Two Wishes

« Previous story
Next story »
twowishes One wish granted, one wish denied. It is a tale of two wishes: the wishes of a humble family in a time of grief, and the wishes of a powerful news giant in a time of crisis. The global news organization, the Associated Press (AP), was put in the position of making a choice between those wishes twice within the past week. In one case, it chose to honor the wish, in the other, it did not. News organizations are called upon to exercise impartiality in the execution of respectable news coverage. One of the hallmarks of impartiality is consistency. Why the AP chose differently in these two cases is at best a matter of simple inconsistency, and at worst a choice to inequitably apply a standard rendered disingenuous by the ultimate outcome of these two decisions. The last moments of Marine Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard were recorded in a frozen moment in time by the photograph of embedded journalist/photographer Julie Jacobsen. It seems to be in dispute whether Ms. Jacobsen displayed the utmost respect for Lance Corporal Bernard and his fellow Marines, or whether she merely seized an opportunity to make a name for herself. In her comments and account of the events surrounding his fatal wounding by a Taliban RPG round in the Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, she has expressed conflicted feelings of wanting to help and recognizing that such an attempt to render aid most likely would get in the way of those best in a position to help. She said her purpose as a journalist was to document the events she was present for, to stamp an indelible record of one man’s ultimate sacrifice for his country. Regardless, the decision to publish the photo in question was not her decision, but that of AP’s editorial staff. It ignited a firestorm of criticism. We have just become aware of the rescue of a New York Times reporter, Stephen Farrell, captured by the Taliban with his Afghan interpreter and saved by the daring actions of coalition forces, which cost the life of a British commando. The Times kept the kidnappings quiet out of concern for the man's safety, and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, did not report the abductions following a request from The Times. The withholding of information regarding hostages during their period of activity is not uncommon, as the release of such information can jeopardize the lives of the hostages involved, as well as the likelihood of success of rescue attempts. Decisions like this are seldom questioned and rarely would prompt any waves of criticism. AP posted on its Web site an explanation for the decision to release the photo of Lance Corporal Bernard’s last moments. Bernard's father, John, after seeing the image of his mortally wounded son said he opposed its publication, calling it disrespectful to his son's memory. John Bernard further reiterated his viewpoint in a telephone call to the AP on Wednesday. Santiago Lyon, director of photography for AP, stated "AP journalists document world events every day. Afghanistan is no exception. We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is…” AP further stated that the photo was representative of “[Bernard’s] sacrifice to his country”. Two parties requested that information (in word or in image) be withheld, The New York Times, and a family wracked with grief over the death of a son. One request was granted, the other ignored or discounted. Where is the consistency? Are the needs of a newspaper more important to AP than the needs of a grieving family? Are the desires of a major news organization more inherently weighty? What is the historical context of decisions such as these? As stated before, during hostage situations it is not uncommon (though certainly not the only choice ever selected) to withhold details. Likely, this can be construed as a positive choice that contributed to the overall success of the rescue operation. With regard to the needs of grieving families over the death of their loved ones at war and the depiction of the aftermath of such, we can draw a very recent parallel. The military recently changed a previous policy at Dover Air Force Base regarding the photographic recording of incoming American casualties. Earlier policy had dictated that the depiction of the American fallen intruded upon the privacy of the families of these service-members and therefore would be forbidden. This policy was changed to allow for more open documentation of the costs of war. However, owing to the sensitive nature of grief, an important restriction was imposed. The press is free to photograph the incoming fallen at Dover now, and even to publish those photos. However, this can only be done with the express permission of the family of the deceased service-member. The First Amendment need to freely document the news of the world is upheld while protecting the rights of the families to grieve in whatever manner they are most comfortable with. Grief is an innately personal and private experience. Not everyone reacts the same to life-altering events such as the loss of a son, daughter, husband or wife. While some may accept or even encourage a public record of their family’s loss as an important reminder of the high cost of freedom, for others this is too much to bear, and they must hold their loved ones close, too close to share with the outside world. Neither is an improper response, and the regulations and safeguards put in place provide a solution protecting both, which is worthy of Solomon himself. Therein lies the lesson that AP could have applied in the case of Joshua Bernard. Not only did family members not express permission to publish the photo, they explicitly stated that such an act would be too much to bear. They stated in unequivocal terms that to publish such photos would not respect the sacrifices of their son, but rather be disrespectful to his memory. Yet AP, in its wisdom decided that it was the better arbiter of respect for the fallen Marine, disregarded the express wishes of his family, and published a picture so that the public could gain a more accurate picture of the real costs of war. Is the cost of war so nebulous that the people of the world need reminding that men and women die during conflict? Does this one photo of a fallen Marine in his last agony somehow express a fundamental truth necessary to understanding the war in Afghanistan? Are we more enlightened to see this photo and “… [See] the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is…”? Could this have been shown through another photo, previous or future, which showed a dying soldier, yet bore the blessings of the bereaved family? I do not discount the merits of war photography; the images of such artists as Matthew Brady, Margaret Bourke-White, and Robert Capa have long immortalized the terror and sacrifice that is war. Stark images of suffering during conflict underline all the more the sacrifices made by our nation’s veterans. I do not discount the importance of documenting the world, the need for reporting to be willing to illuminate truth, to be honest and forthright and unflinching from hard realities that must be faced. I merely see no purpose that could have been advanced by the release of this one photograph over the wishes of the family. I see no great Truth that has been revealed to us at the cost of trampling upon these people in their terrible time of need. I wish that AP could have been more consistent in its respect for the parties involved. I wish that the needs of the grieving family of one of our nation’s brave military members had been afforded as much gravity as the needs of The New York Times. I wish that families did not have to be confronted with hard choices about the memory of their fallen children. I wish a lot of things. Editors at The Associated Press do not have to honor those wishes; they have shown quite clearly that they may pick and choose whose wishes they honor at their journalistic whim.
Posted in the burner | 47 comments
« Previous story
Next story »


