This was an effort by the Pentagon to do what they have so often done, which was try to control the media. They try to prevent Americans from seeing the toll that the war is taking in terms of graphic pictures, so that they don?t lose public support for the war. I am totally convinced that [censorship] was not for the men who have died and their families. It was entirely to control public opinion from going against the war.
-- Tom Jarriel, former correspondent for ABC News
There is a chapel at the Normandy American Cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer, France, high on the cliff that overlooks Omaha Beach. On its interior north wall are etched the words: "Think not only upon their passing. Remember the glory of their spirit."
That is no more and no less than every soldier killed in wartime deserves. Photographs of identical coffins lined up in rows speak only to their passing, not to their spirit. They are not the way a grateful nation honors its fallen heroes.
-- Jeff Jacoby
The current policy of not allowing photographs of the coffins of war dead is controversial, though after it was first covered, it has dropped from immediate discussion. The policy is actually broader, including "denying the media the right to view the return of remains of members of deceased at Ramstein Air Force Base, Germany; at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, and the Port Mortuary Facility at Dover Air Force Base; and at interim stops en route to the point of final destination in the transfer of the remains" [subheadings omitted].
The policy has been in place since 1991 and is defended as a way to protect the privacy of the families, as well as preventing them from having to come over (out of felt duty or otherwise) to handle the any sort of ceremonies such media events might foster. Therefore, the transport will be a private affair and any ceremony (if any) will be at a location more to the family's wishes. Also, even here, the family can keep out the media, if they desire. As an appellate court noted when upholding the policy:
Therefore, it is the military departments' policy that ceremonies/services be held at the service member's duty or home station and/or the interment site, rather than at the port of entry. Media coverage of the arrival of the remains at the port of entry or at interim stops will not be permitted, but may be permitted at the service member's duty or home station or at the interment site, if the family so desires.
A few days ago, again with little notice, a "SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES OF THE REMAINS OF DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FROM OVERSEAS" was passed stating that the policy is not a violation of the First Amendment (citing the above cited case as support) and that it is an appropriate protection of the privacy of friends and families of the deceased.
Some might also share the thoughts of Jeff Jacoby that it honors the memory of the dead, which is a basically respecting their privacy as well [so is sometimes the case by those who defend the right of those comatose to die the way they had desired or laws against violating tombs and such]. This is a reasonable, and some might say honorable sentiment, which has little actual effect outside of the symbolic. The policy holds either way.
I respect the philosophy behind the policy and congressional resolution, but oppose it on various grounds. I think, the decision of a lower court aside, that the matter is controversial that it is somewhat dubious for Congress to wholeheartedly support such a broad ban.
The court decision followed the basic principle that the media generally has no right to come on government property to cover the news, such as those who want to do so in prison, and that the alternative would lead to a myriad of difficulties. This is the sort of area where some degree of compromise and judgment is required, which a complete ban just does not do. The ability to block media coverage throughout the thousands of miles the remains travel is just plain overkill. A similar rule does not apply in any number of other cases of those slain, in the service of our government or otherwise.
The privacy aspect seems to me a bit overblown. It might very well be appropriate to insure that the individual identification markings of the coffins not be clear, such as when someone used a FOIA request to obtain photos incoming coffins. Special limitations, especially when the official ceremony with the family and friends present, to make sure it doesn't turn into a media circus or so forth is understandable as well. It might even be proper to keep photographers from such an event, comparable to the use of only artists in certain court room settings.*
The complete ban of any coverage along the way is just too much. As to the whole idea that media coverage might assume a need for family and friends to be there, why this would be the case but not the presence of honor guards or perhaps certain public officials there to perform some function or offer respect is unclear. This is surely the case if we are only talking about a photographer or two there just to film or take pictures. Also, it is a toss up in various situations if some press would violate privacy more than others who might view things along the way.
The idea that photographs of coffins violate the memory of the dead is a nice sentiment, but does not work. First of all, we are not only honoring the dead by viewing their flag covered coffins. [It bears noting all the same that such a view suggests the sacrifice they made to their country, which is not too bad of a way to honor their spirit.] In fact, some have noted that the failure of the President to go to ceremonies honoring the dead. There has been enough such ceremonies and other forms of honoring the fallen to belie the claim that we only view them as anonymous coffins in some airfield.
Second, such a view is one aspect of their deaths. Talk about spirit all you want, but on some level, war is a hell of a lot more messy than that. It involved the injury, maiming, and death of the body too. Such is the value of war photos that remind us of the fact, including those of coffins. In fact, we disrespect the loss of our soldiers if we overidealize they passing. They deserve a complete understanding of the war that they died fighting.
And, coverage of the transport of the dead is an important aspect of such understanding. It can be done without truly violating the privacy of those involved, except to the degree that no public event can be totally private. Thus, Congress was wrong to support the alternative, though it's not surprising. From the beginning, it was loathe to truly face up to the full responsibility and unpleasant aspects of the war. Why start now?
----
* Let me take an exaggerated example to suggest that absolutism is not required here. My father served in the military and was buried in a military cemetery when he died years after his service. It is proper to say to the media (not that they had much interest) that they do not have a right to be on hand to film the burial. We deserved our privacy.
On the other hand, I do not see a need or right even to block the media from taking any photos of the funeral procession or some other aspect of the affair on the public streets. Limits might be put in place (no special lens to be able to see inside the tinted car windows, or whatever), but an absolute ban is not justified. And, someone clearly can photograph the cemetery (who knows, maybe it's not allowed, though its news to me), even if a headstone is in the shot. If so, why not a flag draped coffin?