Last night I was invited to have dinner at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad with a senior public affairs staff member. The senior PA leadership have been following my situation closely. The U.S. Marine Corps continues to push for my complete "barment" (not a word in the dictionary - but is stated in my embed termination letter) from the Department of Defense (which means I could not embed in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else the U.S. Military may end up in the future). The Multi National Force Iraq (MNF-I) upholds my rights to keep my credentials, minus the ability to document U.S. Marine operations. I would like to thank all of these senior officials for refusing to make decisions based on unsubstantiated claims.
There are a few people posting comments on this blog who do not seem to understand what an embedded journalist such as myself actually is.
The Media Hold Harmless Agreement journalists sign, which clarifies the definition of embeds can now be found on this page. The remainder of my original clarification post is still on this page along with the comments.
Please read my contract before posting comments that I have violated any rules.
I do not work for the U.S. Military, the Marines, the Department of Defense, or any other government, public, or private organization. I work as a freelance journalist in Iraq under the umbrella of (but not for) a major media organization. This is the standard form of operation for embedded freelance journalists.
Because of the extreme dangers of working in Iraq, it is impossible to for a independent journalist to move freely from place to place without an incredible amount of security and financial resources.
Embedding allows journalists to live with soldiers or Marines and document their lives and their struggles. It also allows interaction, to some degree, with the local population, while remaining somewhat protected. Embedding is not considered ideal to most journalists, but we find ourselves with few choices because it has become so dangerous for us during the past few years of the war. You can easily do a Google search to find out more about the number of killed and injured journalists during this conflict.
Without the option to embed, journalists would have to pay literally thousands of dollars a day for security and transportation. To lose the ability to embed is the equivalent of losing your ability to report from Iraq. This is the reason it is important to fight for the rights of embedded journalists to document freely.
EDIT: The Multi National Force Iraq (MNF-I) upholds my rights to keep my credentials, minus the ability to document U.S. Marine operations. I would like to thank all of these senior officials for refusing to make decisions based on unsubstantiated claims. Click here to read my July 7th post.
"I do not work for the U.S. Military, the Marines, the Department of Defense, or any other government, public, or private organization. I work as a freelance journalist in Iraq under the umbrella of (but not for) a major media organization. This is the standard form of operation for embedded freelance journalists."
This is possibly why you do not understand why you were terminated from the program. Since you are trained in photography/journalism, not matters of National Security.
"Nor did any of my images, or text of the Marines response to the scene jeopardize operational security."
You are not qualified to make that judgment.
Since there are plenty of other independent journalists that are embedded, I don't really feel sorry for your exile. I trust the Marines and their judgment on this issue more than I trust your need to post a picture of a dead solider. You are an artist, figure out a different way to get your point across that does not include the blatant disrespect you have given that fallen solider.
Posted by: Colocelt | July 07, 2008 at 17:42
As a member of the media I have to agree with the comment above. You are not trained or qualified to make judgments regarding National Security.
The military sets the terms for embedded journalists. Follow them.
Posted by: palmer | July 07, 2008 at 18:15
I read about you in the Ventura County Star. I have to admit that the military is throughly sanitizing this war.
If photos of dead servicemen were shown on the news, then a push to end this war would be the backlash.
As long as it is a voluntary army and middle class kids are NOT the ones getting killed, then this war will go on forever.
Good job on the blog.
New blog reader from Simi Valley, CA
Posted by: Andrew, Simi Valley, CA | July 07, 2008 at 18:27
You don't have to be "qualified" to know when a photograph is or isn't a threat to operational security it. The only threat here is the threat of even handed reporting and that as we all know is not what the U.S. military wants.
Good luck Zoriah.
Posted by: Glen Canning | July 07, 2008 at 19:10
Here's a comment I posted on Blackfive, when he wrote about your situation.
**To see the reality of the Iraq War -- please read and view my entire post by clicking the link below.-On his blog at the top of a picture of a wounded or dead Iraqi.**
Reality of Iraq appears just because you happened to be there scavenging off of death and mayhem? Excuse me?
I don't think so people.
**I want people who follow my photography to understand that although I am able to bring images of war to the world in a form of art, what actually goes on here is horror.**
"Art" is profiting off of mayhem while trying to get the people that support fighting it to see the "horror" and be demoralized, eh.
Ohh, the horror.
**My message is not that war yields great photography. My message is: War yields human misery and suffering.**
As opposed to what, journalists not yielding human misery and suffering to be shared like cannibals share a hunk of leg? It's all just war's fault, right, it can't possibly ever be a matter of individual responsibility on the part of a journalist on what events to cover and how to cover them, oh no.
**If you are offended by graphic images -- instead of reading the entry about the suicide attack linked to below and being upset by the sight of death -- please do something to stop the political situations and foreign policy that facilitate these atrocities.**
If you want to make a political statement, be my guest, but at least try to have the guts to do it clearly, in the beginning, just so you don't look too much like a vulture. Would that be too much to ask?
