009/02/on-coffins-circuses-and-civilian.html

[Erin]

[Background: As a Patriot Guard member, I have been there on the flight deck at local airports for the gold star family's first glimpse of their fallen loved one.]

I don't think they should have access to Dover at all. Most families don't even make it to Dover and I don't even know if that's an option for them. The gold star families I've been with have seen their loved one for the first time when they're coming off the plane (hopefully Kalitta Air and not a commercial flight) and prepared by the honor guard. It would be invasive and disruptive to the family's healing process for the media to get access to that fallen soldier first, and heaven forbid, publish that photo before they get to witness it themselves.

Those families deserve to be the first ones to see that casket and come to grips with it, not the media, who has no attachment or rights to it.

Some gold star families have invited media members to document the final homecoming and funeral services, but I think this needs to be their decision, versus having this decision forced upon them.

SeabeeSeniorWife, I think the CAO should've been fending off that issue that you've described. They should've been the ones to intervene and protect that family.

[ArmyReserveWife]

The current policy at Dover is unless you are the family or have permission by the family then you are not allowed to even look upon the casket.

My dh had to escort a MG to Dover and be his "aide" to recieve Soldiers (remains)incoming at Dover. We rode with him. We were told by the base commander we had to wait in a room with no windows so we could not even look upon the casket without the family's permission.

So, no, I don't believe we should allow the press in. That is the only place that our Soldiers seem to get the honor and respect they deserve when they hit American soil.

[ArmyReserveWife]

Side note,

Mrs Obama and Mrs. Biden both said military families are apriority to them, maybe we should send letters to their offices telling them how that would affect our families. Let them put their money where their mouth is and stand up for us.

Just my two cents worth....

[SeabeeSeniorWife]

Two followup thoughts. First, it occurred to me last night that there is an easy compromise to this question of photos at Dover. Have a military photographer take the photos, thus ensuring they are done respectfully and within the safety standards necessary on a base. Then if the family wishes to disclose these photos to the press, it can be their option to pick which ones, etc.

Secondly, and this is not politically based but I think the politicians making these type of decisions need to hear from those of us this would effect. So I'm encouraging everyone to write their congressman/senators and Sec. Gates and anyone else they feels has influence over this decision. It is so easy to send emails to these people now that we really need to make sure our voice is heard.

Erin - I agree that the CAO should have been shielding them and maybe they were trying really hard to do that, but the family was just really struggling to fend off pressure from those in our town who wanted to use this tragedy to promote their own agenda. It was so very sad. Now, this family still struggles daily with the death of their loved one and all those "concerned" people are nowhere to be found. Obviously, still makes me angry when I think about it.

[M.B. Virginia]

One the thing the military forgets -- as do its members -- is that all the bases, all the planes, all the tarmacs, all the paychecks, all the housing, all the DoD schools, etc. are funded by the U.S. taxpayers.

When the press is used to spread happy news only (and believe me, military members use it to suit their own needs all the time), but are banned from covering anything distasteful or uncomfortable, that is censorship, not freedom - the freedom our families fight to preserve. Yet it happens every day on every base. Public-affairs officers basically control what the press can see/hear. As for anything that truly would compromise U.S. security, that's fine. However, you cannot tell me that a fluff piece on a little piano prodigy who happens to live on a military base has anything to do with national security.

Seeing the respect the returning fallen are shown by their comrades at Dover is an incredibly moving tribute, and that kind of reverence should definitely be shared with the civilian public, so they might understand the brotherhood of the military.

There is actually a U.S. law, the Freedom of Information Act, that ensures transparency in government records. And if your husband were killed under questionable circumstances, you certainly would want access to those records, because then it would be personal to you.

[airforcewife]

I think the Fort Dix Six case is an excellent example of how "little things" can affect national security.

People who had access to the base maps because of deliveries were able to use those maps to plot an attack that would have resulted in the deaths of military and military family members.

The truth is that the layers of what is security related on a base and to the military and what is not are many and not necessarily distinct.

Your taxes may pay our salary, as I have been told before many times when I have bothered to hold an opinion about something in the military, but paying someone's salary does not immediately make their death a public spectacle.

