U.S. Releases Near-Naked Saddam Photos

Remove all ads!

The article is very unclear as to what rank the "Military official" was. It could have been some 2nd Lieutenant who that it would be a hoot to see Saddam humiliated, and got at least $900 for his efforts.

There is no proof that this was ordered by or endorsed by any agency of the US government. To state that the "US released" these pictures implies that our gov't made a conscious decision to do this, and there is not a shred of evidence to prove that.

IMO this is just another example of the witch-hunt that has become popular, and just as with the other witch hunts involving detainees, there is no evidence that there is any gov't policy that condoned or encouraged this behavior.

Before I get accused of it, I am not condoning or defending the fact that these pictures were released. If it turns out that a US gov't agency decided to release these pictures, then they should be indicted for violation of the Geneva Conventions, and any other applicable crimes, but until there is proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), everyone should be presumed innocent.

It is really sad to watch people say that while they don't personally mind the fact that Saddam was humiliated, we have to maintain our principles, but then they are willing to through other principles like innocence until proven guilty right out the window because it fits their political expediency.

 

The Shaman -- It's not the idea of exactly WHO took the picture -- what I was trying to relate to was the pervasive atmosphere over there. Sure, a prison guard could have taken those pictures, but do you really think that person is immune to what the other "front line" soldiers experienced? Do you think that the stink of war misses them altogether? That the horror stories of what the "real" soldiers see don't get related to "just" a prison guard? I'm willing to bet they do indeed get an earful, which could very well warp their sense of decency.

 

@ DW - highly doubtful. As a second lieutenant doesn't even have the authority to command a platoon under normal circumstances, it is extremely unlikely that anyone with a rank of O1 would be considered a "military official". While I cannot say with any certainty that an O1 was NOT responsilble for this, it seems like this possibility is pretty far down on the list behind several other more probably events.

@ Spelly - I was under the impression that Saddam wasn't even in Iraq anymore. I thought he was transferred months ago - most likely to Gitmo - and there the soldiers are several thousand miles away from the action.

 

I don't care if Sadam is humiliated after what he has done, its such an injustice that civillians are raped, beaten, and even murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Sadam is well looked after.

 

Aldeth,

You are assuming that the Sun is trying to be as forthcoming as possible. As this obviously is not the case, by a little liberal interpretation of the definition, any military officer could be described as a "Military official", and it could be an intentional misdirection to protect their source.

I agree that it is not likely a 2nd lieutenant, but I also seriously doubt that a General officer would be stupid enough to accept any payment for the pictures, unless it was enough to be worth throwing away their retirement. So it is likely to be someone in between.

The real question though is, was it authorized, and if so, by whom?

 

Spelly, you are right on the money. The way I see it, the U.S. has been at war for quite a while -- it's only in the past couple of years that they've started shooting too.

I know that's simplistic, and as I have frequently stated before, I do not think the U.S. are anything CLOSE to angels, but they do have a right to defend themselves against those who would attack them, and according to many non-Americans, they have a responsibility to promote freedom around the world. It just seems to me that everyone is johnny on the spot to criticize any flaw in American behaviour, but we overlook gassings, torture, FGM, the use of rape as psychological warfare, and all sorts of other behaviours by other groups, and we say "well, that's their culture and their right; we shouldn't DARE to even THINK about criticizing these people; that would make us intolerant!"

I know that the American government tries to take the moral high ground and they fail, miserably, on a frequent basis. This does not give the moral high ground to the sickos out there, however. IMHO, Saddam is lucky to be alive -- had the Soviets in their time, or the Chinese, Russians, or another state in the area had captured him, he wouldn't be alive to be photographed -- and he would have died painfully.

 

Yes, but the problem here (and I think one that many Europeans on the boards are quick to point out) is that you lose the ability to take the moral high ground at all, when you have cases like Abu Ghaib, and near-naked pictures of Saddam from Gitmo.

