The shock effect of images of the torture of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers was topped last week by the distribution of a video clip of a US civilian being beheaded in retaliation for the abuses at the Abu Ghraib military prison.
Barbaric acts have always been a part of war, and US propaganda notwithstanding, the so-called Gulf War is still being fought. And, as in all wars, atrocities are being committed on both sides. War brings out the vilest elements within humanity.
Although the world is horrified at evidence that Americans could carry out acts of torture and other violations of human rights while at the same time trumpeting the virtues of "freedom, democracy and human rights", US soldiers are too often not the Hollywood-created paragon of virtue fighting against evil enemies. Evil occurs on both sides.
In the Vietnam War, torture of American soldiers by the Viet Cong was well publicised and is still the stuff of Hollywood. What is not usually mentioned are reports of Americans torturing enemy prisoners. Witnesses even say that captives were thrown out of flying helicopters to persuade others to talk.
In World War Two, American soldiers are reported to have machine-gunned a truckload of German prisoners at an airfield in Sicily. At an Allied prison-of-war camp set up during the invasion of Germany, German prisoners were made to sleep in holes they had to dig with their hands and were forced to eat grass, all the while being subjected to physical abuse by US soldiers.
Torture and other atrocities are by no means a new part of war. Yet they are now news. The difference between now and the past is that the ubiquity of the digital camera combined with the availability of the Internet means that what happens in war can now be seen on PCs and televisions worldwide. The grim reality of war is now being dished up in our living rooms.
Gate-keeping
US soldiers are too often not the Hollywood-created paragon of virtue fighting against evil enemies. Evil occurs on both sides.
Iain Scott, finance editor, ITWeb
It is true that photographs of barbaric acts were taken in the past, just as they are now. Although not digital, there were photographs in Vietnam of US soldiers abusing prisoners and even playing with severed body parts. The difference then was that newspapers would for various reasons not publish them.
Although most newspapers still decline to publish the more horrific images, the Internet has taken away the traditional gate-keeping function of the newspaper editor and made them available to anyone who wants to see them.
It will be interesting to see what changes, if any, the publicity around the recent events will bring. With barbarity being such a traditional part of war, will torture and human rights abuses come to an end for fear of being caught out? That is perhaps too optimistic to hope for.
However, if the images lead to a loss of domestic support for the US occupation of Iraq, either George Bush`s government or a future administration may well attempt to impose legal curbs to control the flow of such sensitive information. There are indications that this is already happening on an ad hoc basis, with defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld saying last week that Pentagon lawyers are opposed to releasing photographs of even more atrocious acts at Abu Ghraib. To be fair, the Geneva Convention does stipulate that prisoners of war be protected against insults and public curiosity. On the other hand, that did not prevent the US from distributing video images of captured Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein being inspected for lice.
Of course, with the Internet being what it is, it is improbable that it will be able to prevent the circulation of material, but it could well attempt to plug the leak at the source by, for example, prohibiting the presence of cameras in military areas "in the interest of national security". Even so, it is highly likely that not everyone will comply, and such images will be seen around the world once more.
The Internet and digital photography are unlikely to change what happens during a war. What they are likely to change is our perception and the way our leaders change their propaganda techniques to maintain our support for their conflicts.