Full Version: Saddam's photos
I think most of us have seen the recent photos of Saddam in prison. These pictures make me very uneasy. IMO, publishing these types of private photos of a prisoner (no matter how egregious his offenses) for the sole purpose of entertainment crosses the line. Maybe I need to lighten up?
The questions:
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
QUOTE
The international Red Cross, which is responsible for monitoring prisoners of war and detainees, said the photographs violated Saddam's right to privacy. The U.S. military condemned the publication and ordered an investigation of how the pictures were leaked to The Sun.
Saturday's pictures included one of Saddam seen through barbed wire wearing a white robe-like garment, and another of Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as "Chemical Ali," in a bathrobe and holding a towel.
*snip*
Dudman, The Sun's managing editor, defended the decision to print the pictures.
"They are a fantastic, iconic set of news pictures that I defy any newspaper, magazine, or television station who were presented with them not to have published," he said. "He's not been mistreated. He's washing his trousers. This is the modern-day Adolf Hitler. Please don't ask us to feel sorry for him."
Saturday's pictures included one of Saddam seen through barbed wire wearing a white robe-like garment, and another of Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as "Chemical Ali," in a bathrobe and holding a towel.
*snip*
Dudman, The Sun's managing editor, defended the decision to print the pictures.
"They are a fantastic, iconic set of news pictures that I defy any newspaper, magazine, or television station who were presented with them not to have published," he said. "He's not been mistreated. He's washing his trousers. This is the modern-day Adolf Hitler. Please don't ask us to feel sorry for him."
The questions:
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
I personally think the photos are non-issues.
Our standing in the world community is so low, that there's really nobody left to inflame. After Abu Ghraib and stories from Gitmo (where every deviant action except for Koran desecration apparently occurred), we've been de-sensitized to dehumanzing actions. And these pictures - while embarrassing - are hardly dehumanizing.
They're tabloid fodder no different than boob shots of the rich and famous. The only difference is, the guy that could hold Iraq together without the need of 150,000 troops holed up in a green zone is the target.
Nothing to see here...move along...
Our standing in the world community is so low, that there's really nobody left to inflame. After Abu Ghraib and stories from Gitmo (where every deviant action except for Koran desecration apparently occurred), we've been de-sensitized to dehumanzing actions. And these pictures - while embarrassing - are hardly dehumanizing.
They're tabloid fodder no different than boob shots of the rich and famous. The only difference is, the guy that could hold Iraq together without the need of 150,000 troops holed up in a green zone is the target.
Nothing to see here...move along...
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ May 21 2005, 07:03 AM)
They're tabloid fodder no different than boob shots of the rich and famous. The only difference is, the guy that could hold Iraq together without the need of 150,000 troops holed up in a green zone is the target.
If this were Saddam on a campout washing his pants in the woods I'd agree with you. That isn't the case. This is a confined individual. Though he has little privacy from a practical, security standpoint I believe he in entitled to some protections from public curiosity just as any other confined individual would (or should) be protected.
These photo's being displayed violate the Geneva Convention and are yet another example of a troubling pattern of abuse and humilation tactics being used in this war on terror. In my lifetime I have never seen such a continuious stream of embarassing, blackeye, PR nightmares regarding our treatment of prisoners in custody. I blame much of this on the Bush administrations willingness to condone such behavior. In having their legal look into the legality of torture, they've sent a clear message that as long as the gory details don't come to light, they'll turn a blind eye to abuse.
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
No, I don't think they're for entertainment. I think this is probably a psyops thing, but for what and targetting whom is beyond me. I could, of course, be wrong. One of the problems with finding out that there really are people with nefarious purposes who lie and manipulate information (I guess I'm too young to remember Nixon, because I didn't have this view when I was a child) is that it's easy to forget that people are often just stupid, too. Mistakes are made, leaks happen, rules get broken. As for whether they cross the line or not: Yes, as a prisoner, he had no privacy except what was given him, so it does cross the line. However, I have a hard time focusing on photos of Saddam in his underwear after hearing about a 22 year-old, almost certainly innocent kid who was beaten and tortured to death, and whose killers still have not been properly punished. What is the sight of underwear to that?
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
We're talking about Saddam, here. Former CIA assassin, coup plotter, and all around psychopath. I wonder how many Iraqis loved us as liberators right up until the first time they got online and found out that it was America that installed and supported the brute in the first place? In some cases, a leader or former leader in his or her underwear might be insulting to a nation (although the best leaders could make a joke about it), but not in this case.
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
Well, the media didn't get those photos without inside help. And I don't think, since they did get the photos, whether because psyops wanted the media to have them or because a bored guard decided to make some money and have some fun, that they are obligated to not show them...but if this were a respected leader or former leader, I believe many would refuse to do so.
No, I don't think they're for entertainment. I think this is probably a psyops thing, but for what and targetting whom is beyond me. I could, of course, be wrong. One of the problems with finding out that there really are people with nefarious purposes who lie and manipulate information (I guess I'm too young to remember Nixon, because I didn't have this view when I was a child) is that it's easy to forget that people are often just stupid, too. Mistakes are made, leaks happen, rules get broken. As for whether they cross the line or not: Yes, as a prisoner, he had no privacy except what was given him, so it does cross the line. However, I have a hard time focusing on photos of Saddam in his underwear after hearing about a 22 year-old, almost certainly innocent kid who was beaten and tortured to death, and whose killers still have not been properly punished. What is the sight of underwear to that?
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
We're talking about Saddam, here. Former CIA assassin, coup plotter, and all around psychopath. I wonder how many Iraqis loved us as liberators right up until the first time they got online and found out that it was America that installed and supported the brute in the first place? In some cases, a leader or former leader in his or her underwear might be insulting to a nation (although the best leaders could make a joke about it), but not in this case.
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
Well, the media didn't get those photos without inside help. And I don't think, since they did get the photos, whether because psyops wanted the media to have them or because a bored guard decided to make some money and have some fun, that they are obligated to not show them...but if this were a respected leader or former leader, I believe many would refuse to do so.
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
The act of publishing these photos probably do constitute a technical and minor violation of the protections required by Geneva Convention III; Article 13 which states:
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
It was a tabloid publication of Saddam photos. I'll skip the links to photos of other heads-of-state and political figures in compromising situations and just state that security procedures at the detention facility should be examined and that the person, if found, who sold these pictures should be separated.
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
Business-as-usual.
Not all detainees in this war on terror merit POW protections. That is not opinion - it's the law. Members of terrorist organization do not and should not benefit from these protections simply because extending these benefits run contrary to the Convention's stated goals - to reward captured soldiers for observing measures to separate themselves from the surrounding civilian population.
There have been serious abuses of protected persons but they have been relatively minor, isolated patches of abuse.
Prisoners-of-war have never in the history of warfare been afforded better care and treatment than they are in the current conflict by the United States military. Never. I defy you to point to any other conflict in which better treatment was given.
Funny that the details of what abuse there has been is coming to light thanks to investigative procedures in place by the US military itself. The system is working. Abuses will always occur - especially when the enemy is using tactics that violate sanctuary - the worst possible crime to a combat soldier.
The act of publishing these photos probably do constitute a technical and minor violation of the protections required by Geneva Convention III; Article 13 which states:
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
It was a tabloid publication of Saddam photos. I'll skip the links to photos of other heads-of-state and political figures in compromising situations and just state that security procedures at the detention facility should be examined and that the person, if found, who sold these pictures should be separated.
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
Business-as-usual.
QUOTE("Lin731")
These photo's being displayed violate the Geneva Convention and are yet another example of a troubling pattern of abuse and humilation tactics being used in this war on terror.
Not all detainees in this war on terror merit POW protections. That is not opinion - it's the law. Members of terrorist organization do not and should not benefit from these protections simply because extending these benefits run contrary to the Convention's stated goals - to reward captured soldiers for observing measures to separate themselves from the surrounding civilian population.
There have been serious abuses of protected persons but they have been relatively minor, isolated patches of abuse.
QUOTE("Lin731")
In my lifetime I have never seen such a continuious stream of embarassing, blackeye, PR nightmares regarding our treatment of prisoners in custody.
Prisoners-of-war have never in the history of warfare been afforded better care and treatment than they are in the current conflict by the United States military. Never. I defy you to point to any other conflict in which better treatment was given.
QUOTE("Lin731")
I blame much of this on the Bush administrations willingness to condone such behavior. In having their legal look into the legality of torture, they've sent a clear message that as long as the gory details don't come to light, they'll turn a blind eye to abuse.
