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

Just starting to make the news is the story of a porn website (us owner, dutch website) which gave us military free memberships (their credit cards would be declined due to serving in war zones) for pictures from the war.The result was posting of iraqis and afghanis killed an mutilated by us servicemen, with gag commentary. The images (and text) are free to view on a forum style site like EvC. Here is a graphic, no punches pulled article on the website and the questions this raises.Here is the CNN article on the same story. One will note that CNN refuses to even give the website's name because the NAME is offensive to people. That's right, the word "fuck" is too offensive in an article about us soldiers mocking dead enemies using photos they have made. One wonders if the porn on the site also made them think twice.Apocalypse Now, we have arrived. Truly a glimpse into the heart of darkness, and our willingness to find moral offense in the simple rather than in the actual horrific brutality we engage in at much greater levels.Interestingly one should note that the US military is not following up on this very quickly. They appear to find nothing wrong with the acts of photographing war dead, as well as posting them and mocking them, UNLESS this is done in trade for looking at sexual imagery. Then some code has been violated.There are so many topics which can spin from this, but I figured it was an interesting story which people should be aware of.This message has been edited by holmes, 09-29-2005 11:12 AMThis message has been edited by holmes, 09-29-2005 11:12 AMThis message has been edited by holmes, 10-02-2005 05:10 AM

---

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

Yep, one might also remember that before the war, the US used nearly the same types of images made by Iraqi soldiers in order to prove how horrible Hussein and the Iraqi army was. We would never do such a...fuck

---

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

I had heard of the controversy, but never heard the analysis of the problem stated so well. I just keep having flashbacks to apocalypse now. Somewhere the nation slipped its leash.

---

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

So I want to get this straight, the military allowed soldiers full access to unrestricted internet usage including anonymous posting of pictures and text, without any ability for the military to trace such posts?Spies have got it made!

---

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

Many people here seem to think I feel that I know everything, and have a cemented moral/factual viewpoint which is unshakeable. Well this is one of those subjects which should help erode that image. I find myself lost on this particular issue.Lets start with the easy stuff.One of the pretexts of needing to remove Hussein, the next largest outside of wmds, is that his troops did this exact same thing. Tapes and images of brutal death were exhibited by our news media, and backed by this administration, as absolute proof of how horrible and corrupt the Hussein ADMINISTRATION was. Now we are allowing it to happen within our own troops. If we can kick out people for being gay, yet allow this to happen, we are corrupt. We are now just as bad as them... them being Hussein's regime, not "terrorists". This administration has allowed our side to sink to their level: corrupt, criminal, and brutal.The soldiers involved are commiting war crimes. Whether one wishes to defend the actions on any other ground, this is still pretty non negotiable as fact (though supporters should feel free to try). The exhibition of dead and wounded enemies or populations you are responsible for is patently illegal, this goes double when the action is ongoing and the exhibition is for the purpose of gloating. I also find it improper and unhealthy in a practical sense (it cannot help Iraqis and Afghanis deal with us in a good way in the future), as well as morally repugnant.Frankly I would really like to hear what any of the Iraq War supporters at EvC have to say about this practice by our soldiers, and what it means given that it is the behavior we said we did not engage in and if so we'd punish those involved. It has happened, and we are not stopping it.But to move on to my moral quandry...The website which began receiving these posts (and accompanying text) has given an explanation/defense of its actions. It is as follows: I think this explanation fails as it has absolutely nothing to do with what the website is portraying. The quote in question addresses viewing our own dead, viewed respectfully. Unless he wants to argue that his site is for terrorists and don't want them to have died in vain? Doubtful. This appears to be an attempt to whitewash the truth.But that does not mean the website owner is wrong.I'm a humongous freedom of speech fanatic. Outside of libel, incitement, security secrets (and to some extent pure advertising), I do not believe that there is any communication which can cause harm and so require elimination or large criminal sanction.Indeed I do believe that patently objectionable material is important to preserve and have publicly available as it obviously has moral connotations for the recipient. It tells us of a reality giving us the best mirror and light source by which to evaluate ourselves.Thus from a theoretical/ideological standpoint I would support this website's actions as an open forum which not only allows communication on a topic but preserves that communication for any side to react to.HOWEVER, the actions of the soldiers are warcrimes. Such activity was made illegal in because it is recognized as so morally outrageous a behavior when conducted by ones enemies, that one wants to proscribe its activity within the code of military conduct. It thus creates a line between legitimate warfare and chaos where anything an everything (including torture) is allowed. In this sense exhibition in a degrading way is torture (even after death).And in a practical sense it recognizes that the moral insult involved would constitute incitement to some degree. It both encourages bloodlust and dehumanization within the aggressor, and desire for vengeance within the target population.Encouragement of anything is nothing in a normal life setting, but war is not that at all. That setting involves actual killing and heightened emotions, and so encouragement to greater violence and dehumanization can have real world detrimental effects.Thus there is reason for its illegality, along the lines of incitement and practical security issues during war.In that sense, is the site itself assisting in a warcrime, or is it merely a neutral vehicle for communicating and archiving warcrimes for us to then respond to as we can and should?He certainly did not ask for those kinds of communications. He merely received them and allowed them to stand as is. But still without that site having allowed it, the soldiers have been rewarded for having commited warcrimes.That is the legal issue.Morally, it is courageous and honest to allow this kind of communication and to preserve it from censorship. At the same time it is quite cruel to those who are on the receiving end of this criminal act of torture, as well as corrupting by rewarding those commiting the crimes. Is the owner morally culpable as an assistant or vehicle of these actions, or can his commitment to another cause excuse the fact that he might be used by others?This is the moral issue.I might also ask if this would be any different if the wars were not currently being waged? Criminally and morally?Seriously need help working this one through.

