Reductio ad Absurdum (Belmont Club on Berg video. WARNING: Graphic content on thread)

Belmont Club ^ | Wednesday, May 12, 2004 | Wretchard

[Eurotwit]

Andrew Sullivan suggests that the mainstream media publish pictures of an American hostage's severed head in order to balance, among other things, the slide show presentations depicting the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Let's start an internet campaign to insist that the major media - including the New Yorker, the networks, the major newsweeklies, and every major paper - run a picture of Zarqawi holding up Nick Berg's severed head. It's time to release the Pearl video and stills too. Enough with the double standards. The media were absolutely right to show the abuse photos. But they are only part of the story. It's about time the media gave us all of it, however harrowing it is.

And yeah, why not. If Michael Getler, the ombudsman of the Washington Post can assert that "the reality of war in all its aspects needs to be reported and photographed. That is the patriotic, and necessary, thing to do in a democracy" there is no logical reason why the video showing the Al Qaeda decapitating a screaming Nick Berg shouldn't be given the same treatment. That is, unless the Getler's premise was false in the first place.

The reductio ad absurdum "is a type of logical argument where we assume a claim for the sake of argument, arrive at an absurd result, and then conclude the original assumption must have been wrong, since it gave us this absurd result." The fallacy in Getler's premise was the claim that the Abu Ghraib photographs were simply a factual documentation of an abuse which the public had the right to know about. The existence of the abuses had been known from January, from CENTCOM itself.

January 16, 2004

Release Number: 04-01-43

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DETAINEE TREATMENT INVESTIGATION

BAGHDAD, Iraq – An investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a Coalition Forces detention facility. The release of specific information concerning the incidents could hinder the investigation, which is in its early stages. The investigation will be conducted in a thorough and professional manner. The Coalition is committed to treating all persons under its control with dignity, respect and humanity. Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the Commanding General, has reiterated this requirement to all members of CJTF-7.

What was new about the May coverage was that the press had pictures of the Abu Ghraib abuses and was in a position to project, not a new set of facts, but a new set of powerful emotions upon the public. Getler's claim is really an assertion of the right to invoke outrage, disgust and hatred at a specific act and its perpetrators, and those who may have been indirectly responsible for it. By taking this logic to its limit, Sullivan claims the same right: to unleash a symmetrical set of set emotions at another group -- and demonstrates the absurdity. For it must either be correct to publish both the Abu Ghraib and Berg photos or admit partisanship. Surely, if it is acceptable to run the risk of tainting the entire US military with the brush of Abu Ghraib then there can be no harm in coloring all Muslims with the hues of Al Qaeda. But this is madness.

The Belmont Club predicted that "the sad balance of probability is that Abu Ghraib will be displaced from the front pages by the next terrorist outrage, the next Bali, the next Madrid, the next 9/11 until we find ourselves wondering why it upset us at all" -- and the process has already begun. People who only yesterday were beating their breasts at infamy of the 800th MP brigade will be calling for a MOAB to dropped on Fallujah tomorrow. And to the inherent madness of war we will add another lunacy: strategy by manic-depression. 'Are we feeling generous today toward the enemy? Or do we want to get some aggression off our chests? Hmm?'

This is what comes of asserting the right to unleash emotions disconnected from rational perspective as "patriotic". This is what comes of not sticking to facts and they are these. The enemy has attacked America on its own soil and therefore must be defeated utterly. Members of the US military have committed a court-martial offense and therefore they must be punished severely. Any withdrawal from Iraq will not bring safety from enemy action inasmuch as they attacked Manhattan and Washington DC nearly two years before OIF. Any withdrawal from Iraq without first setting up a stable and responsible government there would result in a bloodbath beside which the massacre of the Shi'ites and the gassing of the Kurds by Saddam would be a pale moonlit shadow. Therefore we must persist until victory.