* To comment without a Facebook account, please scroll to the bottom.


As a Vietnam/Cambodian combat veteran (101st.Airborne Division 1969-'70) and a retired FDNY Paramedic who pulled up as the second Tower came down and one who lost a cousin on Rescue 3 I was interested in looking at the photo of the fallen Marine brother after hearing the up roar. First; I've seen worse scenes in pedestrian verses car on the streets of New York than that photo portrayed. After being betrayed by our government then the American people after Vietnam call me cynical but the only disgusting things about the picture are:
1.) This Marine as well as other brothers and sisters are there 8 years after 9/11
2.) That the government does not want the American public to see the cost; American cost of 'The Insane Bush War.'
3.) The sickest and most disgusting perversion is that American parents wrapped in the illusion that their child died "protecting America" when in fact bin Laden is not in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We did not go there to nation build; we 'supposedly' went there to get bin Laden.
If people really wanted to honor this American brother and hero they would hold Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld accountable for every life lost or crippled under the illusion of responding to the 9/11 attacks while lying to us. Next hold President Obama responsible for ending the 'nation building' in Afghanistan where there is no nation just a puppet government (Like South Vietnam) and only tribes who do not know nor care about democracy.
Finally; educate yourself concerning the "disaster capitalism complex' which has replaced the 'military industrial complex' in this country. Read _The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein and understand once and for all why our most precious treasure; our youth are squandered away in wars all over the planet in the name of 'Defending America.' Learn why people of other nations really hate us, and it is not because we 'are free.' Once you become educated and take responsibility for your citizenship, only then will you honor this Marine and all others who every moment of every day stand ready to give their all for each of us. God bless each and everyone of these precious treasures and God have mercy on us for what we have allowed to happen to our nation over the last thirty years.

[...] The Burn Pit, MOTHAX discusses LCPL Joshua Bernard in relation to the rescue of New York Times’ reporter [...]

I think that this post is disingenuous because of a few incorrect assumptions.

First, that the playing field is level-that the two stories are equal. This is not the case. In the first case, information about the kidnapping was kept secret to save the life of someone who had not yet been killed . In the second, the servicemember had already been killed . In the first situation, the restraint on publication was to save someone from harm's way-in the second, that was simply not possible anymore.

