Why can't we just create a separate page called (something like) "Images of Iraqi prisoner abuse" or even "Images of Iraqi torture"?
Or if you want to be less partisan about it, how about "Human rights abuses in Iraq" with a warning near the top of the page like "Graphic images below"? Then design the page so that most readers would have to scroll down at least once before seeing any really shocking photos.
The issue is not just that people may be "offended" by seeing nudity or torture. There's also the political aspect: publicizing the images fans the flames. That is, we are not just reporting news; we're making it.
People who don't have a firm handle on mathematics (specifically, probability and statistics) tend to generalize from what they see. Hardly anyone has read about, let alone seen pictures of, the victims of Saddam and his sons. If they see 10 pictures of Iraqi prisoners in Coalition custody, being roughed up, hazed, or possibly even tortured -- they assume:
(a) that the Coalition is doing this on purpose; (b) that the people at the top know about it, maybe even ordered it; (c) that this is just as bad (if not worse) as anything Saddam ever did;
Then it's easy for them to conclude that the Coalition is no improvement over Saddam, which removes the last possible justification for the war/occupation. Therefore, get out now and let al-Sadr and his ilk take over (it's none of our business anyway).
I have tried (but been reverted by user:Rei) to balance the hundreds of thousands of murders under Saddam, and the countless mutilations, tortures and rapes (all kept secret by Iraqi officials) -- with the dozens (at most, hundreds) of similar but usually less serious incidents under Coalition auspices (all being investigated and publicized by American officials and journalists).
Everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions, and I'm not trying to change any minds here. But Wikipedia should be NEUTRAL rather than taking either:
1. the side of America-boosters, who want to shrug this whole thing off and say we're still better than those bastards; or,
2. the side that says America is as bad as (or worse than) Saddam's regime, because US forces did things which are just as bad (or worse).
Let's do our best to report how many Iraqis were murdered, tortured, etc. on SADDAM'S watch as well as on Bush's watch. Obviously it's going to be hard to find any pictures of Saddam's victims - one may imagine that possession of a digital camera or CD burner would be difficult for an ordinary Iraqi in the 1990s through March 2003 - and woe to him who says, "Oh, look, I found a CD with a bunch of incriminating pictures".
There hasn't been a single question raised, either by US officials or US journalists, about punishing the people who gave that first disk of photos to CBS. That's a free society in action: find the problems, and fix them.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed