RE: [Leica] The Right To Privacy

[Tim Atherton <tim@KairosPhoto.com>]

> However, I was using the term in its broader meaning, Eric -- would a
> family desire privacy for a funeral of a young member killed unexpectedly?
> And the answer to that, of course, is yes in almost all cases.

And while that should be respected, these were not deaths that happened in a
private family tragedy. These young men and women also died on behalf of the
American (and British) people, carrying out their Governments policy. In a
sense, when they signed on the dotted line, for better or worse they gave up
some of that privacy. Their deaths have a cost and implications that extend
far beyond their own families deep loss. That much is public.

Surely the American (and British) people also have a right to honour these
men and women, who have paid such a high cost on their behalf. For their
deaths to become merely a daily statistic - a number, just press release  -
from CENTCOM:

"
November 17, 2003
Release Number: 03-11-23C

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ONE SOLDIER KILLED IN IED ATTACK

TIKRIT, Iraq – One 4th Infantry Division soldier was killed when a convoy
struck an improvised explosive device south of Balad at about 7:50 a.m. on
November 17.

The soldier’s name is being withheld pending next-of-kin notification.

The incident is under investigation."

 - surely that is a dishonour. Hiding the arrival of flag draped, honoured
coffins at Dover really is just that - hiding it. Turning that soldier into
a daily statistic both devalues their sacrifice and withholds from the
American people a small but basic and important visceral sense of what the
real, human cost of all this is.

Again, I would add, that as far as I know, all the British troops killed in
action have been buried with full military honours, in quite public
ceremonies. Of the 9 I personally know something of the details, this was
wish of the families.

tim a

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html