Last Sunday, Arizona Senator John McCain appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss the Iraqi prison abuse scandal. Sen. McCain rightly pointed out that it was the Senate’s responsibility “to find out what happened, to examine this whole process that led us to this shameful moment in America's history, and to make sure that actions are taken quickly so that we can move forward…” Unfortunately, though, his next statement would makes a mockery of the very responsibility he claimed:
Look, one thing I know about scandals: They go on and on and on until the American people feel they have a full and complete picture of what happened. And to hold back these pictures, or to hold back the videos and only show them to members of Congress or something like that, first, is foolish, because they'll leak out, but second of all, it is sending the wrong signal.
For now let’s set aside the shockingly ridiculous notion that since classified information will eventually “leak out” Congress should just make it public. Instead, let's focus on the main question this statement raises: What is the “wrong signal” that McCain thinks we are sending by not making the photos public? That we respect prisoner’s rights? That we understand Muslim culture? That we value not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of the Geneva Convention Rules?
As a former prisoner of war himself, McCain should be thoroughly familiar with the Geneva Convention. Yet by calling for the release of the photos and videos he shows a blatant disregard for the document. McCain should reread the last section of Article 13:
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Isn’t “public curiosity” the primary justification McCain provides for releasing the photos? What other justification could he have for wanting to release them? Perhaps he should listen to Sen. Warner, who noted:
``These youngsters [the prison guards] didn't understand the nuances of Muslim culture. ... They staged those photographs, which I understand were going to be shown to the prisoners' families by way of threats unless he came forward with some valuable information,''
The prisoners were so ashamed of the photos that they were willing to give up information just to prevent them from being shown to their family. Imagine how they would feel knowing that they were being shown not only to their families and the Arab street but throughout the rest of the world as well. Of all people, McCain should be able to be empathetic and respectful of the prisoner’s dignity. Imagine how he would feel if the North Vietnamese had released embarrassing photos of him.
The Pentagon should ignore the calls from those who call for the releasing any remaining photos and videos. Regardless of their crimes, the Iraqi prisoners have a right to basic human dignity. The obligation to protect that right trumps any interest the American people may have to satisfy their morbid curiosity.
Just because the American media has no qualms about violating the spirit of the Geneva Convention doesn’t mean our elected officials should do the same. As a veteran and former POW, McCain should be championing the cause of just treatment of prisoners. Instead, he’s chosen to pander to the media by offering to feed their lust for scandal.
My first question would be whether the Geneva convention applies in this case. Are these "prisoners of war" or people who have committed common crimes? News reports indicate that both were held at the prison.
Even if the Geneva convention does apply, couldn't the same goal, i.e. protecting the prisoners from public curiosity, be achieved by obscuring their faces.
I firmly believe that letting light shine into the darkness is the only way, both from a personal and worldview perspective. "He ... brings hidden things to light. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed or hidden that will not be made known."
Hey Daniel,
My first question would be whether the Geneva convention applies in this case. Are these "prisoners of war" or people who have committed common crimes? News reports indicate that both were held at the prison.
That’s a good point. There's certainly a distinction between POWs and criminals. While I could be wrong, from what I’ve read I believe that all of the photos are of prisoners who would be classified as combatants.
Also, I would think that while the GC rules do not officially apply to non-POW prisoners that the same level of protection should apply when the military is in charge of the prisoners.
That’s a possibility (though it assumes that the face is the only means of identification). But why don’t we remove it one more step and simply describe what is seen in the photos? If the goal is to make the public aware of what has occurred then why wouldn’t that be sufficient?
I firmly believe that letting light shine into the darkness is the only way, both from a personal and worldview perspective. "He ... brings hidden things to light. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed or hidden that will not be made known."
I agree, which is why I think the content of the photos should be made public. But that goal can be accomplished in a way that respects the prisoner’s dignity.
The major issue is a two prong connundrum:
1. Are pictures necessary to show the horror of war?
2. Are conventions and treaties meaningful in a post-modern secular society?
The answers to both are ambivalent. We want it both ways.
