Media Watches As Fallen GI Comes Home

(CBS/AP)  The Pentagon's 18-year ban on media coverage of fallen U.S. service members returning home ended quietly, with only an officer's sharp order to salute accompanying a single flag-covered casket being unloaded from a cargo plane.

After receiving permission from family members, the military opened Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to the media Sunday night for the return of the body of Air Force Staff Sgt. Phillip Myers of Hopewell, Va.

The 30-year-old airman was killed April 4 near Helmand province, Afghanistan, when he was hit with an improvised explosive device, the Department of Defense said.

Myers' family was the first to be asked under a new Pentagon policy whether it wished to have media coverage of the arrival of a loved one at the Dover base mortuary, the entry point for service personnel killed overseas. The family agreed, but declined to be interviewed or photographed.

On a cool, clear night under the yellowish haze of floodlights on the tarmac, an eight-member team wearing white gloves and camouflage battle fatigues carried Myers' body off of a military contract Boeing 747 that touched down at 9:19 p.m. after a flight from Ramstein Air Base, Germany.

Myers' widow and other family members, along with about two dozen members of the media, attended the solemn ceremony, which took about 20 minutes and was punctuated only by clicking of camera shutters and the barked salute orders of Col. Dave Horton, operations group commander of Dover's 436th Airlift Wing.

Horton presided over the ceremony along with Air Force civil engineer Maj. Gen. Del Eulberg and Maj. Klavens Noel, a mortuary chaplain.

Noel and the other officers boarded the plane for a brief prayer before an automatic loader slowly lowered the flag-draped transfer case bearing Myers' body about 20 feet to the tarmac, where the eight-member team slowly carried it to a white-paneled truck.

Preceded by a security vehicle with flashing blue and red lights, the truck then slowly made its way to the base mortuary, where Myers' body was to be processed for return to his family.

Myers was a member of the 48th Civil Engineer Squadron with the Royal Air Force in Lakenheath, England, one of the bases the U.S. Air Force uses in the country. He was awarded a Bronze Star for bravery last year in recognition of his efforts in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Department of Defense said.

(AP Photo/US Air Force)

At left: In this March 19, 2008 photo provided by the U.S. Air Force, Lt. Gen. Robert D. Bishop Jr., then 3rd Air Force commander, left, presents Staff Sgt. Phillip Myers, 48th Civil Engineer Squadron, with a Bronze Star medal during an Airmens Call at RAF Lakenheath, England.

Myers' widow flew from England to attend the arrival of his body to the U.S., which marked the first time since 1991 that members of media were allowed to witness the return of a combat casualty to Dover.

The ban was put in place by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, at the time of the Persian Gulf War. From the start, it was cast as a way to shield grieving families.

But critics argued the government was trying to hide the human cost of war. President Obama had asked for a review of the ban, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that the blanket restriction made him uncomfortable.

Under the new policy, families of fallen servicemen will decide whether to allow media coverage of their return. If several bodies arrive on the same flight, news coverage will be allowed only for those whose families have given permission.

CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier reports that the lifting of the ban poses new ethical dilemmas for grieving families who must decide whether to leave the comfort of friends and family at a very difficult time to travel to Delaware. It also presents a new dilemma for cash-strapped media outlets, which must now decide how, and if, to cover the return of soldiers' remains on a regular basis.

There had been some exceptions to the media ban since 1991, most notably in 1996 when President Bill Clinton attended the arrival of the remains of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 32 others killed in a plane crash in Croatia. In 2000, the Pentagon distributed photographs of the arrival of remains of those killed in the bombing of the USS Cole and in 2001, the Air Force distributed a photograph of the remains of a victim of the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon.

One objection to lifting the ban had been that if the media were present, some families might feel obligated to come to Dover for the brief, solemn ritual in which honor guards carry the caskets off a plane.

Few families now choose to attend, in part because doing so means leaving home and the support system of friends at a difficult time. The sudden trip can also be expensive and logistically difficult, though the military provides transportation for up to three members to greet their service members at Dover.

[goldstarmom2]

I've been reading the comments posted and began to wonder about all the political comments being made. Aren't you as responders to this article doing nothing more that turning it into propaganda, which you accuse the media of promoting. In December 2004 we lost our son in Iraq. It made no difference if we believed our country was doing the right thing or not, his comment was we had boots on the ground and he had to be with his brothers. He knew the cost, he took the oath, he made the decision. When it came time for him to be brought home, it became our decision on his treatment. We wanted to be in Dover, we didn't want him alone; we were not permitted; we wanted to be on the tarmac at the local airport when he arrived, we were discouraged against doing this; but our Casualty Assistance Officer made it happen when we were insistent and we invited to press. It's a personal decision that only the family can make. There are reasons for and against, and our decision should be respected, whether you agree or not. Our son was the first killed from his National Guard Unit; he had only been there 3 months; our state was very supportive of our National Guard, and we wanted our state and his hometown to be able to grieve with us. Each American should watch the movie "Taking Chance" to see the honor and dignity our fallen are afforded on every leg of their journey home; and rejoice that our brave men and women have chosen to defend our rights to make that choice.

