Something has been bothering me about the images of abused prisoners in Iraq, but I couldn’t articulate it until today. Aside from the horror of the abuse, and the pictures, there is something odd about the way they’ve been presented.
In every case that I’ve seen, any visible genitals of the naked prisoners were obscured or blacked-over by the media. In every case that I’ve seen, visible (unhooded) faces of prisoners were left clearly visible.
Now, obviously, the purpose of stripping them naked and photographing them, and likely the purpose of having female soldiers mock them while naked, is (aside from the sexual-sadistic thrill it may give to the torturers) to play on Iraqi cultural values of modesty and sexual privacy. In addition to the physical torture they may have suffered, and the humiliation of being stripped naked and abused sexually or in sexually-suggestive ways, the abuse is compounded by the prisoners’ being observed in their humiliation, especially while naked, and especially by women. That aspect of the torture is increased immeasurably by the threat or knowledge that pictures of this embarrassment will be circulated around the world. Reportedly, the torturers were encouraged by the interrogators to take photos of their abusiveness for precisely this reason.
What this means, however, is that the circulation of these photos around the world is having precisely the effect intended by the torturers. And more than this, the media are - unthinkingly, I’m sure - contributing to this effect by identifying the men in their despair. I do think these photos should be publicized and the immensity of the abuses in Iraq made clear - but there are ways to do this while preserving the anonymity of the victims.
The media made a conscious choice that parts of these images had to be censored - the genitalia were all carefully obscured. However, this choice was obviously in service of the sensitivities of the viewing audience (and, of course, those of Michael “whiny childish dickweed” Powell). The faces of the victims were all left visible, and thus their identities were made available. Very likely, this will be the thing the victims themselves will most regret about this coverage; no concern was shown for their reactions.
In other words, the media have chosen to censor these images out of concern for their impact on the viewers but not out of concern for their impact on the victims.
Considering that some of the abuse pictured in these images is a form of sexual battery, and apparently is felt to be so by the victims, the intrusiveness of the broadcast of the pictures is something to take seriously. American media routinely shield the identities of sexual crime victims within the US; somehow it didn’t seem necessary to do so in this case. I don’t know the reason: because they were Iraqis?, because they were men?, because the abuses were so bizarre that the conceptual link to domestic sex crimes didn’t suggest itself?
However it happened, I do think that the media have made the wrong choice in this case. I suspect that, if you had asked them, the victims would prefer to have their genitals shown and their faces covered than the other way around. At any rate, I think the media should have thought first of pain of the victims and then of the aversions of the viewing audience. It would have been easy enough to cover the faces and the genitals, but no effort at all was made to preserve the privacy of the victims. It wasn’t just a secondary priority; it didn’t seem to occur to anyone at any point in the process.
They say a lot more pictures are on the way, and that there are pictures of actual rapes and other violent abuses. I hope these are handled more sensitively.
May 10th, 2004
|
Politics, Culture, Iraq |
6 comments
I mentioned the “Kevin Bacon Game” in a post below - the idea that every movie actor is connected to Kevin Bacon by a series of links through other actors. That got me thinking, which got me searching the Web, which got me wasting a lot of time coming up with intriguing but pointless stuff.
The University of Virginia computer-science department searched the entire IMDB database to get, apparently, every listed actor from every movie and TV show on record. First they calculated the “Bacon Number” of every actor, then they put up an interactive search tool so you can find the numbers and links of any actor known. Being CS geeks, they then generalized the tool to search links between any two actors in the database (if you’re not all that fascinated with Kevin Bacon, which I’m not). The results can be amusing.
For one thing, they found that, although Kevin Bacon does link to lots of actors, he is not, contrary to rumor, the Center of the Hollywood Universe. The average number of links required to get from Kevin Bacon to any actor in the entire IMDB database is 2.94 (surprisingly low, to me - in fact, there are barely 100 actors who are fewer than the proverbial “six degress of separation” from Bacon, but over half a million who are within three degrees). However, calculating the average link distance for all actors in the database (which must have been a massive computing task) shows that there are 1,221 other actors who are even closer, on average, to all their known colleagues. (That still puts Kevin Bacon well within the top 2/10ths of 1% of the database.)
Who is the Center of the Hollywood Universe? Rod Steiger - followed by Christopher Lee, Dennis Hopper, Donald Pleasance, Donald Sutherland, and a host of other famous people. Why Rod Steiger? I dunno. Apparently, being a “big star” is not necessary; being a familiar one is almost necessary, but even obscure actors who work on a lot of productions can score high (Vernon Dobtcheff, anyone? - he’s #38 on the all-time list, well above Faye Dunaway, Kirk Douglas, or Clint Eastwood).
