The White House is about to release the photos of Uday and Qusay Hussein to the media. Do you think this is appropriate, civilized or even necessary?

The people of iraq want to see it to believe it, let em see it.


You have the choice not to look if you don't want to, no one is being forced so i really don't see a problem.

I agree, that the Iraqi people should see them, but what about us? You know that all the major networks will jump on the bandwagon and they'll be plastered all over the news and media.

They were posing this same question on a local talk show here this morning. I am on the fence on this issue. One the one hand I don't think we should because it is almost like showing pictures of our soldiers that are killed in action by an enemy. But on the other hand this can be used to silence doubters and Iraq's who have feared these tyrants for so long.

I think in this case it is marginally appropriate. The biggest sticking point is that the united States got quite upset when images of dead u.s> soldiers were displayed in the media.

In the face of disbelief of American reports I think this is acceptable. It will not prove anything to some but others will believe it. This may take the place of a funeral viewing. However I sincerely hope that the images released will be as tasteful as possible under the circumstances.

I do not think our media needs to release them. There is not a large documented voice from America doubting this occurence. If the US media gets a hold of these pictures and chooses to print them that is one thing, but the US media has no need for these photos.

I also hope that the disbelief in Iraq is genuine. I have only heard heard hearsay and speculation as to this Iraqi response.

The pictures aren't any worse than the JFK pictures, except that these guy's deserved what they got

I don't see a compelling reason to show them to the public.
Those who believe they were killed are already convinced, and those who would not believe it, will never be convinced in the age of photoshop, and their never ending distrust of the administration.

On a different note, one of the brothers held a commission in the Iraqi military, (albeit a family perk, not an earned commission). I do not condone publicly showing pictures of dead soldiers. My BP still goes through the roof when I see the Mogadishu footage.

It is very hard to see the resemblence from when they were alive, it's a good thing for dental and dna

I'm with DTOM on this issue. I couldn't have said it better.

I kinda see the resemblance, though they need to show photos of when they were alive next to the post mortem pictures. You're right, thank goodness for the dental and dna.

Interesting...

I seem to recall a LOT of outcry when Iraqi media networks were showing pictures of murdered American servicemen/women (POWs I believe). I guess I don't understand the apparent double standard.

Yes, if the Iraqi citizens want to see pictures for proof, that's one thing, but just to release them to American press seems disrespectful to me. I would have to answer NO to all three questions, no matter who the parties.


- edited to remove multiple "Americans" in my first sentence

I can't believe any of you would compare them to a soldier that should be respected, none of them are respectable people, none of them are respectable soldiers.

Whoa..let's not misconstrue what I'm saying here. I have ZERO respect for the thug hussein brothers!
All I'm saying is that technically one was a commissioned officer in the Republican Guards. What is the legal difference between showing his dead body and a dead ranger in the streets of Mogadishu?

To me it's not about what they did to deserve or not deserve respect, but the fact that they are human beings just like anyone else. I just don't understand how in one instance it's considered "disrespectful" to show a dead body in the media, yet in another instance, it's perfectly okay. I just don't think the person's actions play a role in something like this. Plus, it looks bad for us to the rest of the world (IMO) to talk about how disrespectful it is when THEY did it to OUR military, but when the tables are turned it's okay. Maybe I'm being lofty...that's just how I feel about it.

I agree with Dontreadonme, there's just no reason to show that kind of thing on TV. Those that believe, will believe, those that don't will think it's a trick anyway it's done. I'm more worried about the gross desensitizing of people here, especially the children. We just can't let children watch the news anymore, hugh? The only reason it was done, face it, folks, was for money.

Well the difference is the Ranger is a respectable soldier , the 2 on television now are murderous criminals able to put on a uniform because of who they are, also i don't think you could even order a Ranger to perform any of the acts that have been performed by there real military which also shouldn't be respected and treated the same as real soldiers. It should be that if you want to be respected and have the treatment as such, then you should act like it, and to be treated like a soldier is something they, none of them ever performed as, also as far as im concerned we (American press) have shown pictures of dead criminals

BJ,
Hey, hey honey child. http://www.foxnews.com has a great spread with side by side display. By the way, I love that they are showing the pictures. It puts a face of retribution with the names we've loathed for so long.

