Bush and hugs and funerals--Defense 7

Defense 7: Protect the privacy of the families

This will be the last defense I examine, and of all the defenses, this one makes the most sense to me. It is also the only defense which cannot be thoroughly thrashed. So why did I save this defense for last? Why would I end on my weakest point? There are two reasons: 1) this is not the end of this series, and 2) this defense leads nicely into showing how easily Bush could have done something to publicly acknowledge the deaths in Iraq and honor the fallen. That will be the subject of the last post in this series.

The privacy of families should be considered.

Obviously, any event attended by the President will receive a great deal of attention. Also, some families would prefer not to have any outsiders participate in something as intimate as a funeral or memorial service.

In Defense 6, I mentioned that privacy of the families was/is the primary reason given for the Dover ban. The privacy issue as it relates to the Dover ban needs to be examined in order to put the privacy issue and funerals into context.

The Dover ban and privacy (part 1)

On one hand, privacy of the families seems not to be a real issue because the coffins arriving at Dover are basically anonymous, meaning that they all are draped with flags and at that point there is no way to identify any coffin as containing a specific individual. In other words, no family would be able to know if their loved one was in one of the coffins. If this was the only consideration, privacy would seem to be a non-issue.

However, that is not the only consideration. I found many other expressions of perspectives I had not realized. I am going to reproduce some of those expressions, and later I will reiterate portions which show a theme that supports my view, as stated in Defense 6, that "the arrival of the remains is not the same as a funeral or memorial service." With that in mind, I begin with an explanation from an officer at Dover in an article on Newsweek.com:

“It’s out of respect for the families,” explains Dover’s Lt. Olivia Nelson. Even though none of the bodies are identified, letting the media in would not show the proper reverence for the dead. Plus, she explains, Dover is just a way station. The transfer is not ceremonial—even though an honor guard carries the body and a flag is draped over the container. Nelson argues that if the media were to show the offloading of remains it would create pressure on the families to be there when the body arrives rather than await delivery in the privacy of their homes.

I had not considered this before, and even though I was not fully convinced, I felt Lt. Nelson's points were valid. Then I found statements from other people that echoed Lt. Nelson. John M. Molino, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy, wrote an editorial for USA Today which eloquently supported the Dover ban.

It is both the great honor and the solemn responsibility of the U.S. Department of Defense to comfort and protect, to the maximum extent possible, the privacy of the families of the fallen, and to do everything possible to ensure the utmost reverence and respect for those who laid their lives on the altar of our country.

That, and that alone, is the reason for the policy that disallows media coverage of the arrival of military caskets at the Dover, Del., Air Force Base. It has the only active military mortuary in the continental United States, and it is one of the last stops on the journey that carries our heroes home.

Despite notions to the contrary, Dover is not a place where military honors are rendered. That is reserved for the gravesite. Dover's sole focus is to identify and expedite the remains to the families so they can properly lay their loved ones to rest.

Public coverage of arrivals would almost certainly make some families feel obliged to journey to Dover, perhaps over great distances and at considerable expense. Others may not desire media coverage, or find themselves upset by a public display of their loved one.

The current policy places the decision for the media coverage of the deceased where it belongs: in the hands of the families who have the right — as they should have — to grant or deny media access to funeral or memorial services. This has been the policy of our nation for more than 13 years, through several administrations. It reflects the wishes of the families, who are consulted on an ongoing basis, and it has been upheld by the courts, including on appeal.

(emphasis added). Again, these all seem to be valid points. The last statements in this regard I will highlight came from John Cole, a man I criticized harshly in Defense 1.

I agree- the costs of war should be transparent. The media can take all the pictures they want- AFTER the remains have been delivered to the families. That is the point of the policy- to maintain the dignity and honor of the soldier, sailor, airman, and marine until his remains have been delivered to his/her family.

