Online Media Break Gore-for-Smut Story
La Republica and Corriere della Serra, two of Italy's top dailies, reported in August about an online "gallery of horrors" -- photos of mutilated Iraqis and Afghans that U.S. soldiers had posted on the Internet in return for access to a pornographic Web site. The story, which was first circulated by a 20-year old Italian blogger who calls himself Staib, drew no interest from English-language news organizations. Once upon a time, the story would have died then and there.
But Staib's story was picked up by Helena Cobban, a journalist and blogger in Charlottesville, Va., and then by University of North Carolina law professor-blogger Eric Muller, who wondered if Staib's claims could amount to "The Next Abu Ghraib?"
Conservative maverick blogger Andrew Sullivan commented on the story on Sept. 18. Two days later, Mark Glaser of the Online Journalism Review followed up with a story quoting Christopher Wilson, proprietor of the porn site allegedly involved (whose name includes a four letter word and won't be published or linked to here).
Wilson defended the gory pictures allegedly obtained from U.S. soldiers in Iraq by saying, "I see pictures taken by CNN and the mainstream media, and they all put their own slant on what they report and what they show. To me, this is from the soldier's slant."
On Wednesday, Chris Thompson, columnist for the East Bay Express, a weekly in Berkeley, Calif., followed up with this story -- "U.S. Soldiers Swap Gore for Porn." Wilson told Thompson that European reporters had predicted the U.S. media wouldn't pick up on the story because "it's such a sore spot. ... It raises too many ethical questions. ... I started to laugh, because it's true."
By then the U.S. Army announced an investigation and the story could be ignored no more. The New York Times, The Washington Post and other large news organizations followed up on Staib's claims. It was a classic example of how the Internet empowers interested individuals to collectively force governments and the mainstream media (MSM in bloggers' shorthand) to pay attention to stories they believe MSM would otherwise ignore.
So far, the American MSM coverage of the gore-for-porn story is less complete than what is available in the international online media.
On Thursday, for example, the New York Times reported that the Army had found "no evidence to prove" that U.S. military personnel had traded photos of mutilated Iraqis for pornography. In fact, as The Washington Post reported, an Army spokesman had said something rather different -- that the probe found "insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges." The Australian, flagship of Rupert Murdoch's media empire, used a Reuters piece that reported the spokesman said "there was insufficient evidence of a felony crime to warrant a criminal investigation."
Andrew Brown of the Guardian of London reported what the American news sites did not -- specific descriptions of some of the images that the U.S. soldiers submitted. He called it "the new pornography of war." For example: "A burnt and crumpled Arab face rests in a blue kitchen bowl. It doesn't look as if the back of the head is there, but it's impossible to be sure because everything behind the eyes is hidden in a pool of blood and everything below the jaw is missing."
"There's some dispute about whether all of the pictures are real," Brown wrote, "but it seems beyond doubt that most of the posters claiming to be soldiers actually are, not least because the American Army tries to stop its soldiers accessing the site and posting captions like this: '... an Iraqi driver and passenger that tried to run a checkpoint during the first part of OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom]. The bad thing about shooting them is that we have to clean it up. The car was shot at with 5.56mm and 7.62 mm rounds. The 7.62 did his head' - but the viewer must take on trust that the head existed.'"
Brown said some of the pictures are "far worse" than any taken at Abu Ghraib. "But they show the same tangle of lust for flesh, power and killing."
Aljazeera.net suggested the story's political implications have yet to be felt in the Middle East. "It is pictures such as 'Cooked Iraqi' -- showing a group of smiling US soldiers standing over the charred remains of an Iraqi -- that may spell trouble for the Bush administration." Pentagon spokesman Navy Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter told the Web site of the Arab cable news network that "these are disgusting images and it is disgraceful that they are on the Web." He reiterated that the Army had not found evidence of a "felony" but said the U.S. armed forces might still take action.
"The different components of the armed services and the Multinational Forces all have policies which prohibit pornography and non-work related material on government computers," Carpenter said. "If a serviceman is proven to be engaged in this they will be prosecuted according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
East Bay Express columnist Thompson said in an e-mail that he decided to write about the story "because it viscerally illustrated the effect of modern communications technology on a nation's resolve in wartime. ... We can never again claim to be ignorant of what an American bomb, M-16 round, or improvised explosive device does to a human body. And as the captions accompanying the photographs indicated, we can never claim not to know the psychological effects of asking twenty-year-old boys to kill and watch their friends die."
At home and abroad, this story may be far from over.
By Jefferson Morley |
September 30, 2005; 8:00 AM ET
| Category:
Mideast
Previous: Syria Still Squirming |
Next: Yahoo Adds Bricks to China's 'Great Firewall'
Posted by: K | September 30, 2005 08:26 AM
More evidence of this administration's callous disregard for the rule of law and Geneva Conventions. Like Abu Graib this will probably be blamed on a few rouge soldiers and not be delt with for what it is, a breakdown in the military disipline the USA thought was the best in the world. I never thought it would be possible for one administration to so totally screw up so many parts of government in such a short time.
Posted by: Sully | September 30, 2005 09:01 AM
Please tell your Internet editors to give this reporting you've done today, Jeff, more play/prominent positioning. It's a story that MUST be conveyed and read. Thank you for your coverage.
Posted by: Linda Loomis | September 30, 2005 09:54 AM
You all are talking as if Bush invented war. You can rest assured that the 18-year-olds who fought world war 2, the 100 years' war, and the peloponnesian wars did similar things.
They just didn't have digital cameras and a sheltered, self-righteous chattering class that would be shocked, shocked i tell you, to find out.
Posted by: P | September 30, 2005 10:05 AM
How wide spread are these images through the Islamic world? Reflect on the fact that the dead are Iraqi's. They have surviving families and friends. The horrow of war that the US enacted upon Iraq for the known lies of WMD and terrorist ties, clearly illustrated here, is what keeps the insurgents (resistance) fighting against the American occupation. How can Iraqis see the people who would do these kinds of things to their sons, fathers and kin as liberators? How can the occupying force ever be seen as a moral force?
How do you expect to win?
Posted by: rick | September 30, 2005 10:27 AM
P:
Bush didn't invent war, but he did invent pre-emptive war. And when it was found to have been based on "inaccurate information" instead of being a good American and admitting the mistake and fixing it he created new reasons for his war and has done little to fix the intelligence problem. His administation argued against the Geneva Conventions and produced a "Torture Memo" providing assurances that tourture was ok in this administration.
There were cameras in Vietnam, lots of them. There was lots of blood, gore and fire. I saw it every night on TV during that war. But I don't reemember those 19 year olds doing what was done at Abu Graib or what is reported to be in these photos. And if there were, that would still not be any justification. We are Americans. We do not base our actions on the actions of our enemies. We live by a higher standard and are proud of it. Its time we demanded our armed forces to act like Americans or face severe punishments. That should also include this administration.
Posted by: Sully | September 30, 2005 10:50 AM
First we were told that we were going into Iraq because of the WMD. Then we didn't find any.
Then we were told that we had gone into Iraq to prevent The Iraqi People from becoming victims of war crimes at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Then came Abu Ghraib.
Next we were told that we had gone into Iraq to establish a (presumably pro-Western) democracy which would become a stabilizing force in the Middle East. Then the constitutional process broke down, and now the country is headed toward a civil war.
The latest line, pedaled by gullible media pundits like Thomas Friedman, is that "We should arm the Shiites and Kurds and leave the Sunnis of Iraq to reap the wind." That will leave the Iranian mullahs as the only clear winners of this foolish war.
We have shifted the reason for this war so many times now that we have lost our way. Web sites like this one testify to the "Apocalypse Now"-like mentality that is settling over the whole Iraq war. When a diligent and honorable soldier spends 17 months trying to get a clarification on what this administration actually means when it claims we will treat prisoners "humanely" only to find out that there is no standard for humane treatment of prisoners; when our soldiers abuse the dead in this manner; when our whole political infrastructure is so corrupt that the leadership all over Washington is either under indictment or threat of indictment...
We have stayed too long for any possible good we might have once done. While leaving will be a calamity, staying would be even more catastrophic. It is time for us to go home; and long past time for the American people to hold George W. Bush and his administration responsible for their crimes.
Posted by: BZ | September 30, 2005 11:05 AM
You said you wouldn't link to the site or print its name, but you provided a link to an article that does include the site name as well as a selection of the photos in question. So ... you did provide a link. Thanks.