Funny that the details of what abuse there has been is coming to light thanks to investigative procedures in place by the US military itself. The system is working. Abuses will always occur - especially when the enemy is using tactics that violate sanctuary - the worst possible crime to a combat soldier.
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
That depends on the person you are asking.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7917696/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7917696/page/2/
I see this as yet another blunder by the administration that thought we’d be greeted by flowers rather than a deadly insurgency. It seems to me that a multi-culturally blind and insensitive President George W. Bush has poured yet more gasoline on an already raging fire between followers of Islam and the United States. Bill Clinton's campaign reminder was "it's the economy stupid." Perhaps the Bush administration should borrow from this and remind itself "it's diplomacy stupid."
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
I’m really more interested in how the British tabloid got the pictures, than the fact that it published them. First reports are that they came from the American military. I want to reserve judgment on this and see where it leads. If in fact, these photos came from, the U. S. military, will it be lowly privates amusing themselves or higher-ups that leakd them? If higher-ups are involved will this lead to a new round of cover ups?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
Actually, I think it breaks precedent--at least recent--with the nonsense, the media has seemd so obsessed with since the election. The media should cover this. In my opinion it is more important than the six to eight weeks where they saturated us with Scott Peterson, Terri Schiavo, Pope John Paul’II’s dying days, the Pope’s death, the election of a new Pope, the royal wedding, Michael Jackson’s legal woes and some inconsequential soul (from a news perspective) who gets cold feet and flees her fiancé. I’m sure the Bush administration would much rather have the media covering the former list of "stories" rather than the story involved in this thread.
That depends on the person you are asking.
QUOTE
Some Iraqis called the photos of Saddam the latest in a series of insults to Arabs and Muslims. Others, however, said the humiliation is just what the 68-year-old former dictator deserved.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7917696/
QUOTE(George W. Bush)
‘I don’t think a photo inspires murderers,' Bush said. 'These people are motivated by a vision of the world that is backward and barbaric.’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7917696/page/2/
I see this as yet another blunder by the administration that thought we’d be greeted by flowers rather than a deadly insurgency. It seems to me that a multi-culturally blind and insensitive President George W. Bush has poured yet more gasoline on an already raging fire between followers of Islam and the United States. Bill Clinton's campaign reminder was "it's the economy stupid." Perhaps the Bush administration should borrow from this and remind itself "it's diplomacy stupid."
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
I’m really more interested in how the British tabloid got the pictures, than the fact that it published them. First reports are that they came from the American military. I want to reserve judgment on this and see where it leads. If in fact, these photos came from, the U. S. military, will it be lowly privates amusing themselves or higher-ups that leakd them? If higher-ups are involved will this lead to a new round of cover ups?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
Actually, I think it breaks precedent--at least recent--with the nonsense, the media has seemd so obsessed with since the election. The media should cover this. In my opinion it is more important than the six to eight weeks where they saturated us with Scott Peterson, Terri Schiavo, Pope John Paul’II’s dying days, the Pope’s death, the election of a new Pope, the royal wedding, Michael Jackson’s legal woes and some inconsequential soul (from a news perspective) who gets cold feet and flees her fiancé. I’m sure the Bush administration would much rather have the media covering the former list of "stories" rather than the story involved in this thread.
QUOTE(Cylinder @ May 21 2005, 06:36 PM)
Not all detainees in this war on terror merit POW protections. That is not opinion - it's the law. Members of terrorist organization do not and should not benefit from these protections simply because extending these benefits run contrary to the Convention's stated goals - to reward captured soldiers for observing measures to separate themselves from the surrounding civilian population.
That is disingenuous at best. Firstly, the title of 'members of terrorist organisations' is handed out arbitrarily and often in contravention of those articles of the geneva convention which define what is and is not a combattant.
QUOTE
There have been serious abuses of protected persons but they have been relatively minor, isolated patches of abuse.
Do you say this because you know this, despite the relatively contant stream of accusations, investigations and scandals which seem to make your statement improbable, or do you say that because it is what you hope to be true?
QUOTE
Prisoners-of-war have never in the history of warfare been afforded better care and treatment than they are in the current conflict by the United States military. Never. I defy you to point to any other conflict in which better treatment was given.
Defy do you?
Well now:
In reverse chronological order:
Gulf War V1.0, Panama, Grenada, Falklands, (we will skip Vietnam), Suez, Korea (captives of UN troops, not of South Korean)...
In fact every major conflict involving a western Power this half of the 20th century excepting Vietnam and Algeria. That was rather a silly claim of yours, don't you think?
QUOTE(Vermillion @ May 21 2005, 03:07 PM)
That is disingenuous at best. Firstly, the title of 'members of terrorist organisations' is handed out arbitrarily and often in contravention of those articles of the geneva convention which define what is and is not a combattant.
As you pointed out, there exists a very specific definition of the requirements set upon any combatant asserting protections - specifically, Convention III; Article 4 which states:
QUOTE
Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; © that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; © that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
QUOTE
There have been serious abuses of protected persons but they have been relatively minor, isolated patches of abuse.
Do you say this because you know this, despite the relatively contant stream of accusations, investigations and scandals which seem to make your statement improbable, or do you say that because it is what you hope to be true?
I say this because I know these people, I trained and trained with these people, and I have served alongside these same people - hell, I was these people not that awfully long ago. It's no hope - it is fact. These are not Bush-inspired and Rove-programmed soldiers that come off some assembly line deep in the heart of fly-over country. These are ordinary men and women who are mostly decent Americans with the same sense of morality and love of country that most other Americans have. Paint them as you will. This war will end but these contemptible slurs will live on in my memory and the memory of every poor bastard who ever has the unfortunate circumstance of hearing me out on it. There are pockets of abuse. To claim systematic abuse as widespread as the Left asserts paints the military as a whole as a group of indecent brutes. Orders from above can be no excuse. You cannot have it both ways.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Defy do you?
Well now:
In reverse chronological order:
Gulf War V1.0, Panama, Grenada, Falklands, (we will skip Vietnam), Suez, Korea (captives of UN troops, not of South Korean)...
In fact every major conflict involving a western Power this half of the 20th century excepting Vietnam and Algeria. That was rather a silly claim of yours, don't you think?
Well now:
In reverse chronological order:
Gulf War V1.0, Panama, Grenada, Falklands, (we will skip Vietnam), Suez, Korea (captives of UN troops, not of South Korean)...
In fact every major conflict involving a western Power this half of the 20th century excepting Vietnam and Algeria. That was rather a silly claim of yours, don't you think?
Uh - you assert that Suez and Korea were fought under the same scrutiny and ROE as OIF - and then call me silly? Unfortunately, the rules of this forum prohibit me from analyzing that comment in an honest manner. Wow.
I say this because I know these people, I trained and trained with these people, and I have served alongside these same people - hell, I was these people not that awfully long ago. It's no hope - it is fact. These are not Bush-inspired and Rove-programmed soldiers that come off some assembly line deep in the heart of fly-over country. These are ordinary men and women who are mostly decent Americans with the same sense of morality and love of country that most other Americans have. Paint them as you will. This war will end but these contemptible slurs will live on in my memory and the memory of every poor bastard who ever has the unfortunate circumstance of hearing me out on it. There are pockets of abuse. To claim systematic abuse as widespread as the Left asserts paints the military as a whole as a group of indecent brutes. Orders from above can be no excuse. You cannot have it both ways.
No one is painting all soldiers as "indecent brutes", you may claim that but it is not supported by ANY comments made in this thread, nor have I personally heard that claim made by anyone that I've heard comment on these abuses. The concern is that policy has led to actions that we have in the past condemned outright, while in the present we seek ways to circumvent, condone or marginalize such behaviors.
Prisoners-of-war have never in the history of warfare been afforded better care and treatment than they are in the current conflict by the United States military. Never. I defy you to point to any other conflict in which better treatment was given.
Perhaps one day we'll be able to ask the members of the naked, human pyramid how they'd rate the treatment they received. Perhaps one day we can ask the naked man on the stool with the sack over his head and the electrodes attached to his genitalia to rate the treatment he received. Perhaps some day we'll be able to ask those pictured in the photo's that weren't released to the public (the ones that all the congressmen and women who viewed them stated were horrendous) how they'd rate they're treatment. Perhaps someday we'll hear from those detained at Gitmo...I'm sorry but any way you slice it, this type of treatment is unacceptable. When we've sent covert ops teams into other countries, would you condone such treatment? Afterall, in cases like that, THEY could easily be considered terrorists couldn't they?