---

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

I think that may make some moral difference of hosting as the nature of the action has changed, however moral culpability for the underlying act may remain as well as this making little difference on the criminal aspect.This is not to fully answer your question, but to set limits where I think it may or may not effect. This I am not so sure I can agree with. Essentially what you are arguing is that as long as it has a political purpose you agree with then you say anything goes. That would be a bit hypocritical if you would not then support someone running it in order to support our actions there (essentially what the soldiers are doing, by dehumanizing and distancing themselves from the horror).Or maybe I should put it this way, if you say it is fine for one purpose why can another not find another purpose?I think my problem is that regardless of political purpose, it serves the function of both allowing/preserving communication on a controversial topic and assisting a practical moral/legal outrage. The former I support, the latter I do not, even if I were to agree with the person's political persuasion.But maybe purpose should play a part in the calculation? If so, how is this done without without hypocrisy/inconsistency?

---

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

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)

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)

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)

Interesting position. I don't agree and I'll explain why, though it is subjective so you can take it or leave it.The pictures are not all of dead, and (from what I have heard) include the injured who may have been hit by US or enemy forces. Furthermore they are from Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq. The former I feel is justified warfare, and the second is an ongoing defensive action. Truly if no one was firing at us in Iraq it is rather unlikely we'd be firing at them. We have a right and a duty to help people there get a stable gov't in place.Thus while war may be horribly brutal, that is different than engaging in horrific brutality against one's defeated enemies. And that is the key difference. A record of what we did to show the brutality of warfare itself is fair game. Gloating and torturing innocent and enemy alike by mocking images of the injured and dead (who are by definition defeated) is a crime and it is brutality for brutality's sake.If you believe there is never a reason to go to war, including to defend onesself, then we would be at an impasse on debate. I truly hate war, but if there are some who do not, and as long as they exist, the ability to defend onesself physically will be necessary.

---

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

The following was posted at the website under discussion, apparently it is release from Gen Schoomacher to the troops regarding the absolute gaping wound which is internet security within the military. I can't believe it.What's interesting is that you may note in the following that he never comes out and tells them to quit with the war crimes, in fact he totally avoids mentioning that where it should be which is point #1. Instead there is a small pitch after telling them not to post classified material, that they should keep in mind to post so as not to offend allies and other nations. Sorry that the following is in all caps. That was at is was posted... So please don't spy, now carry on. If I were president, heads would be rolling right about... NOW!This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-04-2005 09:31 AM

---

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

Okey doke. Unfortunately that doesn't quite cut it as an excuse. The crimes we can't possibly be commiting since we're americans. Have you read the thread? Ahem. I never said otherwise, or at least never meant anything different. He is telling them to be careful to not do something which might offend others because it might effect us. That is not being the good guy.You have no opinion on the actions of these (particular) soldiers, nor the astounding lack of security protocols within the theater of operation?

---

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

I asked if you had read the thread, because the specifics were there. Do I need to rewrite what I and others have already said?Here is the short version... taking pictures of wounded and dead within warzones and occupied territories and posting them for purposes of personal pleasure and in a gloating fashion are against the geneva convention, this goes for enemy soldiers as well as "friendlies" who are accidentally hit, and goes double if bodies are adjusted or mutilated for such purposes. This is being done, yet ignored by the military. On a side note this reveals unbelievable stupidity in military security. What the fuck are you talking about? You think this thread is about Abu Ghraib? How insulting... read the OP at least. This is about stuff going on post Abu Ghraib, all over both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is about people posting many different scenes of violence, death and mutilation.The military, unlike with Abu Ghraib is refusing to touch this, saying that they cannot figure out if the pics and vids are real and if so who from within our army posted them. Yeah, right.At least one general, the one sent in to retrain soldiers after Abu Ghraib, did have a very negative comment about these recent events saying that at this point he no longer has a clue what atrocities our forces are willing and able to commit. That wasn't me or Michael Moore talking, it was a US general.Unfortunately the only thing the military high ups are willing to go after is soldiers getting porn. They say that is the only real potential crime. This was posted by soldiers stationed within the region about what the recent military stance is. If you have something else please share, otherwise I'll trust the guys that are there and posting this, rather than you.This message has been edited by holmes, 10-05-2005 10:55 AM

---

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