Com-Central.net

piney

Got this in my email and thought I'd pass it along

It is the VETERAN , not the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the VETERAN , not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the VETERAN , not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the VETERAN , not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.

It is the VETERAN , not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the VETERAN , not the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the VETERAN who salutes the Flag,

It is the VETERAN who serves under the Flag,

ETERNAL REST GRANT THEM O LORD,
AND LET PERPETUAL LIGHT SHINE UPON THEM.

L.Delsing · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Feb 10, 2006 Posts: 960

My old company commander had this in a frame above his desk

A2_Prius · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 27, 2006 Posts: 112

I, for one, am grateful that (unless the family objects), the flag-draped caskets of our casualties from Afghanistan and Iraq can now be photographed. Politics aside, far too many Americans were insulated from this cost of the wars in which we are currently engaged. We owe it to our serving members and veterans to be mindful of the sacrifices they and their families make on a daily basis.

Joe_D

Unfortunately,

There are those that do not respect the sanctity/dignity of a Military funeral. Those idiots from Kansas are one group that hide behind the "Free Speech" laws to traumatize grieving families. They had such an incident in Tennessee. Fortunately a Veteran Biker Organization ran interference. There are also those idealistic media members who are obsessed with proving their point and forget that a funeral is actually taking place and there are many very upset family members there. I myself have performed quite a few funeral details in my career, it is the one detail you always give 100%, no matter what the climate or circumstances. There are times when the family is angry (happens when it's a line of duty death), and take it out on the person who is in charge of the detail. That's when you have to remind yourself that they are not lashing out at you personally, but what you represent. I count myself lucky not to have done any since 911. I agree with the decision to allow the photographing of caskets with the families approval. Maybe it'll remind more people that this is not some stupid movie or video game and the risks are all too real for those who serve. But it is also what they do, they are not drafted, they are professionals.

I also was very proud of the Detail who served my Deceased Uncle two weeks ago in Ohio. They were from the Ohio Guard. My Uncle was a WWII Veteran, 101st ABN D-Day Purple Heart recipient.

I'll get of my Soap Box now

C_Sherman · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 590

I don't have a problem with a few photos of what happens when the fallen arrive in the US. My objection is to interrupting the honors being given to the deceased soldiers. That time is the last opportunity for the military itself to honor them. It is often forgotten that the fallen are "family" for other service members, too. The time as they are unloaded and moved to the receiving facility is our last chance to give them the honors they are due as fallen members of our family. Fallen soldiers are treated with immense dignity and solemnity at these occasions. I would hate to have media who do not understand the significance disrupt the ceremonies and sanctity of the event.

If the servicemember's family wishes to allow media at the servicemembers memorials or services, then they should be allowed that. That is their choice, and if they choose to make it a public event, then so be it. But leave the military their own last chance to honor their own with dignity and respect, without interference from outsiders or glory hounds.

C

Maple_Leaf_Eh · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 517

Canada had a policy of virtually ignoring our military casualties for many years. There were men who died in Bosnia where the family was given the remains of their loved ones that were not fit for viewing. Not because of the mechanism of injury, but indifferent action to get the remains from the local authorities after. And of course, why were the locals involved at all?

This afternoon the BGen senior officer in theatre was on the news announcing the deaths of four men and eight injured in two separate IED strikes. The men were named, their photos shown and their units identified. Men from the Royal Canadian Dragoons and Third Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment. The usual talking heads were interviewed, ironically including our most famous Bosnia commander too.

When these men are loaded onto a C130, the camp in Kandahar will form up in two deep formations and salute them off. The cameras will roll, men will tear up, then back to work boys.

When these men come to Canada they will be met by the Governor General and whoever is the most senior general available. Hundreds and thousands of ordinary souls will line the Highway of Heroes (google it!) and send them on their journey. Everyone's loss is shared. Nothing is hidden.

Fortunately we don't have problems with people disrupting funerals. While there are often police present for traffic control, I suspect they would find reason to scuff their shoes or double check the contents of their trunks while 6 or 8 veterans beat the snot out of any foolhardy protesters with their canes.

Edited to add: "Canadian Criminal Code Sec 176-2

Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings

(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

JWB2 · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 25, 2006 Posts: 199

"Canadian Criminal Code Sec 176-2

Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings

(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

That is what we need! Cool