« 71: Pistols at Dawn | Main | bitchslap ted rall day, spellcheck version »

On Those Photos: Double Images

Let's stand here in the middle of the road for a moment, where people are rational and thoughts are based in common sense. These photos make me sick. After all our talk about winning hearts and minds, after all our posturing about saving Iraqis from torture and rape, what were these people thinking as they committed these heinous acts? Not only perpetrating the acts, but videotaping them, as if it were some frat boy stunt that would get them laughs at the next keg party. Left or right, Democrat or Republican, the one thing rational people can agree on here is that the people responsible for the torture must be held accountable and be made to pay the full penalty allowed under law, including death should that photo of the dead Iraqi prove to be of a person who died at the hands of these soldiers. I specifically say "under law" because that is what America is about. Due process. Laws. Crimes being punished. What the soldiers in those photos did went against every one of those concepts. They became the enemy. And, if you paid attention to your mother when you were little, you would know that two wrongs do not make a right. In fact, adding wrong to wrong makes everything worse. These men and women, small a group as they may be, have cheapened our efforts in Iraq. They have also committed a form of treason, in that they gave aid and comfort to our enemy by providing them with propaganda material that will fuel Arab hatred towards us for years to come. The result of the photos will be much more than head shaking, finger pointing and "you are just like them" accusations. The result will be heard in the forms of bombs and blasts and many more dead Americans. Should a terrorist attack happen on American soil and these photos are referenced as basis for the attack, then those soldiers will be responsible for the deaths incurred. Should our troops be attacked, ambushed, killed, tortured and their bodies paraded around like party balloons, those soldiers will be responsible. The few moments of juvenile, scornful glee they got from demeaning those Iraqi prisoners will have repurcussions the soldiers never gave thought to. And that's the view from the middle, where sane and reasonable people meet. Should we venture to the far side of the street - go left or right, it doesn't matter - the sanity and reason start to shred. The farther you walk, the less comfortable you feel. On the far left, you have the people who think this torture is a good thing, because it will make Bush's ratings go down. To paraphrase and sum up what the view from this side of the road is: * Yess! Now we can just wait for Kerry's numbers to go up. Bush is so dead! * This is the way all soldiers are. These guys were just stupid enough to tape it. * All those women prisoners are being raped by U.S. soldiers every day. How can we logically conclude anything else? * This is how soldiers have always viewed brown skinned people. * This is worse than anything Saddam ever did. Let's just open our own torture chambers! * The orders to do this stuff came from high up. * They will get away with it because the Bush ass kissers will justify the action and demand that the charges - whatever they may be - be dropped. * This is worse than 9/11. I hope there is another 9/11 just to prove that you reap what you sow * These people are representative of all U.S. and British soldiers. * They were really Halliburton mercenaries. Yep, that's the far left, who look at the tapes and see a moment of victory. Now, let's cross the street again and head over to the far right. To paraphrase and sum up: * There are no bad soldiers, this is made up * It's a conspiracy by the left, someone staged the whole thing to discredit our soldiers * This can't be true, so al Jazeera must have made the whole thing up * They were only doing what the Iraqis did to their own people * The prisoners probably deserved it * Man, I wish I was there to join in * The Arabs made up the whole thing just to have an excuse to terrorize us again * Oh, like Kerry didn't torture people in Vietnam Most people will look at this and say, so what? These are fringe people. Ignore them. But the fringe can no longer be ignored. Thanks to the wonders of the internet and other technological marvels that can spread information faster than you can say Conspiracy!, the fringes are now being heard loud and clear. And if we are hearing them, then the radical Arabs are hearing them. And both sides will add something to their already poisonous mix of hatred, ignorance and violence that has been stirring for years. The far left will give them the strength and encouragement needed to proceed with their jihad, knowing that there are Americans who might very well cheer when their terrorist acts are set in motion. The far right will give them all the ammunition and evidence they need to bolster their beliefs that Americans are egocentric elitists who believe they can do no wrong. The big problem, as I see it, is that nobody is paying attention to us folks here in the middle of the road. Those who seek revenge for these acts of torture will only look to the left or the right for their encouragement and/or evidence. We are Americans and, as thus, we follow American rules, which tend to be civil. There are always going to be a few who won't play by the rules and it's usually those few that get the most press. Of course, this all should get press. The soldiers in those photos should have their faces plastered on the front page of every newspaper around the world. They should be made examples of. And, because we are Americans, they will be found, prosecuted and made to pay for their actions. That's a good thing but, for some, it's not enough. For those who already hated us and now have turned that hatred up a notch, the soldiers pictured in those photos represent all Americans and, as such, America and its people must suffer. And we will. I truly believe that we will. I will, in advance, blame the guilty soldiers for any terrorist attacks that happen here in the near future, just as I will blame them for any ambush or attack our troops suffer today. It doesn't matter whether these attacks had already been planned; I am sure that many Arabs, looking at these photos today, will have a familiar phrase running through their heads today: Faster, please. And the funny thing is, we all suffer. Far left, far right, somewhere in the middle, we all end up victims eventually as long as we keep giving the radical Muslims fuel for their fire. It won't matter whether you stood behind them or railed against them, either way we are pretty much screwed. All of us. We can thank a few bad apples for making the next attack on US troops possible. We can thank the far left for cheering the Arabs on as their hatred rises and we can thank the far right for for their continued denial that there is such a thing as a bad American. We can thank every soldier who took part in the torture session. We can thank the US media for focusing on this in such a way that they make the stench of the guilty men and women permeate the entire armed forces. I abhor what was done to those Iraqi prisoners. But I also abhor what was done to the very same people under Saddam's regime. I abhor the fact that thousands of people have come out of the woodwork to denounce these actions and (rightfully) vilify the soldiers who committed them, but failed to make so much as a peep while Saddam was torturing, killing, maiming and raping. And I abhor those who are justifying the torture and abuse of the Iraq prisoners while lashing out against Saddam's bullies for the very same thing. Look in the mirror, everyone. How many faces do you see?