The other is that the wishes of the family represents the wishes of the servicemember. This is not accurate. People and families are not necessarily unified in their beliefs. Were I to have fallen in a hostile zone, I doubt that my family would have even begun to know what I would have wanted, and whether I would have wanted war photography of the event to surface. It's not exactly the sort of thing one puts into one's will.

I also question why the family's wishes elevate to holy status in some cases, but not others. There are families of fallen servicemembers who have been explicitly anti- the Iraq conflict. They have used the images of their fallen children and spouses on occasion in a way they thought would best serve those servicemember's memory. And in many cases, they have been condemned and reviled. No one has said that their wishes should be respected, as the grieving family.

Why, indeed, the double standard...but I am not sure the double standard I see is the one that you do.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 09/10/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.

Just so we're clear, AS, what you're saying is that no consideration to the surviving family be paid by the media, inasmuch as it relates to the deceased's political views? And further, shouldn't the default position be in favor of the family's wishes if the deceased hasn't made their desires known? As far as a double-standard is concerned, I'll admit that I usually question the motivations of those who use the death of a fallen servicemember as an opportunity to rail against the institutions their soldier/Marine swore an oath to serve. I'm biased, and I admit it freely, which ironically I don't see a similar admission on the other side. I wonder why? Could it be that the message isn't quite as


Army Sergeant I think that your post is disingenuous because of an incorrect assumption.

CPL Bernard was not already dead in that picture. He was bleeding out in agony.

Are you sure you're an NCO? Cause you seem more like a POS REMF w/ no leadership skills.

"The other is that the wishes of the family represents the wishes of the servicemember. This is not accurate."

If the AP thought that was true, why did they even bother to ask?
Also, then, why is a doc allowed to shut down the machines on a serviceman's life support gear (or on a civilian's) only on the "wishes of the family" if they decide he's too far gone?

If this had happened in my Infantry Company in Nam I can assure you the camera and film would never had seen the light of day again!

Garry Owen...Could not have said it better myself; and as I'm a "male chauvinist pig", I don't think what is probably a bleeding heart female "reporter" should even be close enough to combat to take a picture; but that's just my humble opinion.

Gary, I totaly agree with your comment. I too served in Nam. I too would have destroyed the camera and the film. Regarding AS. You can not be an NCO. A true NCO. The families wish's should be honored and the AP should be ashamed for not honoring them.

Addionally to my last. AS you can not be a true NCO. As if you were you would not defend the AP. You would and should defend the wishes of the family. Shame on you.

with nods to you, Gary Owen - we ate much of the same dirt... the press has never been a friend of the soldier (airman, marine, sailor...). there's no money in that, and, larger still - it just don't sell the politics of the owner... we all know that. what troubles me more than anything is how that "journalist" could watch my soldier (son, nephew, brother-in-arms) bleed out and do absolutely nothing about it... god that REALLY pisses me off! friggin' bitch. i hope she rots in hell...

Army Sergeant sounds like an AP flunky or plant. I agree fully with Gary, Ron, and especially Chuck.

AS is a real soldier, she's just a bit misguided. She's a close friend, but our politics and thought processes are entirely different.
(She's an anti-war activist)

REPORTERS ALL SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Since VietNam and until now, they are a bunch of liberal sensationalists, with no sense of values, emotions and have no right to put it all out there. It was the Press that turned the public against us in VietNam, and ever since. When our campaign began in Somalia, I understand that when our forces hit the beaches under cover of early morning darkness, the flash of reporters' cameras were countless. Had I been a member of one of those combat teams, I would have seen it as ENEMY GUNFIRE FLASH, AND OPENED UP ON THEM WITHOUT HESITATION!!!!!!!! Embedded journalists are a different story, but these lousey scumbags should be Fragged upon arrival!!!!!!!! Freedom of the press does not guarantee these bastards the unlimited right to print graphic events that hurt the families of those lost. I personally doubt that any of them have ever been in combat. They couldn't handle it. My heart goes out to the families of all of those lost. I was a Combat Medic in VietNam ffrom 1966 to 1968. I take it very personally to the point of tears everytime I hear of one of our young heroes giving his life for our cause. Whether you agree with it or not, you ALWAYS STAND BEHIND OUR FORCES!! By the way, my Son is deploying to Afghanistan in a few months, so I too, have a personal stake in this. As the Gordons of Scotland declare.....Bydand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go tell it on the mountain in Afghanistan, Julie Jacobson!!!!!!!!!!!!!! May you remain there forever!!!! You're Heartless!!!!!!!