For myself, I believe that the final good bye and welcome home that is the return to Dover should be entirely left up to the family to deal with their feelings as they best see fit.

I would not want the press anywhere near my husband's body, God Forbid he should come home that way. If he gives his life, isn't that repayment enough for his taxpayer salary? Does the photograph - the last photograph I will have of him on Earth - have to be given to anyone and everyone to use in whatever manner (respectful or not) that they feel the urge to create?

At that point, can there not be an understanding that there has been enough given?

[Cassandra]

"One the thing the military forgets -- as do its members -- is that all the bases, all the planes, all the tarmacs, all the paychecks, all the housing, all the DoD schools, etc. are funded by the U.S. taxpayers."

And that means what?

That you, or the press, "own" members of the military and their dependents? Or does the press just have untrammeled rights to trespass on any facility supported with tax dollars?

In the age of blogging, the distinction between the media and the general public is rapidly vanishing. Bloggers can and do investigate news stories. By your rule how do we keep Fred Phelps away from Dover? All he has to do is claim he's a member of the media (or hire one) and now he has access to military families.

I'd be careful with throwing out nice sounding platitudes that haven't been thought through. After all, if you live in military quarters the taxpayers have a right to know what's going on in your home....and photograph it too.

They "paid" for it.

There are plenty of non-invasive ways to cover these stories. If the media truly had any interest in honoring the dead, they could do it a million other ways without risking causing added distress to already grieving families, including simply asking any one of us for permission to cover the journey home or a funeral. There are already hundreds of these images in the public domain.

When was the last time you saw one? So much for the "need".

[Cassandra]

"Seeing the respect the returning fallen are shown by their comrades at Dover is an incredibly moving tribute, and that kind of reverence should definitely be shared with the civilian public, so they might understand the brotherhood of the military."

Yes. Surely that explains the massive mainstream media coverage of PFC Chance Phelps' journey home, and the touching way the media touted that moving letter by the LtCol who escorted the body?

Oh. I forgot. That didn't happen, did it?

[MiserlyMilitaryMom]

Well, since your tax dollars fund not only my husband's paycheck but also his possible funeral, I'll make sure to include you on the invite list.

And if, God forbid, he dies, make sure you bring your camera so you can take plenty of pictures. Because, you know, you paid for the funeral, right? You'll want souvenirs of the event, won't you? Hell, why don't we just pop open the coffin so you can get the full effect?

Because, you know, you paid for it.

[DL Sly]

"One the thing the military forgets -- as do its members -- is that all the bases, all the planes, all the tarmacs, all the paychecks, all the housing, all the DoD schools, etc. are funded by the U.S. taxpayers."

Um, one thing that far too many civilians seem all too willing to ignore is that military members get taxed, too. So, in a nutshell, they pay their own paychecks. Next, please!

And, if we're going to go down that slippery slope, then the media -- heck, anyone -- should be free to go into a courthouse, into any trial -- say a child molestation or rape trial -- and take as many pictures of anyone and everyone. I mean, the courthouses, judges, baliff's, ad infinitum, are all paid with my taxes. Surely, no one would argue my right to do that? Taxes pay for the roads, too. Does that mean you're free to go tear a hole into the street in front of your house because there are people driving too fast? How about that nice cherry blossom tree that the city planted in memory of the fallen, taxes paid for that, too. Perhaps it would look better in your yard, afterall. No one will mind. I mean, your taxes paid for it, after all.

Puhleeeze. This about respect for those who have nothing left in this world but honor and respect -- having given everything else they have, their blood, sweat, tears and finally their dying breath in the service of the country they love. This is about the loved ones who will mourn that sacrifice long after the flashbulbs have cracked and popped. Both of which the media has no business sticking their collective noses into. In another day and age, the media understood and respected that. Today's agenda-driven entity leaves a lot to be desired in both the "understanding" and "respect" categories.
And believe me, no matter how many times you *mentally prepare* yourself for a loved-ones death, when it comes, you will NOT react as you think (hope) you will.

[MO]

Personally, no, I am not sharing my grief. I too don't even imagine inviting family. They can do what they want but he is the love of my life and none of them will ever understand my loss.