And the final fact is this. The only exit from war's inhumanity is through the doorway of victory. For while it may be mitigated, controlled and reduced to a certain extent fundamentally "war is cruelty, and you cannot refine it", though victory can end it. While it continues, as many in the Left who long for a 21st century Vietnam hope, it will unleash unpredictable forces which no one can control. Those who delighted in discovering the photographs at Abu Ghraib little imagined Nick Berg's video. And while we can safely grant Andrew Sullivan's plea and publish both, for reasons the media imagine are laudable, it is what comes next that I am afraid of.

[SLB]

I do believe the terrorists would have actually gained if they had staged it up to brandishing the knife and then in an act of "mercy" set had him free. In their eyes that would have been showing weakness, but in the eyes of the rest of the world they would have been seen as merciful.

[MizSterious]

My thoughts echo your own at times. I pray we are both wrong.

[ought-six]

"If I am ever faced with the islamic enemy, I guarantee you, there will be no ROE or one sided conventions."

I'm with you, brother. They can beg their moon god for mercy, for they will not get it from me.

[RonDog]

From www.coxandforkum.com:

May 11, 2004

The Good, The Bad, The Media

After days of intense media coverage of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, one could easily get the impression that certain American soldiers and their commanders are the most evil people in the world, much less Iraq.

The latest news should put things back into perspective: Video Shows Beheading of American in Iraq

After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting "Allahu Akbar!" -- "God is great." They then held the head out before the camera.

Perhaps now the media will have a better idea of who the real enemy is in Iraq. Perhaps CNN will create an in-depth investigation into the death-worship, oppression, racism and murderous barbarism that is "systemic" to the Islamist ideology driving the terrorists. Perhaps Reuters will pen an exposé on the insurgents' "chain of command" and shine the harsh light of journalistic truth on Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia for providing moral and material support to terrorists. Perhaps AP will ask Al Qaeda to apologize to the families of its victims. Then again, perhaps not.

At least President Bush seems to know better than the media who the enemy is. The question is: What's he doing about it? Will President Bush unleash our military to do whatever is necessary to arrest, kill or otherwise render harmless the Islamist threat in Iraq? Or are we going to risk still more American lives in deference to world opinion and Islamic sensibilities?

Regarding Nick Berg, the victim of this Islamist atrocity, CBS News reports: Slain Man Thought He Could 'Help'

Last week, before Berg's fate was known, his father said that his son had gone to Iraq partly out of a sense of adventure, partly for the opportunity for work, and partly because he was a "staunch supporter of the government position in Iraq and he wanted to go over there and help."

UPDATE: It took mere hours. The story that displaced the Nick Berg murder story on CNN's main page is about Abu Ghraib: Senators to view abuse images Wednesday. And The New York Times follow-up is focusing on the one aspect of the story involving the American government in Iraq instead of focusing on the killers: From a Strange Encounter With Iraqi Police to Fatal Capture.

Posted by Forkum at 10:06 PM

[rebel_yell2]

Can you say "Solomia?" I thought you could!

Another Clinton legacy . . . .

[knarf]

bump

[First_Salute]

I was wondering about that, too.

What is the "logic" of their putting Nick's socks back on?

[highlandbreeze]

What?? How did this get past me?

[clyde260]

(As she thumps her own head smartly)_
And I was considering changing my tagline???

It stands! Called 60 Minutes yesterday, everyone should.

LET THE SOLDIERS FIGHT THE WAR! NOT THE MEDIA!!!!!

Dan Rather cast the first link in the chain that got Nick Berg Murdered.

[SLB]

And now the family is blaming the military (read Bush) for detaining him. How long before kerry uses this in his ads?

[headsonpikes]

A large segment of our population will adopt a pro-war attitude when Oprah adopts a pro-war attitude.

Too true, unfortunately.

[arthurus]

when Oprah adopts a pro-war attitude.

Oprah will get on board when members of her own family are publicly beheaded by moslems in New York. or maybe not.

[arthurus]

The press is not moronic. The press (to designate the networks and NYT etc)has chosen sides in a world. The press will do what it feels necessary to advance their side.

[swheats]

Those images of abuses were like a new drug that brought much euphoria for those wanting to bring down this president and his cabinet. The hangover was an innocent man's life taken brutally to try and teach us a lesson that the side effects are uncontrollable.