As I stated earlier, I have never seen such a steady stream of abuse reports and I will continue to blame this administration for what we're seeing. They've legitimised this conduct with their disregard for the Geneva Convention (changing how you define prisoners so they aren't covered under the GC, doesn't In my opinion make what is being done lawful and I certainly don't find it moral). The administrations intentions seem clear to me, from reclassifying prisoners to avoid GC protections, to seeking legal counsel on how far they can go before they call something torture, to bringing in "contractors" to interrogate detainees. BTW, perhaps you can answer this for me, why would our government need to bring in private contractors to interrogate prisoners? Did our own military interrogators suddenly become incompetent or incapable of doing the job or was the administration seeking plausible deniability (much like sending prisoners to countries that allow torture as an interrogation technique) since those techniques have long been forbidden in the US. In sending them to a country that allows that treatment or by bringing in "private contractors" to interrogate prisoners we're holding, the administration insulates itself from direct responsibility for anything embarrassing that might come to light (which we have seen repeatedly already). Those being prosecuted have been low ranking soldiers, pure and simple and they have ALL said they were following the direction of the private contractors conducting the interrogations. The only ranking officers to be punished in this at ALL was Karpinski and she said much the same thing the enlisted soldiers did, that control of the prisoners had all but been stripped away from her. Does this mean all our soldiers are "brutes"? No it doesn't but it tells me that the slippery slope this administration has set us on has led to behaviors that paint American as being little better than those we condemn. It's not fair to our troops but it's what we're seeing none the less.
No one is painting all soldiers as "indecent brutes", you may claim that but it is not supported by ANY comments made in this thread, nor have I personally heard that claim made by anyone that I've heard comment on these abuses. The concern is that policy has led to actions that we have in the past condemned outright, while in the present we seek ways to circumvent, condone or marginalize such behaviors.
Prisoners-of-war have never in the history of warfare been afforded better care and treatment than they are in the current conflict by the United States military. Never. I defy you to point to any other conflict in which better treatment was given.
Perhaps one day we'll be able to ask the members of the naked, human pyramid how they'd rate the treatment they received. Perhaps one day we can ask the naked man on the stool with the sack over his head and the electrodes attached to his genitalia to rate the treatment he received. Perhaps some day we'll be able to ask those pictured in the photo's that weren't released to the public (the ones that all the congressmen and women who viewed them stated were horrendous) how they'd rate they're treatment. Perhaps someday we'll hear from those detained at Gitmo...I'm sorry but any way you slice it, this type of treatment is unacceptable. When we've sent covert ops teams into other countries, would you condone such treatment? Afterall, in cases like that, THEY could easily be considered terrorists couldn't they?
As I stated earlier, I have never seen such a steady stream of abuse reports and I will continue to blame this administration for what we're seeing. They've legitimised this conduct with their disregard for the Geneva Convention (changing how you define prisoners so they aren't covered under the GC, doesn't In my opinion make what is being done lawful and I certainly don't find it moral). The administrations intentions seem clear to me, from reclassifying prisoners to avoid GC protections, to seeking legal counsel on how far they can go before they call something torture, to bringing in "contractors" to interrogate detainees. BTW, perhaps you can answer this for me, why would our government need to bring in private contractors to interrogate prisoners? Did our own military interrogators suddenly become incompetent or incapable of doing the job or was the administration seeking plausible deniability (much like sending prisoners to countries that allow torture as an interrogation technique) since those techniques have long been forbidden in the US. In sending them to a country that allows that treatment or by bringing in "private contractors" to interrogate prisoners we're holding, the administration insulates itself from direct responsibility for anything embarrassing that might come to light (which we have seen repeatedly already). Those being prosecuted have been low ranking soldiers, pure and simple and they have ALL said they were following the direction of the private contractors conducting the interrogations. The only ranking officers to be punished in this at ALL was Karpinski and she said much the same thing the enlisted soldiers did, that control of the prisoners had all but been stripped away from her. Does this mean all our soldiers are "brutes"? No it doesn't but it tells me that the slippery slope this administration has set us on has led to behaviors that paint American as being little better than those we condemn. It's not fair to our troops but it's what we're seeing none the less.
[quote=Mrs. Pigpen,May 21 2005, 09:02 AM]
"They are a fantastic, iconic set of news pictures that I defy any newspaper, magazine, or television station who were presented with them not to have published," he said. "He's not been mistreated. He's washing his trousers. This is the modern-day Adolf Hitler. Please don't ask us to feel sorry for him."[/quote]
The questions:
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
[/quote]
1. There's nothing entertaining about looking at a 68-year-old man in his skivvies washing out his trousers. Does someone have photos of Saddam sitting on the can or scratching himself in a bad place? Fox News showed footage of Saddam swimming and getting out wearing trunks. The dude wasn't exactly sporting six-pack abs. He just looked like a flabby old man. Embarass Saddam? How much dignity does a murderous dictator have to lose?
2. I don't want to see any photos of Bush in his boxers or briefs either. If the majority of Iraqis aren't bent out of shape as to how their ex-dictator is portrayed in a compromised position, why should anybody else care? I sure don't.
3. This is another example of the media choosing lurid sensationalism and a cheap bid for laughs at Saddam's expense. The real offense doesn't come from pics of Saddam in his Fruit-of-the-Loom tighty whiteys but from the non-story of the pictures taken by David Leeson of the Dallas Morning News during his stint in Iraq. Among his Pulitzer winning photos are these featured on the Village Voice and from the website of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize.
http://villagevoice.com/news/0520,schanberg,64027,6.html
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2004/breaking...tography/works/
Save the outrage for the real obscenity.
"They are a fantastic, iconic set of news pictures that I defy any newspaper, magazine, or television station who were presented with them not to have published," he said. "He's not been mistreated. He's washing his trousers. This is the modern-day Adolf Hitler. Please don't ask us to feel sorry for him."[/quote]
The questions:
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
[/quote]
1. There's nothing entertaining about looking at a 68-year-old man in his skivvies washing out his trousers. Does someone have photos of Saddam sitting on the can or scratching himself in a bad place? Fox News showed footage of Saddam swimming and getting out wearing trunks. The dude wasn't exactly sporting six-pack abs. He just looked like a flabby old man. Embarass Saddam? How much dignity does a murderous dictator have to lose?
2. I don't want to see any photos of Bush in his boxers or briefs either. If the majority of Iraqis aren't bent out of shape as to how their ex-dictator is portrayed in a compromised position, why should anybody else care? I sure don't.
3. This is another example of the media choosing lurid sensationalism and a cheap bid for laughs at Saddam's expense. The real offense doesn't come from pics of Saddam in his Fruit-of-the-Loom tighty whiteys but from the non-story of the pictures taken by David Leeson of the Dallas Morning News during his stint in Iraq. Among his Pulitzer winning photos are these featured on the Village Voice and from the website of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize.
http://villagevoice.com/news/0520,schanberg,64027,6.html
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2004/breaking...tography/works/
Save the outrage for the real obscenity.
QUOTE
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
None of the above. As with all things political....I believe these pictures were released for purely political motives. Saddam is scheduled to begin trial in a few month. Obviously, it has been determined that it is important the the de-deification of Saddam take place before then. Saddam ruled Iraq ruthlessly...I am sure there are many in Iraq who are still scared of him. These pictures were an attempt to 'humanize' him pretrial. Not the pictures shown. Someone in his skivvies, washing his trousers? That's just 'someone'...not anybody to be scared of anymore.
I can see where some might still take issue with this...but we live in political times, I don't think we can suddenly expect completely apolitical actions. In the grand scheme of things, this does not damage, and could help ensure that Saddam is properly convicted. Isn't that a good thing?
Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
The Brits are funny like that. They like publishing pictures of former dictators and disenchanted royals in the buff. Except in Charles's case he chose to stand in front of a window. I think to Arabs it's more of a racial/cultural slam and may not be restricted to a country.
Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
This could be the military using the media in a new light.
Does not damage like Newsweek?
I really hope The Sun received the photos from a renegade guard. If this is psyops' idea of desensitizing Abu Ghraib we'll get nowhere pretty soon. I don't think the photos will endear him to any Iraqis, but the other side of the coin in humanizing him is the public granting him a basic level of pity. That is counterproductive to Saddam's trial. His guilt is not in question so I wonder why you suggest this could help the outcome.
QUOTE
The Sun, according to an accompanying article in The Post, said "it received the pictures from a source in the U.S. military who hoped the release of the pitiful pictures will deal a body blow to the lingering Iraqi insurgency."
