In the beginning of 2004 instances of prisoners abuse in Abu Ghraib prison came to the public attention. Many of 30.000 Iraqi prisoners were tortured by US military officials, CIA interrogators and independent contractors during interrogations or “for fun”.
United States Army Criminal Investigation Command started criminal investigation and some evidences were revealed to media. In April 2004 television news-magazine 60 minutes II aired a story on the abuse, including picture evidences. Harsh’s article in The New Yorker followed with detailed report on this case. (wikipedia )
Some picture you can find easily online, the link I post here is to the “wired” magazine’s webpage that came not from government officials, but from psychologist who had access to them.
Only fraction of photo evidences were released to public, the rest were presented in court behind the shut doors. Even though the case took place in 2008, there are still debates about whether or not the rest of pictures should be published.
I found it interesting to bring up this case for our class for a few reasons. First, as we see from the fact that picture evidences for this case are still a hotly debated topic, they played a major role in the case itself and in attracting public attention to it. It serves as a proof of how powerful photo evidence can be in law. Secondly, even though in some court cases picture evidences may be arguable evidence as picture only depicts a moment in time and can give a false presentation of what was happening at that time, in this case pictures were backed up by testimonies and video tapes. It also serves as an example of how much easier it is to get public attention and sentiment when case is supplied with vivid images.
Finally, Abu Ghraib prison scandal connects us with last weeks discussion of Foucault reading. Foucault argues that prisons are products of the switch from punishment to discipline, whether in Abu Ghraib prison detainees were clearly punished, not disciplined, often without a cause or reason.
These photos do more than simply provide proof of the atrocities which occurred at Abu Ghraib. In my opinion, words can only do so much to relay such unfathomable violence. These images spread awareness to the masses about Abu Ghraib. The saying, “A picture says a thousand words,” comes to mind. Also, violent acts such as these lose their significance when expressed in words. If we focus on something more specific, like water boarding, it is easy to understand why words cannot fully explain the horrors of this practice. To see it being done, to see the terror within the victim, enables the viewer to better empathize with those who are being persecuted. There is something to be said about the shock value of a picture or video. I think a photo is useful enough if it simply facilitates more people to become involved in a topic or idea.
In reality, a picture can be interpreted in a few seconds and the overall meaning can be conveyed. In order to convey this same message through writing, it would take more effort from both the writer and the reader. Secondly, an author’s bias can sway or misinform a reader. This ease of access combined with the simple conveyance of information, allows the world exposure to what happened at Abu Ghraib. This does not mean that photographs are the reason people know about Abu Ghraib, it means that photographs are the reason a larger amount of people know. With the modern usage of social media, a photo can be transmitted and interpreted in seconds thus enabling more wide spread and greater recognition of information.