Camera as a mode of surveillance in Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay

Introduction:
On 11th of October, 2001, President George Bush proclaimed to the world “The 9/11 attack took place on American soil, but it was an attack on the heart and soul of the civilized world. And the world has come together to fight a new and different war, the first, and we hope the only one, of the 21st century. A war against all those who seek to export terror and a war against those governments that support or shelter them” (National Archives, 2003). Following Bush’s announcement, the world expected the US to take considerable measures, but could not assume its severity. What happened after, left all the spectators around the globe go numb. The War on terror declared by America, as a counter-terrorism strategy post the humiliation of 9/11 attack, ranged from covert operations in Yemen to conducting drone strikes in Libya and Afghanistan. What was common in all these operations was the role of the camera in surveillance. Surveillance, as defined by Gary T Marx, refers to “the scrutiny of individuals, groups, and contexts through the use of technical means to extract or create information” (Marx, 2015). Cameras are however also used in internment camps, where all terrorist suspects are shifted after being captured. The following article aims to look at cameras as an example of surveillance, with respect to two internment camps, namely Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. The paper claims that the cameras used for surveillance in these camps not only impinge upon the privacy of the prisoners but also reinforce orientalist stereotypes, thus often dehumanizing the detainees. The paper has been divided into three sections. The first part of the paper focuses on how the cameras used for surveillance in these camps often blur the lines between the private and the public, therefore, raising questions on the privacy of the prisoners. The second part of the paper under the title “Who holds the camera?” talks about the ways in which the photos and videos captured by the camera participate in the hierarchical structure, where the power of the American military decides what should be incorporated in the frame and what should be circulated among the public. Finally, the last part highlights how the surveillance camera also plays a crucial role in knowledge production about the people of the Middle-East, and further reinforces certain stereotypes.

The lines between public and private blur:
Being detained in internment camps like Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay means to be constantly visible to others. Camera plays an unavoidable role in the same. The prisoners are not only subject to the CCTV cameras that are fixed on the walls of every corner, but they are also subject to the camera pointing towards them to capture photos and videos. These surveillance cameras are not only used for security purposes, but are also used to keep a track of all the actions of the prisoners and then use them as archives. “Between 2002 and 2005, all 24,000 interrogations in Guantánamo were recorded. Until 2008, all activities in the camps were recorded, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Detainees have reported that there were cameras in their cells, which they found behind clocks in interrogation rooms or disguised in pens. In 2013, lawyers discovered that confidential talks with clients were being illegally bugged and that low-resolution cameras could decipher even the smallest notes” (Köthe, 2019). The surveillance cameras therefore try to bring out all the private activities of the prisoners to the public, sometimes without even their awareness. This can be related to Foucault’s idea of panopticon in which the structure of a prison is built as such that all the inmates can be seen, observed and surveilled by the watchman on tower, but the inmates would never know where they are observed from. Similarly, the prisoners are often unaware of the fact when and where they are captured from.
The surveillance cameras therefore blur the lines between the public and the private. Allen Feldman while referring to the violence in Northern Ireland brings out the fact that the British Army video cameras are placed in such a way that they can capture from anything to everything, transcending the private sphere. Thus, “They know the patterns of your wall-paper and the colour of your underwear!” (Feldman, 2000)
According to Feldman, surveillance also leads to invasion of the body(Feldman, 2000). This can be extensively linked to the internment camps like Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Innumerable photographs and videos of different forms of torture in these camps circulated across the world. A lot of these visual media portrayed sexualized abuse. Most of the pictures presented the pictures of the prisoners as naked, engaging in sexual activities like masturbating. For an instance, an image that garnered worldwide attention was that of four naked men. One of the prisoners appears to be masturbating; the second man holds his head in his hand, portraying disbelief of all that he is going through. The third man is seen performing fellatio on the fourth prisoner (Brooke, 2016). The camera here occupies the space of the third party and captures it all. This can be thought of as a severe impingement to the privacy of detainees because once stripped off, their naked parts are exposed, which are generally considered as private and intimate to an individual. Moreover, when the prisoners are pressured to carry on sexual activities, some of their private fantasies might get exposed out there, in public (Lausten, 2008). Thus, the surveillance camera not only observes and tracks their day-to-day life activities, but also captures their private parts and activities.