As a sports fan with football right around the corner let me just say that I like to see fouls called on both sides, be it on my favorite or least favorite team. If I recall correctly, both sons and Saddam were labeled by the administration as combatants early in the conflict in an attempt to justify early attacks on targeted sites. We can't in all fairness display photographs of dead Iraqi combatants and attempt to cry foul when others do the same in regards to our soldiers.

IMO - the media should show it all - the good, the bad, and the ugly. If you don't wanna look, don't look.

If you don't want your kids viewing this (and my kids will not), then it's up to you as a parent to monitor this (in all news reports I've seen here, the pix's came with warnings before the showing).

It would be nice to know that the media did it for journalistic reasons, and not for $$$.

With how many conspiracy theorists there are that actually believe the moon landing was fake, and our clear interest in convincing Iraq, I think showing the pictures is appropriate.

So because the Hussein kids did some atrocious things, it means they are no longer human? I am pretty disgusted seeing the justification of their deaths by the US propaganda machine. When I first heard the news I was saddened, just like I am whenever someone is killed, be it in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, US, Argentina....Can I say they deserved to die? Sure, but is it really up to our government to kill them? Deserving a death and deserving a murder seem to be two different things to me.

Additionally, I do have a hard time seeing why just because they were murderous criminals makes it OK to show their pictures, but we shout about the Geneva Convention when Al-Jazeera shows pictures of POWs in Iraq that happen to be American. Respectablility is subjective, and isnt it agains the Geneva Convention to show these pictures? If so, then we need to adhere to it, since we've decided that this war falls into that category already with the American POWs, etc.

The conspiracy theorists you speak of aren't going to be any more persuaded by photos than they were of film footage for the moon landing.

From the Department of Defense:Emphasis added

Oh, how quickly the rules can change (CNN).
According to CNN's report on the ethical implications of this decision:
So, while the Pentagon -- of the United States military -- released the photos, the U.S. military wasn't really releasing the photos. The "coalition provisional authority" was. And while it was heavily denounced and declared illegal (by way of the Geneva Conventions) for Iraq to display the bodies of dead American soldiers in March, it's both not as bad nor illegal for Ameri-- I mean the "coalition provisional authority" -- to release and publicize the photos of Uday and Qusay, Iraqi military combatants.

Maybe in the strictest sense of the word they are human, but they surely are not members of humanity. Nor were they murdered. How could you possibly put that spin on it?

As for the pics, I don't know exactly who raised the issue in the first place but once it made its way into the media I think we had no choice. Not showing them would have led too many to believe they weren't dead. Apparently even with the pics that is still believed quite a bit but we can only do the best we can.

They certainly aren't now. I would have preferred them to have been captured alive and publically tried (in the same way that Nazis were at Nuremburg). I'd have no compunction in seeing them executed, and I think that would have sent a more sober and (ultimately) more threatening message to other would-be war criminals, mass murderers, and other unsavoury types. It seems that their decision to fight to the last took away that option, so no matter. They're just as dead now as they would have been, so they gained nothing. We lost out on the knowledge they had, but I doubt it was so earth shattering that we won't muddle along fine without it.

On the thread topic, I think I agree that there was practical benefit in distributing the photos in Iraq. If this quells doubts that the old regime has gone, which may be holding back people of otherwise good faith from participating in reconstruction, for fear of retribution along the same lines as the anti-Saddam activists got back in 1991, then it's a worthwhile exercise.

It isn't civilised, but on balance the benefit might outweigh the damage done. (And some damage has certainly been done - it's more demeaning and abhorrent to "disrespect" dead bodies in Islam than it is in the West, which is why Islamic regimes make such great play of showing dead enemies on their media - it helps them to dehumanise their enemy. We often do the same, we just use different means.) If I were picky, I'd have preferred an Iraq-wide poster campaign, like a kind of retrospective wanted poster, but TV is just as good and a lot quicker.

What I didn't find particularly edifying were the decision to release the same photos to the Western media in their own press conferences (they could easily have got them from Baghdad if they wanted them), nor the slavering delight apparent in some quarters of the Western media and public at seeing the dead bodies in question. To borrow from Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights I haven't seen them this excited since they printed that paedophile's address in the paper.

