|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
News Search
|
|
26-7-2003 Scotsman Dilemma over fate of bodies By Gethin Chamberlain IT WAS not so much the pictures themselves, gruesome though they were, but the sense that somehow the United States wanted to show off its latest success that appeared to grate the most with some. As newspapers hit the streets around the world yesterday, the debate over whether the photographs of the blood-spattered bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein should have been released was already raging. Radio stations, unable to show the images themselves, invited listeners to phone in to debate the rights and wrongs of publication. Callers complained that the use of the pictures was unnecessary and upsetting, particularly for children and parents who found themselves obliged to explain the unpleasant nature of war to their innocent offspring. They questioned the motives of the US in releasing the pictures and accused the west of hypocrisy for parading its victims after complaining when the Iraqis did the same. Around the world, the same arguments were trotted out. Even inside the Pentagon, dissenting voices were questioning the strategy of putting out such stark images. Yes, they might persuade some in Iraq that Saddam's regime was finally gone, some argued, but for others they would act as a rallying point, symbols of two martyrs gunned down by an invading army that must be resisted. The Arab world appeared split, some news organisations condemned the use of the pictures, others asserted the need to publish the proof of the death of Saddam's sons. In Iraq, some were finally convinced that the brothers were dead, but others still doubted the authenticity of the pictures and questioned the US motives. By then, however, the US was already raising the stakes in the propaganda war, inviting in news crews to film the bodies as they lay in a makeshift mortuary at Baghdad airport. This time, though, they had a new trick up their sleeves: the corpses had been attended to by skilled US undertakers who had worked their magic on the bloodied and battered faces of the dead men. Each body was riddled with more than 20 bullet wounds, but the faces of both men had been partly reconstructed to funeral presentation standard. Uday's beard had been trimmed to the length he had worn it in life, while Qusay's was shaved off to leave him with only his trademark moustache. Autopsy incisions were also visible on Uday's left leg, where doctors removed an eight-inch long rod that had been inserted after a 1996 assassination attempt. A piece of leg bone taken out with the rod was wrapped in plastic and lying next to his body on the autopsy table. The doctors and medical officials present explained that each brother also had multiple scrapes, abrasions and burns. Uday was believed to have died from a blow to the head. Qusay had two bullet wounds to his head, in and just behind his right ear. They said they did not think the wounds were self-inflicted. There was a certain dark humour in the words of a US spokesman who was asked what would happen to the bodies now. No-one had so far come forward to claim the bodies of the fugitives for burial, he said, but if any of their family members wanted to come forward, the Americans would be delighted to speak to them. In the meantime, they would be kept in refrigeration at the airport, totally against the Muslim tradition of burial before nightfall on the day of death. But, just as they were with the decision to publish the pictures, the Americans face a dilemma: burying the bodies presents the opportunity to create a shrine, while cremating them invites accusations of religious insensitivity. Elsewhere, the debate over the photographs and the television pictures went on. In the US, Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, said he believed the release of the photographs would help convince Iraqis that the Saddam leadership was truly out of business. But in Dubai, Al-Arabiya TV scented the whiff of hypocrisy. "The world has not forgotten the campaign launched by the US when Iraqi TV showed pictures of US and British prisoners and bodies of their soldiers killed in Iraq," it said. And Frankfurter Rundschau, a liberal German daily, said the problem was one of human dignity. "Independent of the crimes that Uday and Qusay were accused of, the display represents a violation of the basic principles of the civilised world," it wrote in an editorial. But Germany's Berliner Zeitung argued that "it would be grotesque if there were to be a learned debate about human dignity with reference to, of all people, Saddam's two sons". Al-Jazeera, which was among the first to publish the photographs, defended their use, while questioning the Americans' motives. In Iraq, where the impact of such images has been lessened by years of war, the debate was more about the authenticity of the pictures than the ethics of publication. "This is a US ploy to try to break the spirit of the resistance," said Jassim al-Robai, a computer engineer in Baghdad. "They should show more pictures to be more convincing," said Abbas Fadhil, a 44-year-old barbershop owner. Even the US was not immune to the debate. Academics weighed in, arguing that the release of the pictures followed a garish tradition dating back centuries. "Seeing is the ultimate believing," said Professor Paul Levinson, of Fordham University. "When Alexander the Great died, they embalmed his body in honey and preserved it for as long as they could so people could come and see it." Other examples cited included Benito Mussolini, Che Guevara and Nicolae Ceausescu.
|
|
||||
|
................................................................................................................. Copyright ©2004 Gethin Chamberlain. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
