Saturday, July 26, 2008

Just a Handful of Death: A New Low for the Despicable NYT

June 26, 2008 Marines who were killed in a suicide bomb attack during a city council meeting in Garma, Iraq, in Anbar Province. Photo by Zoriah Miller

Just a Handful of Death

Hat tip to Snooper of A Newt One.

Note: Radarsite has added bold emphasis and red commentary.

4,000 U.S. Deaths, and Just a Handful of Public Images

From the New York Times
Published: July 26, 2008

BAGHDAD — The case of a freelance photographer in Iraq who was barred from covering the Marines after he posted photos on the Internet of several of them dead has underscored what some journalists say is a growing effort by the American military to control graphic images from the war.
Zoriah Miller, the photographer who took images of marines killed in a June 26 suicide attack and posted them on his Web site, was subsequently forbidden to work in Marine Corps-controlled areas of the country.

Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the Marine commander in Iraq, is now seeking to have Mr. Miller barred from all United States military facilities throughout the world. Mr. Miller has since left Iraq.
[Three cheers for Gen. Kelly!]

If the conflict in Vietnam was notable for open access given to journalists — too much, many critics said, as the war played out nightly in bloody newscasts

-- the Iraq war may mark an opposite extreme: after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers. [So many dead bodies and so few pictures. What a shame.]It is a complex issue, [This is only a complex issue for the NYT and our antiwar leftist enemies. Its is actually a very simple issue: it is called Patriotism. Looking out for the interests of your own country first, and being certain that whatever you are doing is in no way aiding and abetting the enemy.] with competing claims often difficult to weigh in an age of instant communication around the globe via the Internet, in which such images can add to the immediate grief of families and the anger of comrades still in the field.

While the Bush administration faced criticism for overt political manipulation in not permitting photos of flag-draped coffins ["Overt political manipulation? How about simple decency, and an unwillingness to give our enemies a cause for celebration ? Two concepts utterly alien to the anti-Americanists at the NYT.]
the issue is more emotional on the battlefield: local military commanders worry about security in publishing images of the American dead as well as an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades. Most newspapers refuse to publish such pictures as a matter of policy.

But opponents of the war, civil liberties advocates and journalists [Note how neatly these avowedly leftist groups all fit together]

argue that the public portrayal of the war is being sanitized and that Americans who choose to do so have the right to see — in whatever medium — the human cost of a war that polls consistently show is unpopular with Americans.

Journalists say it is now harder, or harder than in the earlier years, to accompany troops in Iraq on combat missions. Even memorial services for killed soldiers, once routinely open, are increasingly off limits. Detainees were widely photographed in the early years of the war, but the Department of Defense, citing prisoners’ rights, has recently stopped that practice as well.

And while publishing photos of American dead is not barred under the “embed” rules in which journalists travel with military units, the Miller case underscores what is apparently one reality of the Iraq war: that doing so, even under the rules, can result in expulsion from covering the war with the military. [Thank God!]

“It is absolutely censorship,” Mr. Miller said. “I took pictures of something they didn’t like, and they removed me. Deciding what I can and cannot document, I don’t see a clearer definition of censorship.” [If this is absolute censorship, then we nee more of it. Ask yourselves -- How would FDR have handled this problem?]

The Marine Corps denied it was trying to place limits on the news media and said Mr. Miller broke embed regulations. Security is the issue, officials said.
“Specifically, Mr. Miller provided our enemy with an after-action report on the effectiveness of their attack and on the response procedures of U.S. and Iraqi forces,” said Lt. Col. Chris Hughes, a Marine spokesman. [Excuse me, but isn't this a pretty clear definition of treason? And if it is, shouldn't our Mr. Miller be subject to some much harsher penalties than mere verbal censure and removal from embed status? ]

News organizations say that such restrictions are one factor in declining coverage of the war, [And our post-surge success on the ground would be the other] along with the danger, the high cost to financially ailing media outlets [Now I wonder if their overt anti-Americanism might just have something to do with this?] and diminished interest among Americans in following the war. By a recent count, only half a dozen Western photographers were covering a war in which 150,000 American troops are engaged.

In Mr. Miller’s case, a senior military official in Baghdad said that while his photographs were still under review, a preliminary assessment showed he had not violated ground rules established by the multinational force command. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing, emphasized that Mr. Miller was still credentialed to work in Iraq, though several military officials acknowledged that no military unit would accept him. [Maybe there is some justice in this world after all]

Michael Kamber reported from Baghdad, and Tim Arango from New York [Thank you Mr. Kamber and Mr. Arango, your check from Mr. Soros is in the mail.]

If for some unimaginable reason anyone would want to read more of this treasonous filth click here:

A note from Radarsite: So then who is Zoriah Miller, this courageous warrior photojournalist? this fearless champion of the world's downtrodden victims? What, I wonder, are his political motivations? What, I wonder, are his feelings about America, about America's soldiers? Well, let's see, he is after all a photographer; and they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Here is one of his riveting photos:

Now who do you suppose the bad guy is here? Who is this faceless military monster? And why is he intimidating this poor frightened little girl? What, I wonder, can the message here be?
Of course, our intrepid photographer is not without his supporters. Here are some comments from a few of them:

Your images work so well. One thing I would love you to photograph in an ideal world: The impeachment and sentencing of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and team for international war crimes. Those pictures would make a fitting end to your middle east series. Keep doing your thing, you are making a difference." Dan

"All Wars are very bad and nobody wins...your photographs are very impressive. Congratulations!" Engin