The Kansas City Star
The Kansas City Star
The Brits are funny like that. They like publishing pictures of former dictators and disenchanted royals in the buff. Except in Charles's case he chose to stand in front of a window. I think to Arabs it's more of a racial/cultural slam and may not be restricted to a country.
Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
This could be the military using the media in a new light.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 21 2005, 08:17 PM)
In the grand scheme of things, this does not damage, and could help ensure that Saddam is properly convicted. Isn't that a good thing?
Does not damage like Newsweek?
I really hope The Sun received the photos from a renegade guard. If this is psyops' idea of desensitizing Abu Ghraib we'll get nowhere pretty soon. I don't think the photos will endear him to any Iraqis, but the other side of the coin in humanizing him is the public granting him a basic level of pity. That is counterproductive to Saddam's trial. His guilt is not in question so I wonder why you suggest this could help the outcome.
In my opinion, this is one of the dummest things that the British Tabloid "Sun News" could do. However, there seems to be a confusing amongst the Geneva convention regarding this matter.
QUOTE
Under Articles 13 and 14 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, POWs "must at all times be protected ... against insults and public curiosity," and also "are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honor."
QUOTE
The Pentagon has argued the pictures did not violate the Geneva Conventions, because it was important to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that Saddam was in custody.
Both quotes as mentioned above are from the following source CNN.COM. So what this really comes down is "Did the Sun Tabloid violate the Geneva Conventions"?
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
They cross the line. While the argument on this thread - about whether the "terrorist suspects" or "enemy combatants" such as those held at Gitmo or Abu Graib are or are not covered by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions - is certainly open to debate, it isn't really germaine to this discussion. Saddam Hussein was Iraq's head fo state, and held military rank in the recognised armed forces of his country.
Even if nobody else in US military custody is covered by the Geneva rules, Saddam himself most definitely is covered. The photos we've seen so far (and let us not forget the video footage released shortly after his capture of him being medically examined) certainly don't show he is being ill-treated, but the Convention is very specific - "must at all times be protected ... against insults and public curiosity," and "are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honor."
I don't see how anyone can argue that these latest pictures are anything but violoations not only of the spirit but the letter of these laws. The argument that US forces have used that it's a good thing because it let's ordinary Iraqis know Saddam is not a threat any more was weak the first time around.
Now I'm not going to say anything on US forces as a whole - generally, I would guess, the crack combat troops are probably not the same people charged with guarding prisoners. Maybe there should be more considered training for those about to take up post as a prison guard, and maybe there is some degree of complacency or ignorance higher up that permits these embarrassing incidents to keep slipping out. But I don't think it indicates all American troops are brutal monsters (though some clearly are).
The wheels of justice turn slowly, but I hope the outcome of the investigation includes some or all of the following: the indictment, trial, conviction and long-term custodial sentencing of the guard who took (or permitted the taking) of the pictures, the journalist who contacted him or her, and the editors and proprietor of the newspapers that printed the story.
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
On the individual, I don't think it changes anyone's opinion in the West, except maybe to feel slightly sorry for him (and as a leader who presided of torture, mass-murder and corruption on a grand scale, this itself fulfils no useful purpose), and the message to the Arab world is either one of further disrespect to their culture on behalf of the Western media, the West in general, and the US military (a member of which presumably took the photos, or let someone else do it), or - at best - simple repetition of the message that Saddam is no threat. If the idea was to let people know he is still alive, why not a long-lens photo of him, fully-clothed, in the excercise yard, or in a meeting with his lawyers? Why these photos?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
It's business as usual - the last lot of humiliating footage of Saddam was a formal US press release, for goodness' sake!
One last thing - before we all start pointing the finger at the British tabloid press (usually one of the last things about this country that I would defend!), let's remember that the New York Post (prop R Murdoch) carried the same pictures and story on it's front page on the same day.
Now, it IS true that they played it as a story obtained by journalists from the Sun (prop. R Murdoch)
This is not some uniquely British outgrowth of bottom-feeding tabloid sensibilities. This is international co-operation between two divisions of the same multi-national conglomerate - Newscorp (prop R Murdoch).
Quiz: The same R Murdoch who, though Australian-born, has his citizenship in which country?
Answer: America.
They cross the line. While the argument on this thread - about whether the "terrorist suspects" or "enemy combatants" such as those held at Gitmo or Abu Graib are or are not covered by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions - is certainly open to debate, it isn't really germaine to this discussion. Saddam Hussein was Iraq's head fo state, and held military rank in the recognised armed forces of his country.
Even if nobody else in US military custody is covered by the Geneva rules, Saddam himself most definitely is covered. The photos we've seen so far (and let us not forget the video footage released shortly after his capture of him being medically examined) certainly don't show he is being ill-treated, but the Convention is very specific - "must at all times be protected ... against insults and public curiosity," and "are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honor."
I don't see how anyone can argue that these latest pictures are anything but violoations not only of the spirit but the letter of these laws. The argument that US forces have used that it's a good thing because it let's ordinary Iraqis know Saddam is not a threat any more was weak the first time around.
Now I'm not going to say anything on US forces as a whole - generally, I would guess, the crack combat troops are probably not the same people charged with guarding prisoners. Maybe there should be more considered training for those about to take up post as a prison guard, and maybe there is some degree of complacency or ignorance higher up that permits these embarrassing incidents to keep slipping out. But I don't think it indicates all American troops are brutal monsters (though some clearly are).
The wheels of justice turn slowly, but I hope the outcome of the investigation includes some or all of the following: the indictment, trial, conviction and long-term custodial sentencing of the guard who took (or permitted the taking) of the pictures, the journalist who contacted him or her, and the editors and proprietor of the newspapers that printed the story.
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
On the individual, I don't think it changes anyone's opinion in the West, except maybe to feel slightly sorry for him (and as a leader who presided of torture, mass-murder and corruption on a grand scale, this itself fulfils no useful purpose), and the message to the Arab world is either one of further disrespect to their culture on behalf of the Western media, the West in general, and the US military (a member of which presumably took the photos, or let someone else do it), or - at best - simple repetition of the message that Saddam is no threat. If the idea was to let people know he is still alive, why not a long-lens photo of him, fully-clothed, in the excercise yard, or in a meeting with his lawyers? Why these photos?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
It's business as usual - the last lot of humiliating footage of Saddam was a formal US press release, for goodness' sake!
One last thing - before we all start pointing the finger at the British tabloid press (usually one of the last things about this country that I would defend!), let's remember that the New York Post (prop R Murdoch) carried the same pictures and story on it's front page on the same day.
Now, it IS true that they played it as a story obtained by journalists from the Sun (prop. R Murdoch)
This is not some uniquely British outgrowth of bottom-feeding tabloid sensibilities. This is international co-operation between two divisions of the same multi-national conglomerate - Newscorp (prop R Murdoch).
Quiz: The same R Murdoch who, though Australian-born, has his citizenship in which country?
Answer: America.
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
They may be entertainment to some, as can be seen in the countless amount of unflattering pictures of various celebs and government officials. However, they do cross the line because Saddam in a POW in custody and as such, pictures like this violate the Geneva Convention.
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
I don't see it as an indirect slam of his country or origin. Though I would be willing to bet there will be some in Iraq that see it this way, and there will also be those that seek to use this to their advantage.
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
Business as usual these days. Another interesting topic for debate, if someone wants to start one would be, are there really any standards in the media anymore?
QUOTE
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
Not to sound cold and uncaring, but I'm cold and don't care about this. These pictures aren't "entertaining", nor are they disturbing. I don't care if Sadam Hussein looks stupid in the eyes of the world or is embarassed...I don't care. Maybe if we forced him to jump off of a roof a few times, I'd be upset, or maybe if we sat him down in an acid bath, I might take offense, or if we had his relatives raped in front of him, I might be more likely to feel sympathetic. But as I said, the embarassment of a sadistic dictator is probably the least important thing I can think of.QUOTE
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
Who the hell feels "slammed" because one of the most evil people in human history was pictured in his underwear?QUOTE
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
For what? Embarassing homicidal maniacs...God I hope not 
.CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ May 22 2005, 10:29 AM)
Not to sound cold and uncaring, but I'm cold and don't care about this. These pictures aren't "entertaining", nor are they disturbing. I don't care if Sadam Hussein looks stupid in the eyes of the world or is embarassed...I don't care. Maybe if we forced him to jump off of a roof a few times, I'd be upset, or maybe if we sat him down in an acid bath, I might take offense, or if we had his relatives raped in front of him, I might be more likely to feel sympathetic. But as I said, the embarassment of a sadistic dictator is probably the least important thing I can
CP, the purpose of the Geneva Convention was to get all countries to follow a standard of conduct when it comes to the treatment of POWs. The primary reason for this was that if you treated others in accordance with the Geneva Convention, you could expect you own people to be treated the same way.
