Britain's Abu Ghraib

[leslie_cheung]

<a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011905W.shtml"

>british abu ghraib?</a> *graphic pics*

[emre]

Just when I thought there was a civilized war going on!

And now for something completely different... from the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/">Brazil</a> (1985):

<blockquote>

<b>Interviewer:</b> What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings?<br>

<b>Ministry of Information Deputy Minister:</b> Bad sportsmanship. A ruthless minority of people seems to have forgotten certain good old-fashioned virtues. They just can't stand seeing the other fellow win. If these people would just play the game ...

</blockquote>

[blueisland]

not sure what the point of this thread is on here.........?

[randy_santos]

Kind of makes me think of Angola, The Congo, Sudan, gee there's lot's of places around the world where 10's of thousands of civilians are butchered a year. Where's the outrage regarding that?????

[leslie_cheung]

It's doc / pj photo news. Nothing more or less intented else I

would have wrote something more...

[j_sevigny]

This thread is interesting because while photography is often used to portray beautiful

things, it's often used as a tool -- intentionally or not -- of social justice. In the US and UK,

allegedly true representative democracies -- we should be ashamed that these kinds of

inquisition-style acts are being done with our tax dollars and very little resistance from the

leaders we've elected to represent us.

[ilkka_nissila]

War is war, and it has always been that way. There is no war in which only one party is guilty - and never will be. It's not in the nature of war.

 

Not that I care about the photos in this case - it would be so easy to frame the situations. If I were abusing prisoners of war, it wouldn't be photographed.

[boris_ochan]

Ilkka: ".....it would be so easy to frame the situations."

 

Not even the accused soldiers are disputing the authenticity of the images.

 

"If I were abusing prisoners of war, it wouldn't be photographed."

 

It might be photographed if the abuse was so casual and commonplace (and condoned by

senior offices) that it simply didn't feel like "abuse" anymore.

[kent_tolley2]

The power of photography! I understand the abuse would never have come to the attention of the British govt if not that one of the soldiers saved his film until he returned to Britain to have it processed. When the processor saw the pictures he alerted the government authorities and voila. Exposed! As with the abuse by US soldiers, none of it would have come to public consciousness except for the photographs.

[spanky]

Thanks for the post Leslie. I agree that these disgusting photos are what makes photography the powerful recording tool that it is. However I was recently discussing photojournalism and documentary photography with a fellow photographer and we both agreed that this power is in danger of losing it's factual nature. With more and more people using photoshop to doctor up their images, one can no longer be sure if they are seeing what was really before the camera lens. I'm not saying these images themselves were changed in any way, but one must keep an open mind to the endless possibilites now available to us to make subtle or drastic changes to an image. With so many political and social agendas out there I'm sure there many people willing to outright twist an image around to serve whatever end they are after, just like they would happily lie in print for the same reasons.

[Spearhead]

Images were doctored long before Photoshop, that has nothing to do with it. It's always been a matter of trust, and it always will be. Photoshop is a red herring, it's not the issue. The issue is how news photos may be misused, including alteration. Not technology.

[boris_ochan]

Further to what Jeff says, there's never been a golden age of truthfulness in documentary

photography. If anything there are probably fewer misrepresentations now than at any

time in the history of photography.

[craig_gillette]

"The Battle of (for?) Algiers" does a good job of emulating documentary photography in a cinema production but does a very good job of portraying the French paratroopers in their eforts to address the insurgency in North Africa. The big reason there is outrage generated over the few incidents of abuse commited by American and British troops is precisely because it is unusual and unexpected. One could ask where is the outrage over the ongoing atrocities by UN Peacekeepers in Africa and elsewhere, but maybe that's because the world doesn't hold the UN to the standards it holds America or Britain. The fact that the soldiers have cameras and the pictures were taken is a marked contrast to conditions all over the world where the repression and abuses are occurring but there is no visibility and no publicity.

[richard_milner2]

Regardless of any alleged abuses committed by other troops elsewhere, the world holds

US and UK troops to the highest standards because these countries present themselves as

the most civilised, democratic and free nations in the world.

 

The reason why we are in Iraq is supposedly because we have the moral authority, based

on our law-abiding governing principles, to go and set the rest of the world to rights. The

US and UK, along with other western democracies, set up the UN system, the declaration

of human rights, and the international court, which we expect all countries to ratify and

join.

 

That is why abuses by our troops or security forces, against foreign nationals or

against our own civil liberties, in the name of "the war on terror" are so damaging to our

cause.

 

It's a cliche but true, a picture is worth a thousand words. Whether the abuse was the

work of the system or a few 'bad apples', these photos have done tremendous damage to

the UK's reputation.

[mark_richards]

Just for the record, one British newspaper (The Mirror) was hoaxed into publishing staged photographs depicting abuse of prisoners/civilians/etc. last year.

 

However, these photographs ARE genuine.

[glen_johnson1]

Film can be doctored, of course, but digital technology makes things easier. Already an LA times photographer has been fired for intentionally doctoring a photo of a U.S. soldier to make it appear more violent. I am afraid this trend will will become more commonplace given the competitive urge to duplicate the success of those who have genuinely broken a story via photo.

[Andrew in Austin]

Mmmm. Just remember that "War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and ....."

[kent_tolley2]

Andrew - is that quote from 1984 and the Ministry of Information?

[andrewlamb]

Illka,

 

"There is no war in which only one party is guilty - and never will be."

 

So, in WW2, what were the Poles , the Danes, the Norwegians guilty of?

 

Sweeping, generalised, statements are dangerous things- including this one.

[blueisland]

There's so many issues/ideas that can be discussed around these photos. However a quick point....

I think the context of the photo should never be overlooked....

 

Any war is disgusting and hideous things always happen; is it not just another way in which one group can dehumanise another group in order to allow themselves to kill?

 

What interests me is that these photos "emerged" at the time they did.

 

Before this war started it was considered in most countries to be illegal, immoral and to be waged purely to dictate the share price/control of oil. As the war has progressed it has become more and more unpopular and the hypocracy & lies of our leaders has become expossed to the majority via journalism & films such as Farenheight 911. Could the timing of these photos be intended to shift a "moral blame" away from those in control and onto the common soldier?

Look how quickly these politicians have condemed the soldiers actions... Is there any discussion about the morality of raising Falluja to the ground? Of using cluster boms, of using Napalm; of attacking a country for nothing but financial gain?

So are the photographs nothing more than another tool of propaganda by the western governments to distract the real issues, and that is the war itself?

 

Just a thought....