en being sexually assaulted on the grounds that such images graphically convey an infringement of their rights?
That the pictures which have emerged from Abu Ghraib are a disgrace both to America and to its allies is beyond question. The existence of these pictures undoubtedly should have been made public, as it eventually was. The pictures themselves should have been seen by a number of people, and these should almost certainly have included responsible journalists. But the decision, taken originally by American newspaper editors, to publish images of Arab Muslims being mocked, bullied and humiliated so that the degradation inflicted on them could be seen by all the world, is a very different matter.
Partly because belief in free speech is as unreflective in Britain and America as belief in an omnipotent deity is among devout Muslims, little if any thought appears to have been given to this question.
No doubt we’ll be seeing more and more of these pictures, their publication being greeted with smug satisfaction at the powers of a free press to expose the evils of Western power. We will not, however, see too many re-runs of, say, Nick Berg’s decapitation, or other gruesome reminders of anti-Western brutality. Too upsetting for the relatives… It’s this pursuit of a shamelessly partisan approach wrapped up in high moral language which I find so unpleasant.
Leave a Reply