U.S. Releases Near-Naked Saddam Photos

Geneva convention, anyone?

 

Loss for words about what?

Is it content of the pictures, that some idiot who took them sold them for 'an amount more than $900,' that a newspaper actually printed them, or do you actually believe that it's a US government conspiracy?

This is the work of a very stupid and inconsiderate member of the US military and an equally stupid and inconsiderate press.

I've heard a few weak arguements that this could be a violation of the Geneva Convention -- but that's quite a stretch.

 

Well, I was just listening to the conservative pundits on TV (MSNBC). Here's what one idiot had to say:

"These pictures really show how well Saddam is being treated. He has nice clothes and nice surroundings. This proves how well he is being treated..."

Honestly, that's what one of them was saying just about 5 minutes ago. These guys have no shame.

 

I'm in full agreement, Taluntain, I'm always amazed at the stupidity of many of my fellow Americans. As much as I defend the military, I also accept the military gets more that it's share of bottom feeders.

On the gripping hand, I'm almost never surprised at the press....

 

Well, I, for one, am becoming very curious as to who is leaking this stuff. It appears that it certainly is intentional, but to what end. Photo money? Perhaps. An American who's unhappy with the state of affairs over there or someone with an axe to grind? Don't know...but it's clear someone has an agenda.

 

I'm shocked that the guy was paid that much for them. But this begs the question of who took the pictures...

This doesn't sound like anything new. You get some yahoo that's more interested in getting to play with guns as opposed to the important function that the Army is supposed to provide, this stuff will happen. Then you get a the biggest band of unscrupulous vultures outside of politics together, and this gets out...

It's jackasses like that that are the reason that many foreign countries don't like Americans. Truth be told, I'm willing to accept that these idiots are the minority, but they are the ones that go forth to represent your country in the minds of the people elsewhere...

This clearly is the most frightening aspect of this debacle. The fact that someone is dumb enough to take a picture like that is almost a given. They would regard a picture like that as a trophy, but when someone gets a copy of that picture, and not only makes it publicly exposed (no pun intended), but prophits from the deal, this is truly dangerous. One would think that after 9/11, people would be careful about potentially divisive stuff like that...

 

Well personally unless they show any signs of torture on Saddam I don't care much about these pictures. They might be a violation of the Geneva Convention but that convention has been violated in this war so many times that these violations are so minor that I quite frankly could not care less.

I agree with T2Bruno on this one. There are whole bunch of people who are very willing to violate all sorts of rules in order to profit from this war. This includes soldiers, press, corporations and possibly even a few governments.

 

Well, the Pentagon itself has said this could be a possible violation of Geneva conventions, so I don't see why people need to rush to their defense (they wouldn't have said something like that without consulting their lawyers first)

From the article:

"The U.S. military in Baghdad said the publication of the photos violated U.S. military guidelines 'and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals.'"

 

Point about violation of Geneva is to protect POW from ridicule. These photos of a half-naked Saddam in his underpants do ridicule the former strongman if Iraq, and portray him as a helpless old man.

The 'they great him oh so well' line is aimed on distracting from that simple point.

So, if publishing the photos would clearly violate the Geneva Convention, why were they taken anyway?

I guess it's this: Among those who believe the Iraqi resistance exclusively consists of Saddam loyalists, these photos are probably believed to have a demoralising effect on the resistance. For them the publication of he photos could be a 'psy-op'.

If so, that's a quite disingenious, as if the Iraqi resistance needs Saddam to have a reason to fight Americans.

 

I agree that whoever took those pictures is an idiot for taking them and an idiot for selling them. The Editor-in-Chief who permitted their publication is an uber idiot. If the US wants to salvage any reputation from this debacle, they will find the soldier who took the photos and punish him for his violation of military policy, the Convention, and the bounds of good taste.

On the flip side, who was concerned about the dignity and feelings of the Kurds who Saddam gassed? He's still alive and breathing fresh air, which is more than his countless victims can say. While I agree that violating international law and convention is not acceptable, I find it very hard to feel any sympathy for Saddam.

 

It's not about sympathy but principles.

 

That's why these "Rogue states" continue to embarass the US in their war on terror. That's why Osama Bin Laden hasn't been caught. That's why terrorism is still a threat...

 

The pictures where not "released by the U.S."...it was a British tabloid.

We do not know that they were taken by US Military personnel...Saddam has visits with his own defense counsel, defacto Iraqi prosecutors and others...to assume that the pictures originated and were leaked by Americans shows a presupposed bias.

Stop assuming what you don't know, just because it fits your conceptions.

Oh...and Gnafflinger...OBL hasn't been caught yet because he's alive and well and living in the White House basement.

 

Well, after U.S. intelligence did take these degrading photos of detainess, possibly in order to blackmail them into cooperation, that bias is well earned.

Thanks to George Bush Jr's & Cie's countless screw-ups the U.S. no longer have the benefit of doubt. They have lost their credibility, absolutely, and no one to blame but themselves.

Oh, I forgot, there still is this evil liberal media bias

 

Well, for once I agree with Ragusa :

But, Depaara, I'm in sympathy with your point as well. However, no matter how much sympathy we have towards Saddam's victim's, we cannot allow ourselves to lose all principles.

However,(and this is a BIG however), looking at this on the flip flop -- it's very easy for each of us to talk "principles" -- we sit in our soft comfy chairs, eat our favorite foods, turn on the TV maybe and mull over the day's events right before bed. In war, when you've been shot at day in and day out (REGARDLESS, of the circumstances that put you there), ...or are living with the THREAT of being shot or stepping on a mine, or haing your truck blown to bits by a hidden mine...."principles" become a little more blurred and basic -- I think the focus is on survival. Now, given that a person is in this state of mind for months on end -- they may not give a flip about showing Saddam in his underwear -- in fact, they may simply be disappointed that he's even still ALIVE. I believe the LAST thing they would feel is outrage at the incident.

A different and unpopular perspective.

[ May 26, 2005, 04:09: Message edited by: Spellbound ]

 

Wonderful, just wonderful. Thanks for the link and the Murdoch quote, Tal.

So I guessed right after all ....

 

@ Spellbound: I can agree (somewhat grudgingly, of course ) with the second part of the statement, but I do not think the pictures were made by someone who had spent the last six months on the battlefield. After all, being a prison guard is likely much less dangerous, isn't it?