The selective show of some pictures by some side only satisfies the prurient interests of that side although the action might be coated with all types of well meaning platitudes. That we want to see them is just part of our insatiable desire for visual stimulation as well as our massive need for justification (we are not so bad or we are better than that).
The consistent recourse to conventions and treaties of another time only supports our lack of consistency. The Geneva Accords reflect the moral definitions and deficiencies of another era as much as "international law" reflects our current moral insufficiency.
Now, when the entire event is wrapped in opportunistic political purposes, the picture gets very cloudy and reason runs out the door.
The major purpose in this "outrage at the outrage" and its many variants is to inflict pain on others or get at some people we do not like. The pursuit of justice is not the primary goal.
Moreover, these efforts at finding the "real" culprit and making them accountable becomes a very convenient ruse to distract from the view of the larger picture which is neither the daily events in Irak nor the protestations at Capitol Hill. There are very large issues of governance and civil life in a free society that need to be addressed with equanimity and purposefulness
McCain also strongly opposed releasing the information on Kerry's war crimes in 'Nam.
Joe, feeling generous today, says that
"Regardless of their crimes, the Iraqi prisoners have a right to basic human dignity."
It is worth repeating ad nauseum (since very few people appreciate this fact) that, according to the Red Cross, a large majority of the imprisoned and tortured Iraqis at Abu Ghraib were innocent or wrongly imprisoned.
Fuzzing out the faces of the prisoners (to the extent they are identifiable) should suffice to prevent any of the prisoners or their families from being personally humiliated.
McCain is not "pandering" to anyone's "lusts." He is merely taking a realists approach to the issue. Certainly the Administration has ZERO grounds at this point to point fingers at others for disrespecting the rights of Iraqi prisoners. The ONLY reason the Administration has for not wanting the pictures to be released is that the pictures reflect badly on George Bush and his cronies.
McCain is smart enough to realize that, because the unofficial release of the photos is inevitable, the Administration might as well release them officially at least in order to avoid the obvious and reasonable inference that the Administration is sitting on them for purely political reasons.
That inference is the "wrong signal" McCain is referring to, Joe.
By the way, regardless of what they said on their video, those Qaeda nutcases who killed Berg didn't kill him in "retaliation" for Abu Ghraib. They killed him because they hate the United States and their video is an advertisement for recruiting the bloodthirstiest and nuttiest Iraqis to join Al Qaeda and for energizing their base elsewhere. These sorts of appalling events are PRECISELY the sorts of events which many of us realized two years ago would be inevitable if we were to stupidly invade Iraq.
Stay tuned, however, because there are MANY MORE ATROCITIES coming down the pike which will be much more disheartening than the Abu Ghraib photos or Berg's decapitation. How will Bush and Rummy et al. ever wash the blood from their hands?
"from what I’ve read I believe that all of the photos are of prisoners who would be classified as combatants."
Hmm. Perhaps your sources aren't providing you with the information that you need.
This is from the Guardian UK (the magazine which first reported on the Abu Ghraib debale):
"According to the New Yorker magazine the photos and videos so far unreleased by the Pentagon show American soldiers "having sex with a female Iraqi prisoner", and a secret report by General Antonio Taguba into the scandal confirms that US guards videotaped and photographed naked female prisoners and that "a male MP [military police] guard" is shown "having sex with a female detainee".
"US officials have acknowledged detaining women in the hope of convincing male relatives to provide information: a strategy that is in violation of international law."
I recall, Joe, that you predicted recently that Abu Ghraib would become a "footnote" to the Iraq War. I was shocked when I read that. I hope you realize that Abu Ghraib will in fact be the defining metaphor for everything that was wrong about Bush's stupid war in the first place. Unless it is eclipsed by something even more horrible (don't be suprised).
Daniel wrote:I firmly believe that letting light shine into the darkness is the only way, both from a personal and worldview perspective. "He ... brings hidden things to light. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed or hidden that will not be made known."
Joe wrote:I agree, which is why I think the content of the photos should be made public. But that goal can be accomplished in a way that respects the prisoner’s dignity.
The idea that God will make all hidden things known at some point is not necessarily relevant to the question of whether or not in a time of war information should be released that is damaging to, not only our morale, but our overall prospects of success.
It's a moot point as far as what has already come out, but the pictures should never have been released to the public. At the very least, not until the present struggle in Iraq is concluded. Keep in mind that by the time we saw them the military was already in the process of prosecuting the culpable parties, so it's not as if some sinister coverup was exposed.
The free press performs a valuable function in our representative republic, but in the rush to scoop their competitors and damage political positions with which they disagree we forget that the public doesn't need to know everything. Especially not during wartime.
scpanther, between prayers that the President remembers to chew his pretzels, says:
"Keep in mind that by the time we saw them the military was already in the process of prosecuting the culpable parties, so it's not as if some sinister coverup was exposed."
Hahahahah. Maybe not a "sinister" coverup. But was certainly exposed was another example of this Administration's appalling incompetence and eagerness to lie.
Perhaps your memory is failing you.
Here's a little refresher course on the sequence of events of the past week or so:
They first learned about this when the "courageous" soldier took the pictures to his superiors. And the pictures were all "personal."
But then stories came out that the pictures were ordered by MI for "intimidation" purposes.
And the ICRC reported it had told the Admin. about these problems months ago.
And it was limited to a handful of "bad apples." Except the same thing happened in Afghanistan.
And the photos were staged, not "snapshots."
And they knew something was up in November, but they fixed it. But they were surprised by the allegations in January.
But no one knew about it. But everyone knew about it, because there was a breakdown in command.
But there was no breakdown. And the Geneva Convention has always applied.
Except when it hasn't.
And we've always followed it. Except when we didn't.
And we don't abuse prisoners. Except when we do. It's not "American." Except it is expressly sanctioned by military regulations. Except it can only be sanctioned by the DoD, because Rumsfeld keeps tight rein on everything.
Except he doesn't. Because this was authorized in Iraq, not in Washington. Except it couldn't have been, because Rummy runs a tight ship.
Except he didn't know. But don't call it "plausible deniability." Because there's a chain of command.
Except Rumsfeld doesn't know what it is. He only knows about the PR campaign he's been conducting since these photos went public.
But he isn't lying. He just doesn't know anything.
But it's okay. Because he's doing a great job.
Even though everything is a shambles.
Matt - You write "Stay tuned, however, because there are MANY MORE ATROCITIES coming down the pike which will be much more disheartening than the Abu Ghraib photos or Berg's decapitation."
Make sure you let us all know when that happens, so we can all see what YOU consider to be worse than the Berg execution.
If the photos are released in the way the current ones have been, with the faces of the prisoners pixelated or blurred out, they would not violate Geneva conventions.
And the prisoners that are in these photos were not from the general prison population, they were members of the insurgency, and may indeed have American blood on their hands, which is why they were being interrogated in the first place.
Like Rumsfeld gives a rip about the Geneva Convention! He's expended some energy arguing why it doesn't or shouldn't apply.
Intense told me to
"Make sure you let us all know when that happens, so we can all see what YOU consider to be worse than the Berg execution."
Use your peanut, intense. I'm sure you can come up with something worse than (hint) one (hint) person being (hint) decapitated on a video.
Patrick says,
"And the prisoners that are in these photos were not from the general prison population, they were members of the insurgency, and may indeed have American blood on their hands, which is why they were being interrogated in the first place."
Short version: if we interrogate them, they must have blood on their hands.
Try again, Patrick.
Actually, that's the way I feel. Until I find out who the prisoners were, I'm going to withhold judgment on whether or not they were badly treated. I'll tell you what, if I were to find the guys responsible for procuring the young women for Uday's rape rooms, I'd probably dress them up in some women's undies too. That's the least I would do, in fact.
