US war crime as free speech issue (help holmes sort this out)

Yup, and I can tell you exactly where -We completely lost our moral bearings when the Religious Right decided that they had a monopoly on morality.Now we are in a Holy War because Jesus is apparently a person friend of W's and really wanted us to attack Iraq.When one side of a conflict is completely and absolutely 100% morally justified and right and fighting for God's side etc (Us), then whatever we do to the evil, bad, amoral, wrong, Godless enemy (them) is justified.Unfortunately, this statement is true even when we switch who's on which side.

But Gays are iccky

Hi, holmes.Does your moral qualms depend on the fact that the US is engaging in an illegal war of aggression? I ask because I have always felt that those who are defending against a foreign invasion are justified in using a wide range of tactics to defend themselves, Geneva Conventions notwithstanding. I know if I were defending my country (or, at least the Northwestern portion of it) against a foreign invader I would certainly want to disseminate pictures of dead, even mutilated, invaders was widely as possible if it would rally my compatriots and demoralize the invaders.

For the legal part this is correct. And I'm glad you went ahead and posted the pertinent sections of the convention. There simply seems no point in arguing whether these are war crimes (atrocities), though it seems they are going to be completely given a pass.Most disturbing to me is that even left wing orgs directly dealing with these kinds of issues are not speaking out about it. This would be a totally different topic, but I would be 100% opposed to your position. The concept of "vile" is subjective and not a good idea to be using for censorship, even if messages are kept intact. With this reasoning Mark Twain should be edited, and the hatchet job networks do to movies should be part of the normal editing process. In effect 1984's dictionary is a doubleplus good idea. Of course the world is staying silent about this. Why? As long as the world does not make sure the conventions apply, in practice they don't.This is not to disagee with your position, but to lament a reality attached to it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, but that is a very good question and I'll explain why it doesn't pertain to me or my situation.Some of these pictures are from Afghanistan. I was completely for the war in Afghanistan and do not view it illegal in any way shape or form.As for the invasion of Iraq, while wholly against it and believe Bush and Co should have been drummed out (as well as charged with war crimes) for it, the fact is now that we did it, we DO need to stay until a stable Iraqi gov't can be put in place. Terrorist and criminal groups have moved in, and though it is thanks to our incompetence, we have a real reason to fight them.So was Iraq an illegal war of aggression? Yes. But Afghanistan and helping put into power a new stable Iraqi gov't is not, and that is primarily what opponents these photos involve (from what I understand as I have yet to get access to the site). I disagree with this position with all my heart. The Convention rules are meant to be restrictions on conduct within warfare for very practical reasons.But even without those practical reasons, my ethics finds the further demoralization of a defeated enemy (and that is what a dead enemy is) weak, cowardly, and cruel. That does not add up to an objective assessment of wrong, but I think it is repugnant and outside of practical reasons, something I would fight, even from people on my own side. It to my mind is what separates MY side, from the people I would consider my enemy. Shocking death disseminated to an enemy may or may not be useful, and could be valuable and okay to me. However this is not that at all unless you believe most of our enemy is perusing a site for guys posting pics of their girlfriends naked. And it is not that when the actions are gruesome gloating over the deaths of soldiers.There is a huge difference between dealing shocking damage and reminding an enemy that it can happen again, and simply making yourself look like a sadist with no recourse to laws and respect for humanity. I don't see how the latter demoralizes them at all.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

That does not add up to an objective assessment of wrong....

---

Is there such a thing? Just a joke. I understand what you are saying.

