The press has not been allowed to take photographs of the returning caskets of war dead since 1981, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced last Thursday the ban on this practice will be reversed.
But not without some complications.
"My conclusion was we should not presume to make the decision for the families," Gates said, announcing that the decision to allow photography at the arrivals will lie in the hands of the soldiers' families.
This creates problems, and we encountered some of these problems in our editorial board meeting discussing this issue.
The newspaper side of us viewed the previous ban as censorship, and in principle we are not a fan of it.
But those of us with relatives in the military can empathize with those not keen on the reversal.
The "military family" is not a demographic one can sum up neatly and make assumptions about easily.
They (we) are all different, and the opinions on this issue from within this demographic vary greatly.
While there are those of us who think this should be a private matter consisting solely of loved ones, there are others who think they may find comfort in allowing the world to witness the results of a loved one's sacrifice.
One of the fears of many is the possibility of the image of their loved one's casket being utilized as a political tool.
It would be silly to think this could not happen, but we think it would probably be safe to say that those publications or other media outlets who would use an image like this in a distasteful manner would feel the wrath of their readers in some way, whether by a cancellation of subscriptions or a large drop in advertising.
There will be a large amount of pressure on publications to use these images responsibly.
Gates' announcement did not go into detail as to how they would implement the familial consent element of the policy, and there are a couple questions we hope the Defense Department will answer soon.
What will be done in cases where a family is divided on the issue?
Who will make the call for the family with the mom who wants the whole world to grieve with her and the father who just wants to be with his family, or vice versa?
Sometimes the coffins are unloaded together, and from a distance they are indistinguishable.
If 20 coffins are unloaded at once, and 19 families are fine with photography, how will they placate the one family who would rather not be included?
One possible solution to the both questions would be to place the choice directly into the hands of the members of the armed services.
Ask them how would they like to arrive home should something happen to them?
This would no doubt be a rather morbid conversation, but to be frank, war is morbid.
Presumably they would discuss this decision with their families, so their input would be heard, but ultimately it should be their decision.
It would be their body in that casket, and they should have the right to determine what happens to it.
Readers who would like to familiarize themselves with the journey a soldier's remains takes on the way home from war should track down a story called "The Things That Carried Him," by Chris Jones.
The story was printed in last May's "Esquire" and chronicles the people involved and the steps taken to bring Sgt. Joe Montgomery home from Iraq.
No matter how you feel about the war, the way the military treats the remains of the people who fight it will make you proud.
We will link to it from this editorial on theplainsman.com as soon as our Web site is back up, but it is not hard to find if you decide to Google it.
We would like to hear from our students who are serving or have served in the military in regards to this issue.
Let us know what you think, what you liked or did not like about the previous policy and how you see the new policy playing out.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.