Torture, Pictures, and the Big Picture

I almost always find fault with comparisons and analogies of any sort to Hitler, the Nazi regime, and the Holocaust. Like countless other such inane examples throughout history, attempts by the hawkish right in our previous administration to compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler, and the anti-choice zealots’ labeling of the post-Roe, pro-reproductive rights era of US history as the American Holocaust are intellectually lazy and dishonest. They are overly simplistic rhetorical moves designed to distract from a critical examination of the individual issue at hand by categorizing one person, event, conflict, and/or policy with those universally thought of as repugnant (at least in terms of public discourse in the US). The purpose is to end a debate before it even begins by framing a perspective as irrefutable, the only logical and moral conclusion possible.

This method of constructing an argument sets forth a foundation that the individual constructing the argument believes leaves her/his opponent(s) no room to maneuver. Individuals and groups who engage in such deceptive and dishonest, not to mention morally repugnant tactics, believe that by putting forth an argument predicated on the grouping of something in the same category as such horrifically inhumane and criminal individuals, groups, and acts, they leave their opponent(s) no choice but to (a) concede their position and see the light, or (b) be labeled Hitler and Nazi sympathizers.

We have seen this and other similar methods of advocating a position many times throughout our nation’s history. A belief is articulated as fact. It is not a conclusion that accepts and allows for nuance and disagreement. It sets forth that the position espoused is not the result of careful intellectual, emotional, and/or moral analysis and reasoning; rather it is fact and the only possible conclusion resulting in the acceptance of a universally held belief set forth as the foundation of the argument.

We saw this immediately after 9/11 when President Bush set the tone for the 7 years of hell and intolerance that would follow when he famously said you’re either with us or against us, when referring what we would come to know as the War on Terror. You’re either one of us, a good guy, or you are a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. Being a terrorist and/or sympathizer means you hate America and freedom (and apple pie, baseball, beauty pageants, reality TV, fast food, and the other cornerstones of American culture; oh, and anything French too of course). And being one of us means you have no time or interest in nuance or understanding of other cultures, their history, and how they see the world, including what they think of us.

According to this way of thinking, it is inconceivable to simultaneously be against terrorism and be empathetic (not sympathetic, there is a difference) to how a fundamentalist person of faith in parts of the world we have ridiculed and shat on as much as possible, living in conditions beyond anything the word poverty captures, might view things differently. This is clearly a dangerous and false binary.

It is possible, even desirable, to understand the rationale a person has for forming an opinion without agreeing with the conclusion they reach. It is possible to both understand what drives someone to acts of violence, even terrorism, without condoning or sanctioning their acts. But we have been told otherwise by many of our illustrious leaders, and this way of thinking (or rather not thinking) has had dire consequences.

It has contributed immensely to the horrific xenophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, anti- immigrant climate that permeates our culture today. And it is this very same method of demonization that has also led us down the road to torture.

We torture people who are not us; they are them. They are less than us, less than human. They do not share our basic, foundational values and beliefs. And we demonstrate this difference by torturing them via means including rape. And we wonder why folks in other parts of the world don’t instinctively chant, “U-S-A, U-S-A” and welcome us with open arms when we invade and occupy (otherwise known as liberate) their nation. An understanding of all of this is key in understanding the issues surrounding the photographs depicting torture at Abu Ghraib and other detention sites.

And it is with all this said that I make an exception to my rule of dismissing comparisons to the Holocaust. There are many similarities between the argument to release the photos of US military and security personnel torturing detainees, to see these acts ourselves, and the Allied forces’ documentation of the atrocities they witnessed in liberated concentration camps.

Upon seeing the unfathomable sights that he bore witness to when entering his first concentration camp in Ohrdruf in 1945, General Eisenhower famously said, "The things I saw beggar description...the visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations to propaganda."

Now, contrary to popular belief amongst many today, including false and widely circulating emails of the past several weeks, Eisenhower spoke explicitly of his desire and need to bear witness, not take photographs. But, he and others on the ground quickly realized the need to document the atrocities as well. He knew, as reflected in his quote above, that just as he could not imagine what he was seeing with his own eyes, neither could virtually any other human being. What he saw was so horrific, so grotesque, it needed substantiation. It needed documentation. It needed to be photographed.

And that is precisely why these pictures of individuals torturing other human beings in the name of the United States, in our name, are so important. But lost in the consuming debate of whether the pictures should be released to the public, amidst all the screaming and yelling of freedom of information versus emboldening our enemies, is a more important issue. That issue is that these pictures are evidence, proof of wrongdoing to the highest degree. These images prove, in a way nothing else ever can, the manifestation of an us vs. them ideology taken to such an extreme that we lose sight of the fact that even if we do believe that there are individuals who wish us harm, and are beyond reason, they are still human beings. And if we seek to make the same claim of humanity about ourselves, we must confront these horrors by bearing witness and we must keep them for proof when those in the future dispute such things ever occurred. But more importantly, we must use these pieces of evidence to take action and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Our actions define our values and who we are. It is easy, in the vacuum of a hypothetical situation, to declare that you believe in anything, including the basic tenets of human rights. It is much more difficult to prove yourself when confronted with an actual situation that makes you realize that the values and principles you so clearly, firmly, and assuredly believed were part of your moral framework are much more complicated than you ever imagined. It is what you do, in those moments of intense personal moral conflict that determines whether you truly believe in those values.

We must decide what we believe. We must decide whether we are a nation that believes in human rights when it is convenient, in certain situations, or whether we are a nation of adults that understands that there are repercussions for acting on your beliefs. Actions always produce consequences. And often, inaction produces even greater consequences.

And that is why whether or not these pictures become public record for us and the rest of the world to see is not what maters most. The pictures exist whether we see them or not. There are already individuals around the world who are committed to fighting against us, our interests, and what we purport to stand for. Do not accept the argument against the release of these pictures that lays as its foundation the harm that will surely ensue the moment the images become public. This is merely that old trick, decked out in new garb. Our policies serve as a far better means of recruitment than these pictures ever could. But, again, publishing these pictures is not nearly as important as what we do with the knowledge that they exist because of what they depict. The images were not staged. They are a means of bearing witness to what occurred.

Instead of spending energy arguing about whether we, the people, deserve to see these images, we must devote our energy to making sure something is done about what these images depict. We must prosecute the individuals responsible for these heinous acts. And though this will upset our consensus-building, looking to the future and not the past President, this includes bringing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the individuals who at the least oversaw, and at the most directed these atrocities conducted in our name.

Make no mistake about it; these pictures are proof of war crimes. Plain and simple. These acts are the definition of crimes against humanity. Just because folks on our side ordered them, acting in our name, doesn’t change this. We must act accordingly and demand justice be rendered. Anything less is conceding that we don’t value and believe in human rights. Instead, we admit that we value human rights, but only some humans, and only some of the time.