**The above image is of a confiscated weapons cache housed inside of a US/Iraqi army base in Sadr City. Notice that there are no magazines in these weapons. As I was taking these photos, U.S. soldiers filled their pockets with loaded magazines, intending to distribute them to local militias.-Zarq-oriah**
Local militias? These local militias wouldn't happen to be freedom fighters and America's allies that you want to see hobbled and buried, would it.
**"What's wrong man? You look pissed," I say, as he throws his bag down on his bunk.
"Everyone upstairs is all fucking pissed off because the fucking New York Times just broke a story about how the U.S. is arming and funding all of these neighborhood militias and gangs all around Iraq," he says.
I mention to him that I happen to know for a fact that this is true because not more than two days ago I saw it with my own eyes.
He responds, "Yeah, I know its true too, we are taking guns out of one guys hand and putting them into the hands of another guy. I'm not pissed about the article, I just have to work with a bunch of idiots who are pissed about the article. That is what makes my life miserable."
I have decided to post what I wrote a few days ago, now that I am sure that hunch was correct.***
Maybe I need to retract what I said about Zoriah. Maybe he does need to be banned for his enemy propaganda actions in Iraq, even if that means you can only catch him on "lawfare" justifications.
Selective quoting. Selective use of photography. Selective usage of what he observed of US actions which can be exploited by enemy propaganda or enemy operations, now that they know their own arms caches are a source of ammo for their enemies.
What else do you call it? Following the rules? Maybe in lawfare land.
**I don't consider myself to very an expert in politics, warfare or the situation in Iraq. It puts me in the unique position of seeing and experiencing without pre-conceived notions or ideas.**
No man, what it means is that your biases are even more obvious and totally unfiltered by any presence of wisdom or self-restraint.
"Ignorance" is not a "unique position", people. Please realize that.
**The streets of Iraq are now filled with various militias and private security forces. Think of these militias as Blackwater without background checks, rules or any kind of oversight whatsoever (ok, so just think of it like Blackwater!) .**
Blackwater, the ultimate mercenary army. As opposed to UN Peacekeepers that are paid to occupy a region and loot/rape it to the ground.
You don't see people like Zoriah taking photo snapshots of child rapists in action under UN auspices, now do ya. Wonder why. Maybe cause it doesn't pay as much as American dead bodies on photos?
**A couple of days ago I went out on a foot patrol in Sadr City with a young a soldier and noticed the tattoo on his arm, featuring a rosary and the words “Forgive Me.” I asked him what the story behind it was.
He said, “After my first tour in Iraq, I went back home to the states and all my friends called me a murderer and killer. I guess I started thinking a lot about all the things I had done over here…you know.” **
I believe someone in the Marines read his blog and realized that they had an enemy "operative" inside their team and needed to get rid of him, not only in Marine operation sectors, but everywhere, just as a minor favor to their cousins in the other branches.
Posted by: Ymarsakar | July 07, 2008 at 19:13
Embedding is not a right. You were a guest and you were disrespectful of the rules as well as the ultimate sacrifice made by both Iraqis and Marines that day. You know who's picture that is. I do not but I can guarantee that any family member of theirs could look at that picture and figure it out.
Maybe it will be the Captain's mother or maybe it will be one of the Lt. Col's children or perhaps it's the girlfriend of the Sgt. They will know.
So beyond the illegality of what you did, you have potentially caused more heartache for the families of those Marines. And if you can't understand why that is wrong, there is no explaining it to you.
Putting it a different way, if that were my son's picture on your blog (and yes, he is over there too), you'd be in a helluva lot of trouble with me.
Posted by: Semper Fi Wife | July 07, 2008 at 19:25
I too agree with the post by Cococelt.
On posting a picture of dead Marine... Rules or not, your defense of this highlights an extreme lack of taste. When someone is murdered even here in the USA, out of taste and RESPECT, even the media here wouldn't publish pictures of the murder victim. The fact that you don't get this is utterly amazing.
Posted by: Staci | July 07, 2008 at 19:37
Once again, I'm sorry that you're going through this. The Marine Corps, much as I love 'em and respect their mission, does seem to have a problem with censorship -- at least, their problem is that in their minds, it doesn't go far enough.
A while back I posted a story on my blog about a Marine with seeming PTSD who murdered his girlfriend in Texas. I did a little digging first in the Marine Corps archives on their site, and found the most amazing photo of the guy when he was apparently in his right mind, at a memorial service for the many people who'd fallen in his battalion, on the tour that apparently was the one that was the hardest for him -- after which he returned, not quite the same guy. The photo was iconic, and clearly showed his pain and grief. (Good, but not as good as yours.) I used it on my blog entry, in an attempt to "paint the fuller picture" of who this guy was, and what he had gone through -- especially since more trauma => more chance of PTSD, and he had seen a LOT. I also posted the names of the 10 Marines who had died on a single day in his battalion -- whose loss he was grieving at that memorial service. Being a good journalist, I included the links to where I had found all the info.
WITHIN THREE DAYS the Marine Corps had scrubbed ALL info about the guy from their site -- poof! like he didn't even exist. I learned about it when a reporter from the Dallas Morning News contacted me to follow up on my blog entry and said, hmmmm, do you know none of your links are working? Together we backtracked and searched the Marine Corps archives, and literally all mention of this guy had been scrubbed.
