Normally with a picture like this, I would agree with you, but, the AP did this after a DIRECT APPEAL from the kid's parents. They didn't want their kid to be remembered like this. I understand taking pictures and showing the world what the gravity of the harm will be, but doing this outside of their wishes...just..feels wrong.

Shot Across the Bow -- You want your reporters protected? You play by our rules.

In Vietnam reporters jumped in a Huey and counted on 500,000 troops (100,000 on the front line) to protect them when they landed (on an airstrip; not in a hot LZ) -- and still, very few went out on search and destroy missions.

In Afghanistan they've got 40 grunts to protect them if they're embedded. And they better not wander off.

The Pentagon stops publication of photos showing the real, hellish face of war? I don't think so. I think that decision is made in editorial conferences, in comfortable offices a world away from the fighting. The Pentagon, of course, doesn't want them published, but what can it do to stop it? March in, bayonet the photo shop and close down the newspaper or wire service? Not in this country. Not yet. We began to see the ugly reality of our Indochina misadventure mostly when it became clear Americans had turned against it. But even though most of the country is now opposed to our "war on terror" fiascos, these nightmare visions rarely see the light of day. Our establishment press was, at most, ambivalent about Vietnam, and much of it outright condemnatory of this "liberation struggle". The war on Islam is another matter entirely. All wars, it seems, are bad - but some are badder than others.

I remember reading that Ike and SHAEF tried to fill the D-Day 1st-wave landing craft with fresh troops who had not seen an amphibious assault. They knew the guys would be too scared to wade ashore otherwise.

But if the family asked for no publishing, I sympathize. If the soldier was not identified in the published photo that would be different.

To be blunt, I'm confident that there are enough possibilities for pictures of dead and dying soldiers without having to insist on publishing one of an identifiable individual ... and giving his name, no less. Why can't they restrict themselves to pictures of people who cannot be identified or who have families, like OhSoBlue, who say they would not feel traumatized or betrayed by the act. If those young people are dying for, among other things, the individual respect and dignity of all of our citizens should enjoy, then the wishes of a soldier's family should be respected -- period. It was quite clear that that is what Secretary Gates was saying.

How is this different from what Michael Savage did in playing the tape of Nick Berg during his decapitation, an action for which he was soundly, and IMO with great justification, condemned?

Our government believes the American public cannot handle the truth.

What is the real reason we invaded and occupied Iraq ? Our government has yet to tell us. Instead we have learned that the reasons we heard earlier were phony. Not mistaken reasons - FAKED UP reasons.

We were told a nonsense story about WMDs; the story was revealed as nonsense; we are left to guess the real story.

Could it be we wanted to seize The Gulf for its oil and gas ? Oh Heavens No !

Americans went to Afghanistan to seize or kill the man we say attacked us in 2001. Eight years later we are no closer than when we started.

Therefore we ask : what are we doing there ? It is clearly not the same mission we were told about eight years ago.

The American public are clearly bored with this war. They have changed the channel. There is no lively opposition and little
zealous support. Our government continues dissembling about the purpose of the war.

Meanwhile a very dedicated, ever-busy well-connected group continues to goad us into a war with Iran. They promise quick and easy success, of course. All war promoters promise quick and easy success. They promote war with phony reasons, of course, as do all war promoters.

Are you surprised, colleagues, how little has changed since the executive branch was completely swapped out ? Soon we will see this president kissing and holding hands with the king of Saudi Arabia - the birthplace of the guys who flew the planes into the buildings.

Our government : still foisting phony tales on us after its credibility has shrunk to zero.

A Marine's life belongs to the country. His death is his own. I've interviewed th parents of dead servicemen and this is a personal grief that only Gold Star families know.

A right to watch his last minutes?

No. certainly not. Perhaps a privilege--if he or his parents so allowed, but they directly asked for privacy.

A duty to watch his death? Only if your a voyeuristic moron who's never seen a car accident or watched "Saving Private Ryan." Can anyone really say that encroaching on the sacred sacrifice this young man made actually shows them something they haven't seen in a thousand horror movies or enlightens the public debate one iota? Like hell. If that's your argument, you're just mirroring the anti-abortion activists who put photos of bloody fetuses on billboards for shock value and politics.

Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard was a human being who volunteered to serve you and me. His life and death deserve more consideration than crass political sport.

The points that most of the comments make seem to be these...
Taplin is misusing this controversy and thereby disrespecting the soldier and his family.

The decision to print or not to print is (a)as often as not made in on the editorial floor or in the boardrooms of the media conglomerates and (b) at the root of this is the policy allowing or denying access through the process of "embedding" reporters in the troops in the field.

I agree with both. To which I'll add my own caveat.