@ DW - I agree with your correction. I think the more likley scenrio is something higher than an O1, but nothing on the level of general. Not only would the general be risking a cozy military pension upon retirement, the annual salary of a general is enough that they couldn't be bought with a measly payment of $900. Moreover, last I checked, there weren't even any generals IN Gitmo. Like I said, I haven't checked recently, but last I heard Gitmo was under the command of a colonel (full bird not LTC).

 

In that case, bag the moral high ground and do what you feel has to be done. I say that a lot of those tin plated little sadists in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere need their heads handed to them. The more we mollycoddle them and let them walk all over us ("us" being the western world) the more violent and horrible they will become. Help them to the hilt, fund them, educate them, try diplomacy and decency, but the West should stop with the moral hand-wringing and be willing to use force when necessity arises.

 

Why is everyone so quick to accept the statement of the Sun that the pictures originated from a US Military Official? Maybe they did...maybe they didn't...but is the Sun a reliable source for any kind of news?

If you're going to take that on blind faith, then you HAVE to believe in the Incredible Batboy, the 1200 pound woman who ate her husband and the Titannic survivor who was found in Boston Harbor.

It's the friggin' SUN!!! people.

I'm surprised they didn't claim the pictures were found in a shoe box under Dubya's bed, along with a collection of love letters from Putin.

Darkwolf! I'm surprised at you...I expected at least a minimal cynicism from you!

It's the SUN!

...and aliens live amongst us...disguised as Amish.

 

Hack,

The pictures exist, we control the facility where he is housed, and we allowed them to be leaked. Somewhere there is an American who at the very least allowed this to happen, and possibly was culpable in the actual release.

I know the Sun in the US is a tabloid, but I was not aware that it is the same Sun found in England (I thought they could be different newspapers with different reputations). If that is the case, then the culprit could be an enlisted man, and again the Sun is covering for them.

However, we control the facility, and I think we should have made sure that these didn't get taken in the first place, unless Saddam’s defense council, or the Red Cross took them, but that would be one hell of a conspiracy theory.

 

Aldeth -- It's not the fact that Saddam isn't in Iraq anymore . The point is, is that soldiers STILL associate him with the war, if not the REASON for the war (although debatable)...but still... I don't think the war's impressions on these people have lessened any, with his removal to another location. I would imagine to those folks, you mention his or his cronies' names, and you get spitting bullets in return. There's no warm and fuzzies there. Just trying to put this in perspective.

Our sense of decency and honor might change if we were to go from coach-potato judgers to being shot at on a day to day basis. Frankly, I have no conception of what that situation would be like -- I can't even imagine it. But I DO know that it's easy to sit here playing my games, drinking coffee and eating cookies all the while wagging my finger at their descent into the bowels of amoral behavior. It's very easy to do that indeed.

 

I really don't get what's the big deal. Sure it violates the geneva convention and sure it is stupid but it's just Saddam wearing underwear. What is so horrible in those pictures? They degrade Saddam and make him look ridiculous? Please.... I might feel for him if he was an ordinary soldier but Saddam is pretty much a public figure and public figures have to deal with this kind of pictures being taken. If he was getting a beating in the pictures or something it might actually be worth talking about

 

Well, there could be 2 reasons that I can think of.

1. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and the US hasn't been compliant 100% of the time, so these things need to be exposed so that it doesn't continue or get worse.

2. It makes the US look bad, and blowing it up to be as big an issue as possible is a way to protest against the US.

Take your choice.

 

Hardly matter, IMO; by now you should really expect news like this coming from that side of the ocean. Really, these pictures are only silly and showing silly pictures is the job of (cheap) Sunday magazines. They revelled in Diana's death and in many, many other cases and this one is no exception. As long as they keep it inside their turf, I keep mine too.

 

I still think it's more shocking that someone paid $900 for a picture of an old Geezer in his skivvies...

 

See, I'll explain you why you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand international law, or the Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Because it's sometimes so utterly simple that disputing it is a sign of ... well, let's spare us that part and go straight to Art.14:

For this rule to apply on Saddam Saddam must be a Prisoner of war first. Art.4 of the convention helps us out.

Saddam not only was a member of the Iraqi armed forces, he was Iraq's head of state and supreme commander of the Iraqi forces. *

So Saddam is a POW and Art.14 is applicable. He has to be protected from public curiosity.

