Date:   1/4/2005 10:57:48 PM ( 19 y ago)
Hits:   1,432
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=564199

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

Blind loyalty isn’t patriotism
The Virginian-Pilot
© January 2, 2005

The Associated Press found pictures on the Internet of Navy SEALS
engaged in
what looks like harsh treatment of Iraqi captives. The pictures are
significant because they appear to show rough handling of prisoners
predating the horrors at Abu Ghraib.
The Navy is about halfway through an investigation, prompted by the
reporter’s discovery. The West Coast-based SEALS and their wives,
meantime,
have sued the Associated Press and its reporter for publishing the
pictures,
which show the super-secret commandos’ faces.
The SEALS have accused the AP of invasion of privacy and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. The commandos say the photos —
reprinted
in the Arab press — put their lives in danger. They want damages and
the
captors’ faces in the photos obscured.
According to The New York Times, in one photo “a gun is pointed at the
head
of a man who appears to be a prisoner; another shows a man in white
boxer
shorts, with what looks like blood dripping down his chest, his head in
a
black hood. In another, a grinning man in uniform is apparently sitting
on
another prisoner. The faces of most of the prisoners are obscured, but
those
of their captors are not.”
There is a strong argument to be made that the photos should not have
been
published. There is a strong argument to be made that they should have
been.
We’ll leave that for another time.




But the reaction to the pictures and the lawsuit is in itself terribly
troubling.
The Internet echo chamber, predictably, is filled with outrage not at
what
is depicted in the SEALS’ photos, but at the reporter who found them
and at
the newspapers that printed them. Never mind that the photos were
apparently
available for everyone to see, if they only knew where to look.
This is all a chilling repeat of the reaction to the video of a Marine
shooting an Iraqi in the back (the cameraman received death threats) or
the
outcry about the revelations of Abu Ghraib (a CBS staffer likewise).
In both cases, too, uncomfortable justifications were floated long
before
facts were known: the Abu Ghraib abuses weren’t that bad and in any
case
were necessary, for example, and that Iraqi shot in the back was
probably
holding a grenade.
Patriots, some would argue, must march unwaveringly for the cause of
liberty
in Iraq.
They would have Americans accept that anything — anyone — that gets in
the
way must be destroyed.
It’s a strange and disturbing echo of the “America: love it or leave
it”
twaddle that rent this country three decades ago. Down that road lies a
divisive jingoism more dangerous than any revelation of abuse.
The discord born in Vietnam has lasted a generation. It even helped
determine who would be the U.S. president, 29 years and 9,000 miles
from the
fall of Saigon.
We should remember that long, painful lesson when the urge again
strikes to attack the messenger, or to shout nonsense into the ether, when as
a nation we’d be far better off paying heed to the message.


©†ƒ……•™¼‡_Original_Message_¾€š½ž¢«»¬ï°©





Blind loyalty isn’t patriotism
The Virginian-Pilot
© January 2, 2005

The Associated Press found pictures on the Internet of Navy SEALS
engaged in
what looks like harsh treatment of Iraqi captives. The pictures are
significant because they appear to show rough handling of prisoners
predating the horrors at Abu Ghraib.
The Navy is about halfway through an investigation, prompted by the
reporter’s discovery. The West Coast-based SEALS and their wives,
meantime,
have sued the Associated Press and its reporter for publishing the
pictures,
which show the super-secret commandos’ faces.
The SEALS have accused the AP of invasion of privacy and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. The commandos say the photos —
reprinted
in the Arab press — put their lives in danger. They want damages and
the
captors’ faces in the photos obscured.
According to The New York Times, in one photo “a gun is pointed at the
head
of a man who appears to be a prisoner; another shows a man in white
boxer
shorts, with what looks like blood dripping down his chest, his head in
a
black hood. In another, a grinning man in uniform is apparently sitting
on
another prisoner. The faces of most of the prisoners are obscured, but
those
of their captors are not.”
There is a strong argument to be made that the photos should not have
been
published. There is a strong argument to be made that they should have
been.
We’ll leave that for another time.




But the reaction to the pictures and the lawsuit is in itself terribly
troubling.
The Internet echo chamber, predictably, is filled with outrage not at
what
is depicted in the SEALS’ photos, but at the reporter who found them
and at
the newspapers that printed them. Never mind that the photos were
apparently
available for everyone to see, if they only knew where to look.
This is all a chilling repeat of the reaction to the video of a Marine
shooting an Iraqi in the back (the cameraman received death threats) or
the
outcry about the revelations of Abu Ghraib (a CBS staffer likewise).
In both cases, too, uncomfortable justifications were floated long
before
facts were known: the Abu Ghraib abuses weren’t that bad and in any
case
were necessary, for example, and that Iraqi shot in the back was
probably
holding a grenade.
Patriots, some would argue, must march unwaveringly for the cause of
liberty
in Iraq.
They would have Americans accept that anything — anyone — that gets in
the
way must be destroyed.
It’s a strange and disturbing echo of the “America: love it or leave
it”
twaddle that rent this country three decades ago. Down that road lies a
divisive jingoism more dangerous than any revelation of abuse.
The discord born in Vietnam has lasted a generation. It even helped
determine who would be the U.S. president, 29 years and 9,000 miles
from the
fall of Saigon.
We should remember that long, painful lesson when the urge again
strikes to attack the messenger, or to shout nonsense into the ether, when as
a nation we’d be far better off paying heed to the message.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=79980&ran=20726

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.03 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=564199