This concerns me on a number of levels, not the least of which is -- what happened to the "all for one, one for all" mentality that the Marine Corps espouses? Does it end when someone gets into trouble -- even though it's clear that if he has PTSD, he didn't "give it to himself" -- he "got it" from what he'd gone through (i.e., multiple tours of combat.)
This is why we need articles like Kathy Dobie's "Denial in the Corps" from the Nation earlier this year, about Marines and the stigma of mental health issues.
I hope you're able to persevere and that the Marine Corps is able to see the light. War is hell -- it's supposed to be -- and journalism is uncomfortable -- it's ALSO supposed to be. It's supposed to make us think. Shutting down your ability to show us the images isn't okay in a free society. That's, er hem, a crucial point in a democracy that the Marines and others find worth fighting for.
P.S. Here's the post I'm talking about with Eric Acevedo, above:
http://www.healingcombattrauma.com/2008/03/the-ugly-backst.html
Posted by: Lily Casura | July 07, 2008 at 20:08
Let me get this right. Your work and life depends on the protection of the US Marine Corps. You admit that without them, you could not function in your current assignment. And yet you are angry that they have removed you from their unit, and protection, because you posted pictures of their dead brothers? Furthermore, the incident in question had three deaths, so there is a one in three chance that the family of one of those dead Marines viewed a picture of their father, brother, or son with his head and chest caved in from a suicide blast?
And still you don't understand their anger and why they want you removed? They owe you and your band of critics here nothing, and they certainly don't owe you the opportunity to further your career at their expense. If you don't like the rules, written or not, feel free to embed with an Iraqi unit or perhaps the terrorists themselves. If you and your echo chamber here are so courageously committed to showing the horrors of war, you certainly should not limited yourself to the courtesy and protection of the US Military.
Posted by: Jack Burton | July 08, 2008 at 03:07
Seriously People ? Honestly ?
So its ok to take pictures all day long of dead Iraqis, but the moment someone shows the other side of the lens and photographs a dead serviceman, then people get offended, give me a fucking break !?!?
I have the utmost respect and gratitude for those who put their lives on the line to carry out the orders of the US Military, and do so without question in the hopes that their actions are honestly protecting us back home. I think it is completely disrespectful to those who have fallen not to document their suffering and death. This is the reality of war people, REALITY, not edited and censored images, you can view while eating your TV dinner after work sitting on your fat asses watching the tube.
For all of you who feel Zoriah has disrespected those fallen soldiers, WAKE THE FUCK UP ! What you are experiencing is realization, you realize the reality of what war really means in a series of images, and you get filled with a sense of anger over the senselessness of it all, and instead of directing at the people who need to feel your anger, aka the Government. You decide, like all morons, to stone the messenger to death. You should be ashamed of yourselves for not having the same level of disgust and protest during the opening stages of the war, when thousands of Iraqi civilians endured the "Shock and Awe" of the US Military. But I guess its not as offensive to see dead Iraqis lying in the streets of Baghdad.
You people are really amazing people, especially those of you chastising Zoriah for honest work. If you think he is selling these images for profit, you need to have your head examined. War photographers don't make money, and those that do, don't make enough to make it worthwhile in any respect. We do it because we believe in the power of the photograph to change the world by holding up a mirror to the world and showing them the horrors then continue without end. For all those who criticize. Ask yourself this question, have you even stepped foot in half the places Zoriah has ? If so have you done so with a camera around your neck instead of a rifle. You have the balls to call him a vulture, when you don't even have half a sliver of empathy, or the slightest idea of truth in your bodies. Just armchair commentators sitting on the sidelines doing you best impression of Rush Limbaugh. Get a life people, if you are offended here is an idea, why don't you write your congressman about the anger you felt seeing these photographs, and ask them what is being done to bring our troops home from this senseless war. But don't ever have the audacity to criticize someone for trying to share the truth, especially when they put their lives on the line to do so.
I think you are forgetting one important thing, THIS IS A PERSONAL BLOG ! This isn't where you go to get your latest Iraq War news, this is a blog from the perspective of a War Photographer, so in this setting Zoriah can be as opinionated and biased as he wishes. In my opinion everything he has been extremely honest and I applaud his work whole heartedly. If you are offended, there is a simple solution, don't visit the blog, its just that easy folks. This is not a propaganda factory hellbent on exposing the US military as a murderous machine. If you think this is propaganda, then you need to go back to FOX news and take a few hours to soak in the definition of propaganda. Pull your heads out of your asses people, you are starting to like the smell of your own shit.
J
Posted by: James Rhodes | July 08, 2008 at 03:10
J,
You are missing one critical point in this discussion. He is creating his own little personal blog under protection by the US Marine Corps. He admits that without their protection, he cannot be there. So unfortunately for you and all his supports, you are going to have to deal with the fact that the Marines owe him zero hospitality and protection, as well as the rest of the US Armed forces in Iraq.