Who holds the camera?
According to Roland Barthes’, “photographs are horrifying because their materiality generates an impression of authenticity in us. Their truth value is therefore rarely questioned: they are considered to depict an external world directly and without mediation. They are, so to say, windows, opening towards an externally given reality” (Lausten, 2008). Most of the time, photographs and videos are seen at the face-value, thus neglecting all that went into capturing the moment. “The photographs were taken as a record of the dominance of the photographers over physical and corporal space and time” (Mirzoeff, 2006).The person manning the camera is often in the dark, even though he is a part of the frame. It is the photographer who fixes the camera at the subject and thus decides what should be a part of the frame and what should not (Feldman, 2000).
The surveillance cameras are characterized by the power dynamics, the captured being subjugated and repressed by the party that has access to the weapon camera. Most of the photographs portraying torture of the prisoners also include the guards in the frame. The guards are found laughing and giggling as the Arabs suffer (Lausten, 2008). Their happiness arises from the fact that they are able to inflict pain on the ‘other’. They are carefully brought into the frame by the person manning the camera because their laughter sends the message that participating in such acts of punishment includes no guilt. Their laughter passes the message to the audience that the punishments are justified because of the horrible act they have committed.
In case of Guantanamo Bay, even though thousands of photos have been circulated, there are regulations as to who can circulate them. Visitors from outside such as the press or government are escorted by the guards, and are interrogated at various checkpoints. Finally, while moving out of the camp, the visitors are subject to security checking to ensure that they are not taking away any confidential documents with them, or did not click any photo or video during their tour inside. Outsiders are not allowed to circulate any visual media. Thus, even though there are ample photographs and videos of the internment camps, only the US officials are in-charge to decide and approve what should go for public release (Veeren, 2011).
The photographs and videos are therefore constantly produced. It is the party in power that decides what should be included in the frame and what should be left out. Similarly, it is them who decide what should be fed to the audience and what not.
Reinforcing orientalist stereotypes and truth-claiming
Having said that the US officials along with other American guards and military officers produce the images and videos, this leads one to think how they, in a way, also shape the consciousness of the audience. The surveillance cameras capturing photographs and videos are often found reinforcing orientalist stereotypes. They often show the divide between “us” and “them”. There are pictures that depict the prisoners naked and positioned like animals (Lausten, 2008). Such images strengthen the idea that the people of the Middle East as barbaric, and thus they commit barbaric and savage acts like the 9/11 attacks. Another way in which the distinction is brought to limelight is- A lot of images captured by the camera show the guards wearing surgical gloves. Such photographs point towards the cleanliness of the US, which is in the sharp contrast to the dirty unhygienic prisoners (Veeren, 2011). This divide between the civilized world (here the US) and barbaric, also justify their punishments that are often equated to the animals, such as licking one’s own defecation.
Other than reinforcing orientalist stereotypes, the surveillance camera also establishes truth claims, about what could be true. For an instance, all the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are made to wear orange jumpsuits. The problem with the jumpsuits is that it is a uniform that is meant for the ‘terrorists.’ Thus, everyone wearing the jumpsuit already becomes a terrorist because of generalization. Moreover, none of the pictures or videos of the detainees show their faces. Most of the time their faces are hooded. This passes on the message to the audience that these individuals are non-human and thus faceless(Veeren, 2011). The surveillance camera thus also takes part in dehumanizing the detainees.
Conclusion:
The paper focussed on the use of cameras for the purpose of surveillance in internment camps like Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. The use of cameras leads to the private sphere being interrupted by the public sphere. Not only the daily routines of the prisoners are captured, but also their private activities like sex and masturbation. The pictures and videos are however regulated by the US officials, who use these to make the audience think in a certain way, thus reinforcing oriental stereotypes and establishing truth-claims.

REFERENCES:
Feldman, A. (2006). Violence and vision: The prosthetics and aesthetics of terror. States of violence, 425-468.

Global War on Terror.National Archives.https://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/research/topic-guides/global-war-terror

Jakob, J. B. (2016). What remains of Abu Ghraib?: digital photography and cultural memory. Visual Studies, 31(1), 22-33.
Köthe, S. (2019). Visibility and torture: on the appropriation of surveillance footage in YOU DON’T LIKE THE TRUTH. Research in Film and History, (2), 1-9.
Laustsen, C. B. (2008). The camera as a weapon: On Abu Ghraib and related matters. Journal for Cultural Research, 12(2), 123-142.
Marx, G. T. (2015). Surveillance studies. International encyclopedia of the social &behavioral sciences, 23(2), 733-741.
Mirzoeff, N. (2006). Invisible empire: Visual culture, embodied spectacle, and Abu Ghraib. Radical History Review, 95, 21.
Van Veeren, E. (2011). Captured by the camera’s eye: Guantánamo and the shifting frame of the Global War on Terror. Review of International Studies, 37(4), 1721-1749.

Author: Samragnee Chakraborty, Intern AGA