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On Those Photos: Double Images:

» On the Mistreatment of Iraqi Prisoners from Welcome to Castle Argghhh! The Home Of One Of Jonah's Military Guys.
In the comments to this post I am obliquely called to task by a (I assume) left-wing college student who wants to know where the outrage is over the still unfolding story about the alleged mistreatment of Iraqi prisoner by... [Read More]

» "We are Americans" from sisu
"They were really Halliburton mercenaries," quips Michele of A Small Victory in a Muslim Humiliationgate tour de force: Yep, that's the far left, who look at the tapes and see a moment of victory. Now, let's cross the street again [Read More]

» The Political Bell Curve from Game the World
On a more distanced examination of Michelle's post, I liked the examples of the ideas from both ends of the Left/Right spectrm. The immediate result, the trainling ends of the bell curve to either side, at least the loudest elements of those tails, lar... [Read More]

» Make an Example, With a Proper Trial from Game the World
I am completely in agreement with Michele at A Small Victory. These pictures are going to push far more "heroes" into the fight against us than will be scared off by the idea that they might have these methods used against them. [Read More]

Comments

Great post, Michele. My thoughts have been running along the same lines.

Agreed. My thoughts are also running very much along the same lines:

http://intellectualize.org/archives/004438.html#004438

Extreme right wing, checking in.

I don't think this is some Arabist conspiracy to discredit American troops (as the Arabs have claimed time and time again when the situation is reversed, going so far as to saying 9/11 was arranged by Bush the Mossad). However, I think that the massive uproar and calls for reform and punishment is distracting everyone from asking some very relevant questions.

One very important factor has been forgotten: who they? Is there any word as to who these prisoners actually are? Were they civilians caught jaywalking and looting? Were they Iraqi Army regulars in uniform who surrendered? Were they Saddam's dispersed agents caught lobbing mortars at hotels and setting off car bombs at the Red Cross stations? Are they even Iraqis, or are they Iranian and Syrian mercenaries (for definition of mercenary, don't see Kos.)

If these individuals were formerly commissioned soldiers acting as combatants out of uniform or Iranian/Syrian goons-as-foreign fighters, then they have absolutely no claim to Geneva Conventions protocol. Scream "I am a father with three wives and ten kids at home" all you want, pal, but that's Saddam's (or imam al-Sadr's) cash in your pocket, your fingerprints on the rocket launcher, and that's the rocket embedded in the police station among the various burnt body parts.

The only "who" questions we're hearing are regarding the American soldiers involved, not the prisoners themselves. Yes, a good journalists asks the WhoWhatWhereWhyWhenHow, but they also know that you have to ask them regarding the whole situation to get the whole story.

You make valid points, Laurence. We really don't know anything about the Iraq prisoners. Perhaps the way we look at this story will be different if we know that the prisoner's had killed US soldiers or were part of Saddam's Thug Nation.

Still, it does not exuse the "party atmosphere" I see in those pictures. As representatives of America in a land that is already hostile towards Americans, our soldiers should behave accordingly.

Great post. Just one small point:

You said:

The result of the photos will be much more than head shaking, finger pointing and "you are just like them" accusations. The result will be heard in the forms of bombs and blasts and many more dead Americans. Should a terrorist attack happen on American soil and these photos are referenced as basis for the attack, then those soldiers will be responsible for the deaths incurred. Should our troops be attacked, ambushed, killed, tortured and their bodies paraded around like party balloons, those soldiers will be responsible.

Terrorists were happy to slaughter thousands of Americans, they were happy to torture and parade bodies around like party balloons before these moronic 'interrogators' and their photographs ever appeared.

Terrorists enjoy killing us because they believe our lives are without value, and because many elements in their society tell them it's okay. They also want to take over the world, that goes without saying. Sure, they need a story to tell the media after each attack, and this story will be pure gold. If those photos had never appeared, the next mass slaughter of innocents would be blamed on Guantanamo, Hallburton, those millions of Iraqi children killed by 'US' sanctions - as we know by now, any excuse will do.

Yes, we need to make an example of these idiots, and there needs to be a very thorough investigation. But the only people who are to blame for the actions of terrorists are, as always, the terrorists themselves.

- Oh, well. I thought it would be a small point, but then I went on and on...

Mary, I understand all that and I agree that there will always be that looming of a next terrorist attack, and they will always have something to blame it on, but we need to NOT give them more reasons, and this did.

Full disclosure on the investigation and process of courts martial will help reinforce the point in your third paragraph.

We are a nation of law. We are not perfect. When laws are broken, we collectively restrain, investigate, and if warranted, try, convict and punish. The rights of the defendant are protected under those laws.

It's so important to show the Iraqi people this cornerstone of democracy. Protection against abuse of power, protection of the rights of those charged, that crimes are committed against "the people" collectively, not individuals. And punishment is not at the whim of some brutal despot.

Make it as public as it can reasonably be made.

Mary: This statement makes me groan:

"Yes, we need to make an example of these idiots, and there needs to be a very thorough investigation. But the only people who are to blame for the actions of terrorists are, as always, the terrorists themselves."

NO! No, no, no! That is so not true. How about the people that fund them? How about the people that train them? How about the people who pay to have them indoctrinated in hate at a very young age? How about the people who look the other way when they know who hide them from our troops? How about the people who look the other way when they know terrorists are being hidden in their village and say nothing when the troops march through looking for them?

It's fine to say that only the person who does a specific act is directly responsible for that act, but that's not the only kind of responsibility. Whoever did this was crossing a line that should never have been crossed, not by our troops. The United States doesn't do torture, no matter what international law may or may not say.

Also, a small point: "terrorist" is not the correct label for someone who is resisting an occupying power in their home country. I don't think this incident is that likely to produce more terrorists (on this, I'd say Mary is correct, the people who are motivated to be terrorists hate us anyway), but it's certain to produce more resistance fighters.

Soli..you say: " "terrorist" is not the correct label for someone who is resisting an occupying power in their home country." This statement completely ignores context.

Suppose that the US had fallen under the control of a home-grown fascist dictatorship that behaved in a manner similar to the Saddam regime. And suppose that the British sent a force to liberate us. Now suppose that last-ditch supporters of the fascist regime were killing British troops and their American supporters, and attempting to intimidate anyone from supporting the liberators by doing things like blowing up school buses.

Would those fascist operatives, in your view, be "resistance fighters" or "terrorists?"

I say "terrorists."

A most excellent post; one of the best I've read thus far about this subject.

As for Laurence's comment, no matter who the prisoners are, it still doesn't excuse what those soldiers did. The terrorists do not need any more excuses to attack Americans!

How about the people that fund them? How about the people that train them? How about the people who pay to have them indoctrinated in hate at a very young age?

If you're talking about the states that fund terrorism, (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc.) they are entirely to blame and we should focus our attention on them. I've been saying this for about two and half years. It gets kind of repetitive.

"terrorist" is not the correct label for someone who is resisting an occupying power in their home country

If someone hopes to replace an occupying government with their own oppressive and pre-medieval system of laws, then that person is a terrorist. If someone is 'resisting' an occupying power by blowing up busses full of schoolchildren, by blowing up hundreds of Iraqis on their highest religious holiday, by deliberately targting aid workers and UN employees, then that someone is a 'terrorist'.

The Iraqis should be angry about this, and we need to do a full and very open investigation. Genuine resistance action takes place when people feel powerless - we should allow them to take part in the investigation, and give them some control over the fate of these picture-taking pervs.

That's not going to keep the relatives and friends of the prisoners involved from (understandably) wanting to kill us, and of course the terrorists already have their hate turned up to 11, it won't change them. But a full investigation, with the involvment of the Iraqi government would probably be the right thing to do.

David Foster:

The guys who are blowing up school buses would be terrorists. Blowing up a school bus is not resisting an occupying power. However, ambushing US troops is not blowing up school buses. I don't like it, I'm not saying it's noble or justified, but claiming that it's terrorism is simply ignorant.

I'm not claiming that there are not terrorists right now in Iraq. However, the kind of people who are going to turn to resistance because of incidents like this are not the sort of people who would blow up school buses. Someone who would blow up a school bus is not going to be outraged by torture and depravity (if anything, it would make the school bus bombers hate us less, because it makes us more like them, and that just makes me sick!)

Mary:

"If someone hopes to replace an occupying government with their own oppressive and pre-medieval system of laws, then that person is a terrorist."

No.

"If someone is 'resisting' an occupying power by blowing up busses full of schoolchildren, by blowing up hundreds of Iraqis on their highest religious holiday, by deliberately targting aid workers and UN employees, then that someone is a 'terrorist'."

Yes.

I know that you know there's a difference. Both bad people, but #2 is worse.

Great points, Michele.

While I agree it would be helpful to know what these prisoners are being held for- it really doesn't matter. I doubt they were Enemy Prisoners of War, most likely they are Unpriviledged Combatants. While this gives them somewhat less status, it does NOT allow any of the type of thing that happened. I can't offhand cite the specific sections from the UCMJ, but basically:

Once someone is in your custody you have a duty to protect them from attempts to harm them, or attempts at revenge directed toward them. You are also not allowed to to let anyone pose for a type of photograph that indicates an EPW has been, or is about to be, mistreated. There is an iron-clad case that these regulations were violated, and I have no doubt that the persons responsible will be prosecuted to the full extent of the UCMJ.

I've already heard what will apparently be their "defense". CNN is running a promo for American Morning where they will have one of the accused on, saying that their questions on treatment of prisoners went "unanswered". Really. They had to ask if naked pyramids were okay?

I'm disgusted. But I also know that there are idiots in all walks of life. This will be dealt with, though we do pay a price for it happening. I agree that it would be nice if we could charge them with giving aid and comfort to the enemy- because they surely have.

The only thing that I think is important to remember, is that we ARE dealing with this. Our enemies will use it against us, but they will always find something. What's important is that we send a message to those that would be out friends- that we do not tolerate this kind of behavior.

"If someone hopes to replace an occupying government with their own oppressive and pre-medieval system of laws, then that person is a terrorist."

Yes they are - according to Andre Glucksman.

"what do extremist ideologies like the communism or Nazism of yesteryear and the Islamism of today have in common? After all, they support ostensibly very different ideals – the superior race, mankind united in socialism, the community of Muslim believers (the Umma). Tomorrow, it could be altogether different ideals: some theological, some scientific, others racist. But the common characteristic is nihilism."

"The root element is the attitude that anything goes, particularly when with regard to ordinary people: I can do whatever I want, without scruples. Goehring put it like this: my consciousness is Adolf Hitler. Bolsheviks said: man is made of iron. And the Islamists whom I visited in Algeria said that you have the right to kill little Muslim children, in order to save them."

Resistance fighters fight oppresion. Terrorists fight for their right to oppress. Islamist beliefs and their pre-medieval system of laws are used to justify everything they do.

I'm afraid it no longer matters who the Iraqi prisoners are/were. Now they have been branded with the imprimatur "Victims," and thus need neither name, individual personality, or reponsibility for past and present actions any longer. As far as the antiwar, anti-military, anti-US faction is concerned, these fellows are all Helpless Brown People™ and we are the monolithic Evil White (even those of us who are other colors) Hegemon that is attempting to crush their spirit and take their oil. And I am afraid many of the pro-war, pro-US contingent (mislabeled "right wing) are losing focus on the entire situation in their exaggerated guilt and outrage. We need some perspective here, but I doubt we'll get it. Just Google "Iraqi torture" now.

Terrorism - "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

If you can't make a distinction between the people who blow up school buses and the people who don't, then I'm sorry for you. I also don't feel there is anything noble about the term resistance fighter. However, if you wish to propose an alternative term for me to use, please do so. The only qualification I insist on is that I must have a different term for people who blow up school buses than for the people who don't, because I find that to be a meaningful distinction.

Jack Grey hit the nail on the head when he pointed out the lameass pathetic excuse these soldiers are already using. "I had no idea forcing naked prisoners to simulate sex acts was, you know, wrong or anything."

My true fear is this: that they will be given nothing more than a dishonorable discharge and a slap on the wrist. I can't help but think of the travesty of justice that is the Mepham case. I would like to see the faces of these soldiers up close and personal on the cover of Time and Newsweek to see them publicly shamed, and then prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. Unfortunately, my prediction is that this won't happen.

Soli - Some Islamic fundamentalists blow up schoolbusses and some create governments that give women fewer rights than dogs, practice ethnic cleansing and authorize slavery.

These governments, like National Socialism, are form of terrorism. You could also call them nihilists, or theocratic fascists, or you could call them asshats. I don't really care what you call them. It's just a fact that their philosophy and their violence are interrconnected.

Well, the nineteen men who destroyed the World Trade Center didn't blow up any school buses. I guess this means they aren't terrorists?

Khobar Towers
Beirut Marine Barracks
The Cole

Glad to know that these incidents are not "terrorism".
I was begining to get worried there.

Agreement on this post.
But I have an off-topic question:
I don't follow right-wing political sites much any more.
Do conservatives still approve of the relationship BushCo has with Saudi Arabia?
Or have they finally realized that it is a terrorist-regime?
Just curious......

I can't speak for the far right, btsi, but I think most moderate conservatives are in agreement that the Saudis are not our friends.

Personally, I'll about kicking them out of bed.

I'm really glad you decided to post on this. I thought you might not - given your desire to change the focus and tenor of your site. But I think it's important, particularly for those of us who support the war, to speak out when our people get it so wrong out there. I'm waiting to hear what the Weekly Standard, WSJ, and NRO have to say about it all.

If I had my way, Time, Newsweek, and US News would keep the humiliating photos of the Iraqi prisoners off of their covers, leaving those photos inside with the story. The covers should be plastered with the pictures of these "soldiers" and the caption should read, "Thanks a lot, a**holes."

Oh, and another thing. Am I the only one who is tired of parsing what does and does and does not constitute "terrorism"? There's a somewhat organized and sufficiently large group of people out there who have announced and acted upon their wish to destroy you and me (and then, incidentally, to take over the world). I say we set aside the technical definitions of "terrorism" just long enough to invest the aforementioned people into prisons and graves.

Mary,

Whatever. You want to define the word "terrorist" so that it applies to 30% of the world population, that's fine. I'm just suggesting that we might be able to have a more serious discussion if we had a little better granularity. You see, although you apparently want to lump them all into one big group, there are specific tactics that might be more effective against the ones that hit the school bus vs the ones that give women less right than dogs, etc.