Posted by: CZ | September 30, 2005 11:24 AM
from roman circuses to soldier blue, from heads on spikes in tudor england to the demonic beheadings performed on video in the name of allah, sadly this story and its' pictures are nothing new.
those of us who have not worked at war are now aware of the pornography of atrocity that are the parameters peace.these pictures represent the mostly untold war stories of combat vets from all wars.
all this stuff is as offensive to most of us as child pornography. if censorship is not to be re-introduced to control such monkey business, then an international offence within the human rights field should.
honour and decency are a fine green lines; msm bleating and liberal hypocracy will not repair the collateral damage to the human spirit that pornography inflicts.
Posted by: mike foreman | September 30, 2005 12:03 PM
Bush didn't invent preemptive war Sully. He just waged this one. Bush didn't post photos online for porn, nor did he tie a leash on anyone. I'm not saying the administration and Pentagon brass don't have some culpability in Abu Ghraib, but individuals are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Bush has done a lot wrong. But the knee-jerk Bush bashing in these threads is tired, uninteresting and, frankly, not very intelligent. And by the way, P, just b/c this isn't new, doesn't mean it's not shocking. We should be shocked. Our sense of moral outrage is what keeps us human.
Posted by: CN | September 30, 2005 12:26 PM
CN:
You're right that Bush bashing is getting tired, but not because its not without merit. Its not a photo or a memo, its the totality of what is happening to and in government and the military that gets me to bash this administation.
Posted by: Sully | September 30, 2005 01:07 PM
I remember the Vietnam era too. I served in the Military from 1955 to 1965. I just barely qualified for the Vietnam G.I. Bill. Initially, I regarded it as just another flare-up in the Cold War. I had been around the block a few times, so I didn't buy into the Tonkin Gulf Incident. But, I did have the Cold War mind set. However, I did a 180 degree turn when I read about Mylai, and heard some other stories from returning Veterans. This is when I wanted us out of Vietnam.
Remembering Vietnam and my experiences in the Cold War standoff between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the idea that a small Middle Eastern country, even with nuclear weapons, as a threat was ridiculous. I opposed the Iraq war from the start, but remembering Vietnam and Mylai, I wrote to all my representatives about following the rules of war in this conflict. Of course, my voice is lost in a crowd, and we have Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and, God knows what else. I have the same feeling I had about Mylai. I want somebody's rear end to fry over these abuses. In my opinion, the People who ordered these abuses, from the President on down ought to fry. They brought dishonor on the millions of people who have died defending the Constitution and the Bill of Right. I want us out of Iraq too. The Bush Administrattion has mess up so badly, I don't think we can fix it. Hopefully the Iraqis can do the job.
Posted by: P. J. Casey | September 30, 2005 01:52 PM
Using the "fog of war" argument to justify this appalling indecency is a shame. These blatant violations of Uniform Code of Conduct deserve severe punishment. The soldiers who disrespect the dead enemy and on top of that use the images as a currency to access on-line porn are a disgrace for the armed forces of this country. They did not pause to think how much damage they are inflicting on the U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq. How are the newly minted Iraqi troops who are supposed to be trained by the U.S. forces will look at their instructors after this?
Posted by: Tauareg | September 30, 2005 02:06 PM
This story was actually first covered some 6 weeks ago on
http://www.iraq-war.ru/tiki-index.php
It took about a month for it to move from the Arabic supporting blog world to the European world. Iraq-War is an interesting site that mixes fairly out-there content with real breaking news.
Considering how much damning material is circulating in the Arabic world that even our own progressive blogs miss, one can conclude the battle for their "Hearts and Minds" is already over and lost
opw
Posted by: O P Whiddon | September 30, 2005 02:34 PM
I heard about this story last Saturday when a local host on AirAmerica Radio spoke about it. Don't try to view the site. I did and am still disturbed. Trust me, I thought I'd seen it all and was a hardened individual. This shook me to my core. Such a pity that the men who are fighting in "my" name in Iraq are ruined. Ruined men. What the heck are we going to do with them when they come home?
Posted by: Dan | September 30, 2005 03:24 PM
It is not Bush-bashing to blame Bush for not clearly and unequivocally denouncing abuses and making a clear statement that the US will adhere to the Geneva Conventions and does not condone torture or abuse. Instead, he waivers and continues to support the need for flexibility and tactics such as Guantanomo Bay, while denying meaningful access to those facilities.
It is Bush's lack of a clear policy supporting the Geneva Conventions and setting the rules of proper prisoner treatment that is so damaging to American ideals and world standing.
Yes, we should blame Bush.
Posted by: J | September 30, 2005 04:00 PM
I have to admit that I misread the context of the "Gore-for-smut" headline. I honestly thought that Tipper Gore was in the news again, this time for an alleged secret fondness for porn. Sigh. It would be nice if the biggest news stories of the day were as trivial as the lyrics in Ice T's songs.
