As a writer, I am annoyed by the truth that a picture is 'worth a thousand words.'
But I get it.
When Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard sat down to capture the essence of Western thought about the current wars between the West and "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism," he was following a tradition that has been a hallmark of Democracy for centuries. It is unlikely that he was actively trying to inflame ... well, anything.
But he created a visual image. In retrospect, it is an image that apparently offended many Muslims.
It is only fair to point out that Islam does not specifically prohibit drawing pictures of the Prophet Muhammed ... peace be upon him. More broadly, the idea is that you shouldn't create images of ANY person or animal, unless you can animate them. The whole "no photos or images" thing is a response to the possibility of idolatry in the same way that full-length burkas are a nod to modesty and a persuasive hurdle to unwelcome lust.
There's a certain logic to it, but to the non-Muslim it comes across as closed-minded and a bit overkill-ish. But that's a discussion for another day.
Some 70,000 people rioted in Pakistan alone; embassies in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran were set on fire, and Hamas--apparently not wanting to disappoint, issued death threats.
Here in the United States, we tend to reserve such responses for sports championships, civil right protests, and court decisions we disagree with.
But hey, to each his own.
The U.S. government is holding 44 unreleased photos that portend to show American mistreatment of captives from Iraq and Afghanistan. The left wing apparently demands their release under a long-standing philosophy of transparency. The right wing points out that releasing the snapshots is likely to rekindle flames of violence should they ever show up in the Muslim world.
Theses pictures are like naked pictures of your wife. Even though YOU might want to look at them, how do you minimize their impact on YOUR life once they hit the wider world?
The question to my esteemed assembly gathered here is:
"How do we properly position the American legal and cultural philosophy that it is wrong to shout FIRE in a crowded theater with the release of photos that we KNOW are likely to spark violence in nations where our friends and family are currently serving in combat capacities?"
I cannot count on my fingers and toes the number of people I love who are presently at war.
I have biological relatives in Iraq, brothers in arms whose children's birthdays I celebrate in Afghanistan, and drinking buddies in both. After 11 years in the Air Force, I count hundreds of active-duty servicemen and women among my closest friends and associates.
They serve in all four of the service branches, plus the Coast Guard. Last week, when the Air Force Master Sergeant list came out, I sent no fewer than 15 congratulatory e-mails, and made no fewer than 10 "maybe you won't celebrate Passover next year" telephone calls.
These are MY people.
And I don't want ANYBODY fucking with them. I want them ALL to retire whole; mentally and physically, from the often dangerous career they have chosen. I want them to leave the military on their own terms; and gracefully move into the next stages of their lives.
And yet, I oppose torture--in all its "enhanced interrogative technique-al" glory.
I'm one of those nerds who reads many of the documents that my government releases to the public (and by virtue of my vocation, many that remain classified) -- including the so-called torture memos. And as a veteran; trained, retrained, perhaps even overtrained in the Law of Armed Conflict--they sicken me.
Luckily--they are words.
I say luckily, because if they were photos, or Heaven forbid, VIDEO ... they would rekindle the flames that would put many of my friends at even more risk.
The conundrum exists because as an American, I value the release of information. I think it is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy. I think transparency is good, and that if more Americans could see into the bowels of government, they would be ... at best, disappointed.
Having conceded that I believe American troops have committed war crimes in the ongoing conflict, I am torn between the greater good of putting every gory detail into the public domain, and releasing just enough to make the point.
I am unsettled by the thought of either option.
I've also struggled to see how this is a partisan issue. I see the conflict, or else I wouldn't write about this topic. But how has it managed to break down into a GOP vs. Democratic or conservative vs. liberal question?
I return to my original thought. I'm a writer. In this case, wouldn't 44,000 words just be ... better?
Peace,
--Stew.
No comments:
Post a Comment