Nicholas Berg- Page 2

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 2:45pm

Oh boy, that's pretty awful, thanks Orion. I'm wondering if the 'powers that be' will allow the American public to hear every grizzly thing that we've done to them. I doubt it.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 2:51pm

Wouldn't it be interesting to see someone perform those same acts on the boys in the white house and the pentagon?

[orion59]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 2:55pm

Even if we never hear all the grizzly details, what is known should be enough to try everyone involved as war criminals.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 2:55pm

Hate to bring up this comparison...since it a very sensitive point...

But...wouldn't you agree that exposing the general public to the violent images happening in Vietnam (There I said it!) was one of the main reasons for the public's shift in opinion, and which help end our involvement there?

What is the solution? The solution starts sounding like uncomfortably like censorship...and where do you draw the line on THAT slippery slope? We start getting into the area of the management of information, which is going to be used to manipulate public sentiment.

The administration wanted to draw the line at showing coffins.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 3:03pm

Sueleen - You did however, prove my point. The description of the event sufficed for you. The word "beheading" is enough to horrify me. The details of the event are worse, but I don't need them to already feel sad, angry, repulsed, and scared. Further, I still don't feel the need to view it to validate exactly how tragic and horrific it truly is.

I'm still quite amazed by the number of people who say, "I WANT to watch this." The only way to view the video or photos of the actual act is by sheer desire. I feel like there is something horribly wrong when people express a desire to watch another person die. When I watched "Bowling For Columbine" (for which I'm sorry I did), I felt somewhat offended in the scenes that showed, quite graphically, people being shot and killed. In all the reviews and blurbs I had read on the film, none of them mentioned this. Those scenes disturbed me for several days and had I known they were in the film, I would never had watched it. But then, had I known the facts would be so incredibly distorted and biased, I probably wouldn't have watched it anyway.

[orion59]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 3:16pm

Matt, The way you're viewing the issue is based on the way you think and your ability to feel empathy without having to see the act itself. I don't think people here are arguing on behalf of showing it for the sheer thrill of it. It's more a recognition that not everyone has the capacity to understand and to feel based on the verbal or written descriptions. While the point that we should not continue to feed that desensitization is a valid one, you still feel that you want everyone in the country to fully understand what is happening and to speak out about it.

I guess it's a Catch 22 in a sense. how do you get to those people without helping to make them immune to the horror?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 3:16pm

But censorship does and must exist to a certain degree. Why are photos of children engaged in sexual acts with adults against the law? Not to protect the viewers, but to protect the children. If the public is told what happened, will they not be enraged and horrified? Is it necessary for the press to broadcast the photos on TV or print them on the front page? Do people not know what "engaged with sexual activity with a child" means? It is censorship because these kinds of photos exist in the world. But for some reason, when it comes to violent bloody dead bodies and murders, everyone "needs" to see them.

[orion59]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 3:24pm

While we have become desenitized to the violence of war, people do not feel the same way about child sexual abuse. Partly, I imagine, because we are not exposed to it in the papers, on the news or as a subject of summer blockbuster movies. This supports the theory that the less we see of it the less we need to in order to understand the gravity of it. That's why I consider it a ctach 22. People have already been desensitized by exposure to the images that you almost have to show them the images to make them feel something. I honestly feel it's best not to show them and I hope we don't get to see them but i certainly understand why other people feel it would make an imapcat. No matter what way you go on this issue, something gets lost. You show them and you reinforce the need to see the grizzly images. You don't show them and a large number of Amercians will fail to fully undertsand how terrible this is.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 3:33pm

Matt,

I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying about censorship, but who makes these determinations?

Some things will always be taboo.

But I'll becoming increasingly aware that the media and the government "picks and choses" what the public sees and reads because it doesn't agree with their own agendas.

Love you more than my luggage!

Michael

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 3:35pm

"how do you get to those people without helping to make them immune to the horror?"

And once they are immune to that, what do you try next? And after that? And after that?

My point is, at what point do you finally draw the line? And most importantly, when did the broadcast or print of a violent execution become an American "need"?

The same people defending the press for showing the pictures and the same people criticizing the press for glossing the depiction of war. No matter how you look at it, the press manipulates and decides what the public "needs", not the public.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 3:42pm

I'm sorry, but the biggest argument in favor of public airing of photos from the prison and the beheading is the fact that the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, had "no idea" things were so bad in the prison until he saw the photos. I am just incredulous over this, though I do not know why when I think about it. The man lacks empathy. He really didn't get it? He would have continued to brush off the murders of prisoners in our name if it were just words and not the picture of the corpse wrapped in plastic and put on ice? Then dammit, show the pictures.