This treatment, Clearly violates the Geneva Convention. Someone with access to Saddam took those pictures and then choose to release them to a media source (probably for money). That person violated the Geneva Convention and in doing so put all US Service Personnel at risk of being violated in a similar or worse fashion. Since the "Public Curiosity" provision is violated here, US service personnel are not at risk of being subjected to Public Curiosity as well. This could open up our men and women in uniform to such mistreatment as say a naked march through a city center or something similar. Upholding the provisions of the Geneva Convention are Critical if you wish to have the opportunity to minimize the mistreatment of your own troops.
I doubt that the publication of these pictures were official policy. But in order to remove this new risk to our men and women in uniform the party or parties responsible for take and distributing these pictures need to be ferreted out and dealt with harshly. If they, themselves are members of the US military then this US Military Veteran would advocate their dishonorable discharge at a minimum.
We have had some discussions on hypocrisy on this site lately.
There is hypocrisy a plenty to go around, but I think this is a pattern of advocacy that our whole society is guilty of. When it is your team defend it and spin it. When it is theirs attack it with moral indignation.
The story of the release of the pictures claims that the source of the photos is a military official wishing to demoralize the Ba'athist opposition to the American presence in Iraq. If this is the case it was a horrible idea that places lives at risk and needs to be denounced as such.
What we get is this recent comparison.
US probes leak of troubling Saddam photos
But when the source of the problem is Newsweek the answer is different.
Quran story damaged US image: White House
It seems obvious that both stories are a problem for the United States. Newsweek may in fact have its facts accurate.
The question is whether the press should take part in such stories for pure titillation, but if the US treats its prisoners in such a way to try to smuggle out embarrassing pictures of the captives that is newsworthy.
The facts of both cases are still out there. But if the source of the Saddam pictures is not military than we have a serious security situation with Hussein.
There is hypocrisy a plenty to go around, but I think this is a pattern of advocacy that our whole society is guilty of. When it is your team defend it and spin it. When it is theirs attack it with moral indignation.
The story of the release of the pictures claims that the source of the photos is a military official wishing to demoralize the Ba'athist opposition to the American presence in Iraq. If this is the case it was a horrible idea that places lives at risk and needs to be denounced as such.
What we get is this recent comparison.
QUOTE
"I don't think a photo inspires murders,"Bush told reporters at the White House. "I think they (insurgents) are inspired by an ideology that is so barbaric and backwards that it's hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think."
US probes leak of troubling Saddam photos
But when the source of the problem is Newsweek the answer is different.
QUOTE
White House spokesman Scott McLellan said: "The report has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."
Quran story damaged US image: White House
It seems obvious that both stories are a problem for the United States. Newsweek may in fact have its facts accurate.
The question is whether the press should take part in such stories for pure titillation, but if the US treats its prisoners in such a way to try to smuggle out embarrassing pictures of the captives that is newsworthy.
The facts of both cases are still out there. But if the source of the Saddam pictures is not military than we have a serious security situation with Hussein.
QUOTE(Lesly @ May 21 2005, 08:00 PM)
QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 21 2005, 08:17 PM)
In the grand scheme of things, this does not damage, and could help ensure that Saddam is properly convicted. Isn't that a good thing?
Does not damage like Newsweek?
I really hope The Sun received the photos from a renegade guard. If this is psyops' idea of desensitizing Abu Ghraib we'll get nowhere pretty soon. I don't think the photos will endear him to any Iraqis, but the other side of the coin in humanizing him is the public granting him a basic level of pity. That is counterproductive to Saddam's trial. His guilt is not in question so I wonder why you suggest this could help the outcome.Hmmmm...good points. However, I still believe that pics such as these are no 'accident'. Particularly in a Middle Eastern country...how many 'accidental' photos have you ever seen from any Middle Eastern prison (ok, outside of Abu Ghirab...I'm speaking more of one run by a Middle Eastern state)? So, assuming they're no accident...what then would be the purpose? As you state, my idea might have some downside...although I bet you'd also agree this isn't the first time psyops has been mistaken in this area
. So, if not my idea...then what? Anyone else here really think these were just an 'accident'. I'd be willing to be you'd need to go through a bunch of security check points to get to where those pics were taken...and someone just took out a camera (how'd that camera even get there?), started snapping pics, and not one of the guards noticed? Come on...anyone here really believe that? Given that, then...someone wanted them released. The speculation then would be who, and why?Also, I say again...what is the damage here (if not possibly the psyops backfire you mention). Any riots? Any outcry? Any large political backlash? I still think it was intentional, and done to show the Iraqi's that Saddam is just a person. I don't we can even begin to comprehend the fear the typical Iraqi probably has regarding him. Anyone that spoke out against him...died. Often (usually?) horribly. You think that doesn't play a factor when it comes to his trial? Who will vote against someone they're scared to death to even slightly speak out against? Evidence wouldn't even enter into the equation.
Note: this is not, IMHO, to desensitize Abu Ghirab...it is being done to mitigate the fear many Iraqis probably still hold from Saddam....fear that would prevent them from voting him guilty.
QUOTE(Eeyore)
The facts of both cases are still out there. But if the source of the Saddam pictures is not military than we have a serious security situation with Hussein.
Exactly! If someone could smuggle a camera that close, then why not a gun? or a bomb? If someone did...would they really be willing to release the pics...knowing that their source could probably be pretty easily identified? No, this must be intentional....otherwise heads would already be rolling.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 23 2005, 01:11 PM)
Hmmmm...good points. However, I still believe that pics such as these are no 'accident'. Particularly in a Middle Eastern country...how many 'accidental' photos have you ever seen from any Middle Eastern prison (ok, outside of Abu Ghirab...I'm speaking more of one run by a Middle Eastern state)? So, assuming they're no accident...what then would be the purpose? As you state, my idea might have some downside...although I bet you'd also agree this isn't the first time psyops has been mistaken in this area . So, if not my idea...then what? Anyone else here really think these were just an 'accident'. I'd be willing to be you'd need to go through a bunch of security check points to get to where those pics were taken...and someone just took out a camera (how'd that camera even get there?), started snapping pics, and not one of the guards noticed? Come on...anyone here really believe that? Given that, then...someone wanted them released. The speculation then would be who, and why?
Also, I say again...what is the damage here (if not possibly the psyops backfire you mention). Any riots? Any outcry? Any large political backlash? I still think it was intentional, and done to show the Iraqi's that Saddam is just a person. I don't we can even begin to comprehend the fear the typical Iraqi probably has regarding him. Anyone that spoke out against him...died. Often (usually?) horribly. You think that doesn't play a factor when it comes to his trial? Who will vote against someone they're scared to death to even slightly speak out against? Evidence wouldn't even enter into the equation.
Note: this is not, IMHO, to desensitize Abu Ghirab...it is being done to mitigate the fear many Iraqis probably still hold from Saddam....fear that would prevent them from voting him guilty.
Exactly! If someone could smuggle a camera that close, then why not a gun? or a bomb? If someone did...would they really be willing to release the pics...knowing that their source could probably be pretty easily identified? No, this must be intentional....otherwise heads would already be rolling.
I read somewhere that the photos might have been obtained from a security camera within the facility. Personal cameras for private photo opportunities were not permitted at Abu Ghraib, either, incidentally (nor was fraternization between the guards, adultery, and all manner of things going on to include the egregious abuses). I don't think this is to desensitize anyone to Abu Ghraib. I can't imagine that's the case. God help us if our leaders are truly that stupid. There is no excuse for this. I hope heads roll (figuratively).
. So, if not my idea...then what? Anyone else here really think these were just an 'accident'. I'd be willing to be you'd need to go through a bunch of security check points to get to where those pics were taken...and someone just took out a camera (how'd that camera even get there?), started snapping pics, and not one of the guards noticed? Come on...anyone here really believe that? Given that, then...someone wanted them released. The speculation then would be who, and why?Also, I say again...what is the damage here (if not possibly the psyops backfire you mention). Any riots? Any outcry? Any large political backlash? I still think it was intentional, and done to show the Iraqi's that Saddam is just a person. I don't we can even begin to comprehend the fear the typical Iraqi probably has regarding him. Anyone that spoke out against him...died. Often (usually?) horribly. You think that doesn't play a factor when it comes to his trial? Who will vote against someone they're scared to death to even slightly speak out against? Evidence wouldn't even enter into the equation.
