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:
Some have questioned why we republish explicit, even gruesome, images of wartime violence. One only need look back to World War II when most images of dead soldiers were censored by the government, and no cameras were allowed on the battlefield. Such whitewashing of the truth is at odds with the First Amendment freedoms that this country enjoys. These soldiers fought to preserve our freedoms, and the truth has a way of coming out. As Time Magazine said when it published the first wartime casualty photos of 3 dead soldiers on a beach in New Guinea being washed up in the tide: Dead men have indeed died in vain if live men refuse to look at them. We agree.
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)
™ Version 4.2