Same with Berg. Fact is, the word "beheaded" simply does not convey the brutality of the act that a photographic record does. I'm pretty much a first amendment absolutist, and clearly, if the seeing photos makes people realize how bad things are (rather than their own antiseptic version they dream up based on written reports) then maybe something good can come of it.

FYI, wherever Ckeaton is, seems like Rush Limbaugh is hinting that it was either gay soldiers who abused the men by forcing them to simulate sex with each other or that, get this, they were influenced by gay porn that they stumbled across on the internet!

I've seen a LOT of gay porn, and never once have I seen a naked all-male pyramid. Still, it's shocking that it's not shocking that Rush would "go there."

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 3:43pm

Great points, Orion.

To assume that some enjoyment is gained from watching the video is unfair, except for some cases where there is some sick fetish involved.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 3:56pm

"To assume that some enjoyment is gained from watching the video is unfair"

Not at all. How many volumes of Faces of Death have been distributed?

Namo - I'm all for First Amendment as well, but it has been manipulated and twisted and interpreted as much as the Bible for the use of personal gain.

Let's look at it literally:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This means that any abridgement of any work is unlawful. Therefore, the Reader's Digest is in for a rather rude awakening, 75% of audio books should be taken from the shelves and recalled, the use of quoting from an article without printing the entire article is also illegal. "No Loitering" signs are in direct violation of the Constitution. And though Congress cannot prevent you from petitioning, they are in no way obligated to acknowledge your petition.

Updated On: 5/12/04 at 03:56 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 3:59pm

namo, didn't rush recently admit that he watches homo-erotic porn on the net? hell, the man knows about more than just oxy-contin and if that story is true, he might know the soldiers involved "personally."

yep, here it is...scroll down to the bottom http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=10180

with>http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=10180>http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=10180

with regard to the government hiding the details, the report is available online unedited. it contains the charges and the investigations and a catalog of the acts of heinousness. i even posted a link to it in another thread.

Updated On: 5/12/04 at 03:59 PM

[orion59]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 3:59pm

I'm going to stop debating the issue because we are obviously approaching this from two very different points of view. You are looking at media irrisponsibility which certainly does exist. I'm putting myself into the frame of mind os the person who is too dense to realize the full imapct of what has happened. I'm thinking "If you don't get how wrong this is and how horrible the events taking place are, then let's shove it in your face and shock you into realizing that something terrible has happened because our leaders have lost all control over the situation and have screwed up in an unbelievable way."

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 4:29pm

To assume that some enjoyment is gained from watching the video is unfair"

"Not at all. How many volumes of Faces of Death have been distributed?"

I have no idea- what, millions? I don't know. But whatever the number is, I guess in your view, that's how many people have a sick fetish.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 4:34pm

I think that in a culture that denies death (look at the Baby Boomers who will simply REFUSE TO DIE!) it makes perfect sense that there would be a morbid fascination with representations of actual death. There is nothing new here. If our culture had a healthy understanding of death, fewer Faces of Deaths would ever have sold and Mr. Menendez wouldn't have been so rich and probably his sons wouldn't have killed him and his wife.

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 4:49pm

Yes. Also, I don't have a problem with wanting to know as much as possible about as many things as possible.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 4:50pm

But if the person is too sense to realize that a beheading is violent and causes death, then what makes you think they are smart enough to connect it to the current administration? Perhaps someone should simply print a volume of War for Dummies, advertise it in daily informercials, and spare those of us who can put two and two together. The press certainly would not show the gruesome footage with a voiceover saying "Bush is responsible for what you are seeing". Comprehending the details of this horrific act and connecting them to the current administration are two different things. In either case, the public does not need the footage to fully comprehend unless they are completely illiterate.

I was asking a friend of mine about this. They instantly recalled the film "A Time to Kill". The rape of the little girl was never shown in the film, but the detailed account of what occurred brought them and the people around them to tears. They went on to compare books to film saying that whenever a film treatment of a novel is almost always regarded as inferior because it is less detailed. It's a crude comparison, but still rings true. If Berg's execution were described in detail without the use of photos or video of the actual event, would the general public be apathetic? Would the news be less shocking?

