Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Edward Wesolowski <ids AT idisplay.com>]

Joey, I'm curious, what do you mean by:
>The claim that showing these images is against international law (which 
has been taken rather lightly by the US so far)
Do you think the US has been taking the showing of these images "lightly"?
Ed Wesolowski


At 05:14 PM 3/25/03 -0500, you wrote:
> These images of the dead are the single most damaging thing to the
> continuation of this war that the Iraqi state is capable of.  Pictures of
> the American dead will serve to scare and demoralize the American
> population, no matter if you see it as Iraqi propaganda or as brutal facts
> of reality (they're dead people who died very violently, unless you're
> used to it it is going to freak you out, it certainly did me).
>
> The US military has two goals in its counter propaganda campaign.  The
> first is to limit damage by limiting the number of people who will
> actually look at those images.  The second goal, and the more ambitious, is
> to turn the play around on Iraq, so that the US actually wins this
> propaganda battle, by vilifying the Iraqi state for its use of these images
> as propaganda.
>
> The claim that showing these images is against international law (which
> has been taken rather lightly by the US so far) delegitimizes the images,
> though it does not make them false, and many people will say to themselves
> "I'd only be playing into their hands by looking at them."  In a way,
> they'd be right.
>
> The claim about the Geneva conventions (true or not) also legitimizes the
> US government's use of every tactic short of direct censorship to limit
> the publics view of the human aspect of this war.
>
> It's a grotesquely complex situation.  In wishing that this war be called
> off I am doing something, whether I like it or not, that Saddam Hussein
> wants me to do.  Crap.
>
>
> -Joey
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Shea Tisdale wrote:
>
> > I apologize if anyone doesn't want the detail I'm about to give.  Don't 
> read
> > further if you don't want to know.
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > The video showed approx 5 dead bodies lying on a floor of what the media
> > called a morgue, but looked like any normal room with a concreate or tile
> > floor.  It was evident in several of the close ups that 3 of them had been
> > shot in the forehead at close range - perhaps an execution.  The wounds 
> were
> > almost dead center of the forehead.
> >
> > The footage of the prisoners showed them being forced to answer questions.
> > And by forced, I mean that several of them were proded physically.  I'm
> > careful not to say hit, but it was obvious they weren't in a normal 
> state of
> > consciousness...The prisoners were in various degrees of coherency and
> > appeared almost to be in shock or drugged.  They were slow to respond 
> and in
> > many cases responded with slightly inappropriate answers or incomplete
> > answers.  The female prisoner appeared to be in shock and a state of 
> terror.
> > Several of the prisoners had wounds and some were bandaged.
> >
> > I personally agree that images of war should not be withheld from public
> > scrutiny.  I think it's important that the images and facts of war be
> > available as freedom of information is a cornerstone of democracy.  As far
> > as our media, I think it is appropriate that the media withhold certain
> > information such as the names and images of those killed or being held 
> until
> > the military can notify the families.  Other than that, I think it needs to
> > be available.  However, I do think the interpretation of the Geneva
> > Convention being put forth by the US is correct.
> >
> > And I will concede that this is an interpretation of a convention 
> written in
> > the 40's.  And although you are correct that methods of distributing the
> > images existed at the time, such as photography and cinematography, 
> there is
> > no real comparison to today's media capabilities.  Today the images can be
> > distributed in an instant around the world.  In the 40's it would have 
> taken
> > days, if not weeks to have images available to the masses.  The impact and
> > effectiveness of using images is now greatly magnified because of 24 hour
> > instant coverage.  So by displaying the video and still images through
> > instant 24 hour world media, it is in effect marching them through every
> > town all at once.
> >
> > I also think the real issue is the intent of the action.  In your 
> example of
> > marching POWs through a town, the intent is, as you said, to allow for
> > riducule, harassment, etc.  However there is another intent inherent in 
> what
> > you mentioned and that is the reason why you would subject POWs to a
> > situation such as marching them through towns,etc.  That reason is to use
> > the POWs as a propaganda tool.  Certainly, you can ridicule, harass,
> > interrogate, beat, or even kill a POW in private.  And that too is against
> > the convention.  But why do it in public?  The reason is for propaganda
> > value.  To dishearten the enemy, to bolster your forces, to show your
> > citizens what happens to those that oppose you, etc. And that is exactly
> > what the images of the POWs in Iraq are being used for.  So again, I 
> say the
> > interpretation is correct.
> >
> > Another difference is that the images were recorded and provided by 
> Iraqi TV
> > which is state controlled media. Therefore, it was really the state of Iraq
> > who presented the images for the purpose mentioned before - 
> propaganda.  The
> > comparison to images on US media outlets taken by journalists is not
> > appropriate as the US Government does not own or control the media outlets.
> > Media outlets in the US have free choice over whether to display images or
> > not and I should point out the freedom to attempt to get images that the
> > government might not wish to have released or that it would consider
> > inappropriate to display.  So in the case of images of POWs on US 
> media, the
> > government did not provide the images or footage.  The media obtained them
> > and elected to broadcast them.  And I do think that is a subtle and
> > sometimes not so subtle difference.