As for other families if they would like to sign a release form and let the media in, perhaps they want people to see for what ever reason they may have then that's their right. I feel it is a choice we should be able to make.

I didn't even know they were "allowed" to do this. I like to keep government out of my life and making decisions for me as much as possible. No matter what side they're standing on.

[Cassandra]

I don't know. I'm starting to like this 'tax dollars' argument :)

In post-bailout America that means I own a piece of every person's home who gets relief from their mortgage on my dime.

Many of them have far nicer homes than I'll ever be able to afford, but since I paid for them to be able to stay in their homes, they'd best not get snippy with me!

[Laurie]

I just asked my husband, who is home for a two week mid-deployment leave if he would want reporters taking pictures of his coffin or us at Dover should the worst happen.

"Hell, No"

I think that pretty much sums it up.

If Michelle Obama really is for the military families (which I'm not too sure isn't just the Democratic military families who supported her from the Blue Star Families for Obama), then she definitely needs to get involved in this issue.

If it were overturned, I'd invite the Patriot Guard to show up with lots of flags and lots of noise and lots of things to block the reporters view of my husband. There are plenty of other times they could take pictures, if they really cared about the situation, but not at the first moment I welcomed him back onto US soil.

[Semper Fi Wife]

"One the thing the military forgets -- as do its members -- is that all the bases, all the planes, all the tarmacs, all the paychecks, all the housing, all the DoD schools, etc. are funded by the U.S. taxpayers"

One thing that you may not know is that our spouses don't punch timeclocks. All of us have experienced them workinglate hours. They don't get paid extra for that. No overtime. No time and a half for weekends.
Not to mention that while on deployment, they're on call 24/7. That's a helluva bang (all pun intended) for OUR tax dollar, isn't it?

I'm sure you just forgot to say thanks.
You're welcome.

[LAW]

I cannot believe anyone brought that "taxpayer" garbage to this discussion. Let's see... you paid for what? the third deployment in 8 years? the 12 hours, 7 days a week schedule he's doing right now, in Iraq? Course, he doesn't punch that clock, so when the shit hits the fan, he's on 24 or longer...

Like SFW said - you're welcome. Now - BITE ME!

LAW

[DL Sly]

Since we're going down that road.....let's, also, not forget that until just recently, it was the military retiree who footed -- dollar for dollar -- their own disability.
And combat zone or not, in some job fields like the one MH is in, they are on call 24/7/365.
Period.

The media and their hordes have no place in this situation. Don't like it? Tough. I don't like a lot that they do these days either. Guess that makes us even.

Don't bite me.....I don't want whatever it is that's infecting your mind.

[Sis B]

Trying to avoid the ignorance spewing forth from Virginia...

And get the conversation back into the good direction it was headed. Since this is clearly an issue that most of us within the military community can agree on, regardless of politics, I think that we definitely need to make our voices heard to the administration and/or any other offices that can make a difference in this situation.

Is it better to create an online petition or to gather physical letters to the president (or Mrs. Obama) and have them delivered to the appropriate office? Should we do both?

For my part, I am trying to increase awareness in my civilian readership on my blog by posting about this and opening the topic up for discussion. Should we also do an online blog blitz type thing? Each of us bloggers can post on the topic to our own blogs, then interlink, as a way of increasing awareness?

We do not need to get sidetracked by the musings of an idiot. We need to make our voices heard on this issue. Anyone else have any ideas?

[ArmyReserveWife]

I was just reading some of my MSN RSS feeds and watched an interview for the upcoming HBO movie written by LTC Stobl and that in itself will open up the debate even more.
After reading Andi's post this morning I told DH no way, he said yes, so even our own house is "divided" on this issue.
I still say no, no way should they be allowed.

[Biermann]

This topic should not even be up for debate. I say keep the policy as is. It was put in place for a damn good reason and it needs to remain that way.

This is a very private matter, a matter that should be reserved just for the family of the fallen hero. The media should have no access until the time comes that the remains of the fallen hero are in the custody of a family member and then only if that family agrees.

To M.B. in Virginia, BITE ME TOO!

