Should all the facts, including visual facts, about the Abu Ghraib prison horrors--the sex, the sadism, the exhibitionism--be made available to the public? Or should the images be kept hidden from view? Does Operation Iraqi Freedom need a plain brown wrapper? Maybe, but it shouldn't get one, because whatever happened in Iraq was financed by US tax dollars. And so it should be fully disclosed, period. No more games.
      It's only fair that the US taxpayers see all of what they paid for, if they wish to. Those that don't wish to see disturbing issues, of course, should not be forced to--although if they are taxpayers, they had to pay for the production of those images, like them or not. Indeed, if there was ever an argument for the full free disclosure, and distribution, of all material, no matter offensive--the Iraqi prison photos provide it. Because the fate of American policy in Iraq--and of America's standing in the world--depends on an honest debate. So no censorship should be allowed.
      However, censorship is what we're getting. Although a few images of abuse in Iraq have been made public--most notably on CBS News' "60 Minutes II" for two Wednesdays in a row--the vast bulk of the information has been kept secret from the public. Yes, it's OK for President George W. Bush to see it, and for other top government officials--but not the rest of us.
      But the headline in a Reuters story on Wednesday was clear enough in its intimation as to what's been going on: "Lawmakers Shocked by New Images of Iraqi Prisoners." The Reuters piece went on to report: "Lawmakers said images showed inmates apparently being coerced to commit sodomy, wounds possibly from dog bites, a number of dead bodies, and examples of 'sadistic torture' and 'sexual humiliation.'"
      Remember, folks, this is real. This is not some harmless adult movie, or graphic novel. This happened to human beings who were completely unwilling participants. But hold on, you might say: some of these Iraqis being degraded and tortured might have been guilty of crimes--even the killing of Americans. Yes, that's entirely possible, even likely. But they are still human beings. More to the point, they have legal rights under international law, most notably the Geneva Convention. That's why this case is such a big deal: the US went to war in the name of international order, and now we are seen as the violators of that order.
      But, you might say to me, "Phil, it not fair to equate the crimes of a few Americans--or a relative few, if the criminality does, indeed, go up the chain of command--with the crimes of Saddam Hussein." And I would agree with you: in the worst-case scenario, the US has committed only a tiny fraction of the human-rights abuses committed by the former Ba'ath Party regime. But my answer is: "That's all the more reason to let all the facts hang out. Because if we keep one thing secret, then people with suspicious minds--and when it comes to us, that's most of the rest of the world--will assume that we're keeping lots of things secret." And that's not the American Way, which is to tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
      More to the point, secrecy is bad for those who keep the secrets. In the words of Lord Acton, the great 19th century liberal, "Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity."
      If the Bush Administration releases all its evidence, the United States, especially the military, will take a huge black eye. But that shiner will heal soon enough, as people come to see that while what the US did in Iraq was bad, it wasn't Auschwitz, or anything close.
      It's ironic, of course, that even as the federal government was cracking down upon Janet Jackson for showing one breast, and upon the singer Bono for using the "f" word, other parts of the US government were creating S&M images in Iraq. Let's hope that's going to stop now, although the only way to guarantee that it has stopped is full and complete transparency.
      But what the US government, at least in its democratic form, can't survive is runaway secrecy. So let the sunshine in. America will feel worse for a little while, and then better forever after. As John Lennon sang, "Just gimme some truth." Contra Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men," we can handle it.
      There's only catch, of course, as Los Angeles First Amendment attorney Greg Piccionelli observes elsewhere here on the Ivote2004.com site: if the government were to release all the photos and tapes, those who do the actual releasing--and potentially those who transmit or reproduce those images--could be found guilty of trafficking in obscenity.
      All of which proves the absurdity America's obscenity laws. We need free speech, jus like the First "Congress shall make no law" Amendment says.
      Because you never what speech will save the honor of America, and thereby save the American democratic experiment.


###

Contact pcgk@ivote2004.com