Note: this is not, IMHO, to desensitize Abu Ghirab...it is being done to mitigate the fear many Iraqis probably still hold from Saddam....fear that would prevent them from voting him guilty.
QUOTE(Eeyore)
The facts of both cases are still out there. But if the source of the Saddam pictures is not military than we have a serious security situation with Hussein.
Exactly! If someone could smuggle a camera that close, then why not a gun? or a bomb? If someone did...would they really be willing to release the pics...knowing that their source could probably be pretty easily identified? No, this must be intentional....otherwise heads would already be rolling.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 23 2005, 02:35 PM)
I read somewhere that the photos might have been obtained from a security camera within the facility. Personal cameras for private photo opportunities were not permitted at Abu Ghraib, either, incidentally (nor was fraternization between the guards, adultery, and all manner of things going on to include the egregious abuses). I don't think this is to desensitize anyone to Abu Ghraib. I can't imagine that's the case. God help us if our leaders are truly that stupid. There is no excuse for this. I hope heads roll (figuratively).
First, considering the area where this occurred...I'm not sure we'd be speaking figuratively.....
I don't think Abu Ghirab is really a good comparison...mainly due to the person in the photos. I would think (hope?) that security is a bit tighter around Saddam...whereas Abu Ghirab was more 'just' a prison. As for my reasoning...note that I have not said whether I'm in favor of it or not (in true Hobbesian fashion
). If the pictures were of almost anyone else, I might say their release was accidental. But not Saddam, not now. He's been in prison for this long, and suddenly, just a couple months before his trial, pics of him in his underwear, washing his trousers, appear? Call me cynical...I don't think that was an accident. If these were from security cameras, that migh make it understandable on the one hand...but someone got unsecure access to Saddam Hussein's security tapes? Is our security that lax? Wouldn't whoever released them still be worried they'd be discovered. Wouldn't there be a security tape of the area where the security tapes are stored? Maybe, just maybe...this happened due to the routineness of it all...he has been there for a while. I think I've made it clear here on AD that I'm no fan of conspiracy theories...but, to me, I'd say my gut reaction is this is intentional. I just think security around Saddam would be tight enough to make any other explanation unlikely.QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 23 2005, 03:11 PM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ May 21 2005, 08:00 PM)
QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 21 2005, 08:17 PM)
In the grand scheme of things, this does not damage, and could help ensure that Saddam is properly convicted. Isn't that a good thing?
Does not damage like Newsweek?
I really hope The Sun received the photos from a renegade guard. If this is psyops' idea of desensitizing Abu Ghraib we'll get nowhere pretty soon. I don't think the photos will endear him to any Iraqis, but the other side of the coin in humanizing him is the public granting him a basic level of pity. That is counterproductive to Saddam's trial. His guilt is not in question so I wonder why you suggest this could help the outcome.Hmmmm... good points. However, I still believe that pics such as these are no 'accident'. Particularly in a Middle Eastern country... how many 'accidental' photos have you ever seen from any Middle Eastern prison (ok, outside of Abu Ghraib... I'm speaking more of one run by a Middle Eastern state)?
Wouldn’t you label Abu Ghraib as an accident of human proportions related to idiocy as opposed to systemic problems trickling down from the Pentagon? At the time the photos were taken Saddam was under U.S. custody. U.S. Investigates tabloid’s Saddam photos
QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 23 2005, 03:11 PM)
So, assuming they're no accident...what then would be the purpose? As you state, my idea might have some downside...although I bet you'd also agree this isn't the first time psyops has been mistaken in this area . So, if not my idea...then what? Anyone else here really think these were just an 'accident'. I'd be willing to be you'd need to go through a bunch of security check points to get to where those pics were taken...and someone just took out a camera (how'd that camera even get there?), started snapping pics, and not one of the guards noticed? Come on...anyone here really believe that? Given that, then...someone wanted them released. The speculation then would be who, and why?
. So, if not my idea...then what? Anyone else here really think these were just an 'accident'. I'd be willing to be you'd need to go through a bunch of security check points to get to where those pics were taken...and someone just took out a camera (how'd that camera even get there?), started snapping pics, and not one of the guards noticed? Come on...anyone here really believe that? Given that, then...someone wanted them released. The speculation then would be who, and why? I don’t like conspiracy theories. When it isn’t an accident your theory outlining a motivation to help the Iraqi Shiite majority get over their emotional trauma is as likely (and silly) as my “Look, nudy pics ain’t so bad! Stop being a prude about it for our sakes and get over it already” theory.
I won’t repeat what Mrs. P said, just add that at this point I’m speculating people can do incredible things with tiny, hand-held devices. The likelihood of a soldier smuggling a small device capable of holding and transmitting data depends on how security treated its own security. Were guards searched as they took up the watch and before they were relieved by the new watch? Were tapes logged, stored under lock and key, and inventoried? Was this precaution (and others) occasionally executed or almost never executed because nobody’d be that stupid and we took a basic understanding of the Geneva Convention for granted? We don’t know at this point.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 23 2005, 03:11 PM)
Also, I say again...what is the damage here (if not possibly the psyops backfire you mention). Any riots? Any outcry? Any large political backlash? I still think it was intentional, and done to show the Iraqi's that Saddam is just a person. I don't we can even begin to comprehend the fear the typical Iraqi probably has regarding him. Anyone that spoke out against him...died. Often (usually?) horribly. You think that doesn't play a factor when it comes to his trial? Who will vote against someone they're scared to death to even slightly speak out against? Evidence wouldn't even enter into the equation.
Note: this is not, IMHO, to desensitize Abu Ghraib...it is being done to mitigate the fear many Iraqis probably still hold from Saddam....fear that would prevent them from voting him guilty.
Note: this is not, IMHO, to desensitize Abu Ghraib...it is being done to mitigate the fear many Iraqis probably still hold from Saddam....fear that would prevent them from voting him guilty.
This is a subject (attitude?) were I, as a naturalized citizen, often find myself at odds with citizens by birth and subsequently think U.S. intervention is always a double-edged sword. Hobbes I’m not sure if you haven’t put much thought into the conspiracy but you sound like you're coddling a nation of hardened people, maybe romanticizing them. Indeed. Who will vote at all in January. Brave enough to face bombs on a daily basis, continue training when police officers are found shot execution-style or blown to pieces in broad daylight, keep your daughter out of class for fear of her being abducted, etc. But no, turn aside the chance to face Saddam and speak for yourself and those gone before you. The possibility is too horrible to seize. They need the U.S. of A. to give them a nudge.
Why should a self-described conservative underestimate a people’s desire to “set the record straight?” Saddam’s first photos after capture were released to “help quell the insurgency.” We can say the same of Uday and Qusay’s post mortem pics. I’d like to know why you think our country thinks it needs to help Iraqis get over their justifiable fear of a tyrant we helped elevate to power.
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
Because the Geneva Convention specifically requires in Article 13 Convention III that prisoners of war be protected from public curiosity, I feel that the publishing of these photos does cross the line.
Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
I don't care how great Saddam's crimes may have been or how mild the photos may appear to Americans. He should have been protected from this type of situation, and the publishing of these photos says more about American ethics than it does about Saddam Hussain. Our media, whether we like it or not, speaks for us throughout the world.
We don't get to choose when to apply these rules regardless of how extreme a person's crimes may or may not have been. We also don't get to violate them for political or journalistic reasons, and I think it's very important to investigate how the sun obtained these photos and to hold the people who made it possible accountable.
They may be nothing more than "boob shots" to many Americans, but we do have a different perspective than some areas of the world. I think it's important to analyze how the photos are being viewed by different cultures. To some, these types of images are humiliating.
Because the Geneva Convention specifically requires in Article 13 Convention III that prisoners of war be protected from public curiosity, I feel that the publishing of these photos does cross the line.
Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
I don't care how great Saddam's crimes may have been or how mild the photos may appear to Americans. He should have been protected from this type of situation, and the publishing of these photos says more about American ethics than it does about Saddam Hussain. Our media, whether we like it or not, speaks for us throughout the world.
We don't get to choose when to apply these rules regardless of how extreme a person's crimes may or may not have been. We also don't get to violate them for political or journalistic reasons, and I think it's very important to investigate how the sun obtained these photos and to hold the people who made it possible accountable.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker)
They're tabloid fodder no different than boob shots of the rich and famous. The only difference is, the guy that could hold Iraq together without the need of 150,000 troops holed up in a green zone is the target.
