Picture this.(Abu Ghraib photos)(Column)

SURE, I was outraged by the Abu Ghraib photos. In two senses. At first I was infuriated by what the photos depicted. But as time has gone by, my outrage over the photos has been eclipsed by outrage at the photos themselves. I am now more angry that the photos were taken and released than I am that the acts took place.

This is not to say that the abuses at Abu Ghraib should be dismissed. In the grand scheme of things, however, the publication of the photos did far, far greater harm than the obscene nude pretzels, canine intimidation, and enforced onanism of Abu Ghraib. I can conceive of a context in which it is forgivable that the chain of command countenanced forcing Iraqi POWs to wear underwear on their heads. I cannot think of a context in which it is forgivable that the same military leadership allowed photos of such acts to make it to the public. Humiliating a detainee for information is defensible. Isolated instances of humiliation by sadistic guards are probably inevitable--and deserve punishment. But sexually humiliating the entire Arab world--which already has a Pyramid-of-Giza-sized chip on its shoulder over the fact that it is getting ever smaller in the rearview window of American civilization--is unforgivable and the real reason why heads should roll off of epauletted shoulders. Why in the world were guards allowed to take pornographic--or any other kind--of photos at a secure military installation for their personal use?

In other words, the typical Washington logic has been turned on its head: Here the scandal is not the crime, it's the lack of a cover-up. And in this regard, the American media deserve as much blame as the military.

...