What has come to light is neither nihilism nor cynicism, as one might have expected, but a quite extraordinary confusion over elementary questions of morality
Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
Remember when that Reuters cameraman in Gaza was hit by shrapnel (which killed him) because he was rushing to the scene some fighting between Palestinian militants and the IDF?
Pretty sad, huh? But, hey, he knew the risks and he decided his job as a cameraman for an international news agency was worth it. Nevertheless, it’s a shame he was unintentionally killed while performing what Reuters Editor-in-Chief David Schlesinger called his “professional duties.”
But this… this is different. This is a situation where “just doing my job” is no excuse:
From Little Green Footballs:
An Associated Press photographer embedded with the Taliban stood by and snapped pictures as they brutally murdered two women.
The video says that the AP crew heard gun shots in the dark from a distance:
doneHowever, the photos are damning.
Before:
After:
The AP photographer was fully aware of what was going to happen and he did nothing.
Oops… that’s not true. He did do his “professional duty.” I guess that comes before any humanity and morality for these news outlets.
29 Comments
To be fair had he tried to do something he would have been killed too. While at times we can all act in less then heroic manner in the face of such things out of fear it’s not like he wasn’t hanging out with the Taliban by mistake. So yes the guy is a coward and a douche good for him.
Folks point to sex and violence on T.V. and say that it is affecting viewers. Some are said to be “de-sensitized” by the images they see. The theory goes, the fake sex and violence in a movie puts an impression on the mind of the watcher who then is not morally outraged or offended if and or when real sex or violence (which should have otherwise offended) occurs.
If desensitization is a form of dehumanization on a moral level, then the AP cameraman is no longer human.
“If desensitization is a form of dehumanization on a moral level, then the AP cameraman is no longer human.”
That line of logic has led to quite a lot of bad results in the world even though at times it does lock justified, although I would say that yes the man does have flawed morals.
Letters,
I suppose it depends on how one thinks of those people who, as I put it, are “no longer human.”
Here’s what I mean, to be more precise and to sound less extreme. If you ask me, to be human means to be a living organism with the faculty of reason, capable of language, and with an advanced capacity for determining moral judgments with rational thinking and emotion combined. It is this last criterion, pertaining to morals, which separates human beings from other “lower” animals. Lower animals feel a natural instinct to love and protect their young and their herd, etc. however, humans are less automatic. We tend to think about our actions before doing something, our response is not just a reaction to stimulus but we think of the consequences of acting or not acting in a certain way.
That said, it is possible that this camera man thought it out and said: “The heck with it, I don’t mind hanging with murderers as long as I get paid” But, I think it’s more likely that the cameraman has dissassociated himself with the human world of action. He is able to take before and after shots of two women being executed because what was once his mind is no longer in the realm of human morality. He’s acting more in the automatic way of a machine or “lower” animal. In ancient Rome he would be “homo barbarus” not “homo humanus.”
Now, I’m not saying that he or people like him are a plague on the rest of us and they need to be eliminated. I’m just saying that, psychologically, this cameraman is more of an automaton or barbarian who has not developed a sense of right and wrong and does not mind sitting by to profit off of atrocious acts.
Fair enough, In that sense you are correct, but when you don’t explain that it does open you up for charges of being a Nazi something the left loves to call people no matter how little it has to do with the argument at hand.
You’ll note that we never would have known about these women’s deaths if it weren’t for him. If he had intervened, then the only harm he would have done the Taliban would have been making them expend another bullet. By not intervening, he was able to report on the atrocities, thus playing at least some small part in convincing our allies of the justice of the mission there.
True, but we already know the Taliban do this kind of thing so it isn’t much of an excuse on why he was hanging out with the bastards.
We do, but many of our “allies” have been getting cold feet.
Sergei,
That’s a very utilitarian way of looking at this. I agree with you, we’d have never seen these pictures if the cameraman had not taken them. However, that does not make his line of work morally justified… it should not excuse him or her from nightmares and depression: no amount of utility can make up for the moral guilt one should feel after taking before and after shots of two women who had been executed. I don’t say this because I feel that he could have saved their lives, I say this because human action is unpredictable and any man who loses faith in is own ability to preform miraculous and righteous acts as lost faith in him or her self as a moral being. Morals are not intangible, from the Latin mores or “manners, customs” any time a person acts he is subject to moral judgments. “Inaction” does not excuse one from moral responsibility, to the contrary, what some might see as this cameraman’s failure to act is really his act of giving up, his loss of faith in acting in accordance with what is good and rejecting what is bad with all of his soul. His act was the immoral act of accepting evil and doing nothing and, while we are quite certain it saved his life, there is no justification on moral grounds.
“His act was the immoral act of accepting evil and doing nothing”
Was he doing nothing? He took the pictures, and when he took them, he did so for a reason. If that reason was, “I, as a journalist, have the duty to document these crimes,” was he giving up?