The language Twain used was not vile in his time, so yes there are subjective elements involved. That does not excuse using terms that are offensive without need to convey the message. I have always felt you can get your point accross with more effect by creative use of the language rather than just going for the gutter.This does not solve the problem of change of usage with time, so I do agree with you to some extent there, I just can draw a distinction between {nigger=black} and {nigger=inferior} (coupled with knowing that for those where {nigger=inferior} they now use {black=inferior} -- the opinions have not changed with the words)The problem is when you have two competing rights in contention (the essence of a true moral dilemma), as appears to be the case here, and where you draw the line.To me it is easier when I distinguish between the form of the message and the content of the message, thus the rights of people to be treated with dignity in death wins over the need to use dead bodies to form a message that can be said in other ways. Prohibiting the gratuitous use of dead bodies does not outlaw statements like "the only good {fill-in-the-blank} is a dead {ibid}" no matter how much I disagree with such statements.okay?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Let me add another dimension to this issue:Showing dead "trophies" and people being shot (one video I saw last year, soldiers continuing to shoot a wounded person) is no different than the videos by Zarchowi's cell.Looks to me like we've lost the "war" on terrorism because now it is within the US ranks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

In that case you can knock out rock and rap music. I guess I'm still not completely clear, if you mean when there are competing rights then its okay to prohibit communication (where the message can still be said in another way) so as not to violate the other person's rights, then I think I tend to agree though it would be on a case by case basis. I am leery of what some might consider their "rights" so as to be proactive censorship wise.If you mean that you'd be for censorship even outside of rights conflicts, if one can communicate in a way that is less offensive, then I'd disagree.I think your going for the former, but your original statement was broad enough it could have been anything.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

In my posts I've tried to make a bit of a distinction.Terrorists have a purpose with their images. It is as another poster described, which is to inflict psychological damage on an enemy. If these were posted in order to scare the enemy into submission, then I would agree we would definitely be terrorists.However this does not seem to be the case of that. It is more analogous to the tapes and images viewed and distributed by Hussein's thugs, which we criticized and pointed to as reasons to invade. They weren't engaging in terrorism, merely criminal brutality.This appears to be snuff engaged in by soldiers using the cloak of war. Criminal torture, degradation, and brutality without purpose beyond personal gratification.I don't think that makes us any better, and in a way it almost makes us worse. But its sort of a distinction I see.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That was the original context yes? Outside of the above context, this would be more of a moral decision by the individual eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

Funny. I seem to remember that there was a hue and cry when Aljazeera broadcast pictures of American casualties early in the Iraq war. But Americans could never be so hypocritical, so maybe my memory is going bad.

---

Both are utterly tasteless.And holmes made a good point by asking *why* soldiers are allowed to wander around combat zones with cameras, then get unmonitored internet access to post pictures and information anonymously.

Well, I look at it as more than a political purpose, and specifically said that almost anything goes, but yes. I feel that war is the most morally reprehensible thing imaginable, not least because of the threat it poses to the freedom of individuals. So perhaps the ends justify the means here? In this case, I'm not sure that the action did end up aiding the war effort, whatever the intentions of the authors or host of the material. If the photos drew sufficient media attention in the United States and other pro-war nations, then perhaps they have furthered the notion that "war is Hell". With wars being waged further from home (physically and mentally) than ever before, and the mainstream media giving increasing coverage of conflict while increasingly "sanitizing" that coverage, I think that we need to be reminded of the reality occasionally... or often.I'm sorry if none of this helps with your moral quandry =) We probably have very different beliefs as to the nature of morality.

Or maybe war under the cloak of snuff.As you said: we have a "willingness to find moral offense in the simple rather than in the actual horrific brutality we engage in at much greater levels." I think that the act of photographing the dead was the "simple", whereas the "horrific brutality" was the killing that went on first.

Unless the ends are to stay alive in an immediate sense, I am very hesitant to say any and all means are justified based on ends. I don't think the actions helped it, though there are some who believe it does help demoralize our enemies and so help the war effort. Agreed, though usually that should be done before making the decision to go to war and not after we started. But the question here then would be is that what is happening here? It certainly doesn't seem like the posters are attempting to remind people of reality. They are getting off on gloating over the horror they are witnessing and engaging in.This leaves the remaining question, and the thrust of this thread, which is whether the website owner's actions could be viewed as reminding people of the reality, and if that negates complicity in legal crimes or moral outrage.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)