Do you really think the US Military is somehow obligated to provide protection to someone who criticizes their very mission and shows pictures of their dead brothers in arms? Then answer is no, ever. As a matter of fact, it ills me to think that they do anyway as having the dead weight of a journalist only makes their missions that much harder to carry out.
If you are so committed to your version of the truth, feel free to embed with any other nation's armed forces that will have you, including the Iraqi army. And I can just imagine your cries when the US military isn't around to save your rear end.
Posted by: Jack Burton | July 08, 2008 at 03:17
How odd... The same people who do not trust the government in any other circumstance are more than willing to insist it be able to operate in total secrecy in this matter. I just don't understand it.
Posted by: mikasi | July 08, 2008 at 04:20
After going through the original eyewitness post and then reading these comments, I can't help but wonder why the outrage is directed at the photographer rather than the war itself.
Zoriah neither killed the victims of the suicide attack, put them in harm's way or caused Al-Qaeda to be in Iraq in the first place. He is fulfilling his job description as a chronicler of the war, which by its very definition, includes death on all sides of the warring parties. And, certainly the military knew that Zoriah was not there to take pictures of the desert landscape.
Major General Dunlap*, the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Air Force, gave a speech on today's lawfare perspective to the American Bar Association two years ago. He said, "Healthy civil-military relations are vital to a democracy. ... The support – and vigilance – of the American public is needed to ensure the appropriate balance is maintained. ... Accordingly, we continue – when necessary – to do our best to “speak truth to power,” even when doing so is disquieting to those who may hear it."
In other words, truth is not disrespectful. It is the highest honor that can be given to those who died that day. In his art, Zoriah honored all those who died, Iraqi and American, and chose to share that with those of us that cared enough to read. Thank you, Zoriah. Well done.
*http://www.yjia.org/node/74
Posted by: blewoutmyflipflop | July 08, 2008 at 05:14
Is it tasteless to show the bodies of people killed in war? Perhaps.
But, there really is no argument that it is any more disrespectful to post the images of US soldiers than it is to post the images of the murdered Iraqis.
The fact is that any Iraqi family could also stumble onto this site and see their loved ones destroyed and dismembered.
The images are shocking, but they show a side of war that is important for all of us to realize. People are dying at an alarming rate to continue this mission, and to deny images of the carnage is to deny the reality of war.
Zoriah, as someone who was also put in an unenviable situation, I commend you for refusing to be bullied by the US authorities.
On behalf of the journalist community who gets it. My deepest thanks.
Posted by: Josh Wolf | July 08, 2008 at 11:29
Again,
Pat yourselves on the back all you want, but the US Military does not owe you or any of your journalistic comrades in camera the opportunity to embed. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, the fact in the matter is that they have chosen to have you removed. If you were embedded with the terrorists and you broke their rules, they likely would have cut off your head so count yourself lucky in the whole deal.
I find this whole deal laughable and absurd. They owe you nothing.
On behalf the the military personnel and families who get it.
Posted by: Jack Burton | July 08, 2008 at 15:21
The Pukeworm who took the picture and assumes he has non-existing rights had better hope he never meets a Marine in a bar.
Excuse me, that would be "shushi bar".
He'll sure as hell never find a Marine in a Starfucks.
As for Palmer in California, my "MIDDLE CLASS" Green Beret son would, out of unifrom, take extreme exception with your stupid ass, uneducated comments.
You silly ass leftist are NOT WORTH THE SWEAT OFF OF ONE SOLDIERS BALLS!
Posted by: Bull Stomper | July 08, 2008 at 15:47
Zoriah - As I recall, the first war in which journalists were "censored" was Gulf I under senior Bush - though certainy not as effectively as in this one. Throughout our history, all wars have been documented by journalists seeking to show the face of war, both good and bad, to the rest of the world. Only in this war is a reporter literally forced to be "embedded," and to tow the company line, rather than to report the truth as they see it - whatever that truth may be. I was a teen during Vietnam, with nighlty reports on the fighting. Did the images help to affect citizens on an emotional level? They sure did. But those images and stories were not alone what caused many US citizens to speak out against the war. Those reasons are complex and nuanced, but certainly include a growing realization that, as now, we were involved in an unjust war with no end in sight. I suppose there will always be those who see a U.S. war as justified under any circumstances. These people seem so unable to have their view compromised by any reporting that raises questions. As citizens, we are entitled to speak and to HEAR AND SEE all viewpoints. I humbly thank you for your beautiful patriotism and your very brave service to this country.
Posted by: Deborah | July 08, 2008 at 16:58
There is a lot of emotional response to all this.
I could go a long way and contribute to the discussion of embeded journalism but for now I have a - at least factoidly looked at - technical question...
You write:
"I removed the name from the image in Photoshop..."
Naive as I am I thought any kind of adding or removing information is an absolute no go in Photojournalism. (Lets keep stuff like cropping & depth of field in camera out of the discussion for simplicity)
This is no provocative question but asked for real interest:
What is "allowed" in your opinion when it comes to remove or add to a photo under what circumstances. (Concrete examples would be appreciated). Thank you
Posted by: nicolash | July 08, 2008 at 18:35
If you so called journalist bloggers want some real action with head shots, etc.
