A few years ago, I typed a few keywords into Google and came upon a site with photographs purporting to show American soldiers raping Iraqi women. They were so disturbing I wish now I hadn't seen them. I wish I didn't have those images in my head. Much later, I sent the link to a few friends. Because I got no response, I could only assume these people found the images equally disturbing.
Later still, I debated whether to post the link on this blog. Though I have no difficulty believing the photographs were true -- how could anyone? soldiers have been raping women in every war, in every country, throughout history -- the photos couldn't be verified, and the rest of the website contained a lot of anti-Semitic crap and outright incoherence, thus calling into question the whole thing. How could I expect people to take seriously the gruesome photographs when so much of the accompanying text was garbage? The site would've been stronger, in fact, without the photographs but with a credible narrative.
We now face a dilemma with the proposed release of a new batch of Abu Ghraib photos. These photos have been talked about for years. People who saw them long ago warned us that they were far worse than the photos that had already been released. And I don't see how, sooner or later, they won't turn up in public. Some of them do depict rape and other forms of sexual abuse, as you can read about in this Daily Telegraph article.
President Obama initially declared that he would allow their release. And initially, I agreed with him. I deeply want Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Yoo, and the whole stinking lot of them to be prosecuted for war crimes. Pictures or no pictures, that desire won't go away.
But then Obama changed his mind. There's all kinds of talk swirling about why he changed his mind, but since I'm not privy to the inner workings of his brain, I decline to claim I know. What I do know is that his reversal has prompted a soul-searching in me.
I have spent many years reading accounts of torture in all parts of the world, under all kinds of regimes, written by people who suffered it. And, in some cases, who perpetrated it. In all those books, still lining my shelves, there are no photographs.
When Obama reversed his position, I thought of his oft-remarked-upon analytical mind. Colleagues and friends say that he's not an ideologue, he's not rash, he takes things seriously, he weighs them, he asks for differing opinions, he studies them, he considers, and reconsiders. And if he decides his initial judgment was wrong, he admits it, and changes it. This habit of mind is to be lauded. Hell, after the eight years of darkness we've just come out of, it's a relief.
So I have to ask: in the cases of all atrocities of any kind anywhere, is photographic evidence crucial for the public to see? I don't know. Most of me thinks it is, not least of which because there are so many people who simply will not believe the truth until it smacks them in the face, and such photos do that. But then again, those same people will STILL find ways to rationalize and belittle such evidence anyway. I'm thinking of Limbaugh and his ilk, which includes, sad to say, millions of Americans who simply don't give a shit, and who think torture is just fine and dandy. They're not going to be swayed by the evidence in these new photographs.
So then is the purpose of releasing them to inflame the already-inflamed, the will-be-inflamed-if-they-knew-about-it, the refuse-to-be-inflamed-unless-they're-forced-to, the never-will-be-inflamed-no-matter-what-but-it-should-be-put-in-their-faces-anyway, or to provide legal, prosecutable evidence in a court of law?
I don't see any defensible reason other than providing legal prosecutable evidence. And for that, the pictures need to be seen by prosecutors. They don't need to be made public.
I've been vacillating on this issue for weeks, alternately favoring the release of the photos and then urging their suppression. Every time I read a well-reasoned opinion one way or the other, I wavered. And then I came upon this piece by Philip Gourevitch , who puts the case much more eloquently than I can. He, along with Errol Morris, has seen the photographs. And he doesn't think they should be made public.
Obama isn't trying to cover anything up. He's already spoken out against torture, he's already condemned those who practiced it and authorized it, he's already admitted that these abuses occurred. It seems to me that only a kind of sickening voyeuristic urge compels us to want to see even more explicit photographs of what happened in those cells in Abu Ghraib and Bagram and Guantanamo.
What we should be doing is demanding prosecution of the war criminals in the Bush administration. And we can do that already, now, without gawking at more naked, injured, abused bodies.
Well said. It does nothing good to publish for all the reasons you list. We can try and punish all convicted of these crimes but there is no merit in publishing pictures of the victims which no decent person would wish either torturers' or victims' families to see.
Posted by: wev | June 03, 2009 at 11:32 PM
I empathize with your ambivalence, Lisa, but categorically disagree with your statement that "Obama isn't trying to cover anything up." Obama is emphatically engaging in a cover-up here. Moreover, according to Greenwald, he is now asking Congress to retroactively change the law, which the courts have so far ruled compel the disclosure of the photos under the Freedom of Information Act. (He is apparently concerned about losing the appeal to the Supreme Court.)
Perhaps he is being wise to try to withhold the pictures, given the prospect of these images inflaming Iraqis. But given that the U.S. has already killed tens of thousands — perhaps more than 100,000 — Iraqis in a war based on premises which even its architects now concede were false, I question how much more 'inflamed' the Iraqis can get. It seems plausible to me that the Iraqis will be riled less by this additional documentation of war crimes than by the fact that the perpetrators of these crimes have yet to be held accountable.
