Bwhahaha! Lemme guess, this is going to get people killed.

Monte Smith · May-19th-2005, 09:11 PM

The (UK) Sun is running a cover that is sure to embarrass the pride and enflame the passions of those who believe in the cause of Saddam.

But nice job fellers, I say. My God, it's as bad as the hijinx at Abu Ghraib. I mean almost exactly as bad.

crawjo · May-19th-2005, 09:12 PM

Is that a Koran stuffed down his pants or is he just happy to see a camera?

Monte Smith · May-19th-2005, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crawjo

Is that a Koran stuffed down his pants or is he just happy to see a camera?

Isn't it obvious? That's WMD! He's had it all along and he's used it (witness Uday and Qusay).

RBS · May-19th-2005, 09:51 PM

He's got manbreasts.

Monte Smith · May-19th-2005, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RBS

He's got manbreasts.

The man is 68 years old. I hope I am allowed a walk in the exercise yard in my underpants when I am his age.

May-19th-2005, 11:39 PM

You are not allowed such at your current age.

Any questions?

Tom Storer · May-20th-2005, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

My God, it's as bad as the hijinx at Abu Ghraib. I mean almost exactly as bad.

Well, actually, no. It's not as bad.

But I wonder if it will get him any marriage proposals by mail?

Gentle Giant · May-20th-2005, 09:57 AM

At least he's got something for that England chick to point at.

I figured he'd be hairier. I'm sure Castro is.

Coda · May-20th-2005, 11:45 AM

I can't believe these photos. It's a disgrace. Both media outlets should be severely punished for helping to flame the hatred. Yes, I know that FOX owns the New York Post.

Newsweek and Fox should receive the same punishment as Dan Rather and 60 minutes. Whoever is responsible should lose their job and the news organizations should apologize and be forced to name the source.

Uli · May-20th-2005, 12:08 PM

From cnn:

"U.S. Condemns Publication of Saddam Photos

LONDON (AP) - The U.S. military on Friday condemned a British newspaper's decision to print photographs of a captive Saddam Hussein, including one showing him in his underwear. A front-page picture in the tabloid Sun showed the former Iraqi dictator, clad only in white briefs, folding a pair of trousers. Another on an inside page showed Saddam hand-washing a piece of clothing.

The Sun said it obtained the photos from ``U.S. military sources.''

A statement by the U.S. military in Baghdad said the photos violated military guidelines ``and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals.''

It said the source of the photos was unknown, but they were believed to have been taken more than a year ago. Saddam was captured in December 2003 and remains in custody. He is charged with war crimes, but no date has been set for his trial.

The military said it was ``aggressively'' investigating to determine who took the pictures.

``We take seriously our responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all detainees,'' the statement said."

``We take seriously our responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all detainees,'' the statement said."

They must be either kidding or are just no good at their responsibility. How can a photo like that leak?

Monte Smith · May-20th-2005, 02:01 PM

Fox doesn't own the Post, Coda. Murdoch's company, News Corp., owns both the Post and Fox. And the Sun. And much else besides.

These pictures are so troublesome. I love the Post.

May-20th-2005, 02:09 PM

Is it getting hot in here, or is it just me?

Coda · May-20th-2005, 02:32 PM

I much prefer the Post's headline over the Suns.

patricia · May-20th-2005, 05:17 PM

This picture could only have been taken by the comrades in arms of the rascally American crew who were responsible for the pictures such as the ones at Abu Ghraib.
What is the matter with these military, or civilian American personel?? Have they NO supervision at all??? These shutter-bugs are an embarrassment to America, regardless of what we think of Saddam Hussein.

May-20th-2005, 06:03 PM

I can't believe I'm about to type what I'm about to type.

And there is absolutely no alcohol involved here. None.

But I agree with what particia has said here 100%.

SEJ · May-20th-2005, 06:14 PM

Who knew Saddam Hussein was a tighty whitie guy? I would have guessed boxers...

