[quote=“ac_dropout”]I don’t follow…I thought she took the pictures and submitted to a government archive. I assumed she was implied to have been supervised by the government at all time.
A third party petition for the photos and got them through the freedom of information act.
And publishes it on a website.
But punitive action was taken against the photographer and not the website?!?
I guess I’m confused. Can someone clarify, thanks.[/quote]
Don’t worry, you far from alone in being a bit confused about source of the photographs, ac_dropout.
The main reason people are confused is that when people on this board talk about the “casket photos”, they are actually talking about TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES of casket photograph.
CATEGORY 1:
Source: Tami Silicio, 50, an American contractor who took a single photograph in a cargo plane about to depart from Kuwait International Airport earlier this month. Ms. Silicio sent the photo to a stateside friend who provided it to the Seattle Times which then obtained permission from Silicio to publish it.
Number of Photographs: 1
Controversy: Ms. Silicio’s employer, Maytag Aircraft Corp., fired Ms. Silicio. Because there was apparently a clause in her contract that said she couldn’t take pictures like the one she took, the controversy here is actually fairly small. “Yes” say her supporters, “the company had a right to fire her because it was in her contract, but they should not have done so because all she did was show people the truth, and aren’t we all better off if the public knows the truth.”
Note that there has been no allegation (even by the most progressive/liberal media – links provided below) that the Pentagon has in any way “blocked” or “banned” this Category 1 photograph. The Pentagon certainly disapproves of the publication of such photos (and has said so), but it is not like they tried to send National Guard troops over to the Seattle Times to prevent it from being published. Whenever people talk about the “Pentagon’s policy”, or the “Administration’s policy” on casket photos, they are talking about Category 2 photos (see below) that are taken by the military themselves – and the question is whether the military should give these photos to the press.
CATEGORY 2:
Source: A CD with digital photographs, sent by the US Air Force to a Russ Kick, who runs a website called Memory Hole.
Number of Photographs: 361
Controversy: There are at least a couple (since this is the category that has provoked most of the debate)
b [/b]The first controversy was that the military has not been distributing these kind of photos up until now. The military’s argument is that releasing the photographs would be inconsiderate to the families of those killed. The other side of the argument says either (a) well it really shouldn’t upset the families anyway because the caskets don’t have names on them, or (b) even if it does upset the families, this is outweighed by the public’s right to see the photos.
b [/b]The second controversy is that the Air Force initially refused Kick’s Freedom of Information Act request to get access to the photos. This controversy is somewhat moot at this point, however, since when Kick appealled his request the Air Force changed its mind and decided to give him the photos.
Here is how Kick himself describes what happened (from his website:
thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/)
[i]"I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the following:
‘All photographs showing caskets (or other devices) containing the remains of US military personnel at Dover AFB. This would include, but not be limited to, caskets arriving, caskets departing, and any funerary rites/rituals being performed. The timeframe for these photos is from 01 February 2003 to the present.’
I specified Dover because they process the remains of most, if not all, US military personnel killed overseas. Not surpisingly, my request was completely rejected. Not taking ‘no’ for an answer, I appealed on several grounds, and to my amazement, the ruling was reversed. The Air Force then sent me a CD containing 361 photographs of flag-draped coffins and the services welcoming the deceased soldiers.[/i]
Score one for freedom of information and the public’s right to know."
b [/b]The third controversy is that after the Air Force released the pictures (and they were distributed on the internet and in newspapers) the Pentagon made it clear that from now on they intend to follow their policy of not releasing casket photos. So it appears that if the press want more casket photographs they will probably have to take their Freedom of Information Act claim to court since the military is unlikely to voluntarily comply again. So controversy (3) basically involves the same “soldiers’-familes’-right-to-privacy vs. public’s-right-to-see-the-caskets” debate mentioned above.
Various posters on this board have taken one side or the other of that debate and it seems to me that it is certainly an question where reasonable people will differ in their opinions.
WAS THERE ACTUALLY A “COURT ACTION?”
Now it’s my turn to ask for clarification. Can anyone tell me what people are talking about when they refer to the the casket photos being released in response to a “court action?” I know that Al Jazeera (islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news … ce_id=1597) and others have run articles claiming that there was a “court action” that forced the Air Force to Memory Hole.
But reading a large number of sources (several links provided below for anyone interested) I have been unable to find any reference to an actual judicial proceeding of any kind. According to Russ Kick, himself, he just (i) wrote a Freedom of Information Act request to the Air Force, (ii) got turned down, (iii) wrote a letter of appeal to the Air Force, and (iv) his appeal was accepted and the Air Force sent him the photos he asked for.
For those who are unfamiliar with them, Freedom of Information Act requests are generally not “court actions” at all; they are just letters sent to a government agency asking for information. (If anyone wants write their own FOIA request, the ACLU describes how you can do it: archive.aclu.org/library/foia.html). Courts don’t get involved unless (1) the original request is denied, (2) the appeal is denied. In the case of the casket photos, Russ Kick’s appeal was accepted by the Air Force – so there was never a court involved at all.
My guess is that some AP reporter who didn’t know much about the FOIA used the term “court action” in an early story and then a number of media outlets just picked up the text and used it without bothering to see if there was really a court involved. But as I say – that’s just a guess. If anyone happens to know the real story on this I’d be very interested to find out. Again, what I am looking for is actual concrete information that a court was involved (i.e. “Yes, there was a claim filed in the XYZ Federal District Court on X date and here is the written decision”) I already know that there are wire stories that talk about a “court action.” There are also wire stories that say that there was no court action – that’s the problem.
Anyway here are are a few links (skewed in favor of more liberal/progressive sources since I was looking for anyone who would want to prove that the Air Force was responding to a court order rather than voluntarily giving out their photos.)
[b]Anyway I hope this clarifies things at least somewhat, ac_dropout. And thanks in advance to anyone who can answer the “court action” mystery!
Cheers,
Hobbes[/b]
--------some links----------
"[Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John] Molino confirmed that the Air Force had released the Dover photos to Russ Kick, who runs the Web site seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2 … on23m.html
“Photographs of flag-draped coffins of American casualties in Iraq were released by the Air Force in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, and were posted on a Web site.” – cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/ … index.html
“Score one for freedom of information and the public’s right to know.” – thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/
“With few exceptions, the ban had remained in force until recent days. But last week, about 350 photos from Dover were released under a Freedom of Information Act request by Russ Kick, a First Amendment advocate who runs a Web site called the Memory Hole. Dover recommended that Kick’s request be denied, but officials at Air Mobility Command headquarters at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois authorized the release on appeal. After Kick posted the photos, they appeared on other Web sites, including the Drudge Report.” – blogforamerica.com/
“The photographs were released last week to press freedom activist Russ Kick, who filed a Freedom of Information Act request to receive the images. U.S. air force officials initially denied the request but decided to release the photos after Kick appealed their decision.” –
commondreams.org/headlines04/0422-11.htm
“Due to a Freedom of Information Act request from The Memory Hole, the Air Force has released 361 photographs showing soldiers’ remains arriving home.” – dc.indymedia.org/
[/size]