Taplin needs to recognize that what we saw in the Vietnam era was not just the death of Americans or even especially the death of Americans. We saw death in all its forms--and the most memorable pictures were not those of the American deaths. I don't have to do research to call to mind the picture of the Vietnamese General summarily executing a supposed Viet Cong, the man's face, his hair standing out from the shot. I don't have to do research to remember the Buddhist monk's self-immolation or the young girl running naked from her burning village.

Embedding is as much to protect us from pictures the equivalent of Abu Ghraib as it is to protect us from the deaths of American.

And no, I'm not saying those represented acts typical of Americans, my nephew was in Iraq and will no doubt be going to Afghanistan in the future.

Gates' outrage is nothing but bullying the media in order to suppress the reality of the war we are waging against Afghanistan. Americans need to see these pictures BECAUSE they are difficult to view and realize what the reality is over there and that's precisely why Gates doesn't want such pictures published.

Thanks for posting the picture. Gates' effort was so effective that this is the first time I've seen the picture. All the news stories on the net about it conspicuously do not include the picture. Even the AP does not include the picture on it's website along with the post explaining why they ran with the picture!

Regarding the question of the "right" to publish such a photograph, let us be mindful that what is legally permissible under the Constitution is not always morally justified. The courts may decide whether or not the AP has the legal right to publish this dying Marine's image, but it is American society which determines the morality of such an act. To publish the photograph over the objections of the deceased's family is an act many will find so repugnant that the fallout might run counter to the AP's coldly-calculated objective, instead blunting the public's enthusiasm for the anti-war message.

Furthermore, the argument that this family must endure yet more suffering in order that others have the opportunity comprehend the horror of war reeks of hiding behind utilitarianism to proselytize the public with an anti-war message completely dispenses with any sense of compassion or human solidarity. The argument that the media be allowed greater access to the war is certainly valid, and the American public has a responsibility to see the fruits of the elected leadership's policies, but the publication of this image as an argument against DoD obstruction strikes me as extremely counter-productive if the aim is to attain greater freedom in reporting on the war or greater dissemination of war-related reporting in the media.

Finally, as a Marine who has recently served in the Middle East, I pose the following proposition: if the publication this image is necessary in order to curb the expansion of this war, then, in the spirit of utilitarianism, perhaps we should publish crime scene photos of every accidental drug overdose, suicide, murder victim, drunk driving fatality, and rape victim until our society comes to its senses and puts a stop to these senseless deaths. Just remember, it could be your mother, your child or grandchild, or your spouse who winds up plastered on the front page as the latest fodder for political agitation. That's called having skin in the game.

I don't support identifying by name a GI who is laying dying on a battlefield, but the ravages of war should be publicized.

Of course politicians who are quick to use the armed forces support hiding the casualties as it makes war all seem so benign.

The public must pay for what they all too often clamor for by seeing what they support being televised.
If you supported the war in Iraq you should be made to see the results of your support, then maybe you won't be so quick to send people off to war the next time a politician calls for it.

It always seems to me that those who never fought in a war are quickest to support one.

When Julie Jacobson snapped that photo of Lance Cpl. Joshua “Bernie” Bernard he was, in Pentagon-speak, a "wounded warrior." (He died on the operating table of a related cause some time later.)

The Pentagon, and the President, normally honor "wounded warriors" with much publicity, but I guess if they die later it's a different story.

CYPRESS, Texas, Aug. 31, 2009 – Hundreds of people arrived today at the home of retired Marine Capt. Dan Moran, a warrior severely wounded in Iraq, to see Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates present him the keys to his new home on behalf of the Helping a Hero organization.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 20, 2009 – President Barack Obama paid tribute yesterday to past and present NASCAR champions, including Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Jeff Gordon, both of whom drive National Guard-sponsored cars, but not before honoring the wounded warriors attending the ceremony.

Wounded Warriors Tip Off at Basketball Tournament
Special to American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, July 22, 2009 – Sounds of dribbled basketballs and players’ shouts filled the Wagner Gym at Walter Reed Army Medical Center here yesterday, but absent were the thuds and squeaks of players running up and down the court. Replacing them at the first City Wheelchair Basketball Tournament were the hissing of hands slowing wheelchairs and the clanging as they collided.

Wounded Warrior Diaries: Airman, Wife Hope to Help Others Special to American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, July 22, 2009 – A wounded airman and his wife plan to use the lessons they’ve learned about marriage and friendship through military service and adversity to help servicemembers who might be struggling after deployment or injury.

Gates Visits Wounded Warriors, Returns Two to Washington American Forces Press Service
LANDSTUHL, Germany, July 1, 2009 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates visited Landstuhl Regional Medical Center here yesterday, meeting with wounded warriors and the staff that treats them and touring a new USO facility that’s providing them a better quality of life as they heal.