Monte Smith · May-20th-2005, 06:57 PM

Like patricia and Scott, I'd guess that these photos were taken by an American soldier. You can't be sure, of course. But all our guys have digital cameras. The technology is so cheap and small that you can't effectively police a ban, and you might not want an all-out ban anyway. Soldiers have rights and cameras are cool. Now, you should be able to effectively police a ban in the prison where you are holding Saddam Hussein, fer chrissakes. And having said all the previous, the photos could just as easily have come from an Iraqi worker or judge or anyone allowed on the premises.

I have no problem with the pictures. I don't think they represent the willful humiliation of a prisoner, and certainly not according to the Geneva Convention when it was codified all those years ago. The proliferation of digital cameras and instant media has made absurd old rules about not parading captives before a curious public; these days, the public has virtual access to nearly everything through digital media and satellite. It doesn't take the parading that it used to do. And if this is an abuse, it is the weakest abuse of the human rights of a murderous dictator on record.

jesus marion joseph · May-20th-2005, 07:05 PM

At least his underwear appear to be clean...

Monte Smith · May-20th-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

At least his underwear appear to be clean...

His mother must be so proud.

Fox News had this chucklesome analysis: On a weekend when First Lady Laura Bush is set to visit the Middle East in part to counter damage done to America's reputation by Newsweek's now retracted story about Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay, pictures of Saddam Hussein in his underpants must be the last thing that the White House wants to see. But the same can be said for everyone.

May-20th-2005, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satan

I don't think they represent the willful humiliation of a prisoner

I actually disagree.

patricia · May-20th-2005, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I actually disagree.

What other possible purpose could the shooting and publishing of this photograph serve???

May-20th-2005, 08:02 PM

Are you talking to me?

Monte Smith · May-20th-2005, 08:03 PM

It may be serving no purpose at all.

May-20th-2005, 08:12 PM

Uh-oh....

*knock knock knock*

the intent police are here and would like to have a word with you, Monte.

crawjo · May-20th-2005, 08:27 PM

The release of the photos is of course against the Geneva convention. As Monte says, it's by no means a terrible breach of the Geneva convention, and if the U.S. hadn't already done far more serious things to violate the Geneva convention, it would be less worrisome. But given all the regular violations of the Geneva conventions which have occurred at prisons throughout Iraq and in Guantanamo Bay, it's not a good thing to be calling attention to this sort of thing.

Monte Smith · May-20th-2005, 09:08 PM

The intent police are going to have to show a warrant. Even under the Patriot Act!

Because who knows who took these pictures? In my wild imagination, I'm thinking it was the young soldier who was deputized to keep an eye on the Iraqi fuehrer for this particular day. He's looking at the Evil Doer from across a court yard and can't believe his 19-year-old eyes. They'd shit themselves if they peeped this back in Peoria. "Hey, waita second....[click]."

I mean, that's one possibility. A breach of the vaunted Geneva Convention? Sure. You betcha. But the Geneva Convention didn't foresee a future when cameras were on everybody's person like a Dick Tracy two-way radio wristwatch. Back in the day, if you were going to parade a captured malefactor before the eyes of a curious public, it took cooperation with the Army command. Nowadays it takes little more than for the Army command to bat an eyelash. Poof! You got your picture, which in 2005 can be distributed to an eager 24/7 news media hungry for the latest dish.

That should be prevented, but it isn't a huge deal. And come on: human rights and human dignity are one thing. But if a picture of Saddam Hussein in his y-fronts is a Nuremburg-level offense, I'm joining the insurgents.

GoodSpeak · May-20th-2005, 10:43 PM

SO!

Where is Bush and his bully boyz on this one, eh?

Can republicans say, "hypocrite" ?

Oooo.

I knew you could.

May-20th-2005, 11:55 PM

Hippocrit!

All I had to do was sound it out!

Monte Smith · May-21st-2005, 12:01 AM

Hahaha. Now if only we could sound out what Goody was hyperventilating about. Lemme guess: rightwing Republicans bad. Undoubtedly that's true, but what's the relevance in this particular thread?

GoodSpeak · May-21st-2005, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Hahaha. Now if only we could sound out what Goody was hyperventilating about. Lemme guess: rightwing Republicans bad. Undoubtedly that's true, but what's the relevance in this particular thread?

Newsweek bad, New York Post good.

Still waiting for the public outcry....

Amazing set of morals these Bushie republicans live by.