> >
> > As far as this issue being raised before, it was raised in the previous 
> Gulf
> > War and has been raised by human rights groups - even in regards to those
> > being held in Quantanimo Bay Cuba at this time.  So it is being debated and
> > raised.  And in typical fashion, our government argues for this
> > interpretation in regards to Iraq and in regards to those being held in 
> Cuba
> > argues that it doesn't apply to "un-lawful combatants".  So we like to have
> > things our way, no matter what...
> >
> > And again I agree that the media should be careful in how it respects or
> > 'kow-tows' to the wishes of our government.  But of course, they are 
> free to
> > do it or not.  And that is the critical thing.  And I do think that
> > sanitizing a war can be very detrimental.  It is a difficult balance that
> > needs to be struck.
> >
> > I think that at some point showing images only serves ratings and the 
> morbid
> > curiousity of viewers.  Does it really make a difference if we show 10 dead
> > people or report about the 10 dead people and give their names and
> > information about them?  And does the same decision apply if it's 100, or
> > 200, or 500.  At some points in the Vietnam war we lost upwards of 100
> > troops a day.  If we have the pictures of them, do we need to show all 100?
> > I don't have the answer to this - I, too, want to know what is going on and
> > not be shielded from the truth.  I think that's critical to our democracy
> > and making informed decisions.  But is it important that I see it?  Or that
> > I see all of it?  I don't know.
> >
> > So that's my take on the issue.  Thanks for the thought provoking post.
> >
> > From: <machett AT ibiblio.org>
> > To: <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: [internetworkers] disturbing photos from Al Jazeera
> >
> >
> > >
> > > First off, I don't want to stick my foot in my mouth, so I'll ask if
> > anyone has seen images or footage of the KIAs or POWs?  If so, please
> > describe to me in detail what they consist of.  I haven't been able to get
> > to al-Jazeera online, neither Arabic nor English; and I haven't been 
> able to
> > find any of these so-called horrific images.  I did see a very brief and
> > censored bit of video on one news station.  I'd like to see these pictures
> > for myself, or at least get a decent description of them, so I can make an
> > informed decision.
> > >
> > > Now, in the absence of solid evidence, I make an educated guess at 
> events:
> > > Images of the dead and dying and of POWs, although terrible to 
> behold, are
> > a fact of war.  Anyone who thinks such images should be withheld from 
> public
> > scrutiny is just deluding themselves.  My only caveat is that the Western
> > media (at least the US media) should adhere to mass communication law
> > concerning the privacy of the families; but I don't believe there is any
> > such limitation in these cases (I'll refer to my mass. comm. law text this
> > evening and get back to you...)
> > > Secondly, this crap about displaying such images being against the Geneva
> > Conventions is just that -- crap.  As an interrogator with the US Army 
> I was
> > required to study the Geneva Conventions; although not an expert, I do have
> > a certain familiarity with the subject.  The section being quoted by the
> > military and regurgitated by the media has nothing to do with images of 
> POWs
> > being broadcast by the media.  The Conventions were created in response to
> > WWII, and that particular passage was intended to protect POWs from public
> > display and ridicule, such as marching Nazi POWs through a town and 
> allowing
> > the townspeople to curse at, spit upon, throw objects at, or strike the
> > POWs.  Photography and cinematography existed in 1949, at the time of the
> > Conventions creation, so if this were truly an issue of concern then the
> > creators would have addressed it then.  Furthermore, this issue, as far 
> as I
> > know, has not previously been raised.  We've seen footage before of 
> KIAs and
> > POWs from Som
> > >  alia to the first Gulf War to Kosovo; why is it suddenly an 
> issue?(answer
> > below)  And it hasn't seemed to stop the media from presenting images of
> > Iraqi POWs in US camps.  I've seen videos from times past of incinerated
> > Iraqis hanging half-way out of their burning vehicles and of poor souls on
> > the streets of Haiti being set ablaze by angry mobs.  Why wasn't the issue
> > raised then?
> > >
> > > I am disgusted and disappointed with the media's kow-towing to the
> > military.  "Shock and awe" is right; but it describes the effect on the
> > media, not on the Iraqi people.  I suspect that the Powers-That-Be don't
> > want any fuel added to the fires of dissent; they learned their lessons 
> from
> > VietNam and Somalia, wherein images of dead and dying US troops swayed
> > public opinion back home.  But these are the sort of truths the public 
> needs
> > to know in order to make an informed opinion on the matter.  It's painful,
> > but it has to be done; the sterilized images of precision bombing must be
> > accompanied by the grotesque reality.  It will hurt some; it will relieve
> > others.  Since yesterday I have read and witnessed two interviews of wives
> > of former POWs.  One said it traumatized she and her daughter; the other
> > said it was a welcome relief to know that her husband was indeed alive.
> > >
> > > my $0.02,
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
> > http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> > > You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> > > To unsubscribe visit
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web 
> site!  http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> > You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> > To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
> >
>
> --
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web 
> site!  http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers