iraq

Lila Rajiva: "Iraqi Women and Torture, Theater That Educates, News That Propagandizes": July 31, 2004

"It is the ambiguity in our ideas of representation that lies at the heart of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal and prevents us from seeing how the act of photographing naked detainees would in itself have been seen as rape by Iraqis, even aside from the specific use intended for the photographs. Knowing the past use of photography in interrogation techniques passed on by CIA trainers to intelligence agencies like the Shah's notorious Savak, [1] it would have been only too credible to many that the photos were being used to blackmail and coerce through the threat of public exposure or publication on porn sites. If that indeed was the case, and there is evidence to suggest as much, then it is our distinction between physical rape and "virtual" rape that may be questionable. Representations of sex or rape are a far more complex phenomenon than the acts themselves for they lend themselves to reproduction and transformation. It is no longer simply a question of whether some incident or photo is a hoax or genuine but whether, even if it is a hoax, it is genuinely a hoax, that is, one designed simply to mislead, such as the Jessica Lynch story, or to cast a doubt on what is real, such as perhaps the fake rape pictures, or is instead intended to bolster what really is factual. Conversely, even if something is genuine, one now needs to ask whether it has in some way been set up or staged. One needs to know if it is being used to promote something false, in the way in which the dismantling of the Saddam statue was manipulated to give the impression that a reprise of the fall of communism in Soviet Russia was under way. Things are no longer what they seem but what they can be made to seem. And to make something other than what it is to manipulate it, to coerce it. Ultimately then what we are talking about is the operation of power through images. Abu Ghraib is the locus where several dynamics of power come together like spokes in a wheel: the dynamic between a conquering and a conquered people; that between an expansionist religion or world-view and a defensive one; that between the active gaze of the male role and the passive objectification of the female; and finally, that between the producer of information, pornography, or violence and its consumer. To sustain these dynamics, one needs images; for the images to have effect, the dynamics need to be in play. In this interplay, the rumors of rape, fed by the widespread stripping and photographing of detainees cannot be dismissed. They point to the way in which power is employed by the victor not simply in the traditional methods of war -- from bombing to torture -- but also in the creation and imposition of imagery that effaces and replaces the subjectivity of the defeated people with a new reality, one that defines them as abject and dispossessed of their selves."
[Iraq Occupation Watch]

Susan J. Douglas: "We Are What We Watch": July 1, 2004

"A few weeks ago, Fox-TV offered up the finale of “The Swan”—the mutant offspring of the Miss America pageant, Cinderella and “Extreme Makeover.” Women held up as “dogs”—whose supposedly oversized noses, flabby thighs and saggy breasts were scrutinized and pitied, even ridiculed—subjected themselves to multiple invasive procedures, including as many as 14 surgeries and psychological counseling, before a national viewing audience. The finalists then vied in a beauty contest complete with lingerie competition, and one was chosen winner, the Swan. As “The Swan” and a swarm of reality shows colonized primetime, the news media was consumed by repugnant images coming out of Abu Ghraib. All were appalling, but possibly the most disturbing were those of young women like Pfc. Lynndie England pointing and laughing at an Iraqi man’s genitals and, in another shot, seeming to drag a naked Iraqi man by a leash. How do these seemingly different images of women work together? To understand, we need to consider the synergy between the coarsening of our culture and post-feminism, between TV’s sadomasochism-lite and its escalating objectification of women. Because we often dismiss popular culture as banal and inconsequential, we don’t stand back and think about the connections between what we see in the news and what we see in entertainment programming. But we should appreciate that reality TV, particularly, traffics in and relies upon voyeurism, one-upsmanship, humiliation and often soft-core pornography. This is hardly to say reality TV “caused” Abu Ghraib; the soldier-torturers, including the women, were socialized into highly macho military institutions predicated on conquering and killing those deemed the enemy. [...]

Others have noted how various cultural practices, from fraternity hazing to torture in U.S. prisons, are of a piece with the sadism at Abu Ghraib. But what’s chilling about reality TV is that it exhorts us to be a voyeur of others’ humiliation and to see their degradation as harmless, even character-building fun. It is not surprising that, as Susan Sontag wrote in dismay, Abu Ghraib torturers “apparently had no sense that there was anything wrong in what the pictures show.” The other highly disturbing resonance between Abu Ghraib and reality TV is the central role both play in advancing anti-feminism. Right-wing pundits like Linda Chavez suggested that the presence of women in the military “encouraged more misbehavior” in the prison. [...] Reality TV’s obsession with women’s appearance, sexuality, ability to please men, desperate need to compete with each other over men, redecorate, have breast implants and liposuction—reinforces and celebrates pre-feminist gender roles. From “The Bachelor” to “Joe Millionaire” to “Trading Spaces,” reality TV keeps women in their place and encourages a retreat from citizenship and world affairs into consumerism and the domestic sphere. [...] In these shows, the inevitability of female narcissism is rendered utterly natural, almost genetically determined. But so is a culture of surveillance, of voyeurism and of demeaning exposure."
[In These Times]

Garret Keizer: "A Picture Worth Exactly One Thousand Words": August 3, 2004

Playing off the old saw that a picture is worth a thousand words, writer Garret Keizer pens [and speaks] a thousand words on the body-pile at Abu Ghraib:

"Nothing in this picture is more telling than the upraised thumb of the standing soldier. Everything else in the picture is subsumed in that thumb. Much else is subsumed there also: the gusto of the beer commercial, the gung-ho posture of the action film, the vulgarity of a hundred in-your-face bumper-stickers, the jingoistic rhetoric of a thousand September 11th commemorations—the whole rah-rah, “go for it” attitude of the self-styled American ace. We are told that a thumbs-up meant mercy for the fallen in Roman gladiatorial contests. Other authorities say it meant death. In America it means that mercy and death are up to us. Because either you’re with us or against us. Because we’re number one."
[Mother Jones]

Soldiers React to Prison Abuse: May, 2004

"Youth Radio reporter Belia Mayeno talked to Ed Reyes, a Marine who was returning from Iraq right after the prison abuse scandal broke at Abu Ghraib. Reyes explained about soldiers who were caught."
[Third Coast Festival Site: RealPlayer: 4:18]

Wil S. Hylton: "The Conscience of Joe Darby": August, 2004

"They shut him up. Fast. You never even saw him. No footage of him coming off the plane, no flags or banners waving, no parade in his honor. He came home from Iraq in May, but there wasn't even a formal announcement. In fact, you're not supposed to know he's here. [...] He hasn't done any interviews or made any statements since it happened, hasn't talked publicly about what he saw in Abu Ghraib prison or what made him turn in those pictures on that January night in Iraq. All we know is that he did turn them in and that everything changed because of it. The rest is speculation. He's been under a gag order for three months. He wouldn't mind talking, actually; he wants you to know the truth. The desire to tell the truth was how he got into this thing in the first place. He was the guy who stood up to evil when everyone else fell silent, the guy who put himself on the line when nobody else would. No wonder they won't let him talk. [...]

But inside the little towns of Jenners and Somerset and Windber and Johnstown, many neighbors weren't so quick to celebrate. Abu Ghraib became a litmus test of the American mood; reactions split along political and economic lines. On campuses and in the halls of government, even within the upper echelons of the military command, few would question what Joe had done. But in his own hometown, plenty of people did. [...] He never wanted to see them. They almost literally fell into his lap. It was early January 2004, and his unit had been at Abu Ghraib for three months, when one of his unit members, a guy named Charles Graner, handed him a couple of CDs to duplicate. So Joe went down to the Internet café near the sleeping quarters and started duping the discs. Graner hadn't given him any warning about special files or secret folders, and Joe was sitting there scrolling through the images, mindlessly, when bam!, the first hideous photo came up. Then another. Then another. Then another. 'He said, 'What the heck is this?' ' remembers Janis Karpinski, the Brigadier General who ran Abu Ghraib. 'It was very innocent. He was absolutely shocked by this.' He was also unsure what to do about it. He took the discs back to Graner and told him what he'd found, but Graner just said, 'Don't worry, I'll take care of it,' adding, 'The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.'' Then the discs disappeared. Days went by and nothing happened, and Joe kept thinking about it. Well, how could he forget? [...] Late one night, he slipped a copy of the disc under the door of the army's Criminal Investigation Division. It was an act of conscience unobstructed, one of the most dangerous things in the world. [...]

The media blitz was bad, but at least it was in their faces. You could see it coming and knew what to expect, which was a total disregard for privacy. It was bad but predictable. By contrast, the rest of the community, from the cops to the checkout clerk at the grocery, had become a terrifying mystery. There was no way of knowing where anyone stood, how they felt, or what they might do. [...] Down at the gas station, Clay overheard some guys say that Joe was 'walking around with a bull's-eye on his head,' just casually, just like, oh, everybody knows Joe's dead. Some of Bernadette's family even let her know that other members of the family were against her now, that they couldn't support a traitor. [...] Within a few minutes, everything began to shift around Bernadette, and it was hard to tell what was happening. She found herself in the passenger seat of an unmarked government vehicle, speeding down the highway to some unknown destination, Clay's truck right behind her with Maxine and the kids packed inside, the whole group snatched up by military protective custody without any prior warning or even a clear idea of why. Bernadette called Virginia and said, 'We're in protective custody now. I don't know where we're going, but we'll call you when we get there.' [...] Within a few minutes, everything began to shift around Bernadette, and it was hard to tell what was happening. She found herself in the passenger seat of an unmarked government vehicle, speeding down the highway to some unknown destination, Clay's truck right behind her with Maxine and the kids packed inside, the whole group snatched up by military protective custody without any prior warning or even a clear idea of why. Bernadette called Virginia and said, 'We're in protective custody now. I don't know where we're going, but we'll call you when we get there.' [...]