[Ann - AF spouse]

While living in Germany, there was AFN coverage of new casualties arriving from the dessert. This was very early in the war, and there were many. I watched and cried as the honor guard escorted each flag draped coffin off the plane. I was touched and proud of the respect of the occasion, how each soldier was treated the same. I mourned with those families.

Every week in the Stars and Stripes I would look at the names and faces of all who had died each week. I wasn’t looking for people I knew; I just wanted someone to remember the individual and the sacrifice. Most seemed so young.

I agree with all those who don’t want the American people to forget that there is still a war, and people are STILL dying. I want them to feel the sadness and the loss.

BUT, my grief is personal. I don’t want to be in the papers, or on the news. I don’t want to be the Grieving Widow picture in paper. I don’t want my children or his parents to be the emotional drama moment on the news.

My father (AF officer for 30 years) was wounded in a terrorist attack. This was a comparatively rare thing in the 80’s. The media was relentless. The phone rang constantly, and a reporter even knocked on our door in base housing. With her camera crew and perky smile she asked my mom (dad still status unknown in a foreign country) if she didn’t think the American Public “has a right to know”. Mom said “No” and shut the door on her still smiling face, and called base security. What shocked me is that, even as a teenager, I knew the media attention would have been the same or worse if he had died. I guess I still think of them as a bunch of ghouls, feeding off the misery of people.

There should be some balance between letting people know the sacrifice continues and respecting the privacy and grief of families.

[Ann - AF spouse]

Oh - side note. When dad got back he said he would have done an interview if Barbara Walter's had called.

[Andi]

Sis B - Secretary Gates has ordered a review of the policy. I'm unsure who, or which department, he has charged with undertaking the review, but as I understand it, as of now, the authority rests with the Department of Defense. As I stated in my post, I believe this is a decision that should be left to the families, and I have a hard time believing it would take more than three seconds to come to that conclusion.

I think, at this stage, if someone wants to reach out proactively, contacting the Department of Defense would be the proper course of action. I don't know how this process works, but I assume President Obama has the right to overturn any recommendation, whatever it may be, since the policy was put in place by another President, George H.W. Bush, during Desert Storm.

I understand all of the focus on the actual policy (should it stand, should it be changed), but the assumption by some that they have a right to have access to flag-draped coffins because Americans need to see the true cost of war is disturbing to me, on many levels. Using that logic, don't Americans have the right to see photos of injured or dead service members? After all, that would convey the true cost of war, no? Those who want access seem to fall into two camps; they say they want to *honor* these troops, or they say Americans *need* to see this. A photograph of a casket, to me, is not the proper measuring stick. War is much more complex than one photo -- any photo -- could ever convey. I'd like to think the folks who are pushing for access understand this. And if they do, makes one wonder if this is really about honoring the fallen (as some have stated), or something else.

I'm sorry, I just can't believe that this policy will be overturned. Who wants to announce the development of a new policy? One that will be forced upon grieving families, against their will. I don't see it, but then again, I'm a little surprised this is even up for review.

Let the families make their own decisions. As someone commented above, haven't they already given enough?

[Kanani]

There are so many issues to this. Historical, personal, societal practices.

There's no easy answer, and the one I'm willing to settle on is letting the families make their own decision.

[Sis B]

Andi--I wrote another post on this following up from my original on my blog, if you're interested.

Even though we would like to assume that the policy will not be overturned, I think it is VERY important to make our voices heard now before it is too late. I think we need (and deserve) some reassurance that this will be an issue left to bereaved families.

With your extensive contacts, do you know the best way to go about contacting the DOD or Robert Gates about this issue? And although the Pentagon is responsible for the policy, I also think that it is important to do our best to inform the administration.

Thank you for posting on this important issue. I know it was a difficult one to address.

[M.B. Virginia]

It's interesting that by bringing up the public's funding of the military it is assumed that I am one of "them." In fact, I am the child of a 20-year veteran, the spouse of a 15-year veteran (who does not "punch a clock" and has served several tours in the wars), the sibling of a 20-year veteran, and on and on in my family. I just happen to believe in a free press being able to freely covering taxpayer-funded happenings, whether wonderful or horrible.