They may be nothing more than "boob shots" to many Americans, but we do have a different perspective than some areas of the world. I think it's important to analyze how the photos are being viewed by different cultures. To some, these types of images are humiliating.
[quote=nighttimer,May 21 2005, 03:57 PM]
[quote=Mrs. Pigpen,May 21 2005, 09:02 AM]
"They are a fantastic, iconic set of news pictures that I defy any newspaper, magazine, or television station who were presented with them not to have published," he said. "He's not been mistreated. He's washing his trousers. This is the modern-day Adolf Hitler. Please don't ask us to feel sorry for him."[/quote]
The questions:
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
[/quote]
1. There's nothing entertaining about looking at a 68-year-old man in his skivvies washing out his trousers. Does someone have photos of Saddam sitting on the can or scratching himself in a bad place? Fox News showed footage of Saddam swimming and getting out wearing trunks. The dude wasn't exactly sporting six-pack abs. He just looked like a flabby old man. Embarass Saddam? How much dignity does a murderous dictator have to lose?
2. I don't want to see any photos of Bush in his boxers or briefs either. If the majority of Iraqis aren't bent out of shape as to how their ex-dictator is portrayed in a compromised position, why should anybody else care? I sure don't.
3. This is another example of the media choosing lurid sensationalism and a cheap bid for laughs at Saddam's expense. The real offense doesn't come from pics of Saddam in his Fruit-of-the-Loom tighty whiteys but from the non-story of the pictures taken by David Leeson of the Dallas Morning News during his stint in Iraq. Among his Pulitzer winning photos are these featured on the Village Voice and from the website of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize.
http://villagevoice.com/news/0520,schanberg,64027,6.html
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2004/breaking...tography/works/
Save the outrage for the real obscenity.
[/quote]
Oh man NT- those pics took my breath away and brought tears to my eyes- tough stuff indeed.
The only bad part about Saddam in his scivvies is violating the Geneva convention- not cool.
[quote=Mrs. Pigpen,May 21 2005, 09:02 AM]
"They are a fantastic, iconic set of news pictures that I defy any newspaper, magazine, or television station who were presented with them not to have published," he said. "He's not been mistreated. He's washing his trousers. This is the modern-day Adolf Hitler. Please don't ask us to feel sorry for him."[/quote]
The questions:
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
[/quote]
1. There's nothing entertaining about looking at a 68-year-old man in his skivvies washing out his trousers. Does someone have photos of Saddam sitting on the can or scratching himself in a bad place? Fox News showed footage of Saddam swimming and getting out wearing trunks. The dude wasn't exactly sporting six-pack abs. He just looked like a flabby old man. Embarass Saddam? How much dignity does a murderous dictator have to lose?
2. I don't want to see any photos of Bush in his boxers or briefs either. If the majority of Iraqis aren't bent out of shape as to how their ex-dictator is portrayed in a compromised position, why should anybody else care? I sure don't.
3. This is another example of the media choosing lurid sensationalism and a cheap bid for laughs at Saddam's expense. The real offense doesn't come from pics of Saddam in his Fruit-of-the-Loom tighty whiteys but from the non-story of the pictures taken by David Leeson of the Dallas Morning News during his stint in Iraq. Among his Pulitzer winning photos are these featured on the Village Voice and from the website of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize.
http://villagevoice.com/news/0520,schanberg,64027,6.html
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2004/breaking...tography/works/
Save the outrage for the real obscenity.
[/quote]
Oh man NT- those pics took my breath away and brought tears to my eyes- tough stuff indeed.
The only bad part about Saddam in his scivvies is violating the Geneva convention- not cool.
QUOTE(Cyan @ May 28 2005, 04:24 PM)
I don't care how great Saddam's crimes may have been or how mild the photos may appear to Americans. He should have been protected from this type of situation, and the publishing of these photos says more about American ethics than it does about Saddam Hussain.
This is, in my rarely humble opinion (
), an especially NON-issue!While many libertarians (like myself) are routinely scolded or scoffed at for being much too rigid and dogmatic in our adherence to certain "principles", even a so-called "Randian" like myself must occasionally revisit the real world where "human beings" like Saddam Hussein actually exist.
And while there are some (presumably) who were outraged upon hearing that the likes of Jeffry Dahmer was murdered in prison, I myself will admit an inconsistency regarding my stance when it comes down to a very few extreme humans' "rights". Allow me to substitute a few other names:
Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
Ghengis Khan
Caligula
I'll even admit that I'm influenced by purely emotional reactions to modern mythical/hypothetical scenarios. For instance, in the big scheme of things, a public depiction of Hannibal Lecter picking his nose in his cell whilst wearing nothing but a G-string would not create in me an overwhelming sense that the current administration was pure evil incarnate thus requiring an immediate "independent" investigation...It certainly wouldn't be my first impulse! And speaking of mythical/hypotheticals, how about?:
Freddy Krueger?
Jason Voorhees?
Dracula?
Frankenstein?
Stop them if you can! But whatever you do... Don't show them in their "Fruit-Of The Looms!"
Slippery slope? O.K. Whatever! Reminds me of the the wide-eyed teen who invariably, upon hearing a strange noise down in the basement, feels the need to creep down the stairs asking no-one in particular... "Is there anybody down there?"
On the other hand, maybe Saddam is "100% innocent" and may yet play golf with O.J. and Pinochet?
The issue is not the character of Saddam Hussein or his past crimes against humanity but rather the attitude of those soldiers who are guarding him.
Saddam Hussein is practically irrellevent in this matter, though of course if his name had been Abdullah Somebody-or-other then like as not we'd never have heard anything about him. He is reduced to being a focus for our attention and as such represents how we, in our democratic west, where the law is supposed to be paramount in all considerations, treat other human beings, and especially those in our custody.
To say this is a non issue because the level of digression was so small is to ignore the truth behind the matter. That the US soldiers who were guarding Saddam Hussein apparently neglect their duty and take photogrpahs of him for their own amusement.
Since we are constantly informed by the pro war camp that the US military respects human rights and the Geneva convention, (which the US had a major hand in creating) I find it curious that any one can simply dismiss this issue out of hand so easily.
For me, these pictures represent more than just the attitudes towards one aging dictator. They show the same level of indifferent disrespect towards prisoners that we have seen multiplied several hundred times in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib and the many other nameless dungeons which the USA now apparently maintains and where people are now 'disapearing'.
They are one more example of the erosion of American authority.
Saddam Hussein is practically irrellevent in this matter, though of course if his name had been Abdullah Somebody-or-other then like as not we'd never have heard anything about him. He is reduced to being a focus for our attention and as such represents how we, in our democratic west, where the law is supposed to be paramount in all considerations, treat other human beings, and especially those in our custody.
To say this is a non issue because the level of digression was so small is to ignore the truth behind the matter. That the US soldiers who were guarding Saddam Hussein apparently neglect their duty and take photogrpahs of him for their own amusement.
Since we are constantly informed by the pro war camp that the US military respects human rights and the Geneva convention, (which the US had a major hand in creating) I find it curious that any one can simply dismiss this issue out of hand so easily.
For me, these pictures represent more than just the attitudes towards one aging dictator. They show the same level of indifferent disrespect towards prisoners that we have seen multiplied several hundred times in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib and the many other nameless dungeons which the USA now apparently maintains and where people are now 'disapearing'.
They are one more example of the erosion of American authority.
QUOTE(moif @ May 29 2005, 01:30 AM)
The issue is not the character of Saddam Hussein or his past crimes against humanity but rather the attitude of those soldiers who are guarding him.
More "relativism"! What a croc of baloney et cetera... Yeah sure! He let us down, but he promised that he would be "free" and open...
Argonaut.
What does 'relativism' have to do with anything?
This is a simple matter of responsibility. The person/s who took the photographs of Saddam Hussein shirked their responsibility and who Saddam Hussein is, or was, makes no difference to that fundamental distinction.
Not to many days ago the Danish PM met with GW Bush at the White House and Danish reporters were given the chance to put questions to the two men. One Danish reporter asked GW Bush if he wasn't concerned by the amount of stories concerning human rights abuses that were coming from US prisons in Iraq, Cuba and Afghanistan.
GW Bush replied in his usual manner. He said, 'we' would see the difference in how a democratic nation would deal with such examples as opposed to the totalitarian regimes of the 'enemy'.