Why not spend some time blogging in inner city America.
Such as Memphis, Detroit, Atlanta, L.A., Miami, well you can see the point.
Last year more black skinned Americans died violent deaths in American cities than all the military deaths in Iraq since 2003.
Is it because, since you would have no military protection you are afraid you will die at the hands of thugs.
Or is it because ,in your cold heart of hearts ,you are racist and do not care what happens in Nap Town.
Posted by: Bull Stomper | July 08, 2008 at 19:07
My Marine husband is currently serving on his second tour in Iraq and I look at this hulabaloo from a very personal perspective. The Marine in the picture could be my husband. His job requires him to interact with the locals almost daily and he could have easily have been the one in the building when it blew up. For all of you screaming "Freedom of the Press", you need to look at this in a compassionate way. This is not reporting, this is sentationlism and it is exploitive. If the widow gave you permission to use the image in order to educate the American public about the realities of the war, then fine, but you are ripping to shreds any peace of mind their families have left. If that was my husband, I would be calling you and demanding that you justify the publication of the images. Have you talked to the families? Did you think that your pictures provided them with any solace or do you think that they only added to their pain? Three whole days after the families were notified? Do you think that they had even buried them yet? Perhaps you could have given them that respect first. I am not a right-winger....never have been, but I am a Marine wife and I never want my husband to be the subject of one of your photo essays. You didn't respect the Marines you were with, you didn't respect the Corps and you won't be invited back to their ballpark.
Posted by: vested interest | July 09, 2008 at 03:00
Yes, sensitivity to a family should be observed. So... from now on no more pictures of dead people, ever. If you are currently watching the news, and you see a picture of a dead Iraqi, Irish, Igbo, whatever turn it off. It is disrespectful. Or, if you want fair reporting of a controversial war then perhaps you should realize that you might be upset--but provocation might lead you to helping end this war. My brother was a soldier, thankfully he survived the war. He is a police officer now--let's say a photojournalist took a picture of his being wounded, or God forbid something else, during a controversial arrest. As long as he waited until the family had been notified, there would not be a single one of you who would protest the right of a journalist to cover this story.
I guess Paul Revere should never have covered the Boston Massacre (in his engraving after the event--google it if you don't believe me) either. Or maybe that provocation led us to the great and free country we have now. I guess Matthew Brady should not have covered the Civil War?
The censorship that has begun during this administration is the only example in our long history of war coverage.
Posted by: ml wright | July 09, 2008 at 06:37
Kind of strange.
All those violent comments!
True Patriots, I guess?
I have the utmost respect and gratitude for those who put their lives on the line to carry out the orders of the US Military, and do so without question in the hopes that their actions are honestly protecting us back home.
Not even.
I do not respect people that do not question their authorities. Which is especially important, if this involves orders to kill another (human) being. If you think the authorities are wrong, you have the RIGHT to refuse doing so.
And I just wish more soldiers were starting to think things over once more, before opening fire...
(not in defence, but hé, flying over to the other side of the world isn't exactly defence, or is it?
Posted by: Phi van Esch | July 09, 2008 at 16:57
Jack I think you are missing the point entirely. You like all other gung ho pro-war good-evil fear mongers, feel that the US military is above the citizenship it serves. Key word being serves there Jack. Even in your speech and wording you exude hate and anger. You don't even remotely attempt to understand both sides, because your empathy is nil.
As a US fucking citizen Jack, Zoriah has the absolute right to document and chronicle the war AS HE SEES IT !! And those service men are being paid not only by your tax dollars, but mine, and more importantly Zoriah's. SO as a taxpaying citizen of the United States his right to be free to cover the issues he finds important, as is absolutely protected by the constitution of the United States. Did you forget about that little piece of paper, this country was founded on ? The US Military is OBLIGATED to host photojournalists and allow them any and all information available to the public. Unless Zoriah is putting his squad in immediate danger or the operation in danger, there is no margin for censorship, period. Any attempt to do so, is questionable to say the least.
The fact is you can't face reality. Like a child you cover your eyes and scream real loud so as not to experience the reality of the situation you so clearly don't want to understand. Without those pictures Zoriah took, those service men are faceless statistics to those outside of their immediate friends and families. Part of the 4 thousand and growing, US servicemen to die in this unjustified and senseless war. If those pictures can affect a person considering enlistment and clue them into the reality of what they are about to embark upon, then it has saved a life. Do you think it is more heroic that the death of a soldier is swept under the rug of public display. Every dead servicemen that comes home should make us re-evaluate our campaign in Iraq.
Would it be better if he focused his lens on the tens of thousands of service men who are coming home without their limbs ? Or would that too be to offensive for you to grasp. Something nobody seems to talk about, is the number of critically wounded survivors that are coming home to life without full use of their bodies( in the tens of thousands ). Would that be more acceptable to you Jack ? Is that a reality you could handle and process ? Would you turn away from that reality of war as well ?