Usually what happens, it seems, is these international news agencies hire locals, give them about a weeks worth of training and set them out with a camera. Anyway, yes, his duty to speak up for justice should have taken precendence over any professional duty. This is why whistle-blowers are generally more respected than those who merely “follow orders.”
“speak up for justice”
“whistle-blowers”
Isn’t that exactly what he was doing?
Consider, also, this: If the Taliban were to have to worry about embedded journalists taking sides, they would probably stop embedding journalists. This would be an enormous blow to the War on Terror. Journalists are an important source of information about the Taliban and al-Qaeda. For example, one of the biggest holes in the 9/11 Truth movement’s claims is that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and Ramzi bin al-Shibh cooperated with Al Jazeera to make a full-length documentary about how they orchestrated 9/11.
Whistle blowing is when an individual inside a group speaks out about that groups unethical practices. So unless he was working for the Taliban he is not a whistle blower.
More info:
Well that changes things a bit if his account is the truth, and I have no proof that it isn’t. It is hard to condemn the man if it is the truth about what happened. It is odd though that they personally called him and that no other people showed up though.
Yes, as an up and coming journalist Naikzad distributed his personal cell phone number just in case any Taliban or jihadists needed to get some propaganda out to the AP.
Hmmm… This sounds fishy. Why would they even invite him to the execution if they didn’t want him to film?
Uh… yeah… Yeah! That’s it! My body may have touched it! Nay, I myself nudged the camera to film the two killers.
“Why would they even invite him to the execution if they didn’t want him to film?”
They probably wanted the event covered in order to demonstrate their strength, but realized that actual film of the event could be used by the enemy for propaganda purposes (which it was, though probably not in the exact way they were expecting).
“Uh… yeah… Yeah! That’s it! My body may have touched it! Nay, I myself nudged the camera to film the two killers.”
Agreed, that is… curious. He may have to issue an explanation of his explanation.
It will be interesting to see how/if the Taliban responds to this.
I think they wanted him to film the whole thing so that their fundamentalist brethren would know that they’re practicing the sharia.
I don’t think that the Taliban needs to worry about being perceived as overly moderate.
They don’t need to worry about our perceptions, as you point out in a comment above, however, according to the cameraman’s statement they wanted to demonstrate that they were “carrying out the sharia.”
Just like in Saudi Arabia and Iran.
To be fair in Saudi Arabia and Iran it’s the government that does this kind of thing. The Taliban are nothing more then a rebel group by this point so I don’t think that is correct to link the two. It would be if they where still in power though.
Well, yes and no. The Taliban do control a handful of districts in Afghanistan, and are very firmly entrenched in substantial sectors of Pakistan. I’m currently close to researching a post on my blog on this.
I am talking about the country government not local shitheads that might control an area due to war or whatnot, if they where in control of the country yeah then it would be the same. It is the same kind of thing done by different groups is what I am getting at. You do have a valid point though.
Letters,
I posted this a while ago -
http://djkonservo.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/interviews-with-taliban-fighters/
It’s an interview with a random Taliban fighter. In the transcript it is implied that the government of Afghanistan is not recognized by the Taliban, here’s an excerpt:
So, even though we know that the Taliban has been, for the most part, overthrown, those remaining seem to be in denial.
“the government of Afghanistan is not recognized by the Taliban”
This is surprising?
Sergei,
I was trying to clarify why I made the comparison to other “Islamic” nations (Saudi Arabia and Iran). Letters says: “To be fair in Saudi Arabia and Iran it’s the government that does this kind of thing.” and “if they where in control of the country yeah then it would be the same.” I am pointing out that it does not matter to the Taliban whether or not they are the H. R(egime) I. C. of Afghanistan.
I know what you are getting at. I forgot I said that mostly as a sarcastic joke about the difference. You do have to make the point of the difference though between governmental policy and the ideology and actions of non-government organizations/groups when you are talking about foreign policy because the different ways you would deal with them. The Saudis at least pretend that they don’t support terrorism and on occasion fight it, while Iran and the Taliban actively support terrorism when they don’t just do it themselves.
And yes I would think the Taliban would have to be in denial to some extent in order to continue fighting. Either way they are all a bunch of douche bags.
“The Saudis at least pretend that they don’t support terrorism and on occasion fight it”
More like on occasion the media covers them fighting it. The Saudis are no friends of America, but Osama’s explicitly stated goal is the overthrow of the KSA.
Yep or when the terrorism is against them. Don’t get me wrong they are bastards but in a world full of bastards you have to pick your battles, such as when we fought with the Soviets against Hitler who at the time was the bigger threat to the world at the time. You can wish the world wasn’t like this but it is and all you can do is try to work towards making it better.