garry owen said it all. he is one of my 1st cav. brothers

The Assoicated Press was wrong. There where other war time pictures that were unecessary. There is a picture in Life Magazine of a soldier being hit by enemy fire, this too was a picture that probably hurt the family of the soldier.
The accident photographs of the Princess Diana also were in bad taste. The have in common that they were made and published by yellow journalists who have not sensitivity or intelligence. I condemn them.


I think that it should be up to each individual reporter to decide whether or not to take family wishes into account. This happens on both sides, and it gets even messier when one parent wants one thing and the other wants another (which I've also seen). I would point out though that the institution we swore to serve is the United States and the Constitution-which is bigger and grander than any particular singular foreign policy.

InfantryJJ: By the time the AP had to make the decision on whether or not to run the picture, he was already dead. Tragically dead, but dead.

Spade: I'm not sure if you've served or not, so I'm going to err on the side of caution: I think things may have changed since you served. Currently, life support is allowed to be shut down on the wishes of a servicemember with a "living will" even if it is in opposition to the wishes of the family. I'm not sure when they started doing them. I know I myself have one, so that my family won't have to watch me hang on if I ever become a vegetable.

Ron Jackson: You may be a self-proclaimed "male chauvinist pig", but if you believe in our country and our military (as I would hope you might, especially being on an American Legion blog), you must understand that our military currently has thousands of women serving, and many of them are helping to keep the country you (hopefully) are a member of safe from things that go bump in the night. This isn't the seventies-it's not okay to be a male chauvinist who hopes all women stay away from combat zones any more.

Signal CSM:
It's easy to talk in generalities: like "The press has never been the friend of the servicemember". However, I think that does a disservice to a lot of excellent journalists who have risked their lives, without weapons, under fire, to try to get the story of what was happening to the public. War correspondents in particular have a long and glorious history. War photographers in particular have documented instances of the American spirit in ways that no one else could have. What about Joe Rosenthal, who took the Iwo Jima picture?

army sergeant,
Get a new job. You're a disgrace to the uniform.

I agree with all that state the news media has been a thorn in the side of all military. In my opimion they have never, with a few exceptions, been friends of the soldier since the inception of the Vietnam War. From the sensationalism of all major conflicts during Vietnam, to include the "Time" magazine reporter who highlighted the Cav's I&I Center in An Khe, to Gerraldo Rivera who gave actual mission locations and "confidential" information during the Iraq War. Thank goodness they kicked him out.

AS: "Currently, life support is allowed to be shut down on the wishes of a servicemember with a “living will” even if it is in opposition to the wishes of the family."

And in the absence of a living will what happens?
The only way your "living will" thought works is if the soldier left a "living will" saying "it's cool if the press runs a photo of me dying". Only that would be similar to "you can shut down my life support" in a living will. In the absence of information the family decides. Even you know that.

But then again, I'm personally biased against journalists. I also find it interesting that the AP and others in the Press had no problem running this but I remember when they refused to release 9/11 photos because they media organizations decided they would be inflammatory.

The NYT has become a public affairs arm of the terrorists. Maybe we should treat them as such and send them all to Gitmo. Those who founded this once great paper are surely rolling over in thier graves right now.


You know, you talk about that, but I've actually been wondering for a while if there is a better way to handle the photography of soldiers. This has been a question with returning caskets to Dover, this has been a problem with media presence at funerals. It wouldn't be that hard to add it to the interminable list of things you have to check off pre-deployment. That would solve these questions once and for all. Of course, it would really only be a moral imperative anyway-DoD photography is open-access, photographers are allowed to run photos of anything they consider "newsworthy", but it would solve once and for all the issue of "Did the servicemember want this".

I am attempting to boycott the AP entirely. I am ridding myself of anything that brings the AP a revenue stream. This photo release has to be the most disgusting thing I have ever heard. Maybe we should all show up and take photos of the next family member of that reporter is dying and then post them in an article for a buck.