Obama's track record of holding the previous administration accountable for what it did has been abysmal so far. I think it's a legitimate question to ask whether the real risk is not that these photos would inflame Iraqis, but that they would inflame Americans and discredit Obama's actions to protect the Republican criminals which preceded him.
(One other side point regarding "soldiers have been raping women in every war." While this is certainly true, the notion that soldiers do not rape men during war is demonstrably false. As my co-blogger Daran at Feminist Critics has pointed out, men have been sexually assaulted during the Liberian conflict about as often as women. Your phrasing is doubly curious, given that we've already seen photographs of the sexual violation of male prisoners at Abu Graib, and that the Daily Telegraph article you cite says "At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee." I am skeptical of the notion that the sexual victimization of males during war is something that is uniquely American or Liberian.)
Posted by: ballgame | June 04, 2009 at 12:33 AM
I would never claim that men don't also rape men. Obviously, they do. Rape is now and has always been used as a means of intimidation and brutality, whether in prisons here in the U.S. or anywhere else (or at sports training camps -- whole 'nother subject). When you say "we've already seen photographs of the sexual violation of male prisoners at Abu Ghraib," sorry, but we haven't seen anything like what's in this new batch of pictures.
I realize now that I shouldn't have used the word "inflamed," because people, understandably, automatically think of the Iraqis. I was actually referring to American citizens' becoming inflamed -- inflamed enough to do something about it. Bad choice of words.
But no matter whose inflammation we're talking about here, I reiterate that the important thing is to prosecute the war criminals of the Bush administration. I'm witholding judgment on Obama for now in that regard; four months in office isn't enough time to do that monumental task, and it's certainly not enough time to claim a cover-up. If he weren't such a canny politician, I might feel differently. But I think this guy calculates most every move. We don't know what's coming down the pike, how he might be laying the groundwork for future prosecutions.
Bring the war criminals to justice; don't allow brutal photographs to be passed around like baseball cards.
Posted by: Lisa Simeone | June 04, 2009 at 06:37 AM
Excellent, excellent post. Like you, I felt sick and outraged after seeing those rape photographs (of which, by the way, there were no shots of women raping men, only men raping women and the occasional man raping another young man. Which is not to say that it doesn't happen ever, ballgame, only that it's unfair to immediately jump on a post about rape and imply that Lisa or anyone else is slanting the story or opining that rape is chiefly a man-initiated crime against victims that are mostly women, when in fact it is reality and its concomitant numbers that say this, no opining or analysis needed. The overwhelming majority of raping is done by men, and the vast majority of those raped are women.
Anyway, I've been wavering back and forth, too, about whether these shots need to be made public. And I've also been wondering: Does the fact that so many Americans refuse to believe the abuse and rape took place justify releasing the photographs? And knowing some of these hard-right people myself and knowing how they will deny and deny and deny, even as evidence like that stares them in the face, does releasing the photographs even have a point? Because really, the important thing is that the prosecutions take place and that war criminals at all levels are brought to justice. For that to happen, only the principle attorneys in the case, and the judge and jury, would need to see the photographs.
If releasing the photos publicly has no upside, prosecution-wise, and plenty of downside, retribution-wise--particularly in the tinder-box that is today's Iraq--well, I have to agree that it's best to keep them secured.
And I am reprinting your paragraph here, because it needs to be repeated:
I'm witholding judgment on Obama for now in that regard; four months in office isn't enough time to do that monumental task, and it's certainly not enough time to claim a cover-up. If he weren't such a canny politician, I might feel differently. But I think this guy calculates most every move. We don't know what's coming down the pike, how he might be laying the groundwork for future prosecutions.
Yes.
Posted by: litbrit | June 04, 2009 at 07:47 AM
I realize now that I shouldn't have used the word "inflamed," because people, understandably, automatically think of the Iraqis. I was actually referring to American citizens' becoming inflamed -- inflamed enough to do something about it. Bad choice of words.
I was referring to the apparent motivation of the administration and its supporters who favor withholding the pictures, not solely to what I thought your reasoning was, Lisa (although I did assume you felt similarly). Why are you concerned about 'inflaming Americans'? Is it because of the danger of reactionaries responding to what they might see as an anti-American move on the part of Obama?
That probably is a risk, and I don't know how to weigh it in the context of the right wing domestic terrorism we've just seen happen. But I think there are many, many Americans who still don't understand how genuinely evil the prior administration was, and view talk of criminal prosecutions as more of an expression of partisanship than as an essential step towards restoring the rule of law to this country. And I think a large part of their complacency is due to the simple fact that they haven't seen pictures of Americans coming back home in body bags and caskets on a routine basis, and they haven't seen the widespread devastation that our invasion of Iraq has caused, and they haven't seen the full extent of the depravity of our behavior towards 'enemy detainees'.