Take off your fucking rose colored glasses and open your eyes for the first time. The US military is in SERVICE of the citizens of the United States, not the other way around. IT IS THEIR JOB to protect all of its citizens regardless of their political beliefs or stance on the war. The US military is not an elite citizenship that is above the documents that founded this country, and that we are supposedly fighting for in the various wars we have waged throughout the years.
Think about if pictures like this were never taken, do you really think you would have a grasp of what was really going on over there ? Do you so blindly believe what you are told ? Do you not question what is really happening over there ? You watch action movies, and play video games, you are exposed to graphic violence on a daily basis, and you are so fucking far twisted in you perception of what reality is that you can't see the forrest for the tress, so you just start swinging your ax like the clumsy arrogant oaf the rest of the world sees you as. You direct your anger at a photojournalist ? Get a clue clue, stop watching TV, and try reading a little more.
Its amazing to me that greater horrors are happening in places like Burma, and Darfur, yet I don't see anyone taking major offense to the 500,000 + killed in those countries. That's 500,000 people ! Are you fuckers that far gone from reality ? You need run your head into a wall and pray you will knock some sense into it.
Posted by: James Rhodes | July 09, 2008 at 17:29
James,
The US military is not obligated to take him, you, or any journalist anywhere. I don't know where you pulled that crap from, but it's just that, crap.
There has not been tens of thousands of amputees in the military, as you stated. As of February of this year, there were just over 1,000 total soldier amputees, and just over 700 of those with major limb amputees. So do you have any more bullshit you want to try and spew or call it quits on that one now.
And to my favorite part, As a former member of the United States Marine Corp, I know exactly what goes on the military, but I doubt you do. You try your pathetic video game commentary on anyone who disagrees with you, but guess what, doesn't hold much water now does it.
You see, I actually support what I know and have experienced while you criticize what you don't. So either enlist in boot or OCS or shut the hell up with your swing and a miss insults about something you know nothing about.
And despite all your bloviating, the point still remains that your buddy signed an agreement that said the USMC could remove him at any time for any reason, period. Don't like the contract, don't sign it.
You can still cover the war to your hearts delight, the Marines just don't have to offer you a free ride. Thank God I never had to deal with such minor people with such over-inflated opinions of themselves.
Posted by: Jack Burton | July 10, 2008 at 21:04
"So its ok to take pictures all day long of dead Iraqis, but the moment someone shows the other side of the lens and photographs a dead serviceman, then people get offended,"
NO. Iraq, insurgent, Marine, soldier, I don't care. Wrong is wrong.
The basic issue here is simple. Respect for the dead. Human decency. This is not brain surgery we are talking about. This is a simple issue of having the elemental human compassion to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a second.
I have not shown some very good videos I have seen (and in fact I have flagged them on YouTube as obscene repeatedly) because some moron felt compelled to include a shot of a dead insurgent in them. I find that morally repugnant, EVEN THOUGH THESE GUYS ARE TRYING TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS AND MARINES.
That's not the point. They have families. It is possible that their families have computers. I would never risk their families seeing their images on an American web site. It is just wrong to inflict that kind of agony on an already grieving human being.
War is tragic enough as it is without doing further injury to grieving families. Some things are inevitable. This wasn't - Zoriah CHOSE to do this knowing full well the damage it could do to specific people.
Remember the media blackout when Jill Carroll was kidnapped? Remember the double standard that was practiced when the media had to make decisions regarding one of their own? No journalist would post a photo of another dead journalist's family member without permission. That is the acid test here - he did this because he could get away with it. If he'd done this to a member of the media, the outcry would be deafening.
Posted by: Cassandra | July 11, 2008 at 11:57
Wow. Can we all just take a deep breath? To put my comments in perspective, let me note that my son is in the army in Sadr City. I would hope we would all agree with a few basic propositions: (1) freedom of the press is an important right that advances all sort of key virtues in the USA, not the least of which is the accountability of government; (2) as with all freedoms, they are not without limitations (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre);(3) the press frequently self-edits what it publishes for a variety of reasons including bias, advancing commercial self interest, minimizing risk of litigation and, undoubtedly on occasion, sensitivity to decorum and privacy concerns of non-public figures; (4) in our culture most press outlets do not typically publish graphic pictures of the bodies of murder or accident victims because that is generally considered a breach of decorum and insensitive to the survivors; (5) publishing this photo was, by any measure "pushing the envelope" in terms of what our society generally accepts as proper decorum; (6) though the press should have the right to report (or photograph) what it sees, if a member of the press crosses the lines of whaat is generally acceptable decorum, he or she must be prepared to catch major flak and, in this case, lose the opportunity to get personal bodyguards who are often put at greater risk to allow the press to tag along on their missions.
Posted by: David | July 12, 2008 at 07:16
Let me make sure I get this straight. You post, or participate posting pictures of dead Marines on a day when it could have been only three individuals who were killed in the picture. Meaning you printed an identifiable picture of a dead Marine. And now you wonder why Marines and others are angry at you and want somebody to step in and make them stop being angry? Is this a joke comment, because I find it hard to believe that a grown person in any field could take such a preposterous position.