And you AS, I have followed your posts on TAH for a while and always thought you were a decent personh with differing views. Now you turn my stomach, you should immediately go to your CO's office and turn in your stripes. You have no business in the NCO Corp, you obviously have no dedication to the lower enlisted if their family's pain can benefit your side's agenda.

"but it would solve once and for all the issue of “Did the servicemember want this”."

Yes, it would.

But in the absence of that all we have is the family members. Which the AP chose to ignore. If they had felt strongly in open access they never would've asked in the first place. And either way it is still a dick move.

Horrors of war are real, some can report w/respect and dignity, and most cannot. I have read rules regarding being embedded were broken by releasing that photo. This woman was looking for her pulitzer plain and simple. Personally I hope if she goes back into a combat zone she gets fragged.
Where are the photos of the Taliban chopping heads and pouring acid on young girls? Kinda biased and one sided to show only Americans don't you think? I mean really, let's see it all Ms. Jacobson.

Nothing will change until the military starts kicking them out of the war zone for bad behavior, not only did the AP blow off the father's request, they blew off Secretary Gates request to not release the photo. Pretty much flipped them both the bird and did it anyway. May they all rot in hell.

I was, in addition to, my chemical warfare duties at Fort Polk, Louisiana a photojournalist for the Post news paper. I was sent to cover a wedding of all things and took pictures for P.A.O. I turned them in and was told the next day that they could use the story, but not the pictures. I never got the pictures back and was wondering why my pictures were not used. The weekend after my photo shoot there was a fire near the front gate of Fort Polk which turned out to be the kkk burning a cross. This was early 1984 and we still could not publish photos of a married couple when one was black and one white. The pictures of the soldier dying should have been pulled out of respect for the family members if no one else.

After reading all of the post on this page I am sickened by the fact that an Army Sergeant (AS) is judging a family because their wishes were to keep their sons dying moments private. I have never seen a photo graph of any celebrity who has been in the hospital as they died published, for that matter I can not recall there ever being allowed a photo journalist allowed in the same room unless it were the wishes of the dying individual or their family, why is this AS? AS, what wounds of significance have you taken for this country? I ask because I have sacrificed much and at one time had a story written for publication that was not done to please the government or compliment their agenda, it was of medical malpractice in the military and how it has crippled many a veteran without need, but due to sheer negligence. Uncle Sam had the story silenced the evening before it was to be published, could it be because I bleed to death internally due to negligence? The point is, only the sensationalized stories that support the agendas of giants like AP and the US government are going to get the notice they want. If the, meaning the photo journalist, AP, and Government, wanted to get their point across, all they needed to do was photograph the scene after Marine LCPL Bernard had been removed. I am sure there was plenty of blood and carnage to photograph and any good journalist could have gotten their story across if it where written well. They did not need to publicize a heroe's death. AS, you are suppose to be a leader of troops, what have you done to their morale? What have you done to increase the morale of their troops by supporting this outrageous photo? Let them see the pain and suffering they inflicted. Let them gain courage from this photo. Who's side are you on? Who's lives have you endangered because of your stand? Your stripes should be removed as OIF 3 suggested. Perhaps you should think carefully about the stand you take next time and think of the implications of your decisions. I do not believe you are fit to be a leader in our forces.

Thank you to those of you who stand in support of the family. The government is here to serve the people, we swear to serve the government, and the family are the people so we serve the families of our fallen heroes, not the agendas of journalism. What happen to our rights as stated in our Constitution and Admendments as individuals?

You certainly said it all! I also guarantee AS will have an answer to justify her belief; she good at justification. I personally believe she's a ringer for the AP.

From an ex military person-This photo of the dying Marine was a shameful disgrace.I being an amateur photographer,would never have have taken this photo!

I check here every few days to see what the latest and greatest opinions are here. Army Sgt, whoever or whatever you are, you need to crawl back under that rock you came out from under, and take Jane the journalist with you. I hope and pray that My Son, who is about to deploy to Assganistan, never has to experience what this young Marine had to endure under your camera's DISGRACEFUL EYE. but if he has to give his all, I hope that he has enough coherence to pick up his weapon and show you the effective result of HIS "Flash", so as to reverse the traumatic impact upon YOUR family................BYDAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First, I am going to refrain from publishing my military experiances, as the power of my statement should be enough. Not saying that one's experiance isnt important but at times it seems we're almost seeing a pissing contest on who saw what and that's why their point matters.