You don't hear anybody explaining, for example, how Private Lynndie England, the woman in so many of those pictures, the one smiling and laughing and giving the thumbs-up, wasn't even supposed to be in the cellblock, how she didn't have any police authority and shouldn't have been dealing with inmates in the first place. You don't hear much of anything about her job, because the truth is, her job was something else entirely. Lynndie England was an administration clerk; not an MP like Joe but the equivalent of a secretary. [...] You don't hear anybody explaining, for example, how Private Lynndie England, the woman in so many of those pictures, the one smiling and laughing and giving the thumbs-up, wasn't even supposed to be in the cellblock, how she didn't have any police authority and shouldn't have been dealing with inmates in the first place. You don't hear much of anything about her job, because the truth is, her job was something else entirely. Lynndie England was an administration clerk; not an MP like Joe but the equivalent of a secretary. [...] And so, what Bernadette didn't know when the military escort came to get her—what she couldn't possibly imagine—was that she didn't need any help. All she needed was the truth. Because the irony of all this is that the people in Somerset County who turned their backs on Joe, well, those people would probably feel very different if they knew the rest of the story. That it really wasn't about softening prisoners, gathering intelligence, or trying to win the war. That it wasn't even about losing control in the heat of the moment. It was about getting up in the middle of the night and going somewhere you weren't supposed to go, then beating and raping people there. It was premeditated violent crime. And as long as that stays hidden, so will Bernadette and Joe, outcasts in their own community, two more victims of Abu Ghraib. [...]

Three months in protective custody have been a mixed blessing. The house has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a chandelier. That's all you need to know. That, and also that it's the nicest house they have ever had. They've made friends with the security detail and will probably stay in touch, and Joe changed his appearance, just a little, just to be sure. It's not a bad life, really, being swept off the floor of reality. The army provides a daily stipend for their groceries, and they've had more free time than you can imagine, almost enough time to make up for all the nights together they've lost. But the investigations into the Abu Ghraib scandal will be over someday soon, and Joe's gag order will be lifted, and they will emerge back into the world. The reporters will all come flocking to them again, and the phone will return to ringing, but this time Bernadette and Joe are ready. They've had three months to think about it, and they have a lot to say. There is still a lot more to know. They want you to hear it."
[GQ Magazine]

Abu Ghraib Victims Speak: August 8, 2004

"Saddam Saleh al-Radi, a former Abu Ghraib detainee, has a unique perspective: He was jailed in Abu Ghraib twice — the first time for trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the mid-1990s. 'What U.S. forces did to me, Saddam Hussein himself did not do,' al-Radi said through a translator. 'During Saddam Hussein's time, we used to be tortured. The scars from the torture I received during the previous regime still mark parts of my body. But I was never forced into nudity. There were never any immoral practices during Saddam Hussein's regime.' [...] After three days of interrogations at one of Saddam's old palaces, he said he was taken to Abu Ghraib, put into a holding cell, and there a hood was placed over his head for what he thinks was about 16 hours. 'When they were torturing me, I lost consciousness,' al-Radi said. 'So, they removed the hood. One of the soldiers then urinated on me.' Then, the hood was put back on. And al-Radi was frog-marched to a cell on the ground floor of tier 1-A, known as the hard site. 'He then started pushing me,' al-Radi said. 'And wherever he saw a wall, he would hit me against it. Wherever there's a door, he would push me and hit me against it.'

Once in his cell, al-Radi said, he was forced, still hooded, down on his hands and knees. 'He pulled the bag off my head, and I saw something I have never seen in my life: A man's buttocks were facing me, and he was completely naked, [and] so were the others with him,' al-Radi said. 'I'm 29 years old. Since I'm mature, around the age of 13 to 14 years, until today, no one has ever seen me naked. Nor have I seen anyone naked at all. 'I am religious,' he added. 'My religion does not allow me to see the private parts of naked bodies of others. And for others to see my naked body, this is haram, forbidden for me. God will not accept this. 'They stripped me naked,' al-Radi said. 'They made me stand on a box used for storing soldier food, I think it's called MREs. I was completely naked with two bags on my head.' Al-Radi mostly blamed two American soldiers, Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick and Cpl. Charles Graner, both of whom are now facing military charges, for the alleged rough treatment. According to al-Radi, Frederick, 'threatened me by saying that if I did not cooperate with them by giving them information, they would make the soldier rape me.' What was done to him has had a terrible effect, he said. He had become engaged to be married just four days before he was arrested, but broke it off immediately after he was released from prison.

