PhotoDude.com

The Daily Whim

The Daily Whim

All The News That Fits My Whim

Thu. Jul 24, 2003

Harsh Photographic Reality

Harsh Photographic Reality – The American public, the US government, and our armed forces recoiled in horror at the sight of American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. During the war in Iraq, we loudly and righteously condemned Iraqi TV and Arab networks when they showed photos and video of the members of the 507th who were killed in an ambush. And both embedded and “unilateral” reporters can tell you many stories of being forcefully denied access to areas where they might be able to photograph or film American dead in Iraq.

Today, Al Jazeera (and CNN, and Fox, and everybody) is broadcasting images of war dead once again. But this time, not only is the US government not issuing condemnations, they issued the photos.

It has long been an American military tradition to treat war dead with at least minimal respect. Even the enemy. Even despicable wastes of skin like Uday and Qusay Hussein. Beyond tradition, soldiers have been court martialed over it. Because if we hope for our own to be treated with respect, how can we not offer the same to those who fought against us?

This tradition is codified in the First Geneva Convention. Article 15 says (emphasis mine), “At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.”

Article 17 states, “They shall further ensure that the dead are honourably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found.”

And though the Third Geneva Convention is specifically about prisoners of war, it does say they must be protected “against insults and public curiosity.” Having your death-deformed face broadcast all over the world might just qualify as “public curiosity.” So we can discuss the semantic loopholes of the legal language, but the moral foundation on which these words were created is clear to me.

People were quite worked up about Iraq’s violations of the Geneva Conventions during the war. Rightfully so, in my opinion. Are we now going to abandon those principles and standards for the sake of expediency on this one matter? Has anyone considered the precedent we are setting, and the fact there’s a Bigger Fish left to catch?

What will we do if Saddam is cornered, and is, as has been rumored, wearing an explosive vest like a suicide bomber? When the precedent of publishing photos has been established, will anyone be convinced by pictures of the bloody grease spot that was once Saddam?

And if you’re going to toss your previous standards of behavior for the sake of effect, why go half way?

Should we Cowboy Americans return to the practices of the Wild West, and put each body in a casket stood on end, with their death wounds on clear display, right on Main Street? Should we use the traditional methods of an conquering occupier, and put their heads on pikes? Should we heed the advice of Aziz Poonawalla: “We should drag the bodies through the streets to prove they are dead to the Iraqi populace.”

After all, that’s the bottom line here, isn’t it? Goal One And Only: Prove to the Iraqi people that Uday and Qusay are, in the words of the Coroner of Munchkin City, “not only merely dead, [they’re] really, most sincerely dead.”

These photos weren’t released to convince Americans, or Europeans, or the media. My guess is that their graphic nature will produce far less shock in the average Iraqi than the average American. And, like me, most will not find a shred of cause to shed a tear for the likes of Uday and Qusay. I think you can make a fairly strong argument that the Iraqi people needed to see proof of these deaths just as much as they needed to see Saddam’s statue being pulled down. While I’ve decried the precedent it sets above, it may also set a precedent of veracity when it counts, and that may be important when we have to prove a similar final fate for Saddam.

So, why am I whining then? What possible difference could it make to me?

I think we have taken a chunk out of the moral foundation of the Geneva Convention, which we proclaim loudly when it is violated to the detriment of our troops. And we tossed it off in the name of expediency to accomplish a short term goal. Call me silly, but that makes me a bit queasy.

And finally, if you think that with the release of these pictures, there can be no one who doubts our actions or their results, well, you’re as silly as I am.

Posted 8:19AM, Thu, Jul 24 2003 in · · 3 Comments below


Peanut Gallery

1  John Thacker wrote:

Sorry, but Uday and Qusay were not protected by the Geneva Convention. They were not wearing regular uniforms or insignia and fired upon our troops, and thus were not following the Convention themselves. The Geneva Convention only applies to regulars, wearing identifying markings and to countries that themselves sign and abide by the Convention. (Iraq also clearly did not abide by the Convention during the war.) This is no loophole or technicality, either. Rather, this is the main enforcement mechanism of the Convention. It is the very real moral foundation of the Convention, contrary to your assertion. The only possible real punishment for nations not following the Geneva Convention is that their enemies will also abandon the Convention as regards them. The Geneva Convention sets up a "tit-for-tat" strategy in a game theoretic situation otherwise identical to the Prisoner's Dilemma. Completely condemning and preventing reprisals when another nation violated the Convention may seem to you to be upholding the moral foundation of the Convention, but it is not. Rather, it encourages nations to violate the Convention with impunity, as they expect that nothing will happen to them. The costs of violating the Convention first are supposed to be grevious, but you're trying to prevent them. I must say, that a world where the US is absolutely expected or bound to not retaliate in kind against a Geneva Convention violator is a world where Geneva Convention violations are MUCH MORE LIKELY. Thus, despite your good intentions, I argue that you are no true friend of the Geneva Convention.

Comment by John Thacker · 08/ 1/03 07:19 AM
2  Federico wrote:

"Sorry, but Uday and Qusay were not protected by the Geneva Convention. They were not wearing regular uniforms or insignia and fired upon our troops, and thus were not following the Convention themselves." Protocol I of the Geneva Convention clearly specifies procedures for "persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict" and that are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status (check Article 45, Paragraph 3; Article 75, Paragraph 1). The minimum guaranteed by the occupying Party were enumerated by PD. There is no such category as "people not protected by the GC". As a ratified treaty, it is a law (in the US and in Iraq). "The Geneva Convention sets up a "tit-for-tat" strategy in a game theoretic situation otherwise identical to the Prisoner's Dilemma." This may be a good description of the actual misuse of the GC, but not of what is agreed on paper. The Convention is based on universal principles that are agreed on (Article 1), not on tactics to deter Parties to engage in certain practices. Imagine a similar interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: if a government violates it, are their members not entitled to a minimum protection? Reducing a moral problem to a game theoretical equilibrium shows little understanding of the magnitude of such issues.

Comment by Federico · 08/ 1/03 08:12 AM
3  PhotoDude wrote:

John, you and Steven both make valid legalistic arguments about the semantics of the Geneva Convention. And I never suggested anyone should actually be charged with war crimes based on a violation of the Geneva Convention. My argument is based on results, and publishing these pictures and video didn't get them. Perversely, only when Saddam spoke of their death on his latest tape did many Iraqis believe it was true. We expended moral capital, caught flack, and what did we get for it? I don't think we gained anything from it, and I think we did some damage. Then when you add to it the incident days later in which a mother and daughter were “detained” to force the General-Husband-Father to turn himself in, you just have to wonder what the F is going on. Yes, we do hold ourselves to a high standard. And when we drastically lower them to meet short term goals, it bothers me.

Comment by PhotoDude · 08/ 1/03 02:50 PM
Comments are closed for this article
Contact me to find out more