That said, if the prisoners were just a bunch of poor slobs who happened to be caught up in the coalition's advance, they shouldn't have been imprisoned in the first place, or at least released upon cessation of offensive operations.
Of course, to all the Hussein loyalists on this site, I should probably be charged myself. They won't be happy until Kerry is in the White House, and Saddam is back to his weapons programs, and his other relatives are using UN money to build recreational rape facilities, and homicide bombers get their $30,000 lump sum payouts from Hussein's multibillion Swiss accounts.
Who among the people who have contributed to this thread is a "Hussein loyalist," in your opinion, Kevin?
No matter what the poor bastards in the Iraqi prison did, it cannot justify our military's treatment of them. In fact, if the murderers of Nick Berg were to be captured tomorrow, I would expect them to be treated humanely. How can our society claim moral superiority unless we do?
Let's make the difference between us and the terrorists as clear as possible before we squander what little credibility we have left in world opinion. No wonder respect for our nation is at an all-time low. Our leaders are stubborn fools who refuse to take responsibility for their blunders.
How long will it take to right the ship of state after we dismiss its captain? Or will we stand by him as the water rises around our ankles?
Matt - You made the statement; you come up with "something worse."
BTW - The notion that Abu Ghraib and the Berg execution are equivalent, as you seem to imply, won't wash.
Intense says,
"BTW - The notion that Abu Ghraib and the Berg execution are equivalent, as you seem to imply, won't wash. "
Huh? Where did I "seem to imply" this?
If I were an abused prisoner, I believe my feeling of shame would be increased by the release of a photo of me, even if my face were pixelated out. Imagine an ordinary American woman whose rape is videotaped, then the videotape is shown on national TV with a blue dot over her face. No, I don't think she'd feel that the blue dot makes the whole thing a matter of indifference.
Matt - You wrote "Stay tuned, however, because there are MANY MORE ATROCITIES coming down the pike which will be much more disheartening than the Abu Ghraib photos or Berg's decapitation." This implies they are equivalent, because if you thought Berg's decapitation is worse than Abu Ghraib, you would have simply written " ... will be much more disheartening than Berg's decapitation." If you don't believe they are equivalent, then we agree.
We're still waiting for you to identify the "something worse."
Hey May 13 -- I'll try again.
Remember -- you need to use your brain. Read my suggestion s l o w l y ...
"I'm sure you can come up with something worse than (hint) one (hint) person being (hint) decapitated on a video."
Matt - For some reason, my last post was listed as coming from "May 13."
It's obvious that you are unwilling/unable to go on record as to what you consider to be "something worse."
Matt - The post attributed to "May 13" was actually mine; I don't know why it posted that way.
It's obvious that you are unwilling/unable to go on record as to what you consider "something worse."
Speaking of the Geneva Convention, what would a Christian society do to punish liars or those who enable the torture of innocent people?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040513/ts_nm/iraq_abuse_dc
Top Pentagon officials conceded on Thursday some of the interrogation methods approved for use by the U.S. military on Iraqi prisoners may violate the Geneva Convention governing treatment of war prisoners [...]
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Democrats confronted Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the No. 2 official at the Pentagon, and Gen. Peter Pace, the No. 2 U.S. general, with "rules of engagement" for interrogations approved by the top commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.
These methods included sleep and sensory deprivation, forcing prisoners to assume "stressful" body positions for up to 45 minutes, threatening them with guard dogs, keeping them isolated for longer than 30 days, and dietary manipulation.
Sen. Jack Reed asked Pace if a foreign nation held a U.S. Marine in a cell, naked with a bag over his head, squatting with his arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would that be a good interrogation technique or a Geneva Convention violation.
"I would describe is as a violation, sir," replied Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff [...]
Reed later asked Wolfowitz a similar question. Wolfowitz initially tried to sidestep it, but eventually replied, "What you've described to me sounds, to me, like a violation of the Geneva Convention."
Wait a minute? I thought that the tortures were cooked up by soldier's letting off steam and practicing their fraternity hazing techniques??
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/