These pics show a half-naked Saddam in his private realm, as far as that can be said of a prison cell, in his bathroom, obviously dressing for the day.
Frankly, it is nobody's business what Saddam does on the loot, or how he looks like under his clothes. Publishing the pic in the SUN, one of the worst manifestations of public curiosity yet, ceratinly meets the definition of Art.14.

To argue otherwise is to deny him the dignity inherent to him as a human being, no matter what he did and what he was.
That's something to be determined in a fair trial and cerainly not by the SUN or by another mob on the street or in the newspapers who feel he deserves it. It doesn't matter.


* Sidenote: Even if it wasn't clear that Saddam is a POW, he would have to be treated accordingly because, like 'innocent until proven guilty', the rules regarding prisoners of war must be followed until a proper tribunal is convened to determine whether POW status is applicable on a case-by-case basis.
When the United States systematically denied POW status to captured Taliban combatants in the 2001-2002 war in Afghanistan, it was in violation of the third Geneva Convention. In the course of an armed conflict involving parties to the Geneva Convention, captured combatants are POWs until proven otherwise.
So, by holding people as so-called 'unlawful combattants' for extended periods, without determining their status in a proper tribunal first, the US has commited war crimes.

Like it or not.

 

There can't be international laws if no one is there to enforce them. Genocide is happening without anyone caring and so are many other violations. International law is insignificant, like it or not.

When there's a war the geneva convention is thrown to the trash can and is picked up only afterwards. Even though I can't accept shooting civilians, torture, abuse, excessive violence and long time imprisonment without a proper trial, simply because it's unhuman treatment, I don't count in taking a few pictures of a public figure in his underwear to be such a breach deserving of this attention. Quite frankly I don't see it deserving any attention. Now if caught I suppose the guy who took the pictures should be punished but I assume he has breached some sort of military code by selling those pictures.

 

Morgoth,
it starts with the small things. In Iraq the U.S. themselves claimed to come to be the enforcer of human rights and international law over Saddam's tyranny - and turned out giving a s*hit for both of it themselves where and when they felt so.

For you playing the cynic, or one John Bolton international law is considerd arbitrary and basically a non-binding policy recommendation - I couldn't disagree more.

People like Bonkers Bolton look at international law like Stalin looked at the Vatican: How many divisions does the pope have? Or: They can't enforce it against us anyway.

International law has a strong moral dimension, a point that is lost on Bolton. International law isn't a collection of arbitrary rules, there is an international consensus on this, a result of 300 years of development.

It is indeed hard to enforce action against violations of international law, because it's about countries acting. The only way of action may well be to go to war.
That is costly and dirty business, too. For war you need public support in your own country. Consequently, the result of the cost-benefit equation often is international inaction.

But that's not the only aspect of it: Just look at the U.S. war of agression against Iraq. No one could stop the U.S. However, the rest of the world sharply disagrees, and refuse support, and the US have quite a hard time persuading anyone anymore for any future adventures, without having rock-solid proof, that because it's from Washington, needs to be triple checked.

The US administration have just started crying bloody murder after the latest Amnesty report, why that if international humanitarian law and human rights are so insignificant?

Because they aren't. The U.S. gvt can ignore it for a while, because no one can stop them, but they can't deny it. The cost for ignoring it is fallout: US standing continues to find new lows, thanks to the relentless blundering from Washington.

For that, organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are so surprisingly effective by merely writing reports on the human rights situation and violations of international law in a given country.
They can, by just stating the truth, hurt goverments where it hurts and pressure them to justify themselves for their actions.

[ May 27, 2005, 14:53: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Spellbound - that's exactly my point. I mentioned Saddam being sent to Gitmo not to make a point that he was no longer in Iraq, but rather to state that the soldiers stationed at Gitmo are in fact NOT being shot at on a day to day basis. In fact, they aren't being shot at even somewhat infrequently. I'm not implying that a U.S. soldier stationed at Gitmo is a coach potato, but only that getting stationed at Gitmo is far preferable to serving in Iraq.