ver, the author points out that pictures of Abu Ghraib is merely the tip of the iceberg of what happens in Iran, Guantanamo Bay and even prisons that are located in United States. Puar also noted that torture of the Iraqis crossed the line which makes sexuality a sacred idea. Indeed, in the liberal society, the one that America is willing to build sancticity of sexuality is presumed so as autonomy of a person over one’s body (Kaplan 49). With this in mind the incident in Abu Ghraib is shown as something extraordinary. Finally, the entire scandal is viewed as exceptional by Puar because of the way it was spread: the pictures were not hidden, but they were actively shared. This goes against the division of private and public life that is accepted in the American society and might be seen as unnecessary transparency. In other words, if such actions did happen, the best what could have been done is to disclose this fact and not provide the public with the controversial photos. However, the tragedy lies in the fact that the pictures were shared by the army men first and then by the reporters. It is suggested in the article that nowadays a picture is not worth anything: it is not something that is collected, but something sends a particular message. Indeed, at the present moment sending a picture can be performed in one click of a mouse; however, the consequences of it may be tremendous. That is why the nature of this scandal is exceptional.
If one analyzes the outcome that these actions had in context of the Abu Ghraib prison, one will be able to see that it only had a negative effect on the US military. Puar suggests that the main line of defense of the latter focuses on the fact that those pictures were made to humiliate the detainees. Indeed, in the Muslim world any reference to openly displayed sexuality or homosexuality is thought to be a great shame (Satterthwaite 23). That is why from a broad point of view, the intentions of the military can be understood.