Anyway, here are what I would call them:

Terrorist: wants to blow up school bus
Misogynist: wants to give women fewer rights than dogs
Nazi: wants to practice ethnic cleansing
Slaver: wants to authorize slavery
Resistance Fighter: someone who's fighting against an occupying power with a motivation besides the previous 4 (quite possibly due to misinformation or propaganda).

If we agreed to such a scheme (and I'm not particularily attatched to this one) then would could have an informed discourse about the matter at hand without continually requiring explanation ("But they blew up a bus full of children!" "No, no, I'm talking about the ones who want to kill Jews." etc)

Can anyone explain to me why this is a story/scandal?

Jerks commit violations.

Army removes jerks from duty.

Army charges jerks with violations.

Army tells the press about it.

A month later, it erupts into scandal.

The real story here is that the system works. The military can't possibly be expected to prevent 100% of all violations of conduct, they can only be expected to hold the violators accountable. Seems that's what they did before the press ever heard about it.

A few notes:

1) This story was investigated and dealt with by the military in January--it's not something brand new, despite the fact that it's sweeps week and wasn't covered before. IIRC, all involved were dismissed from their posts, pending a thorough investigation. Somehow, I don't think the U.S. Military Justice system will let this one fall through the cracks.

2) Be careful which pictures you are talking about. I've seen at least one site today that has pics of the Abu Ghraib prisoners mixed with Russian porn and other clearly staged photos. In some of those other cases, I'm reminded of last summer, when there were periodic reports of insurgents or hidey-holes being found with U.S. military uniforms. I was vaguely concerned about the potential uses of those uniforms--attempted infiltration was obvious, but so was staged propaganda. I'm NOT saying Abu Ghraib was staged, just that the Abu Ghraib photos are being used to try to "bootstrap" faked photos of worse atrocities into legitimacy.

3) Clearly, the perpetrators of the events in the Abu Ghraib photos are going to get the book thrown at them--HARD--and deservedly so. I'm somewhat ok with "vigorous" interrogation of terrorists in a ticking-bomb scenario, but treating prisoners as toys is just sick.

I saw somewhere that at least one of the soldiers charged was in civilian life a prison guard ( Virginia I think ).
Anyone want to speculate on what a US jail or prison is like ?
I write as someone who has done an overnighter in a county jail ( trivial offense ) and was indeed threatened with violence by the guard : I hadn't made my bed properly.

You want to define the word "terrorist" so that it applies to 30% of the world population

Soli – when I responded to your comments, I assumed that I was talking to someone who knew something about Islamic fundamentalism. I’m sorry, I was wrong about that.

There are more than 1 billion Muslims in the world, but Islamic fundamentalists are only a small percentage of Muslims. When we talk about a small percentage of 1 billion, we are talking about millions of people, but the point is, all Muslims are not fundamentalists.

There are Shi’ite fundamentalists in Iran and Iraq, followers of the Ayatollah Khomeni’s brand of extremist Islam. The Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia are also fundamentalists – they believe that the life of anyone who is not Wahhabi is without value – they call these nonbelievers polytheists. ‘Polytheists’ include moderate Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Christians, atheists and Buddhists.

The Wahhabists and the Shi’ite fundamentalists fund the Salafis, like bin Laden and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas (Jews). These are the paramilitary forces that like to kill people by the thousands.

All of these groups want to establish Shariah law. Some finance terrorism, some practice it, and some allow it to thrive. They are the people you were complaining about in your earlier comment.

That is so not true. How about the people that fund them? How about the people that train them? How about the people who pay to have them indoctrinated in hate at a very young age? How about the people who look the other way when they know who hide them from our troops? How about the people who look the other way when they know terrorists are being hidden in their village and say nothing when the troops march through looking for them?

If you're looking for precise definitions, the Nazis, Terrorists, Misogynists and Slavers can be called, (interchangeably) Wahhabis, Salafists, fundamentalist Shi’ites, Hamas, al Qaeda, etc.

And then on the radio news this morning (CBS feed, natch) is a line about this story being "broken by 60 Minutes 2 last week".

Pathetic.

Resistance fighters fight oppresion. Terrorists fight for their right to oppress. Islamist beliefs and their pre-medieval system of laws are used to justify everything they do.