Even more fascinating - if you play with it long enough you find some provocative links. I started searching out links between real-life people and the stars who played them. (It only works, of course, if the real-life figure is in the IMDB, but many are, due to appearing in documentaries.) Some funny ones:
Eva Peron has a Madonna (I) number of 3.
Eva Peron was in Prodiga, La (1945) with Juan Jose Miguez
Juan Jose Miguez was in Superagentes y titanes (1983) with Marcos Woinsky
Marcos Woinsky was in Evita (1996) with Madonna (I)
Knute Rockne has a Ronald (I) Reagan number of 3.
Knute Rockne was in This Is America: Sports’ Golden Age (1948) with Johnny Weissmuller
Johnny Weissmuller was in Phynx, The (1970) with Dick (I) Clark
Dick (I) Clark was in Young Doctors, The (1961) with Ronald (I) Reagan
Ronald (I) Reagan has a James Brolin number of 2.
Ronald (I) Reagan was in That Hagen Girl (1947) with Rory Calhoun
Rory Calhoun was in Bad Jim (1990) with James Brolin
Bill Clinton has a John Travolta number of 2.
Bill Clinton was in President Clinton: Final Days (2000) with Kevin Spacey
Kevin Spacey was in Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002) with John Travolta
John (III) Glenn has a Ed (I) Harris number of 2.
John (III) Glenn was in Spaceflight (1985) (TV) with Martin Sheen
Martin Sheen was in Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion (2003) with Ed (I) Harris
Other games you can play - links between actors playing the same role:
George Lazenby has a Roger (I) Moore number of 2.
George Lazenby was in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969) with Lois Maxwell
Lois Maxwell was in View to a Kill, A (1985) with Roger (I) Moore
Roger (I) Moore has a Sean Connery number of 2.
Roger (I) Moore was in Spice World (1997) with Jason Flemyng
Jason Flemyng was in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The (2003) with Sean Connery
Sean Connery has a Timothy Dalton number of 2.
Sean Connery was in Diamonds Are Forever (1971) with Marc (I) Lawrence
Marc (I) Lawrence was in Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003) with Timothy Dalton
Timothy Dalton has a Pierce Brosnan number of 2.
Timothy Dalton was in Doctor and the Devils, The (1985) with Stephen (I) Rea
Stephen (I) Rea was in Evelyn (2002) with Pierce Brosnan
and, interestingly . . .
Pierce Brosnan has a George Lazenby number of 2.
Pierce Brosnan was in Lawnmower Man, The (1992) with Michael (I) Gregory
Michael (I) Gregory was in Spider’s Web (2001) with George Lazenby
One thing you get from those results is how close all the links really are. Given that many actors work on dozens - even 100 or more - films, which each have dozens of credited actors, and given that all known movie actors fall within barely a 100-year timespan, it really doesn’t take much to find one or two links between any two. In fact, I’ve been unable to find any pairs of actors I can think of that are more than three links away, even when consciously trying for unlikely pairings. According to UVA, the least-connected actor in the entire IMDB - whom they won’t identify! - has an average link to any other actor of only 9 links, which seems surprisingly low. (Figure that the least-connected actor was probably some extra who appeared in only one silent move 100 years ago, the fact that the person can be connected to any actor in history in an average of 9 links seems remarkable.)
Ah, well. Meaningless, but absorbing.
Nancy (I) Davis [Nancy Reagan] has a John (I) Holmes number of 3.
Nancy (I) Davis was in You Can’t Hurry Love (1988) with Candie Evans
Candie Evans was in Princess Charming (1987) with Marc Wallice
Marc Wallice was in Ginger Lynn: The Movie (1988) with John (I) Holmes
May 10th, 2004
|
I do too have a life |
one comment
A great new Web site displays visual maps of the connections between the boards of directors of hundreds of major corporations, educational institutions, think tanks, and government bodies. They Rule has a database of directors of all these institutions, compiled from SEC filings (it is accurate as of the beginning of the year, but is not updated in real time). You can build your own maps by selecting any two or more institutions; the application will automatically show you how the directors of each are connected by a “Kevin Bacon”-style series of links through board memberships on other organizations. It will also let you look at interesting maps created by others.