Again, this is an example of responsibility being shirked, and at the highest possible level. GW Bush's only answer, in the face of an honest question was to compare his nations practice's to those of Iraq and Iran. Only by direct comparison to the worst human rights offenders the world has seen does the USA appear in a good light.
And, it is the same with this incident. Only by comparing the photogrpahs to Saddam Hussein's past can the matter be viewed as trivial.
But, cast back your memory to the outcry that was raised when Saddam Hussein himself used images of hostages and captured soldiers/airmen. When our people were treated thus we cried foul.
Now, when the responsibility is ours, we have acted towards Saddam Hussein in much the same manner as Saddam hussein once did to us.
What does 'relativism' have to do with anything?
This is a simple matter of responsibility. The person/s who took the photographs of Saddam Hussein shirked their responsibility and who Saddam Hussein is, or was, makes no difference to that fundamental distinction.
Not to many days ago the Danish PM met with GW Bush at the White House and Danish reporters were given the chance to put questions to the two men. One Danish reporter asked GW Bush if he wasn't concerned by the amount of stories concerning human rights abuses that were coming from US prisons in Iraq, Cuba and Afghanistan.
GW Bush replied in his usual manner. He said, 'we' would see the difference in how a democratic nation would deal with such examples as opposed to the totalitarian regimes of the 'enemy'.
Again, this is an example of responsibility being shirked, and at the highest possible level. GW Bush's only answer, in the face of an honest question was to compare his nations practice's to those of Iraq and Iran. Only by direct comparison to the worst human rights offenders the world has seen does the USA appear in a good light.
And, it is the same with this incident. Only by comparing the photogrpahs to Saddam Hussein's past can the matter be viewed as trivial.
But, cast back your memory to the outcry that was raised when Saddam Hussein himself used images of hostages and captured soldiers/airmen. When our people were treated thus we cried foul.
Now, when the responsibility is ours, we have acted towards Saddam Hussein in much the same manner as Saddam hussein once did to us.
Let's steer clear of the unconstructive and off topic one-liners, shall we? 
The questions for debate are:
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
The questions for debate are:
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
I think many are missing the point here.
At issue isn't whether or not Saddam deserves to be humiliated in a relatively minor way. Nor is the issue he past crimes against humanity. What is at issue is the fact that these pictures are a CLEAR violation of the Geneva Convention.
The fact that Saddam's rights are violated here is not the issue. The fact that by violating the Geneva Convention we open up our service personnel to be violated as well is what is at stake. The idea behind the Geneva Convention is that you agree to treat POWs within certain standards and by doing so you are doing your best to insure that when your people are POWs they will be treated the same way. This is not always true of course, as can be seen with the treatment of American POWs in the first Gulf War.
However, if you fail the follow the Geneva Convention you open yourself up to international sanction, or at least international opposition / distain. Worse, if you violate the geneva convention, and then later discover that some other country is violating the GC in regards to your people, the world response will likely be something along the lines of "you reap what you sew".
Now an argument can be made that Saddam's violation of the GC in regards to American Pilots shot down in the first Gulf war opens him to having the GC violated in regards to his treatment. However, this is a frankly a boneheaded approach. GC violations are not that kind of relationship. They will snow ball. Also, you have to consider that the violations in question were over 11 years ago. Considering how hard it is to try to develop a positive reputation for the US Military in the Middle-East (regardless of their massive amount of good works they do on a daily basis), it would seem obvious that giving the opposition more ammunition like this, regardless of who did what first, is extremely irresponsible. We want to show the world that we are country that respects others and is willing to go the extra mile for justice. You do not project that image when you violate the GC, regardless of the fact that your people were violated in the past.
Secondly, there seems to be some that continue to say that US service personnel took these pictures with their cameras. Let me point out that no detention center allows cameras into the facility unless specifically authorized by people pretty high up on the military food chain (usually limited to media interviews and the like). However, there can be surveillance cameras, and there are likely such cameras in the cell of a high profile prisoner like Saddam.
It is far more likely that those pictures were taken from the security camera(s) and not from a camera brought into the facility from the outside. This does not eliminate the possibility that US service personnel were responsible for their release. It actually make that possibility more likely.
The Geneva Convention was violated here. There are ramifications for doing so that can negatively effect our men in women in uniform. The person(s) responsible for the collection and release of these images must be found and the must be harshly dealt with (Dishonorably discharged at a minimum IMHO) if we are to resolve the issue of the violation and the possible future consequences.
The VAST MAJORITY of the men and women in the US Military are HONORABLE, skilled professionals. When we come across those who are not we need to deal with them harshly and rapidly for the sake of the reputation of our service personnel, and in cases like this, for the sake of their safety in the future.
At issue isn't whether or not Saddam deserves to be humiliated in a relatively minor way. Nor is the issue he past crimes against humanity. What is at issue is the fact that these pictures are a CLEAR violation of the Geneva Convention.
The fact that Saddam's rights are violated here is not the issue. The fact that by violating the Geneva Convention we open up our service personnel to be violated as well is what is at stake. The idea behind the Geneva Convention is that you agree to treat POWs within certain standards and by doing so you are doing your best to insure that when your people are POWs they will be treated the same way. This is not always true of course, as can be seen with the treatment of American POWs in the first Gulf War.
However, if you fail the follow the Geneva Convention you open yourself up to international sanction, or at least international opposition / distain. Worse, if you violate the geneva convention, and then later discover that some other country is violating the GC in regards to your people, the world response will likely be something along the lines of "you reap what you sew".
Now an argument can be made that Saddam's violation of the GC in regards to American Pilots shot down in the first Gulf war opens him to having the GC violated in regards to his treatment. However, this is a frankly a boneheaded approach. GC violations are not that kind of relationship. They will snow ball. Also, you have to consider that the violations in question were over 11 years ago. Considering how hard it is to try to develop a positive reputation for the US Military in the Middle-East (regardless of their massive amount of good works they do on a daily basis), it would seem obvious that giving the opposition more ammunition like this, regardless of who did what first, is extremely irresponsible. We want to show the world that we are country that respects others and is willing to go the extra mile for justice. You do not project that image when you violate the GC, regardless of the fact that your people were violated in the past.
Secondly, there seems to be some that continue to say that US service personnel took these pictures with their cameras. Let me point out that no detention center allows cameras into the facility unless specifically authorized by people pretty high up on the military food chain (usually limited to media interviews and the like). However, there can be surveillance cameras, and there are likely such cameras in the cell of a high profile prisoner like Saddam.
It is far more likely that those pictures were taken from the security camera(s) and not from a camera brought into the facility from the outside. This does not eliminate the possibility that US service personnel were responsible for their release. It actually make that possibility more likely.
The Geneva Convention was violated here. There are ramifications for doing so that can negatively effect our men in women in uniform. The person(s) responsible for the collection and release of these images must be found and the must be harshly dealt with (Dishonorably discharged at a minimum IMHO) if we are to resolve the issue of the violation and the possible future consequences.
The VAST MAJORITY of the men and women in the US Military are HONORABLE, skilled professionals. When we come across those who are not we need to deal with them harshly and rapidly for the sake of the reputation of our service personnel, and in cases like this, for the sake of their safety in the future.
QUOTE
1. Are the pictures just fun entertainment, or do they cross the line and why?
Of course they cross the line. Granted Saddam Hussein was a tyrant responsible for countless deaths, but does that mean his personal privacy is null and void for his crimes against humans? Privacy is an understood right of all people and it is not up to anyone to take it away from any other person based on who they are or what they have done. When president Franklin Roosevelt was in office he restricted any photos of him in his wheelchair to be taken or distributed to the public, that was his personal decision. Hussein did not ask for the photos not to be taken I am sure but does that mean they should have been taken at all? Imagine yourself in a prison cell and have photos of yourself splashed all over the internet and news outlets, no matter what you were doing does that not violate your right to privacy? He committed heinous acts indeed but that does not make him sub-human and that does not mean we should indulge our lusts for other's humiliation at his expense.
QUOTE
2. Does publishing the former head of a country in his underwear represent more than just a slam on the individual...is it an indirect slam on the country as well?
I do not imagine it to be a "slam" at all. It is more of an embarrassment for the individual.
QUOTE
3. Does this set some sort of potential precedent in the media, or is it business as usual?
The media has always had a thirst for humiliating people's lives. How else could politicians accuse each other without the help of the media? The media has always served as puppets to a bigger picture to either harm someone or to deny someone their rights of privacy, etc. In other words, all's well on the Eastern front.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.