I'm glad we agree about the importance of prosecuting the war criminals of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, I don't think there will be any prosecutions until the reality of the previous administration's behavior hits Americans in the gut. I wish I could share your reservations about Obama on this score, Lisa; personally I've been thoroughly disgusted by his many moves to protect the previous administration and its wealthy patrons. (It is, in fact, one of the main reasons why I've posted so little here over the past couple of months.)
Posted by: ballgame | June 04, 2009 at 08:37 AM
Why are you concerned about 'inflaming Americans'?
As I said, I meant that I thought "inflaming" Americans might get them to do something about it -- it being the torture, the prosecution of the people who ordered the torture. I wondered what the purpose of releasing the photos was -- to "inflame" (with the sword of justice, if you wanna get biblical) American citizens? I wondered whether the release of these photos was necessary to "inflame" citizens to action. Or to inflame those who didn't believe torture went on. Or those who kinda sorta believed it but needed proof. Etc.
Posted by: Lisa Simeone | June 04, 2009 at 08:48 AM
But I think there are many, many Americans who still don't understand how genuinely evil the prior administration was, and view talk of criminal prosecutions as more of an expression of partisanship than as an essential step towards restoring the rule of law to this country. And I think a large part of their complacency is due to the simple fact that they haven't seen pictures of Americans coming back home in body bags and caskets on a routine basis, and they haven't seen the widespread devastation that our invasion of Iraq has caused, and they haven't seen the full extent of the depravity of our behavior towards 'enemy detainees'.
This is so true. And it's enabled by (who else?) our fabulous MSM, as they keep up the "both sides are just as bad" crap and make this big effort to not be "partisan".
Well, I'm sorry, but the illegal invasion of Iraq was partisan. The Bushies did it. The right supported it. I don't know, personally, any progressives who supported that war of choice, but let's say there were some--and their numbers were miniscule.
And everything that emerged therefrom was partisan. It was Dick Cheney's Halliburton/KBR who bilked billions of taxpayer dollars in fraudulent billing; it was Dick Cheney's Halliburton/KBR who were contracted to build the shoddily-wired housing that has led to crumbling walls, creeping rot, and worst of all, lethal electrocutions of our military. It was the Bush administration who ordered no coffin photos. Bush was the one who told Americans to go shopping, to go about their business, no sacrifices necessary.
So when the critics start up with the accusations of partisanship, why aren't progressives shouting them down?
Are we at some weird point in history where it's okay to permit a partisan to declare war in our name, to wreak havoc, death, and destruction in our name, but when we attempt to bring the rule of law into play and clear our good name, suddenly partisanship is bad?
Posted by: litbrit | June 04, 2009 at 08:53 AM
The overwhelming majority of raping is done by men, and the vast majority of those raped are women.
I was responding very specifically to Lisa's statement about "soldiers have been raping women in every war," litbrit, and focused exclusively on the misleading implication that men are not sexually victimized during war. (I'm glad she later acknowledged that men are victimized this way.) Now, I don't know about all wars, but during the Liberian conflict it is simply false to state that the "vast majority" of the victims of sexual abuse were women. According to figures from the study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the numbers of men sexually victimized appear to be on par with the numbers of women. Perhaps there is something unique about Liberia in this regard. Or perhaps, in other conflicts, the men so victimized were either too dehumanized, or too ashamed, or too dead to report being sexually abused to a world that was likely even more resistant to the notion of men as rape victims than the world we inhabit today. I honestly don't know.
I of course agree with you wholeheartedly about the role of the MSM in aiding and abetting the criminal conduct of the Bush administration, and their role in perpetuating the notion that upholding the rule of law is somehow a 'partisan' exercise.
Lisa, I don't mean to belabor this but I confess I'm still confused by your answer. If you're in favor of prosecutions, and you "thought 'inflaming' Americans might get them to do something about it — it being the torture, the prosecution of the people who ordered the torture," then wouldn't the release of the photos be a good thing?
Posted by: ballgame | June 04, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Again, as I said:
So I have to ask: in the cases of all atrocities of any kind anywhere, is photographic evidence crucial for the public to see? I don't know. Most of me thinks it is, not least of which because there are so many people who simply will not believe the truth until it smacks them in the face, and such photos do that. But then again, those same people will STILL find ways to rationalize and belittle such evidence anyway. I'm thinking of Limbaugh and his ilk, which includes, sad to say, millions of Americans who simply don't give a shit, and who think torture is just fine and dandy. They're not going to be swayed by the evidence in these new photographs.
Posted by: Lisa Simeone | June 04, 2009 at 10:14 AM