Get past the long and annoying entry tunnel to the page with a list of functions in the upper-left corner. Choose “Load Map,” and then “Popular” from the box that pops up. A list of popular maps will appear. “How nonpartisan?” gives a look at the truly amazing number of directorships held by the staff of the Brookings Institute. “GHW Bush –> Clinton” profiles the directorships of the cabinet members of both Presidents: Bushies, not surprisingly, have more, but what’s interesting is there is a middle link of companies like JP Morgan, United Technologies, Verizon, etc. that stand at one or two links’ remove to both cabinets.
May 10th, 2004
|
Politics |
no comments
That’s what my three year old used to say when he knew he was going to be punished. It took some work, but the idea that his actions have consequences and that sometimes sorry isn’t enough seems to have taken hold.
George W. Bush apparently saw unreleased photos showing even more horrific torture:
The president also saw more than a dozen additional photos depicting scenes of U.S. troops abusing Iraqi prisoners, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said.
“The president’s reaction was one of deep disgust and disbelief that anyone who wears our uniform would engage in such shameful and appalling acts,” McClellan said. “It does not represent our United States military, and it does not represent the United States of America.”
He then went into the Rose Garden and said of the man whose failure of leadership has allowed this cancer to grow in the American military:
With Rumsfeld at his side, Bush said his Cabinet officer was “courageously leading our nation in our war against terror. … You are a strong secretary of defense and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude.”
I am not comforted by the fact that my three year old has a more highly developed sense of dealing with consequences than the President of the United States of America. And the three year old, it should be pointed out, learned rapidly that saying sorry wasn’t enough — actions are important. Would that Bush had learned that lesson. Unfortunately, Bush’s only response to any failing of his administration is “I be good. Promise.”
May 10th, 2004
|
Politics |
one comment
As has been pointed out, Limbaugh has sunk to new lows, offering up excuses for the torture of Iraqi prisoners. Well, apparently, the Bush Campaign cannot risk offending his listeners
Q: Scott, there’s a segment of society that differs with the White House as it relates to these pictures and the investigation of the U.S. soldiers’ conduct to include Rush Limbaugh who, Tuesday, agreed with the caller, equating the pictures to a college fraternity prank, and said the U.S. soldiers should not be punished because it was an emotional release as they were letting off steam. What’s the White House say about that?
MR. McCLELLAN: April, I think the White House says what we said yesterday and what the President has said over the last few days.
Q: No, but Scott — no, seriously. This man is a conservative —
MR. McCLELLAN: And I actually got asked a question earlier today about that matter.
Q: But none —
MR. McCLELLAN: And I addressed it then.
Q: But if you stand out strongly trying to let the Arab world know that this is wrong and then you have the proverbial spokesperson for the conservative party saying this, doesn’t that send a mixed message?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President’s views have been very — have been made very clear.
McClellan slithers enough to make an epileptic snake look stationary. He is obviously trying to walk a very fine line: to appear to be neither endorsing Rush’s views or rejecting them. A simple straightforward “The President thinks torture is wrong and anyone who defends what happened is wrong as well.” would have ended this line of questioning. But, of course, that would have angered Rush and his listeners. Apparently, Bush and Rove have decided that they need the support of people who say things like this:
LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we’re going to ruin people’s lives over it and we’re going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I’m talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?
in response to things like this:
(U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):
a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;
f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
9. (U) I have carefully considered the statements provided by the following detainees, which under the circumstances I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses:
You can judge a man by the company he keeps — and George W. Bush certainly keeps some disgusting company.
May 10th, 2004
|
Iraq |
2 comments
Rumsfeld must go:
Bush has said the abuses were the result of the “wrongdoing of a few.”
However, the report says “the use of ill-treatment against (Iraqi) persons deprived of their liberty went beyond exceptional cases and might be considered a practice tolerated by” coalition forces.
A senior Red Cross official added: “We were dealing here with a broad pattern, not individual acts. There was a pattern and a system.”
“ICRC (Red Cross) delegates directly witnessed and documented a variety of methods used to secure the cooperation of the persons deprived of their liberty with their interrogators,” according to the confidential report. The 24-page document was confirmed as authentic by the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) after it was published today by the Wall Street Journal.
The Red Cross report says its delegates saw how detainees at Abu Ghraib were kept “completely naked in totally empty concrete cells and in total darkness.” It said it found evidence supporting prisoners’ allegations of other forms of abuse during arrest, initial detention and interrogation.