'For me to commit to a woman, I will need to be truthful to my other half,' al-Radi said. 'I feel that something is missing inside me. How can I say any of this to my wife? I am sure she will lose all respect toward me.' And that was before the world saw those photographs of things that had happened to him.

'Before the publishing of the photographs, I had been keeping my experience to myself,' he said. 'After the publishing of the photographs, my mother came to me and asked me, 'Have they done to you what they have done to them?' I had to say, 'No.' Then, a relative of mine, who was detained with us and who knew of my story there, told my family what he knew, and that they did so-and-so to me.' Now, he said, he doesn't see anyone — not his mother or brothers or sisters-in-law. He's too ashamed."
[ABC News]

Lynndie England on Abu Ghraib: Pictures Taken "Just For Fun": August 3, 2004

"An Army investigator testified Tuesday that Pfc. Lynndie England and other members of her unit told him that photos of naked Iraqi prisoners piled in pyramids and other humiliating poses were taken 'just for fun.' As a military hearing started to determine if England should be court-martialed for her actions at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Paul D. Arthur testified that when he interviewed her, three months before the prison photos became public in April, she told him the shots were taken while 'they were joking around, having some fun, working the night shift.' Arthur said he believed the reservists from the 372nd Military Police Company, based on Cresaptown, Md., were responding to the stress of being in a war zone. 'It was just for fun, kind of venting their frustration,' Arthur testified. The hearing is designed to gather evidence that will be used to decide if England will be court-martialed. The Article 32 hearing is the military equivalent of a grand jury in civilian court, but it is open and the defendant attends it. Defense lawyers have said England was following orders when she was photographed mocking the detainees and that the U.S."
[AP story on KOTV News]

Osha Gray Davidson: "The Secret File of Abu Ghraib": August, 2004

New classified documents implicate U.S. forces in rape and sodomy of Iraqi prisoners.

"Eventually, all seven Iraqis were standing naked and hooded, and the MPs got out their cameras. A few pictures had been taken earlier in the evening, but now the abuse turned into a photo-op. Men taught to be ashamed of appearing naked in front of other men were forced to assume a series of humiliating and bizarre poses. Graner had them climb on top of each other to form a human pyramid, and the MPs took turns taking each other's picture standing behind the men. In one photo, Graner and England smile and give the thumbs-up sign behind the men, who are naked except for the green sandbags covering their heads. The Iraqis were made to crawl across the floor on their hands and knees while the guards rode on their backs. Two were posed as if performing oral sex on each other, and others were lined up against the wall and forced to masturbate while England pointed at their genitals and leered. And all the while, the Americans were laughing, cracking jokes and taking pictures."
[Rolling Stone]

Seymour Hersh Claims Pantagon Has Tape of Children Being Sodomized at Abu Ghraib: July 7, 2004

"Seymour Hersh says the US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. 'The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking,' the reporter told an ACLU convention last week. Hersh says there was 'a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher.' [...] He called the prison scene 'a series of massive crimes, criminal activity by the president and the vice president, by this administration anyway…war crimes.' The outrages have cost us the support of moderate Arabs, says Hersh. 'They see us as a sexually perverse society.'"
[From Ed Cone's "Word Up"]

Transcript of a section of Hersh's speech to the ACLU:
"Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok. Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib which is 30 miles from Baghdad [...] The women were passing messages saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.' Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out. It's impossible to say to yourself how do we get there? who are we? Who are these people that sent us there?"
[Daily Kos]
[Video of Hersh's talk—RealPlayer]

Padraic Kenney: "POWs: Torture and Civility": July 11, 2004

"In some regimes, like that of Stalin's Soviet Union, torture was a way for the perpetrators to show their contempt for all they believed their victims represented: intellectuals, cosmopolitans, class enemies. In an insecure nation like Argentina, Jews were made to feel like traitors to the nation. And in occupied Iraq, guards - possibly resenting this land that had interrupted their lives and killed so many of their fellow soldiers - zeroed in on what made their captives inferior. What else do we see in the pictures of Pfc. Lynndie England, grinning before naked Iraqis but, paradoxically, an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of American culture? The irony is still greater when we consider that these grotesque scenes no doubt were meant, perhaps subconsciously, to remind Iraqi prisoners that Americans were more respectful of women's rights. As surely as torturers have always done, the American soldiers wanted to show not only that they were stronger, but also of a more advanced civilization. [...] There is another, secondary function of torture: to sow fear in the minds of those not in prison but who feel themselves within the torturer's reach. The tortures of Nazi or Soviet prisons were no secret to anyone. Nor have the dictatorships of Africa, Asia or Latin America been ashamed of their work, seeing in them a way of reminding citizens of their awesome power. Could the same reasoning lie behind the photos and videos at Abu Ghraib?"
[Denver Post]