Also, there is not a single pro-journalist entry here that has one shred of evidence that says the Marines have to take Zoriah out with them. They can, and did remove him for any reason. It says so in the contract that he signed.
So until you can come up with a better response than crybaby first amendment garbage, but most certainly does not apply to combat in a foreign country, please spare the grown-ups in this whole sorry affair.
Posted by: Jack Burton | July 14, 2008 at 22:29
I remember worse pictures in Life Magazine.
What is this insanity of condoning war and refusing to look at it?
Are you Americans or sheep?
Posted by: Dwain Goforth | July 15, 2008 at 03:07
What ever happened to freedom of press? I personally want to know what is going on in Iraq, truthful events, not just what FOX or CNN thinks I want to see. And I don’t just want to read about it or watch some sugar-coated bullshit on TV either. I want to see what is really going on. Let’s not forget that people are dying regardless of whether someone takes a picture of it or not. A picture isn’t going to stop that, right? Or is it? Maybe we should ask ourselves that. Should we hide it just because it’s not visually appealing? Or should we step back, evaluate what's happening and make a change? Zoriah's work is more real than anything you get fed from your television, I can promise you that. I’m proud of him for documenting true and personal experiences and I’m relieved that he came home safe because we need more people like him who are willing to put themselves in harm’s way to open the eyes of all you ignorant shit-talking, stone-throwing conservative fucks. Some of you sound like you're on a dam witch hunt for christ sakes! This is a man who is keeping the world educated on the brutal realities of war and if people don't want to accept what's happening around us then don't look at it. Just keep living inside your safe little picket-fenced American houses and surround yourselves with a flower garden of denial, fine, but some of us prefer the truth. Thank you for giving us that truth Zoriah. Now let's ask ourselves, where do we go from here?
Posted by: Kacie Land | July 15, 2008 at 04:28
I am now to the point of absolutely believing that the little children who love this guy are incapable of doing anything other than screaming freedom of the press and crap like that and not addressing the whole point of this issue - the Marines were within their rights of removing him for any reason, and they did. Furthermore, they are under no obligation of provide embed to him, or anyone else.
And Kaci, you ignorant moron. I was in the Marines, and I imagine that many of those who are against him on this issue were in the armed services. You, on the other hand, have likely never come close to serving in the military and have absolutely no idea what it's about, nor why Soldiers and Marines would object to posting pictures of their dead buddies.
We know the truth more than absolute idiots like yourself ever will. i know it's truly beyond your pathetic little comprehension to realize that you are the blind idiot here, but that's a burden that you will have to live with, not me.
If this didn't involve dead Marines, your stupidity would be both breathtaking, and funny.
Posted by: Jack Burton | July 15, 2008 at 23:03
"... the US Military.... owe you nothing."
The hell you say, boy! What in the blue fuck is wrong with you? The U.S. Military owes the people EVERYTHING. Their ass -- not Zoriah's -- belongs to the United States of America, not their momma anymore. So it doesn't matter if their mommas might get all teary-eyed over pictures of the death they swore they'd volunteer if it came to it in the defense of our country and its Constitutionally protected freedom. Or didn't you go to Basic?
Part of those freedoms includes freedom of the press, you desk-driving maggot. These soldiers signed up to -- yes -- die protecting that. The picture of his death is an example of what he SWORE he'd do, what we pay him (poorly) to do, what we entrust him with big ass guns that none of us are allowed to have, in order to do.
Now, if one questions whether his death was actually a necessary one in pursuit of that protection of said freedom, that is a separate and political question, which Zoriah, being a free American citizen, is free to ask all he wants.
The USMC swore they'd give us everything to protect our freedoms, and that's exactly what they owe. That's their honor. That's this boy's honor.
Don't like it? Don't swear, mofo.
Posted by: Anonymous Dissenter | July 15, 2008 at 23:14
Desk driving maggot? If I had to guess, I would imagine you are somewhere out there at the back end of the spear. Actually, probably somewhere far behind the spear. Actually, probably behind someone who is behind the person holding the spear. And no idiot, I didn't go to basic, I went to OCS.
And yet still, you losers still do not comprehend that while Zoriah may be an American, he apparently ain't in America at the moment so I don't think his rights made the flight over.
And again, and read slowly children as this fact has eluded you to this point, the USMC can remove him at any time for any reason, period. Most of the folks who despise this country are all impressed with their right to be an ass all the time, but you're rights don't mean squat in a war zone.
Nobody is stopping Zoriah and anyone else from covering this war on their own terms. So instead you choose to embed in with the US Military because you want to be protected from the bad guys. And guess what, that means that they have the right to make you go home at their pleasure.
Why can't you people come to grips with that point.
Posted by: Jack Burton | July 16, 2008 at 16:56
Jesus Jack,
Do you have a life, or do you just watch this blog and instigate ?
Grow up Jack, if you don't like the blog, DON'T VISIT IT !!!
I could go on and on with you, insult you all day long, but it solves nothing, and more to the point, it doesn't bring troops home.