Among the evidence were burns, bruises and other injuries consistent with the abuse that prisoners alleged, it said.
The report cites abuses – some “tantamount to torture” – including brutality, hooding, humiliation and threats of “imminent execution.”
“These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information and other forms of cooperation from persons who had been arrested in connection with suspected security offenses or deemed to have an ‘intelligence value.”‘
The agency said arrests allegedly tended to follow a pattern.
It is sickening that the Bushies have brought our country to this. It is inexcusable and rock solid proof that they do not deserve to hold the positions of responsibility and trust that they aspire to.
May 10th, 2004
|
Iraq |
no comments
Did anyone else see The Simpsons last night? It’s been a long time since I’ve had a chance to watch, but I thought last night’s episode was bloody brilliant. They touched on so much last night: babies sharing (presumably) drug-coated pacifiers; opportunistic suckling; cops beating babies with billy clubs; Libertarian politics (”Why should we have to pay for other people’s kids?”); political attack ads; Rudi Giuliani worship; or, my favorite:
Guy #1: “Hey, Mr. Burns is signing the petition, maybe we should, too.”
Guy #2: “Yeah. Rich people always want what’s best for everyone!”
Great, great stuff.
May 10th, 2004
|
I do too have a life |
5 comments
So, apparently, Abu Gharib is okay, because it means we are getting tough, and it means that we are showing those dirty Arabs a thing or two. Of all the defenses of the Administration, this is perhaps the most pathetic. Never mind the complete and utter lack of morality and human decency. It’s the complete and utter stupidity of the contention that leaps out at me.
Prisoner abuse is not a sign of toughness, its a sign of weakness. It is an admission that the society you have structured is so weak, so rotten, so absolutely and utterly devoid of strength that the slightest push will send it crumbling to the ground to shatter into a million useless pieces. There is a reason that torture is usually reserved to repressive regimes — because without repression, those regimes could not stand. Saddam wasn’t strong because he had a 12,000 man bodyguard and rape rooms — he had a 12,000 man bodyguard and rape rooms because he was weak.
And now the United States has said the exact same thing. The torture scandal clearly tells the world that the US’s ideals and army are useless for building a friendly — much less democratic — Iraq. Because we have to rely on systematic torture, the Arab street knows that we are failing. Torture is an admission of weakness. The pictures of Abu Gharib aren’t going to scare anyone, they are going to encourage people. Not only will it infuriate the Iraqis, it will tell the resistance that the United States is failing.
No, if the United States were winning, if the United States were strong, we would not have had to risk our moral and political standing in the world — our greatest strengths — in order to maintain control in Iraq. There are two lessons the Arab street will learn from the torture scandal, and neither will frighten the forces of repression: the United States is lying when it talks of human decency and democracy, and the United Sates is weak.
May 10th, 2004
|
Iraq |
no comments
Undercutting Mideast Democracy (washingtonpost.com)
But how to explain the administration’s other contrarian policy decision — its growing embrace of one of the Arab world’s most unreconstructed autocrats, Moammar Gaddafi?
At a recent meeting on democratic change in the Middle East, I heard an Arab with impeccable reformist credentials angrily demand to know why every recent speech on the Middle East by President Bush seemed to contain a bouquet for Libya’s strongman. This would-be democratizer, who asked me not to identify him because of his official position, pointed out that Gaddafi represents everything the Bush initiative is meant to be against. He is a massive violator of human rights and a dictator who grooms his children to succeed him. He seeks the same devil’s bargain with the United States that Arab autocrats have always cut: Ignore my domestic thuggery, and I’ll sell you oil and cooperate with your foreign policy.
Bush has sworn off such deals — yet two weeks ago he lifted economic sanctions against Libya, allowing U.S. oil companies to return, in exchange for Gaddafi’s promise to give up weapons of mass destruction. The Arab official was contemptuous: Libya’s aging mustard gas and disassembled centrifuges weren’t likely to pose a serious threat to the United States, he argued. But Bush’s embrace of Gaddafi would warm the heart of other Arab presidents-for-life, who would conclude that Washington’s demand for change could be easily bought off.
May 10th, 2004
|
Politics |
no comments
Sy Hersch details how the chain of command failed to prevent, and probably encouraged, the Abu Ghraib abuses.
This was not an isolated incident, this was not a few soldiers getting out of hand. The rot goes far up the chain of command, and we cannot even begin to rehabilitate ourselves until we have cleared out the chain of command.
May 10th, 2004
|
Iraq |
no comments