Plain and simple, the photo should not have been displayed. No one should have to bear the burden of seeing such an image, and though many of us have made the decision to put on our uniforms and see such things and perform actions that inflict the same measure on our enemies - we do so to protect our nation from the reality of war. Sure, Mr. Schrang, there have been more grizzly images from car wrecks, war movies and the like but this is different. It is not the wounds that make the photograph a poor choice for publishing; it is the reality that it is a documentation of the final moments of a young American Marine who has made the Ultimate Sacrifice. What should have been in news papers as a written story about the life of this Marine, his final moments with his brothers in arms and a service picture would have justified the heroism, patriotism and sacrifice.

We can argue for years about the wishes of this Marine and how he would feel about his final moments being captured and released. I will digress to say that I once handled the surveillance camera footage of a SM that documented his final moments prior to suicide on film; something we refused to release to the family despite it's not being graphic. People should not be remembered by how horrifically they die, but rather, the great things they did in life. It is the same reason we have open and closed caskets.

Reporters/Photojournalists in the field are in a powerful position - they can risk the safety of a unit or they can tell of the amazing heroism of that same unit. They must remember that we as Soldiers (sailors, airmen and marines) have volunteered to see these horrible things - but the public has not. In this instance the photograph was not published to remember a fallen Marine - it was published to show the "nature of war".

I know personally that at the end of the day, I would not mind my own final moments captured on film, but they would be for my family, and them alone. For all the Marines that were there that day they don't need a picture to remember that moment - they will always remember. The American Public was not there, they have no reason to remember his final moments - all they must know is that his were there, doing his job - defending America (And that means absolutely ZERO politics are involved).

The AP should publish an appology and an appology from the photographer, perhaps print a story mentioning his heroism, and aside from pull the photo from online sources close the issue and let the family mourn in peace.

The United States has not won a war since the advent of television. The bleeding heart liberals won't allow it to happen. They are not interested in how the enemy treats us, only how we treat the enemy. Every picture released from Iraq shows what we do, but none show the torment our POWs go through. Our Soldiers get prosecuted and theirs get honored. As long as the news media is on the battle field, we will never win!!!!!!!

As a former combat vet ( Viet-Nam) I feel this behaviour was unexcalled for ,to hurt the family of thier loved one dying is beyoud belief bad enough to have him die but to have to see a picture of it goes beyond belief
The media is always out for the story . We were notified of our sons death at 0600 on a Sturday at 1000 the same day as we sat in shock in our living room there was a knock on the door my wife answered it to find a camera stuck in her face by a news team asking how do you feel about your son dieing in this conflict she shut the door and asked what was that looking out our upstairs window the news vans , buses and semi trailers strtched for a half a mile east and west of our drive way down the dirt road behind the house and setting up telophoto lens on the hill east of our home.
I stood for over tp hours in my drive way in a security uniform preventing them from harassing my family luckyy they didnt releaze who I was, after that our sheriffs dept had deputies there to help
All we were was a news story now they dont even print the names but do the number count of Viet Nam
so I feel this action was a disgrace to the family his memory and that someone has to be held accountable for it

RANGERS LEAD THE WAY Donn Edmunds Jonn J Edmunds KIA 19 Oct 2001 3rd Bat 75th Ranger Reg

The article about the marine offended me to the fullest. As a vetran of Viet Nam and Cambodia, a Medic I had a boy die in my arms. Had that photographer published a picture of that would have possibly pushed me over the very fine edge we all walked over there. My CO at the time had to write a letter to the boys parents and I know it tore him apart to do that. I know because I also wrote a letter to make sure they knew their son had not died alone.
This curley has his own agenda. Did he ever serve? I very much doubt it. He can spout off about the constitution all he wants but I would be willing to bet he came from the 'Chaney' form of patriotism. That where those people dont serve but want you to provide your son for their ambisions.
It was a disgusting show of power from a man who has no scruples,moral values,or any pride for the kids who give their lives.

