You know Missy I think about this. A lot in a lot of different contexts.

Wiki tells me:

n experimental research, the term observer effect (also see Hawthorne effect) refers to changes that the act of observing will make on the phenomenon being observed. It has application in many fields of scientific inquiry, and may refer specifically to:

* Observer effect (information technology), the impact of observing a process while it is running
* Observer effect (physics), the impact of observing a physical system
* Observer effect (psychology), how people change their behavior when aware of being watched

It may also refer to:

* Observer Effect, an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise, named after this effect

It is sometimes conflated with:

* Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

I mean the guy or gal taking the picture is effecting the outcome, the goings on as it were.

I suppose like anything else the photographer is saying:

Hey, I need to get published, get stuff on the ole resume. Besides I need the two grand to make it this month.

Somebody gets paid to take the 'final picture' at an execution.

Really got me thinkin' Missy. Like you always do.

Missy -- I've also wondered about the photographers (and, now I suppose, videographers). I'm sure, though, that it's not a one-size -fits-all answer. Certainly there are those calculating few who are coldly looking for the Pulitzer; others may be so numbed by the horror that they have become automatons; still others may know there is nothing they can personally do to stop it and hope that their shots may ultimately lead to exposure (no pun intended there either).
The next logical question is more uncomfortable: what would you do in their circumstance? What would I do?

The police are required by law to photograph a suspect and record, via audio and video, any interrogation. To protect the accused. The basic information can be found on many websites. This is not about the police. Although, the comparison may be apt.

This is about "combatants", for lack of a better term. Are you saying that the photos are standard documentation? Then it stands to reason that the refusal of voluntary release of said photos/audio denotes a reason to protect the accuser.

These are not photos or video taken for "documentation" in any meaningful sense.

When I say that, I say that as someone who does just that, except most assuredly not for anything involving torture. Sure, I've pointed cameras at fires, at medical emergencies, at drug busts, and at other "interesting" things.

My own preference is for things like the magic of moving water, the incredible range of complex beauty nature puts up all around us (if we will only bother to look), or that most wonderful of natural forms, the incredible range and depth of beauty women bring to the world.

And the idea with all of them, the extreme and the beautiful, indeed everything I do, is that ultimately there is an audience. Whether it's someone watching the six-o'clock news, a webcast, or strolling along a gallery wall, the final piece of the long, slow arc of interaction is the work being seen. Ideally, by as many people as possible, and hopefully with a nice check attached at the end.

These were taken for very different reasons. And very different audiences.

Some of it was for sheer mindlessly perverse enjoyment by people like Charles Graner and Lynndie England. Does anyone not think these front-line bad apples (and indeed they were) had themselves a good laugh the next day, looking at their handiwork of last night? It's sad and yet somewhat understandable. Neither of them appears very bright, they both seem (to my nonprofessional eye) to have more than one or two screws loose, and hey, it's all just good fun, isn't it?

And then there's Cheney, and Eric Prince, and the other ones at the top. They did indeed also want documentation, except for them, it was more like pornography. It excited them to see other human beings, human beings from very far away, in some cases with barely pronounceable names, thus very abstracted, in a word, "dehumanized", being beaten, terrorized, and in some cases, killed. The suffering of others does that for some people. They regard it as a very rare and exclusive luxury, something to which they are by their rank and privilege entitled.

We also see that with those who would consign others to lives of penury and wage-slave misery, but I digress.

The people who took these photos, and recorded the video, they were enjoying their work, such as it was, because as it's been said, here and elsewhere, they were damaged people to begin with, and undamaged people do not torture.

Somewhere along the path these materials took, their purpose changed. At some point, they turned into something that the well-off, well-connected, and powerful - who would never "dirty their hands" with such activities, who always rigorously maintain a "safe distance" - got off with.

Lord Acton told us that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And he was far too right about human nature. Or at least, the nature of some who call themselves humans.

When you think about it, Abu Ghraib was the most documented torture atrocity on record. Photos, videos, written documents, undoubtedly audio recordings... huge amounts of stuff.

I've never believed this was the work of a few bad apples, sickos acting out their own demented fantasies. There was something about this appalling process that was too orchestrated and posed, too ritualistic. And, most importantly, it went on too long - month after month.

No. This was organized. With direction and purpose. The bad apples fell from poisoned trees.

But why? Would being photographed naked, hassled with dogs, stacked in pyramids... would that stuff break down a disciplined terrorist, or even a committed amateur. Cultural differences be damned - we're talking about men willing to strap on bomb vests and fly planes into the sides of buildings. Somehow, I think the real insurgents would weather this storm, no matter how atrocious, pain-wracked and humiliating.

So why was it done? Why was it so meticulously documented? Just for all of us to see? Just to blow up in faces?

Well... who else saw these ugly photos? Well... Arabs. Right? Everyday "men and women on the street" Arabs. If someone wanted the entire Arab world to hate Americans up close and personal, there are few better ways to do it; by degrading these Iraqis, we were degrading Arabs. Remember, even after the Iraq invasion, these "everyday" Arabs told pollsters they hated American policy. Not Americans.

Then Abu Ghraib happened.

If they hate us, that way, personally, as a people... we'll have to fight them. We won't have a choice. To the extent they hate us, they'll come after us. Over here. Up close. Dreaming of the day they can dog-walk us down Main Street, perhaps. Their distaste for us will make them our sworn enemy. On and on, into eternity - just like all the Mideast grudge-matches.

Was that the idea?

I don't think we get to know the answer to your question until the photos are released. The Abu Ghraib photos came from a variety of sources, most of which were not official. In the age of digital cameras all kinds of things are being photgraphed and later retrieved as evidence when, a the time they were taken, it was really not a big deal to the participants. It will be interesting when we find out.

We know that in the case of the CIA videotapes of the torturing of prisoners they were specifically made in order to document what went on and that is why the tapes were destroyed---because they were evidence that would incriminate the partcipants.

Missy,

Just a consideration -

As pointed out in posts by others, the harm and ongoing damage to individuals psyche is not limited to those who were the direct recipients - but extended to those who had to participate in other ways too. (And yes, I acknowledge there are those demented ones who were and would always be gleeful participants. But, I do believe these are the minority - just as all other deviants.)

To have experienced any aspect of these horrific actions up front and personal will forever haunt most who were mandated to in any way participate.

This is but another layer of this odious matter.

Thanks for post, as always, appreciate.

Good question M. I'm assuming there were some persons assigned to study the ongoing 'techniques' with the task of 'refining' the technique(s) so as to 'improve' them. ie. timeframe 10:31, interrogator should have increased/decreased pain/restraint to achieve a more 'positive' result. Sick f#cks!