*******

My main concern is that people who have been alerted that their loved ones have been killed will be subjected to numerous photographs of coffins on the news and in the newspapers, and each time, having to wonder if that is their loved one on the way home. I think that is an indecent act that need not b e perpetrated on those who have already lost a great deal, and should be avoided at all costs.

I think it needs to be stated again that there is no ban on filming military funerals, and that it is only when the bodies are in transit that this 'ban' takes place. This is not censorship- this is a last act of decency to attempt to maintain the dignity of our fallen heroes.

*******

Maybe I am particularly sensitive about this because people who are in the military and were in the military behave like a big fraternity.

At any rate, I would not want my mother to receive notice that I had been killed in action, then every day have to open up the newspaper to see flag draped coffins on the front page, and sit there wondering, "Is that my son."

This is not a question of censorship, avoiding the real costs of war. This is an issue of providing some dignity and not further damaging those who have lost loved ones.

As I said- I have no problem with media coverage of military funerals- I just firmly believe that coverage should be restrained until our deceased heroes are reunited with their loved ones.

As easy as I found it to take issue with what Cole said about the historical defense, I find it equally difficult to argue against his views on the Dover ban.

Even so, there are other views to the contrary. In Defense 6, I mentioned the April 29, 2004 editorial from the Washington Times. Here is the next to last paragraph from that editorial:

The ultimate sacrifice of American heroes should be honored, not hidden away, and there is no more eloquent way to honor it than by the solemn display of a military coffin bearing the body of a hero under the flag of a grateful nation. We have rarely published a more profound tribute to heroes than the photograph, of a lone soldier saluting rows of coffins of American warriors aboard the plane bearing them home, on our front page on Friday.

The last paragraph of the editorial contained the opinion of a mother of a fallen soldier:

Molly Morel, the mother of Marine Capt. Brent Morel of Bartlett, Tenn., killed in Iraq on April 7, said it all. "I don't want to see bodies coming home, either," she told her hometown newspaper, the Memphis Commercial Appeal. "But it comforted me to know they were treated with the honor they deserve. The American people have short memories, and I don't want my son to be an obituary on the back page. My son died for America."

Here is a parent of one of the fallen who feels that coverage of coffins arriving at Dover does not violate her privacy, but rather honors her son. Other parents share this feeling. The first photos from Dover were published first by the Seattle Times, and the father of an Army soldier killed in Iraq wrote a letter to the paper about the photos. Here are some excerpts:

I read with great interest your article regarding the woman who was fired for taking the pictures of the flag-draped coffins on 4/7/04. My son, SSG Michael W. Mitchell, was killed on 4/4/04 in the first day of the Shiite uprising in Sadr City. He was one of eight soldiers killed that day in that attack. I am quite positive that he was inside one of those coffins in the picture.

I am happy that you ran the story and showed the picture. I would like everyone to know the devastation that this event has brought upon Mike's family and friends. In fact, Mike's grandpa at 86 says that this is the worst thing that has happened in his entire life -- that says a lot right there!!!

Hiding the death and destruction of this war does not make it easier on anyone except those who want to keep the truth away from the people...

*******

Things are getting worse in Iraq and if there is anything that I can do so that other parents can be spared the pain that is happening in my life, I will do it.

In fact, I would be willing to furnish you a picture of my son in his casket if you would like to run it in your paper. Sort of a follow-up story that would just take it one step further than the picture shown inside the airplane with a bunch of anonymous flag-draped coffins...

Clearly, Bill Mitchell felt no invasion of his privacy from the photos. Jeannine Guttman of the Portland Press Herald surveyed readers of the paper for their opinions of the Dover ban. Some of the opinions supported the ban, but most did not, including that of this father:

Jim Mackell of Arundel: "I am a father who has a son currently serving in the Army in Iraq. He is on his second tour of duty there. Almost every day the thought passes through my mind that this could be the day something happens to him. The random mortar round, the odd RPG, a stray round from one of the millions of AK-47s that litter the country like pine needles in Maine. I was never concerned about winning the war, but I've always been concerned about winning (or losing) the peace.

