Home > Torture: What the US papers don’t say
Michael Hann examines the air of secrecy and silence
surrounding the US media’s treatment of George Bush’s
’war on terror’
American contractors and soldiers torturing Iraqi
prisoners in a prison outside Baghdad? A huge story, by
anyone’s standards, surely, especially when pictures of
the abuse were broadcast on the US TV network CBS.
So it was no surprise that newspapers around the world
made huge, horrified play of the events at the Abu
Ghraib prison. It was more of a surprise, however, that
the story did not receive the same level of coverage in
the US papers.
The Baltimore Sun, however, was damning in its verdict.
"Television footage of the mistreatment of Iraqi war
prisoners by their American captors was shockingly
disturbing and hauntingly reminiscent of the horror
stories from the regime of Saddam Hussein," it said.
Punishment of those responsible, it added, would not on
its own be sufficient response. "The Pentagon must be
held accountable if the military failed to provide the
training, staffing, supervision and leadership required
to ensure that prisoners of war are treated humanely."
Perhaps the difference between the US coverage and that
elsewhere should have been expected. CBS admitted it had
come under severe pressure from the Pentagon not to
broadcast the images, and the issue of what is and what
is not fit for US public consumption has been an ongoing
theme, applicable to events both domestic and foreign.
Tonight, for example, the ABC network’s Nightline
programme is to feature host Ted Koppel reading the
names of all members of the American military killed in
Iraq, while pictures of them appear on screen. But, as
the New York Daily News reported, one local broadcasting
group that controls eight ABC-affiliated stations has
"angrily pulled" the show, claiming the naming of the
dead "is a blatant anti-war ploy".
The White House reacted angrily last week to the
publication of the flag-draped coffins of US soldiers
who have died in Iraq. But Daniel Schorr, writing in the
Christian Science Monitor, wondered why. "Considering
that no individual identification is visible in the
pictures, it is hard to understand the justification for
clamping the secrecy lid on the solemn procession of
flag-draped coffins being carried off the cargo planes,"
he wrote. "I cannot avoid the suspicion that President
George Bush - who has yet to attend to a funeral service
for any of the honoured dead that he has sent to war -
has no interest in calling attention to the mounting
number of casualties in a battle that was far from over
last May 1, when the president declared ’major combat
operations’ in Iraq had ended."
The appearance yesterday of Mr Bush and vice-president
Dick Cheney before the commission investigating the 9/11
attacks provided another example of the debate. "There
was no press coverage allowed, no recording, no
transcript to be made available later, no testimony
given under oath - and no good reason for any of it,"
said the Boston Globe.
"Mr Bush, who pulled the nation together in 2001, might
have done so again yesterday by displaying a willingness
to be open - at least in transcript form - about what
may have gone wrong on his watch ... [And] going public
before the commission with that attitude might have won
Mr Bush international respect."
As Alessandra Stanley put it in the New York Times: "On
a day when viewers could watch American marines battling
rebels in Falluja and see Jayson Williams squirm in his
courtroom seat while awaiting a verdict on manslaughter
charges, the blackout at the White House was striking;
throughout the day, the torrent of words used on cable
news shows to describe the meeting (’exceptionally
rare’, ’extraordinary’, ’historic’) clashed almost
comically with the meagre visual images ... The
nonvisual event was so anathema to television that at
one point, the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan said it seemed as
if ’the event took place in the 18th century’."
The whole aim of the event had been to make Mr Bush look
"solemn and presidential, capturing the news for a full
day of headlines that can’t help but further tie down
his campaign stance as the wartime president", scoffed
James Ridgeway on the Village Voice website. He argued
that the event had "little to do with informing the
public". It was "just a nice friendly get-together".
A contrast to the secrecy and silence that seem to be
characterising this stage of Mr Bush’s "war on terror"
came from the supreme court on Wednesday. The justices
heard the cases of two US citizens jailed after the 9/11
attacks, on the grounds of being enemy combatants. Yaser
Esam Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, suspected of
fighting for the Taliban, and Jose Padilla was arrested
at Chicago airport on suspicion of planning to detonate
a radioactive bomb.
The supreme court allowed the hearing to be broadcast
live, on the grounds of exceptional national interest, a
decision welcomed by the Los Angeles Times.
"For too long ... justices have been skittish about
letting Americans listen in on their proceedings while
the justices are still deliberating," said the paper.
"But the compelling broadcasts of Wednesday’s hearing in
the enemy combatant cases, which turned into a dramatic
civics lesson, demonstrate why the public should be able
to hear all cases that quickly." The recordings, said
the Times, showed the justices posing "appropriately
sceptical questions" about Mr Bush’s insistence in his
right to order detentions, and would "encourage
Americans to wrestle with these questions along with the
justices".