What else do you call being killed by someone? An accident? Natural causes? And it is so typical that people tart to think of people as "less than human" or in your case "not part of humanity". Its easier to justifiy someones death when they are brown, dont speak English, and come from a completely different culture (much like its OK for Iraqi civilians to die for the same reasons).



I still dont see why its OK to show the pictures, or salivate at the thought of seeing them, but for pictures of American soliders make us shudder and cry out the Geneva Convention. What makes one easier to digest? OH right, they arent really part of humanity

The pictures should not have been shown. And more importantly, they should not have had to been shown.

Has anybody stopped to think for one second why the pictures were shown? It's because the Bush administration has ZERO credibility. Is it me, or doesn't anyone else think that's a fairly serious fundamental problem to have?

Now, we're finding out our credibility is so low, they STILL won't believe it - with or without pictures.

But here's the irony. We've lost 200+ Americans, and still counting, instituting regime change. And here's our thank you.

I actually find it pretty sick that this was done. It proves nothing and would only enrage me if I was a Sadam supporter over there. It is just as bad as when they showed our soldiers.

People always complain how that region is so brutal but we are the same...just in a round about fashion.

What do you think of this?

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/transpositions/hussein.html

As gross as they were, yes i think it was necessary to show them because the Iraqi people had doubts that we killed them.

They wanted proof, we gave it to them.

There was no reason to show the photos to Americans except as DaytonRocker said to compensate for Bush's lack of credibility. Iraqis wanted proof, so airing the photos on Al-Jazeera was about the only thing we could do, but the fact that the Bush administration assumed that the American people needed proof as well is further evidence of the credibility gap. And yes they were murdered but sometimes killing is necessary. Its gloating about it that is not, and that's what these pictures seem like to me.

The lawful killing of these two leaders of military units of an enemy force, during a time of war, in response to their own refusal to surrender and armed resistance does not constitute murder, no matter how hard you spin it.

And please, don't disillusion yourself, this has nothing to do with their color or culture or spoken language. It has everything to do with the fact that they are pure evil.

As for salivating at the pics, kindly show us where that was ever mentioned. You seem to be having a bit of difficulty comprehending what is actually being written here.

What geneva convention rule, i thought bush said the war is over, so wouldn't that remove geneva rules.

Technically yes. But sometimes people whine that it is not because soldiers are still getting killed


pheeler:



It's not gloating. It's proving that they are dead. Nothing else.


kimpossible:



Bush called an end to the war, so the Geneva Convention is not an issue anymore. Everyone wanted proof that they are dead, and you got it. Now you are complaining that we showed a picture of shot up brats who raped, tortured & killed many in the years that their father was in power

"Lawful killing"?! Its this kind of terminology which makes it OK to justify the MURDER of a human being. One of the definitions of murder as by Webster's New World Dictionary is: to kill inhumanely or barbarously, as in warfare.

And by saying that they are "pure evil" and denying them existance in humanity, is a way of dehumaninzing them, thus making it easier to justify the killing of people. And I have to say, why is it usually that if they arent american, or white, they are more often described as "pure evil"?

And are you not familiar with the writing tool of exaggeration? Apparently not, but when I say salivating, its because American society has shown itself in favor of showing shocking and disturbing pictures in the past (I think any celebrity tabloid will serve as proof that we are drawn to things that bother us, whether or not we admit it).

You can say that all you want but it's not true. It's especially not true from anyone I've read on this site. Your spin on this is way off course. They were evil just the same as Timothy McVeigh was evil, just more so if that's possible.

As for pictures, maybe you'd like to take a moment to view a few that might help refresh your memory and get you back on the right track in your thinking.....Never let us forget

I view it as the same as allowing the family members of a condemned killers victim to watch the execution. The death photos most likely provide closure for many Iraqis who have been victimized by the Saddam regime. It also serves to let those who either fear or want Saddam's return to power to clearly understand that Saddam's chances of returning to power or nill.

Unlike the majority of Americans, we here at AD know Iraq had nothing to do with 911. You state that as if Iraqis flew airplanes into our buildings.

We haven't forgotten. That's why many of us are *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** that we went to war with a country that had nothing to do with international terrorism. Many of us wanted to open a can of whoop-a$$ against countries that are a direct, immediate threat to us. Unlike Saudi Arabia and North Korea, Iraq was not even on the radar screen.

Thank you Dayton Rocker, that is an excellent response. Except Im not really out for going after other countries...

And Passion51, just because people died during 9/11 IN NO WAY justifies showing pictures of the Hussien brothers to the Iraqi people, or in the US media. The United States showing horrific images that didnt happen in a war to their own people is NOT the same as showing images of Iraqis who have been shot by US Troops.

And you are simply cheapening the tragedy of 9/11 by bringing it up in a totally irrelevant manner.

Dayton, you couldn't be more wrong by saying Iraq had nothing to do with int'l terrorism. Not even France or the UN take that stance.

And the reminder was simply that. A reminder of what this war was all about in the first place. Times have changed. Face it and learn to deal with it. Unless you just want to surrender and take your chances.

I thought the war was about liberating the Iraqi people and finding WMD....Also, youre dead wrong that France doesnt htake the postion that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. If you can read French, I can provide a few links to articles and editorials where France asks for the proof that there is a link to Iraq and terrorism.

This thread is about whether or not the photos of the Hussein brothers should have been shown.

Not international terrorism, not France, not 9/11.

Please do not derail this topic any further.


Now that video has also been released, will this convince more people, or did this even further what may have been wrong in the first place?

OK to quote a different thread, by DTOM:



SO doesnt this mean that the Geneva Convention would still be in effect, or not?

DTOM has asked us to get back to the debate topic and seems you just ignored him. Please don't do that (and everyone else - please don't respond and take this further off-topic).

We are debating the release of the photos and their ramifications for the future of this war in Iraq. Let's stay on topic. If you feel the release of the pics were in violation of the Geneva Convention, state how/tie it into the topic.

I was listening to the news reports, and they said that in Islamic tradition the bodies should not have been embalmed, but wrapped and buried quickly.

The United States, it is reported, is holding the bodies for release to Saddam Hussein as next of kin, despite claims that he has been dead for months.

I don't know where George W. Bush learned about diplomacy, but I should think that it will probably stir up quite a bit of anger in the Islamic world if they feel we have not only desecrated the bodies, but are preventing them from being buried within their religious traditions. From that standpoint, it is not only inappropriate, but stupid to broadcast on television our inappropriate handling of the bodies. Does he want the Arab world to feel that he had them prepared for "a proper Christian burial?"

The difference is that the Iraqi people are afraid that SH and his regeme are coming back, pictures of dead Husseins reassures them, showing dead American POW's has no point but to try to scare Americans, who are innocent, while showing the Hussein Bros. is to A: Reassure the Iraqi people and B: Scare those low-lifes picking off our soldiers, not scaring innocents. No double standard.

CP

Jaime, Im not sure how you construed that to be off-topic, since we are discussing whether or not the pictures of the Hussein corpses should be shown, NOT the ramifacations of the pictures and the war. I cited the Geneva Convention as one of the main reasons that the pictures should NOT be shown, and someone has said that since the was is "over" that the Geneva Convention does not apply. And then it was posted in a different thread that Bush had not declared the war over, and I thought it was relevant because if the war is not over, then the Geneva Convention would still apply to whether or not it is OK to show pictures of the dead. If that doesnt pertain to this thread, delete this post then.



But it is, in fact, a double standard. Double standards dont allow for things like justification, the fact is, we are still showing pictures of corpses which according to the GC is illegal. It doesnt matter if its supposed to reassure the Iraqi people. Does it say ANYWHERE in the Convention that its OK to show pictures of POWs or the Dead to "reassure" the public? If it does, I retract this statement.

I apologize if for the confusion. The problem was some just started throwing out the term Geneva Convention. What does that agreement have to do with the photos? For anyone debating either side of this - in regards to the Geneva Convention - provide us a reference in that agreement that states the pics should or shouldn't be shown. Thanks

Exceptions must be made in this case for the sake of the Iraqi people, they want to know that the Hussein Bros. are dead, D-E-D, dead . However, they would still have lingering fears if we just said that that the Brothers Hussein were dead, so photos are the best for the job.

CP