[bigmo47]

Hower4, what do you think the appropriae response should be for people attacking civilian targets in America? A lot of the civilian casualties are due to the fact that many of the terrorists klll innocent civilians that are members of their own nation. There aren't any American troops blowing themselves up in public places in Iraq and Afghanistan. The biggest problem that America has with 9/11 is the civilian deaths. As members of the military we know that it is our obligation to put our lives on the line to protect this counry and to fight for liberty around the globe. Civilians don't take such an oath. Also, when terrorists purposely fire on American troops from civilian homes where innocent civilians are present, are we expected to just take the losses and not fight back? They use tactics of surrounding themselves with old men, women, and children when they fire on us so that 1. we won't fire back, or 2. If we do, people like you will use it to attack the morality of our fighting men and women. American troops don't hide behind the innocent for cover. Terrorists may think its smart but we call it cowardice!

[debinok1]

..... and you think that justifies the American murder of hundreds of thousands more innocent people do you?

And by the way, you have jumped to the same bigoted conclusion that nearly all Americans do............ Anyone who doesn't agree with your moronic and violent arguments must be a terrorist. Isn't that right? In fact I live many thousands of miles from Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 terrorists came from, and I have a different religion and a different skin colour. In fact if you met me and talked about anything else you wouldn't bat an eyelid.
Posted by hower4

If you can defend their casualties, and defend their actions, while insulting america for defending itself against them, then you are no better than they are. I do not care if you are purple with pink polka dots. If you cannot see that our actions were justified by an attack that took thousands of lives, then that is your problem, not americas.

[debinok1]

Once again you have VERY SPECIFICALLY excluded the innocent victims of war from your statement, who I'm sure you know are actually in the vast majority. Why are you doing that?

Also, as you state that you would chose the life of one of your countrymen above that of an enemy, how would you define an enemy? Would that include every person in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? If not, how would you decide in those countries who is an enemy and who isn't?
Posted by hower4

Ok, I tried to be civil. I tried to be polite. You keep pushing. So here, You want to talk about INNOCENT, how about those INNOCENT people who only went to work on 9/11, how about those INNOCENT people who only needed to get from one place to another when they boarded those planes. How about the INNOCENT children who will never know their mother or father because a hijacker slammed a plane into the building they worked at. How about those INNOCENT people who gave their lives and plowed that plane into the field in Pennsylvania to keep it from its destination. Those people were INNOCENT. So DO NOT expect me to have more empathy for the lives your country has lost, when it was your extremists who took the lives of the truly INNOCENT.

[vet1971]

You clarified it perfectly............ Your second deliberate omission shows that you have NO interest in the fate of anyone except Americans. Don't worry unduly about that, almost all Americans are exactly the same. The rest of the world is judging you, but you don't care, do you?
Posted by hower4

I'm an American, a veteran, and proud of it. I'm not always proud of the policies of our elected officials. But I also don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks either. If it were up to me, all American troops would be home, all American foreign aid would stay at home, and the rest of the world could fend for themselves. Clean up after your own natural disasters, save yourselves when threatened with war, and keep your refugees in your own country. God knows we have our own messes to clean up here.

[debinok1]

You clarified it perfectly............ Your second deliberate omission shows that you have NO interest in the fate of anyone except Americans. Don't worry unduly about that, almost all Americans are exactly the same. The rest of the world is judging you, but you don't care, do you?
Posted by hower4

There are casualties in every war, but to claim them all as innocent is a bit naive. I understand that every country has a desire to protect their own, even as a parent has a greater desire to protect their own child when faced with a choice. So of course my first concern is "my" son, my next concern is "my" countrymen and women. That enemy combatants have died does disturb me as any death would, I must also consider that those combatants would have killed an american given the chance. So while the death of another human being does bother me, if given the choice between the life of the enemy or the life of one of my countrymen, I will naturally choose the life of my countrymen.

[debinok1]

Well said! I hope you also mean that the price is paid by the innocent of all sides in any war, though you apparently forgot to mention it. I also hope that you never come to regret your statement that your son being in the military is a good thing, whether for your family, or the unfortunate people wherever your son is sent by the politicians you elect.
Posted by hower4

My son enlisted for the sake of his country, for the sake of his family. To serve and protect this nation. I am proud of him. That the fallen are no longer hidden is a "good thing". We have seen so many "happy homecomings" with all the fanfare and hugs, yet for so long the fallen have been hidden from view. Their sacrifice is now being shown as it should have been all along. I hope this clarifies my statement for you.

[debinok1]

I have a son in the military. I can say without a doubt, this is a good thing. For the nation to see the arrival home, not met with fanfare and hugs, but with a moment of silence, to show honor and respect to the fallen. Our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers served this country proudly and with honor. Their sacrifice should not be shrouded in secrecy and denial, but acknowledged and remembered. The reminder that war comes with a price should never be forgotten.

[shishi1389]

i hope that by seeing dead soldiers coming home, people can wake up and see the reality of these two wars, oops, I mean invasions!!! Hopefully, we, people do something about it, just like before in the Vietnam war!

[ribbie149]

Of course REPUBLICAN'TS don't want us to see and honor our war dead when they return home. After all, out of sight, out of mind, right? If the cost of illegal, unnecessary wars is not hidden, perhaps we won't be so quick to engage in them in the future. War is a LAST RESORT when all else fails, not an exercise of how macho our leaders THINK they are. Once again this blog keeps up its reputation for demonstrating how clueless you right-wing tools are. Congratulations!