"A photograph is like a symbol for all the frightening aspects of a disastrous war that brings so much suffering to so many innocent people on both sides. Great, valuable, artful, high class photography that shows the true face of what is going on in Iraq after the "Holy Mission" was declared completed so long time ago. I bow in respect of your great work." Helmut Schadt

Of course he has other supporters too, more organized and influential supporters, like Global Voices For And just who are Global Voices For Read on:

GVFJ stands by Zoriah in his fight for a free press

Mission /Vision: Our mission is to make the voices of today’s independent
thinkers widely accessible to contribute toward a more diverse social discourse. we strive to be a resource of information enabling average people to defend themselves against corporate and governmental powers that might otherwise exploit or ignore them. It is our belief that all human beings desire peace, and when given the tools will move in that direction. Laying the groundwork for meaningful dialogue promotes peaceful solutions to conflicts.To that end, GVFJ collaborates with other independent media organizations and journalists. We document current affairs and social issues as well as art, culture, and ideas that directly impact your life. Our topics include the current crisis in relations with Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars, media reform, racism, election issues, prison reform,
environmental issues, U.S. imperialism, and

GVFJ Advisory Board Marjorie Cohn President National Lawyer's Guild, Professor Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Rules Of Disengagement: The Politics And Honor Of Military Dissent (PoliPoint Press, forthcoming winter 2009) (co-authored with Kathleen Gilberd)

Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law (PoliPointPress, 2007)

Here's what our CIA has to say about The National Lawyers Guild:

The National Lawyers Guild(NLG) was organized in 1936 by a caucus of Communist Party, U.S.A.(CPUSA) lawyers assisted by the International Labor Defense, an American agency of the Comintern(Communist International). The NLG remains an active affiliate of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers(IADL), an international Communist front which operated under the control of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The International Department took over the old Comintern that was disbanded by Stalin during World War II.

A study prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency at the direction of the House Intelligence Committee in 1978, reported that the IADL:
"has been one of the most useful Communist front organizations at the service of the Soviet Communist Party....In the 31 years of the IADL’s existence, it has so consistently demonstrated its support of Moscow’s foreign policy objectives and is so tied in with other front organizations and the Communist press that it is difficult for it to pretend that its judgments are fair or relevant to basic legal tenets."

Now, for those of you who would like to contribute to Mr. Miller's worthy cause, here's how:

Support Zoriah: PayPal DONATION

And remember folks, dissent is part of the American tradition, and patriotism comes in all forms:

God Bless America

Interesting visitors:

Address [Label IP Address]
United States
United States Naval Academy

30th July 2008


  1. That NY Slimes piece pissed me right the hell off.

    Well done Roger Guy!


  2. So, they want to publish the grizzled corpses of our fallen soldiers...why? Is it any secret that dead bodies look like that? Is it some huge revelation that wars produce such terrible carnage?

    Such arguments as journalistic responsibility have no weight in this issue; the sacrifices of the soldiers pictured do not need to be diminished by some activist flaunting them around in effort to undermine the very goals they were fighting for. And that is the ONLY possible outcome any picture of that nature could have.

    Besides, if equal representation was their true goal, wouldn't they have aired the many filmed beheadings of our innocent workers and reporters? No, because that might sway public opinion in favor of the conflict they're protesting. Of course their excuse -- which would be entirely accurate if it were their true intent -- is that the footage is too horrible to watch. But the twisted remains of our countrymen apparently aren't.

    Bravo on the fine reporting, New York Times. I'm sure your last 4 subscribers appreciate it dearly.

  3. Thanks Snooper. I thought you might like this one,

    And damn fine comments Webmaster. As usual. Thanks.

  4. Many things to say here, but I'll pick two. The photo of the "bad guy" and the little girl: she's passing under al sadr's photo - maybe in sadr city - a vile place. He was protecting her, perhaps scanning right and left as she scurried.

    Memorial services for service men and women are seldom open because of the scum of the earth (those from Kansas, especially), who choose a sad and sacred time to protest) and because we are a nation with more experience with the press. Families should have the right to have a private memorial, if they want.

    Reporters should never show photos of our dead soldiers - report stats, yes, but never photos. Those who yearn to use our fallen as propaganda just must be barred from doing so.

    I would have missed this story. It's not possible to keep up with the the many wicked deeds of the NYT.

    Maggie's Notebook

  5. I hate to tell these left-wing nutcases, but in WW2 many photos were censored. Actually everything was censored. News, photos, letters. The censors were busy.

    Now those desks are covered with dust and the censors have nothing to do. We should put them back at work right now. Censor everything and everyone.

  6. Thanks Maggie and Findalis.
    That's why I brought up FDR. I was thinking about his OWI (Office of War Information), which was effectively a huge propaganda and censorship bureau, staffed by around 10,000 fulltime employees during WWII.

    So many of the wartime defense measures which were so ardently supported by most of the home front during WWII would shock today's liberals tender sentiments. But, for the most part, they worked.

    Different times, different people.

  7. For historical purposes, images (photos, video, whatever) is important to have. We look back on video etc. of previous wars to improve our military practices and plans today. We see the faces of those who fought, died, and we also see the faces of the enemy.

    But to show them now, immediately after the battle, before families have been notified, adding pain upon top of pain... is wrong.

    Allowing the enemy to see how effective (or not) their attack was, and improve on their tactics, is traitorous and should be dealt with accordingly.

    Debbie Hamilton
    Right Truth

  8. I have this Quote of the Day widget on my homepage, and I thought today's quote so eerily relevant that I would share:

    "A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends." - Baltasar Gracian