Let me begin with the most powerful disclaimer I can muster: I not only do not justify, condone or in any way try to lessen the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, but were it within my power I would gladly turn the American soldiers and private contractors responsible for the abuse and the photographs over to the Iraqi people for justice. They should be tried for war crimes before an international tribunal at the very least, though we all know of course that they won’t. I am ashamed as an American for what happened, I am ashamed of the Bush administration for bringing into existence the infrastructure that bred this disgrace, and I feel that Arab rage in this matter is justified (and I am somebody who was in favor of the invasion of Iraq).
The significance of the sexual abuse on Muslim men cannot be overestimated. In a culture where homosexuality is seen as such an abominable offense that homosexuals are publicly beheaded, where women are held as so subservient to men they are not allowed to drive cars, and where Americans are seen as so demonic that the death of their civilians is cheered in the streets (and make no mistake: I think all of these conditions are barbaric, but they exist nonetheless), photos are spread of Muslim men being sexually humiliated and forced to simulate homosexual acts in front of female white Christian guards. All of this is done while a “born again” president whose cozying to the Christian right would allow even the most simple minded Arab propagandist to claim “Holy War” as a justification for his invasion refuses to apologize (there is a major difference in acknowledging the atrocity and apologizing for it). I hope to hell and back that I am wrong, but I feel that these images are going to be the cause of hundreds if not thousands of deaths from newly energized Muslim terrorists and the moderates who have joined them in horror over the torture and complete disregard for- in fact the complete desecration of- their most sacred beliefs. This story sickens me more than any news story since September 11, 2001.
Okay, so I hope I’ve made the point that I’m not a Bush apologist and I’m not trying to dismiss the incident as “misunderstanding” or as an “all fair in war” matter. That said…
This images that are being used even as I type this to recruit more Muslim soldiers who could well be responsible for American deaths were first broadcast by the infotainment program 60 Minutes 2. Since that time the images have been broadcast around the world and are being used by Muslim propagandists even as I type this to recruit more soldiers for a cause that could well result in the deaths of many Americans and their allies and are encouraging hatred of America even among non Muslim nations. I don’t dispute 60 Minutes’ Constitutional right to broadcast these photographs, but do you believe that, considering the visceral hatred of Americans that it would cause and the use the photographs were absolutely assured to have among extremely violent anti-American terrorists and guerillas AND the fact that it is possible the photographs would not have been available without 60 Minutes actions, that they acted amorally by proceeding with the broadcast?
Unlikely, if not completely impossible, if what I’ve read so far is any indication. I got the strong impression that the DoD asked 60 Minutes to delay their broadcast for a couple of weeks pending wrap-up of their investigations, and that 60 Minutes decided to go ahead when they (and this is the key point) heard that other news sources were planning to run their own versions of the story.
Basically, I just don’t see how this can be true. Without that point, the rest sort of follows.
Another point: where did 60 Minutes get the photos from? That makes quite a bit of difference in rather obvious ways.
No. The purpose of news and journalism is (supposed to be) to report the news, expose the truth, and shine a light where there is darkness. Just because the news may cause problems for groups that the news outlet is aligned with is no reason to shirk from reporting it.
Or, look at it from another matter: would it be better if 60 Minutes showed the photos, or if Al Jazeera did an expose showing how CBS was aware of the abuses and supressed it to please the White House?
The responsibility of 60 minutes is to the American public, not as a tool for American politics, even if they benefit us across the world. One of the great benefits of having a free press is that politicians know they need to keep, or at least try to keep, their noses clean. This is along the same lines as a court letting an obviously guilty serial killer go free because the police made a very unlawful search. We as a nation have decided that the long term good of ensuring that the police are held accountable and our rights are held sacred (or that the press remain free and even obligated to let us know what is going on) is greater than the short term good of putting away one murderer (or making us look better to the world).
Yes, this case is going to result in huge animosity to us and perhaps the death of many soldiers, or even civilians, but we have decided that is acceptable in order to preserve what those soldiers are fighting for.
Jesus H. Keerist!!! Hasn’t everyone learned by this time that you cannot, do you hear that? cannot keep such secrets. Nor can you keep secret the fact that you knew about it but tried to keep it secret.
It would have been much worse for the news outlets not to have published because it would have torpedoed any attempt by the US media to claim to be watchdogs when Al Jazeera, or some other mid East organization broke the story.
Let’s get into the real world and stop trying to cover up piles os shit. It doesn’t work.
There are a lot of things that a CEO (or President) should know but that are often kept from them by underlings. When they are found out (and assuming the information withheld is significant), then heads need to roll. If Bush doesn’t do this, then his credibility will sink even lower. Regardless of what was known or not known, the top guy in the organization is ultimately responsible, either for covering up the information or for not choosing the right people to work for him.