Take the case of Matthew Shepard: There were no photos or videos of his violent beating that led to his death, yet the event still managed to evoke rather huge emotional responses across the country including candlelight vigils, demostrations, and be the subject of films and literature. Were there demands of proof that the violence occurred? Did gay rights advocates declare the public "needs" to see photos of his beaten lifeless body in order to understand the violent nature of his death? Would photos have changed the mind of the religious zealots holding signs declaring "He Got What He Deserved" at Matthew's funeral? As I said, some people cannot be reached. Some minds can never be changed.

To me, the release of the photos and the video of Berg's execution is blatant unnecessary disregard to the privacy of Berg and his loved ones.

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 4:55pm

I agree with the last thing you said. The Berg family and friends have had no privacy and the tragedy and humiliation which occurred is out there for everyone to see, including the people who are viewing it for the wrong reasons.

In this day and age, though, I think this will continue to happen.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 4:55pm

The pictures of the abuse committed by the US against Iraqi *should* be made public because these are acts for which we, as Americans, are being held accountable in the court of world opinion. Same thing with the beheading. This was done in retaliation for the aforementioned offenses. We are, like it or not, parcel of what is happening, at least in the eyes of the world.

Many people aren't going to pay attention unless the graphic details make them sit up and take notice. Too disturbing? You bet. Which is why we need to face up to the ugly truth of what is going on on both sides of the fence. Pretending it doesn't exist, or thinking of it in sanitized terms, doesn't change the reality of what is happening. Someone, WindyCityActor, I think, made the point about the impact Vietnam photos had on shifting public opinion against the war. Manipulative? I don't think so. It's easy to support something when you turn a blind eye to the parts that are unpleasant, but really, doesn't that discredit the validity of the support to some extent?

Like others here, I follow current events, politics, and the war with a great deal of interest. I've been opposed to the war in Iraq since the very beginning and I'm always ready to be pissed off by things that are happening over there, but I have to tell you, the emotional impact of a few visuals, had an emotional impact that far exceeded anything I've read in the last six months. Not for nothin', but one picture really IS worth a thousand words.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 4:59pm

"I guess in your view, that's how many people have a sick fetish."

Pretty much, yes. Though I never used the word "fetish".

"Also, I don't have a problem with wanting to know as much as possible about as many things as possible."

At what cost? Do you need to watch the death of a human being to understand it? Faces of Death is the exploitation of all the lives lost that appear in those films. The distributors are making money from the death of people and selling their deaths as "entertainment". So yes, I consider those that pay money specifically to watch people die to be very sick indeed.

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 5:11pm

We'll just have to agree to disagree. This is a very emotional and controversial topic, Matt.

Iflit just about said what I'm feeling in her last post.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 5:18pm

I don't know, Matt. I don't think the majority of people looking at the pictures are doing it for cheap thrills. The word beheading goes beyond what I can picture in my imagination. I think I looked because I knew it was real, I knew the pictures existed, and I needed to be able to think about it 3-dimensionally. Seeing the pictures of Nicholas Berg made me more acutely aware of just how much we are hated by the enemy. The cruelties of war are something I can't seem to process and hang onto for long...I always fall back into my kumbaya rationalizations before long. But that's not how it is, and more stuff like this is going to keeping happening. We need to face how things really are.

This doesn't mean that I'm not acutely aware of the extra burdon the pictures have placed on the family. How horrible for them. But as a culture, we do that. Victims of the extreme become objects of interest. Any chance there won't be a spread on Nick and his family in People by next week? Just this morning I noticed that JonBenet Ramsey is still the queen of the cover girls for any number of sleazy publications, readily available in the nearest check-out line. That poor child has been the object of bizarre fascination for longer than she walked the earth. There are lots and lots of instances where suffering families are hurt because of public interest that serves no purpose.

But when it comes to Iraq, I will continue to make the case that we need to be privy to the details because we are all in danger and are all being held accountable as Americans.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 5:25pm

"Pretending it doesn't exist, or thinking of it in sanitized terms, doesn't change the reality of what is happening."

I certainly never suggested the actions should be ignored, hidden or sanitized.

"It's easy to support something when you turn a blind eye to the parts that are unpleasant"

I completely agree, but those who turn a blind eye will not see the videos or photos, either.

Updated On: 5/12/04 at 05:25 PM