=============================================================
CNN Blames the Photos,
Not the Torture
by Jeremy Scahill
CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr should
be given some kind of award for the most
outrageously off-target reporting on the
<http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11362767/>newly
released photos and videos of U.S. torture and
abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
In her numerous appearances during the morning
news cycle on CNN after the images were first
broadcast on Australia's SBS televis ion, Starr
described what she saw as the "root of the Abu
Ghraib prison scandal" as such:
"Let's start by reminding everybody that under
U.S. military law and practice, the only
photographs that can be taken are official
photographs for documentation purposes about the
status of prisoners when they are in military
detention. That's it. Anything else is not
acceptable. And of course, that is what the Abu
Ghraib prison scandal is all about."
What? Here I thought the "scandal" was that the
U.S. military was systematically abusing
prisoners. These new photos, with their
documentation of violently inflicted, open
wounds, obliterate any notion that what occurred
at Abu Ghraib was anything short of torture by
all accepted definitions of the term. They
reveal some horrifying scenes of naked,
humiliated, bloodied prisoners, some with
apparent gunshot wounds. In a video broadcast on
Australia's SBS, naked, hooded prisoners were
seen being forced to masturbate in front of the
camera. But, according to CNN's Starr, the real
transgression was that some soldiers documented
the torture in violation of "U.S. military law
and practice." In a report later in the morning,
Starr returned to her outrageous
characterization of the "scandal," beginning her
report:
"As we look at a couple of the photographs,
let's remind people that why these are so
inappropriate. Under U.S. military law and
practice and procedure, you simply cannot take
photographs ? as we're going to show you some of
them right now. You cannot take photographs of
people in detention, in humiliating positions,
positions that are abusive in any way, shape or
form. The only pictures that are ever allowed of
people in U.S. military detention would be
pictures for documentation purposes. And,
clearly, these pictures are not that. That is
the whole issue that has been at the root of the
Abu Ghraib prison scandal, that it was abusive,
the practices in which soldiers eng aged in."
"You cannot take photographs of people in
detention, in humiliating positions, positions
that are abusive in any way, shape or form,"
according to Starr. But apparently it's OK to
place them in those humiliating, abusive
positions ? or at least not worth commenting on
in these reports on CNN. Starr continued her
report, describing Pentagon reaction to the
newly released photos:
"But the Pentagon certainly is not happy that
these pictures, these additional pictures, which
had not been distributed publicly in the past,
Pentagon not happy that they are out. And the
reason is, the Pentagon had filed a lawsuit
trying to prevent their publication in the
United States out of concern, they say, that it
would spark violence in the Arab world to see
these photographs and it would put U.S. military
forces at risk."
The release of the photographs will spark the
violence? No ? U.S. torture of prisoners sparks
massive outrage, and justif iably so. Moreover,
this outrage should not just be confined to the
"Arab world" but should be felt everywhere,
particularly in the U.S. Besides, Pentagon
lawyers have already tried this defense in
federal court, and a judge ruled that fear of
facing the consequences of your actions is not a
legitimate defense.
Starr concluded another report saying the
Pentagon is concerned that if the images "appear
in the Islamic world ? they will incite unrest
in the Islamic world, and therefore put U.S.
military troops at risk."
CNN anchor Zain Vergee then shot back, "And they
were swiftly put on Arab TV. As you say, they're
out there."
They were swiftly put on Arab TV. Is there
something devious about that? Is "Arab TV"
somehow committing some transgression against
freedom and democracy by broadcasting these
images that were first put out by Australian TV
in a country Bush claims as his ally?
All of the images of the torture at Abu Ghraib
should be made public, as the Center for
Constitutional Rights and ACLU have been
fighting for, because they are an accurate
representation of what has happened and
continues to happen in U.S.-run and -supported
gulags around the world.
When and if they are released, Barbara Starr
should be reminded that she is supposed to be a
CNN reporter at the Pentagon, not a Pentagon
spokesperson on CNN.
Sohail Karmani <skarmani@emirates.net.ae> wrote:
Hi John
I have a theory about the re-emergence of the Abu Ghraib pictures. They
foment further violence against the occupation thus legitimating the
presence of the occupying forces.
Sohail
----- Original Message -----
From: "John E Richardson"
To: "Language in New Capitalism"
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [LNC] Un-newsworthy news
No, this story hasn't been reported here in the UK so far. There are
other 'pissed up Brits air rage' stories printed of course; quite a few
in fact. Once this drunk is sentenced, the story may get bigger as it
will give an opportunity to frame it as a 'poor treatment of a Brit by
the foreign justice system' story. Perhaps it would have been reported
in a more promient way if the drunk was also Muslim, since it goes
against expectation and all that...
On the subject of newsworthiness, the recent release of additional abu
ghraib torture photos has sparked a debate on whether they should have
been broadcast/printed. 'What do they add? What's new about them?', etc,
etc. Here's a Guardian news blog on the subject, that makes no reference
to the recent Danish cartoons:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/02/16/newsworthy_or_gratuitous.html
JER
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Hello All
The story (below) in today's Gulf News has obvious newsworthy currency
in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf region. It would never of course see the
light of day in either the US or UK. But - after reading the story -
most I'm sure would agree that anything short of this news event would
have been major breaking news on the usual media networks had the
offending party been a Muslim, Arab, Iranian, Pakistani, or Indonesian.
Curiously, I'd be interested to hear what you think would happened to
him, had his flight been due to land in JFK International airport.
Regards
Sohail
==============
John E Richardson
Dept of Social Sciences
Loughborough University
www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssjer/
_______________________________________________
LNC mailing list
LNC@listserv.cddc.vt.edu
http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/lnc
_______________________________________________
LNC mailing list
LNC@listserv.cddc.vt.edu
http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/lnc
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38381/
ylc=X3oDMTEzcGlrdGY5BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDMWF1dG9z/*http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html >Yahoo!
Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing,
reviews, & more on new and used cars.
_______________________________________________
LNC mailing list
LNC@listserv.cddc.vt.edu
http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/lnc