Your pathetic responses are laughable at best, and you fully skip over the parts where people are right, like the fact that the US Military is IN SERVICE of its citizens, maybe they don't have to take Zoriah into the field, but the fact that they don't tells me they have something to hide. The fact is Zoriah documented an event that happened, an Al Queda suicide bombing to be exact. In that event Marines and Iraqis died. Now you are telling me you don't want Zoriah to document this ? This piece of REAL news, from an EYE WITNESS ? What the hell do you want him to photograph to help explain the pain and anguish those victims felt that day ? Should he shoot the blue sky ? the bomb crater ? The suicide bombers remains ? How exactly would you have covered the story and what would you have shot instead of the people who died in this attack ? And Jack, if you like the Marines so much, why the hell did YOU turn it into a career ? Thats the real question, why aren't you still in the marines ? Too old or too stupid ? Because I don't see the military kicking out SMART old people, just people who can't carry out their duties, or did you leave on your own decision ? IF so why did you leave Jack ? You talk a big game Jack, but you don't walk the walk or talk the talk, so nobody takes you the least bit seriously, and the only way you get any sort of attention is by continually instigating arguments here. If you don't like this blog, again, DON'T VISIT IT !! Are you that retarded ? Don't you have anything better in your life going on ? My guess is no, but if you want some suggestions, why dont you volunteer at your local veterans hospital and talk with returning soldiers who are suffering from PTSD or recovering from their wounds. And, by the way, your numbers of wounded are WAY off my friend. You need to dig a little deeper than Time magazine Jack. And further more you need to learn how to read, my post said 10s of thousand don't have full use of their bodies, not amputees. Take a reading class Jack and learn how to read. There are lots of things to take up your time, and help you better yourself into a person who actually thinks for himself, rather than letting his tube tell him what to think.
You could be in Iraq right now for God's sake, what are you waiting for ? Get up off you butt and re-enlist. Put your money where your mouth is, because as of now you are just a armchair Rush Limbaugh.
Seriously, your arguments are absolutely retarded and you position is absolutely blind. You think you know what was going on over there ? Get a life and move on from this blog. Your heard of sheeple are leaving you behind.
Posted by: James Rhodes | July 16, 2008 at 18:56
Thanks James,
You finally admitted my point - the Marines have no obligation to take Zoriah, or anyone, anywhere and can remove him for any reason, at any time. And that is exactly what they did, much to your disappointment.
That's what started this whole thing, and that's what the point has always been about. If you had addressed the point up till now, this would have ended long ago.
Obviously you don't trust the military, but thanks to disgusting lies by journalists such as the Haditha myth, they don't trust you or your kind.
Now that at least one of you has admitted the fundamental issue at hand here, I will move on. Go back to your hate America and the military echo chamber. I do love the irony that I have to listen to someone like you tell me to stop getting my view of the war from the TV. And your experience in the military would be exactly what?
Posted by: Jack Burton | July 16, 2008 at 19:54
I'll tell you exactly why they're upset with you, & want to throw you out.
1. A Recruiters:
If you journalist are putting shots like that out everyday (Or twice a week).. Recruiters will have a hell of a time getting kids to sign a contract. I've already shown the pictures to two young men who were thinking of joining the Army/ Navy..Not to discourage them, because i myself would have joined the Army if i had not lost my legs as a teenager.. I also have family members, & some good friends serving (WWII, to Present).. I showed them because they need to see exactly what they are heading for. One is still joining & the other opted not to join. I can't say for sure it was the pictures posted by the journalist of this blog or not. The family & friends in the military right now, who are in Afghanistan or Iraq (8).. Not one's re-enlisting because of the way the Military treats our soldiers. They all had no idea what they were getting into, & they are all miserable.. Maybe if they had seen the reality of War, they would have opted out.
Its about Control. They know now Zoriah can not be leashed, so he's gone. Whether right or wrong, everyone knows.. "Ya can't fight city hall!" (so to speak)
Posted by: Mike | August 06, 2008 at 01:50
thanks for fighting for freedom of the press.
Posted by: eustatic | August 06, 2008 at 03:07
An embedded system is a computer system designed to perform one or a few dedicated functions often with real-time computing constraints. It is embedded as part of a complete device often including hardware and mechanical parts. By contrast, a general-purpose computer, [url=http://www.cisspdumps.com]cissp certification[/url], such as a personal computer, is designed to be flexible and to meet a wide range of end-user needs. Embedded systems control many devices in common use today.
Embedded systems are controlled by one or more main processing cores that is typically either a microcontroller or a digital signal processor (DSP). The key characteristic is however being dedicated to handle a particular task, which may require very powerful processors. For example, air traffic control systems may usefully be viewed as embedded, even though they involve mainframe computers and dedicated regional and national networks between airports and radar sites. (Each radar probably includes one or more embedded systems of its own.)
Since the embedded system is dedicated to specific tasks, design engineers can optimize it reducing the size and cost of the product and increasing the reliability and performance. Some embedded systems are mass-produced, benefiting from economies of scale.
Posted by: Matt John | January 14, 2010 at 07:49