How classy of you to call me names for doing as was asked of the original post, and offering my opinion. ("The ignorance spewing from Virginia"? "The musings of an idiot"? "BITE ME"?) Spouses are not of one singular mind, and my sacrifices and my opinions are not any less genuinely held than yours.

But since this site has made it clear that other points of view (even from a milspouse) are subject to ridicule, I will assure you that I will not post again.

[SeabeeSeniorWife]

M.B.Virginia - You're right, this is a forum for opinions to be expressed and I think sometimes emotions on either side may skew how something is viewed. Sorry you felt attacked, I do think we can all learn to be more understanding of someone elses point of view and address our opposition to that view without it turning into an attack on the person.

For instance, when I read your post, my thought was that just because government money funds an institution, doesn't give rights to all who wish to be there because their "tax dollars" pay for it. When Columbine was attacked, it would not have been appropriate for the press to have gone in and photographed the horror because it was a publicly funded school. Or because a family is on welfare living in section 8 housing paid for by tax dollars, that doesn't give the press the right to go in their home and invade thier privacy to show how thier lives are run. See what I'm saying. Freedom of the Press is only for those events that are open to all in the public and not just the press, not necessarily the private lives or places of others. There has to be that line and the amendment does give them the right to have access to all situations.

No matter which side of this issue you fall on, I do hope we can agree to treat each other with respect. That is the thing that has always been great about Spousebuzz, that the community is here to offer opinions but to support each other as well, no matter whether those opinions oppose each other or not.

[mamalisa]

I wish I'd known about this site when my son was deployed---y'all have just convinced me that I'm not crazy. I always knew exactly what I'd do when the guys in dress blues came up to the door......

But fwiw, I think it should be on an individual basis, with military PA personnel providing coverage as requested by the families.

[Sis B]

MB,

I am sorry I said those things about you. You are right, I shouldn't have. It's no excuse, but this has been a very difficult week involving more casualties in my husband's unit. I've attended way too many memorial services in the last few months and I'm at the point of the deployment that I feel that it is never going to end.

Anyway, the parts of your original comment that I took issue with are as follows:

"One the thing the military forgets -- as do its members -- is that all the bases, all the planes, all the tarmacs, all the paychecks, all the housing, all the DoD schools, etc. are funded by the U.S. taxpayers."

I don't forget this. At the same time, the services our servicemembers provide for those taxpayers far outweigh the benefits. I am certain as a spouse of a 15 year veteran you know that as well as any of us.

Regardless of the compensation/sacrifice divide, the fact that the taxpayers ultimately pay for military expenses of all types doesn't mean that they have a right to gawk at our private, sacred moments. Sorry, I draw the line at that. They can have my husband, my children's father, for most of our marriage and for the young parts of the kids' lives. They can even have his life if that is what is necessary to protect our nation. But that moment at Dover is not something I am willing to share with them. There is no reason a reporter should be allowed to view my those coffins before their family members do. If there are families who consent to share, that's fine. The nation does not need to intrude on that moment without permission.

"When the press is used to spread happy news only (and believe me, military members use it to suit their own needs all the time), but are banned from covering anything distasteful or uncomfortable, that is censorship, not freedom - the freedom our families fight to preserve."

I agree with this to a point; however, the policy that we are discussing is not a broad, "the media isn't allowed to report negative news about the military". The policy is specific to Dover AFB, specific to the return of fallen warrior remains to their families. In this case it is about privacy and respect and not about "happy military news." I understand how it can be misconstrued that way (because I have done it in the past), but at this point I know too many fallen servicemembers to think that way any more.

I don't think all the news about the military is necessarily positive, anyway. The big stories that come to mind are Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Guantanamo and Walter Reed. Issues such as PTSD, domestic violence and murder/suicide.

I also think the fluff piece about the piano prodigy is a fine human interest story. No, it has nothing to do with national security, but did it give that impression? (I didn't see it, so I don't know).

Again, I'm sorry for my insulting words. I disagreed so wholly with your original paragraph that I was unable to concentrate on the rest of your comment and see that you were offering a genuine opinion and weren't out just to stir up trouble. Please forgive me and don't hold my words against the fine folks who run SpouseBuzz. Thank you.

