This is an older shot (taken last Oct.) of the Viet Nam Memorial. Now it has some new meaning with the loss of 6 American and 8 British troops. (As a side note - when I shot this image, I had set up a tripod to shoot it - quickly police came and told me I couldn't do that - so I set up a Bogen SuperClamp with a tripod head on the rail of the surrounding fence - to which police said I couldn't do that either - nor could I set a tripod on the grass on the outside of the rail. (I shot this image while mounted on the Superclamp while the officer was "scolding" me)

Somehow, Wolfie, your story makes me very sad and angry. But not really sure how my anger should be directed; likely I'll just remain sad. I lived through the Viet Nam era, and did never really understand how we could abandon something that once seemed so important, including support for those who gave everything. I was touched by the memorial in Washington D.C., knowing what a sacrifice it represents. I did not understand what the first Gulf War accomplished, nor what this current war is supposed to accomplish, only that poor souls are suffering on both sides. If it preserves our freedom to make photographs of a national monument, perhaps it is worth it. But if those freedoms are going away, I guess I'll just remain sad.

To me, the expense of a life, whether it be on "our" side or one "theirs", is a matter of sadness, the fact that the world has come so far technically only seems to prove that we can wage battle more "technically" and more "efficiently" - yes, we can kill with much more efficiency - what an accomplishment. I am not "opposed" to the military actions taking place - nor do I fully support them - I see no other solution given the circumstances. War of any sort is neither glorious nor glamorous - it's just war...killing of people who don't share the same views. The only justification for it is when it will, in the long run, save more lives than it costs -and that's a sad justification.

My brother served in Viet Nam, and so did friends of mine. I was too young at the time. I have friends that may go to Iraq at any time (most of their group have already gone). I support our troups for doing a very difficult job in a difficult place. I do not however support the policies that have taken us there. War is war. It is an ugly business. Never should a soldier have to answer for following orders. Yet someday if there are no weapons of mass destruction, the people giving those orders should answer. I could write a book about this war and all the conflict that goes along with it. But this post is about freedom and freedom of photographers. In an earlier post I described how I was fined for saving a dog jsut because I had 2 cameras around my neck. Now you can't take a photograph of a memorial to our lost heros. yet in the other room my wife is watching network television and live shots are being taken that the reporter says he shouldn't take because it may give away the position of the troops he is with. These corporate networks pay for the oppertunity to "report" these images. Freedom for the individual in this country is slipping away. It is because a few people say that it is better to give up a few civil liberties and be safe than to live in the freedom this country has been built on. What is wrong with that statement? Perhaps it is those words you may remember that were uttered over 200 years ago... "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Benjamin Franklin Magick Michael

I don't know what reports were reaching you guys when this was all kicking off, but over here in the UK all we got was that Bush wanted to kick Saddam's ass because he had his own weapons and that there were 'vaguely possible' links to terrorist groups. (y'know, kinda like that v.v.large American company that allegedly supports the IRA?!?) Anyways, next thing we know Blair is sticking his head so far up Bush's ass that Bush should look pregnant by now, and we're pushing to kill people. Small wonder that 99% of the people I know are against the war, we've seen no positive justification for it. I recently made a similarity between someone disliking a neighbour for his views, the way he treats his family etc, and the law being there to stop them going down to his house and kicking his ass all over for no reason..... that is EXACTLY how this war seems.... when the cold war was on with Russia, the US didn't try ploughing in there and stopping them making nukes by force, did it? No - 2 reasons; 1. Russia had enough power to fight back with enough force to cause damage. 2. Russia didn't have the readily available oil reserves like Iraq. All I can say is, have any of you ever seen an injured animal forced into a corner? They fight like hell to get free and don't give a damn about what get's damaged in the process. I'm honestly frightened for the consequences of backing Saddam into that corner...... (",)

Getting back on topic.....the image is beautiful. I've been there and although I knew no one on that wall, it brought tears to my eyes. What I don't understand is why they will not allow tripods to be used?

I have heard the samething about shooting pictures of the White house & the Lincoln memorial from a friend of mines who treid to use a tripod there and almost got his ass arrested and or shot... I guess they have a security messure such as a snipers tripod of some sort to make a direct hit. But thats just my guess.

last sunday i went to the cambrige american cemetary and shot a few pictures there (will post a one or two soon). the guy there said it was ok to take a picture of anything there as long as i did not take pictures of the names on the graves. no security guys there.