"It's my opinion that the arrival of our dead at Dover should be covered as a news event. These men and women have died in the service of our country. If the publicity changes our actions in some way, then our actions weren't well justified. I tend to agree with Sen. McCain, 'We ought to know the casualties of war.'

"There were several articles approximately one month ago when unauthorized photos were published of the coffins being loaded in Iraq. A contractor's photo (first published in The Seattle Times) showed the coffins being draped with the U.S. flag and the care and reverence that was being used. That's important to me. To know that their sacrifice is being recognized."

There are other opinions stated in the Portland Post Herald piece that are worth reading, but Jim Mackell is the one person therein with a family member serving in Iraq, making his the one opinion which deals with the privacy of the families issue, which is the focus of this post.

All the foregoing opinions show that the issue of privacy of the families and the Dover ban is unresolved--and probably always will be. Personally, although I disagree with the ban, I have no great objection to it, primarily because I feel that "the arrival of the remains is not the same as a funeral or memorial service."

The Dover ban and privacy (part 2)

Now I will go back to the statements in support of the Dover ban and show the theme I alluded to earlier.

From Lt. Nelson: Plus, she explains, Dover is just a way station. The transfer is not ceremonial—even though an honor guard carries the body and a flag is draped over the container.

From John M. Molino: Despite notions to the contrary, Dover is not a place where military honors are rendered. That is reserved for the gravesite. Dover's sole focus is to identify and expedite the remains to the families so they can properly lay their loved ones to rest.

*******

The current policy places the decision for the media coverage of the deceased where it belongs: in the hands of the families who have the right — as they should have — to grant or deny media access to funeral or memorial services.

From John Cole: The media can take all the pictures they want- AFTER the remains have been delivered to the families. That is the point of the policy- to maintain the dignity and honor of the soldier, sailor, airman, and marine until his remains have been delivered to his/her family.

*******

I think it needs to be stated again that there is no ban on filming military funerals, and that it is only when the bodies are in transit that this 'ban' takes place.

*******

As I said- I have no problem with media coverage of military funerals- I just firmly believe that coverage should be restrained until our deceased heroes are reunited with their loved ones.

So what is the theme? The theme is that funerals and memorials are special. Funerals and memorials are especially meaningful. Still need convincing? Dana Milbank of the Washington Post got the following explanation of the Dover ban:

One official said only individual graveside services, open to cameras at the discretion of relatives, give "the full context" of a soldier's sacrifice. "To do it at several stops along the way doesn't tell the full story and isn't representative," the official said.

And finally, I cite once again this official description from the Department of Defense:

Honoring Those Who Served

The rendering of Military Funeral Honors is a way to show the Nation’s deep gratitude to those who, in times of war and peace, have faithfully defended our country. This ceremonial paying of respect is the final demonstration a grateful nation can provide to the veterans’ families.

Funerals and privacy

The special nature of funerals makes the privacy concerns even greater. A man named Ron Griffin had a 20-year old son named Kyle who was killed in Iraq. He called into Steve Malzberg's New York radio talk show, and Malzberg wrote about their conversation. Griffin feels that Bush is doing the right thing by not going to any funerals, and although I strongly disagree, he said all that needs to be said about funerals and privacy:

And then there is the possibility of turning the funerals into a media event. "If he would have showed up at my son's funeral, there would not have been any room at the church. So who gets kicked out?" Griffin wondered. "One of my son's friends?"

Griffin says: "Bush is doing absolutely the right thing. We don't want a media circus. It would take away from everything the day was. It was a celebration of my son's life."

All of Griffin's concern are real, and they must be addressed. But does that mean they cannot be addressed? Does that mean that Bush has to refuse to go to all funerals in order to preserve the privacy of all families who lose loved ones in Iraq? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding "No," and the final post in this series will examine how all the relevant interests can be balanced.