[Ann - AF spouse]

Taxpayers pay for ALL government services. I know there are several things going on that we will never know anything about.

When my husband was deployed on a "sensitive mission", I attended a briefing on security. I was given a vague location, and told not to inform family or friends where he was.

Imagine my surprise when the whole thing was covered on CNN. After that when family would ask where he was, I would just say I can't tell you, but watch the news.

Some things, People don't need to know.

Traditionally, people recieve invitations to weddings, but funerals are announced in the paper. The decision to keep it private would be to only inform those you wish to come.

[Kanani]

Rather than take up a lot of space here, I've written about this on my blog. Click on my name to be taken here. And I do learn a lot from reading everything here.

[Andi]

Sis B - I really admire your commitment and passionate writing about this issue. I do agree that a proactive stance would be beneficial, I just don't know who would be the best person(s) to contact, but I'll see if I can find anything out that would be helpful.

MB - SpouseBUZZ has been on the net for a little over two years now. I don't recognize your name as a frequent commenter, but if you've been hanging around here for any length of time, I think you'll agree that this is a place where spouses from all walks of life, who hold all sorts of opinions, can gather and support one another. And yes, even disagree when it comes to that.

In the 2+ years, we've had two threads that I can think of that became a little heated. This one, and one which, after 525 comments, had to be shut down because it became so ugly. The ugliness came from outside our normal readership, though. Civility is a staple around here.

The exchange on this thread is hardly representative of the atmosphere around here on a daily basis, but I think you would have to agree that the comment regarding taxpayers came across as a loud smack-down and was bound to rub people the wrong way, for all the reasons spelled out above. Military families are often reminded that the taxpayers pay our salaries and provide the things that the military needs for survival, but people often forget that we too are taxpayers and when it comes to losing our loved ones and how our grief is either respected or exploited, it's very, very, very personal.

I caught part of a press conference by the NTSB on the tragic plane crash in Buffalo over the weekend. The NTSB spokesperson began by telling the media that the families of the victims were highly upset with the media. They were disturbed by images that turned up in a newspaper, and were upset with some news reports. He asked the reporters to keep this in mind when they are reporting. I found that to have good parallels to this story.

I assume our tax dollars are funding the NTSB's investigation and clean-up of the wreckage site. That said, do we have a right to demand access to the remains of the victims based on the fact that our tax dollars are at work?

In the end, it's not worth upsetting already-grieving families. If a family has no objection, so be it. If you chose to grant the media access to the remains of your spouse, I wouldn't begrudge you that choice. But to impose a mandate on families who want no part of it is utterly cruel.

We do tolerate opposing viewpoints around here. In fact, almost everything written is greeted with mixed reactions. We're not monolithic with respect to our views. Not at all. I'm sorry you felt attacked, but in this case, given the nature of the subject matter, I think we can all understand why the conversation became heated at times.

[Kanani]

MB in Virginia:

Here's your argument:
"IF the taxpayers foot the bill, THEN they are entitled to all the information available."

Let's say you were receiving healthcare services through MediCare or MediCaid or even TriCare. Does this mean that I, as a taxpayer, may toss out HIPAA and get your records? Does it mean I can use them for my own means?

You'd better hope not.
These days, the struggle to keep our private lives from the intrusion of both the government and the equally pernicious corporations is a really tough one. Lines are constantly being redrawn.

The FIA as you depict it has little bearing on what we are talking about now. Also remember that FIA comes with many restrictions. You can't, as a taxpayer, sashay into all government agencies and demand access.

Freedom of the Press? Absolutely! And I even think Tami Silicio who took the original photographs should not have been fired (read my article).

However, have you ever been confronted by a large phalanx of photographers? They dominate the entire mood. Click, click click. They blind you with flashes. Click, click, click. They jockey for space: "Hey...you're blocking my shot!" And are you aware that despite the best intentions, photographs are routinely photoshopped by the public altering it for their own agendas?

This is about keeping this ONE initial moment private for the families are in a state of overwhelming grief. If, after Dover, the family wishes to share their grief with the public in other ceremonies they are free to do this. But to add a couple hundred photographers to that day is simply asking too much.