Abu Ghraib: What if it were YOU in those pictures?

Carey defended SBS's decision to show the images.

"We felt a responsibility ... to broadcast them," he said. "It is a matter of free speech."

This has been a REALLY busy month for 'free speech.'

Of course, these images are easily distinguished from the cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad. Though limited to insult, the cartoons intimately affected almost every Muslim of over a billion, so they made a big impact.

These images, though they've inflamed passions generally (either for or against the war), they only intimately affect those against whom the torture was inflicted - by adding INSULT to INJURY.

"I felt disgusted when I saw those pictures and I felt at the same time how weak our government is that it can't help its own people," said Sadun Mohammed,

* * *

"We don't want to publish this picture because they are humiliating and if we published this in a newspaper it would be seen by his family, neighbours and neighbourhood," added Hassan.

How would you feel if that were YOU in those pictures? Would you want pictures of you being TORTURED and HUMILIATED beamed across the globe for viewing by anyone and everyone, whether or not they gave a rat's ass about you?

American officials have said the pictures and video should not have been released, with Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman telling The Associated Press their airing "could only further inflame and possibly incite unnecessary violence in the world." Whitman said the images came from material that authorities already had investigated, the AP reported.

As much as I am against this war, and as important as I think it is to show the war for what it TRULY is - a barbaric and hypocritical exercise in domination and cruelty - I must concede that there ARE countervailing interests that weigh against circulating these images far and wide to persons not responsible for bringing the perpetrators to justice.

It's not a strategic argument, as the one advanced by Rumsfeld and crew: 'it's okay to torture, but bad to expose.'

It's an argument in defense of human dignity.

THESE ARE IMAGES OF REAL PEOPLE. They have lives, however shattered. They must try to get past the humiliation and injustice. Of course, bringing their torturers to justice is part of the healing. But, does it really warrant broadcasting the images across the globe for ANYONE to save on their hard drive, for whatever purpose, however IGNOBLE?

Shouldn't the subjects of this torture at least have a SAY in whether and to whom the images get circulated? We protect commercial interests through copyrights, but human rights in dignity be damned?

Sure, 'free speech' has its virtues. And I'm not saying that publishing images are akin to torture. But the more I encounter 'free speech' as applied in circumstances where human dignity is at stake, the more I'm convinced the word 'free' is a terrible misnomer.

Any policy that does not account for human dignity is a bad one - even if you call it free.

What's more, the timing of all these 'media releases' are EXTREMELY suspect. Remember these Abu Ghraib images are OLD, just as the footage of abuse by British soldiers (released a couple of days ago), and indeed the cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad.

SBS has refused to say how it obtained the images.

There is more to this string of events than meets the eye.

Although circulating these images increases dissent against the war, it also increases hostility between the US and Muslim countries - a perfect run up to a war with Iran.