You don`t do this kind of thing. You ask for everything in this great country without the full comprehension of what it takes to have it to include security and we go freely to keep everyone safe in this country and this is the payback I DONT THINK SO IT WAS ABSOLUTELY IN THE POOREST TASTE IMAGINABLE. AP was wrong to produce that image for anyone especially the family. I am deeply sad and my prayers go out to the family and loved ones. SEMPER FI - "ALWAYS FAITHFUL" apparently AP don`t know what that truly means

First Of All, let me commend your clearness on this subject. I am not an expert on this topic, but after registering your article, my understanding has developed well. Please permit me to take hold of your rss feed to stay in touch with any potential updates. Solid job and will pass it on to supporters and my online readers.

Informative post! I looked around for this... I located your site! :) Anyway, would you mind if I placed a backlink from my blog site to your web site?

Wow man, that is extremely nice information, appreciated.

I really like your site and i really appreciate the excellent quality content you are posting here for free for your online readers. Can you tell us which blog platform you are using?

I guess I will have to move out of the coast because of negligence of a company. Sad period in my life...

I spy with my little eye, something starting with D :)

Dont you just love it when you spent 10 minutes on a comment, and with one stroke of the backbutton all your hard work is gone? sigh...

While tasteless and disgusting, this photo has every right to be published. We have a freedom of press, freedom of speech.

I served my country to preserve our rights, though I may not agree with the content.

Let us remember, AP newspaper is not interested in telling a story, they are interested in selling newspapers..........

There is an city legend that over thirty % of all kids aren't born of their appointed father; instead, they're the items of adultery. Due to the fact of this long-standing myth, the notion of a paternity test continues to be a persistent 1 inside the minds of the public. Right here, we'll explain what a paternity check in fact is and solution queries on the way it functions to prove who fathered the child.

Why A Paternity Check:

Some query why this check is known as a 'paternity'. The answer is fairly easy: except if the mother was impregnated through an egg donation, it's apparent that she will be the mom. The father, however, might be anyone--that is why youngsters are examined towards his DNA and not hers.

How Does A Paternity Test Work:

Although you can find other techniques, DNA testing may be the easiest--and most effective--way to test a kid for paternity.

DNA is special for each and every person but, when sexual reproduction occurs, an embryo is produced. That embryo is formed by taking genetic materials from each parents to produce a new string of DNA.

To prove who is the father, 1 only needs to look at the child's DNA pattern. In it, you will locate evidence of the father's special characteristics. Particular sequences will be accessible, and these will demonstrate whose characteristics handed on.

Can be a Paternity Check Accurate:

Yes. Unless the case involves a twin brother, DNA really should effortlessly be able to tell who fathered the kid. The check is correct.

Is really a Paternity Check Required:

This is the grey area with the topic. A father's correct to understand if a child is his is not questioned; what exactly is questioned, nevertheless, will be the consequences on the child. Typically, situations of fathers looking for parental rights to kids who have with their moms and one more guy who they look at as their father surface. These cases are long, drawn-out battles of simple parental rights as opposed to simple child welfare. The father may possibly argue that, since it was he who actually created the kid, he ought to have the best to be existing in their lifestyle. Others would argue, nonetheless, that a youngster inside a stable property need to not be forced to possess two fathers and, therefore, two lives.

It is this heated discussion which has divided numerous, and left the rest unsure. Each and every case is different and should be examined as special, which can make setting precedent virtually unattainable.

To possess a paternity test is always to open up an excellent offer of consequences--not just for the child, but for your parents. It is not a straightforward make a difference, or one that needs to be made a decision too quickly. These assessments may possibly be taken without having consent, but there is a law in the Uk that is demanding that no check be given without having the express understanding of all concerned. This is to safeguard households.

A paternity check is definitely an successful way to learn who fathered a little one, but it can also be an efficient approach to cause a child grief. It should be approached with caution.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Have a tip for us? A link that should appear here? Contact us.
News from the World of Military and Veterans Issues. Iraq and A-Stan in parenthesis reflects that the author is currently deployed to that theater.