Posted by: Captain Spaulding | September 30, 2005 04:53 PM
Yes you can link to Andrew Sullivans site and then click on the link to the porn site, I did this back when it was orginally posted. I could only take a couple of photos, guess I am just squeemish. But its really ugly. Having lived in the Middle East, I cant tell you how horribly this will impact public opinion there, but we will NEVER be seen as the same country again.
We have become a Stalins Russia, a Hitlers Germany, a Pol Pot Cambodia. Like those German friends who would appologize for Hitler and WW2, we are shamed for life and my sons life too.
Between the Human Rights Watch account of us torturing the PUCs (POWs), these photos and the Abu Ghrib photos (and more of those are coming...hooowee) we had better hope might makes right, because so little else of this is right.
My counry love it or leave it...are they still taking applications for Canadian citizenship?
Somewhere UBL must be smiling.
Posted by: WOW | September 30, 2005 04:59 PM
Bush has absolutely said that the United States will abide by the Geneva Conventions. Unequivocally. So has Rumsfeld. However, many people have not done so. Some rightly cite memos from Alberto Gonzales and the Pentagon for contributing to these abuses. The Washington Post did some good reporting on this.
This is another example of an action vs. rhetoric disconnect from this administration.
Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Soldiers who allegedly shared photos of dead combatants for porn weren't doing so b/c of a Military Intelligence directive while on guard at Abu Ghraib. The two are different.
Lastly, on Bush bashing, the folks in this thread seem to relish it and enjoy and, frankly, turn to it too easily not b/c Bush is at fault, but b/c they hate Bush and will jump on that beaten down old horse whenever it ambles by.
He's the president and that's unfortunate. But these issues have a life and a value for discussion behind knee-jerk hatred for the Republican president.
Posted by: CN | September 30, 2005 05:03 PM
Jeff, I guess this proves yet again: If you want REAL news on what's happening in America and American policy, ignore all the American media and instead read the foreign press.
Posted by: R | September 30, 2005 05:17 PM
Bush invented pre-emptive war? Here's Machiavelli in The Prince, praising the Romans, who "when troubles were coming ... always took counter-measures. They never, to avoid a war, allowed them to go unchecked, because they knew that there is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others."
And so it goes and has always gone, however wilfully ignorant of history most commentators here seem to be.
Posted by: Mark Pontin | September 30, 2005 07:09 PM
Nicely put, Mark.
And Rome was . . . what? An empire, you say? VERY good!
Empires certainly "do" preemptive war. Nothing new there.
The question is, do we want to do what empires have done and ultimately face the same fate as empires face? Or do we hope to be what we proclaim: "Novus Ordo Seclorum?"
The only novelty in Bush's hateful little grandstand act is that he put the U.S. in the preemptive position for the first time in the "modern" era. And that will cost us even more dearly than it already has.
Posted by: Bob Kincaid | October 1, 2005 09:31 AM
Does this devastating article by Mr. Morley appear in the Washington Post newspaper or just on the internet?
Posted by: Stunned and Sickened | October 1, 2005 10:26 AM
connecting a few dots here and there:
remember how kerry was crucified then swift-boated for daring to suggest that our troops engage in ignoble behavior during war?
also, this revelation allows us all to move beyond -- to rethink -- the grandstanding, cheerleading and sloganeering which perpetuates mindless participation and callous collusion in monstrous behavior.
for example, plastering our public lives with "support our troops" marketing billboards of all shapes, colors and sizes suddenly takes on more meaning, and dare i hope a more complex and maturely humane thought process.
Posted by: whale shaman | October 1, 2005 12:19 PM
This story needs to make it to the evening news/morning newspapers.
Posted by: Shocked | October 3, 2005 03:38 PM
WOW,
Yes, they are accepting applications. Please take one.
Posted by: DaveK | October 3, 2005 10:00 PM
Wow! We just keep digging the hole deeper. This administration has pretty much adopted the outlook that anything goes in this so-called "war against terrorism." As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
What we are doing to Iraq and the Iraqi people is obscene. I am ashamed for my country.
Posted by: John | October 5, 2005 08:52 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.












Unless the MSM does its job, the Pentagon will succeed (as before) in covering this up -- at least, covering it up as far as the American people are concerned. The rest of the world will see and hear about this.