Al Jezeera has been showing pictures of dead Iraqis, including women and children, since the war started. It’s only us Americans who are sheltered from the visual images of this war.
If the military doesn’t want pictures of soldiers abusing prisoners to be publicized, the answer is simple: don’t let the soldiers abuse prisoners of war. It would have been unconscionable for 60 Minutes to suppress the pictures. If the United States wants to be the “shining city on the hill” as Reagan called it, then it should always act as though the whole world is watching.
So they shouldn’t announce that WMD haven’t been found either ? That certainly helped boost AQ recruitment.
They shouldn’t point out that the UN didn’t endorse the invasion either. Or they could lie about how many were in the “coalition”.
Finally they should say Saddam used shredders with prisoner… oh wait… they did say that. Yellow cake… Money for terrorists… oh darn… these have all be done.
Actually I agree with these answers. Here’s another question that’s related, though:
Suppose you were in the Bush Administration (assuming that in fact you aren’t) and you have serious authority over military personnel and the invasion force. It is several weeks ago and you have just learned of this scandal.
Would it be unethical and unconstitutional to immediately seize all known copies of photographs and video documentation of this travesty so that it is never available for public view and to keep it completely out of the media so that the images will never be able to be used for propaganda (remember- to suppress this early could more than avoid international embarassment but could probably save lives), or would you consider that a wise and prudent course justified in the name of national and personal security? (Assume that in so doing you have also corrected the situation at the prison and made sure that none of the guards will ever be promoted or put in any position of authority ever again [and if possible that they are beaten like rented mules].)
This is the one I’m really debating. Weighing all ethical matters and possible consequences, I have to say that I would have squelched it when there was time strictly to avoid the disaster this is going to cause in the Arab world. Would you?
No, because one of the fundamental aspects of a truly free society is a transparent government. Regardless of the potential consequences, it is imperative that a government release all possible information about its actions so that the people it governs can have the fullest confidence in it. Witholding secrets creates a climate of distrust and fear, and I somehow doubt most people in Western Democracies want to move to Myanmar. It is particularly important to reveal the worst of atrocities, because someone somewhere knows about them and the truth will get out eventually. Speaking to the event from the beginning has a lot more integrity than weaseling out some lame explanation once backed into a corner sometime down the road.
If you saw the wife of your best friend with another man, and knew that she was cheating on him, would you just cover it up? However you deal with it, I don’t think it would be right to let it continue unabated. Just a thought.
Considering the visceral hatred of Arabs that it would cause, shouldn’t the TV channels have refrained from broadcasting footages of the 9/11 attacks and informations about the culprits?
I would have squelched it. All involved US soldiers would have been moved to different locations, given very dangerous missions or retired from active service. All available copies of the pictures would be destroyed, a policy of frightening prisoners with faked pictures would be created, with the faked pictures being created similar to the real pictures. That would allow any future surfacing of missed pictures to be easily shown to be fakes. The Red Cross issues with the running of the Prison would be used as justification for the complete reorganisation of the prison system in Iraq and for the heads that rolled from the previous prison administration. I would also do everything possible to silence any Iraqis Identifiable from the images.
Then again I would also have planted evidence of WMD’s in Iraq within the first 48hours of taking over the capital city.
This is immoral, I believe was is immoral. I think once the decision to go to war is taken, it is the responsibility of those with authority to ensure that the war is finished as quickly as possible with minimum casualties, and minimum repercussions, even if that requires missinformation and immoral actions.
Well now** Sampiro**, why were you not sickened by the photographs of the Americans who were murdered and summarily drug through dirty Iraqi streets with their mutilated dead bodies being beaten greefully by a gang of cheering Iraqi people ?
Or how about the four American soldiers who were murdered in Iraq yesterday by cowardly Iraqi terrorists basterds? Why aren’t you sickened today?
Is the only thing that sickens you, Sampiro, the cruelity of bullies who commit stupid school boy pranks?
Does anyone else here agree with Sampiro’s sentiments above?
What I think you’re missing, Milum is the essential difference between the stories.
Yes, what happened to those contractors was horrific.
Yes, what happened to those POWs was horrific.
But those POWs were abused by MY people. Members of MY team.
Just like I can be sickened by a man raping a woman as shaming my sex I can be equally shamed by US soldiers torturing POWs because, in a large sense, they’re doing it while representing me.
And that, my friend, sickens me. Whatever I might expect from someone simply as a member of the human race is one thing. What I expect from Americans is another, and higher, thing.
Oh, and speaking as an (Ex) journalist (and still media guy) here.
The rule is pretty much that you can try to suppress information. But good luck succeeding.
And the potential consequences of attempting and failing to suppress a story is almost always worse than the consequences of the initial story. Not only do you take flack from the initial bad pub but the American public hates people who attempt cover ups.