Unauthorized Saddam pics

Re: Unauthorized Saddam pics

Picture number 7 & 8, I've seen on news broadcasts when the capture was announced. Picture number one is the only one that is not flattering to Saddam. I don't think anyone is going to be playing a tiny violin over this.

 

this brings us to an interesting topic: how do you portray POW's in the media ?

Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. (...) Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

They had to show Saddam to the world, that is for sure, but that first picture should not have been taken. Or at least not leaked.

Showing off American POW's on Iraqi TV was very controversial, too. It is a fine line...

 

i bet that black guy felt like the man of the day in that pic.

iJon

 

Who wouldn't?

:heylookMomI'mWithSaddam!:

And why do some of these looks like hi-quality photoshops?



wdlove --
laysworldsmallestviolinforsaddam:

 

it's just a shame that our president has no regard for the Geneva convention and that this really should not be a war

 

That first photo is almost shocking to view.

Unauthorized photos? Fine.

But don't spread this stuff around the internet. We already look bad to a lot of the world because of this war.

 

I didn't realize you care.

 

But is isn't Saddam considered a terrorist ... not a POW ? Therefore not protected by the Geneva convention?

 

Just because I don't waste my time in the political discussions doesn't mean I don't have an opinion.

 

Hey well, what were they supposed to do, go up to him and say oh please surrender you jolly ruthless dictator.

We see American cops on reality TV shows taking down pimps and crack dealers with more force!

Its not GI's on the ground that make America look bad to the rest of the world, it's the impression of arrogance mixed with ignorance that comes down from the top.

American Ignarrogance? Hang on, that sounds like something he might say by mistake…

 

"terrorist" is just an adjective - a pretty fluffy one at that as currently used by the american media. it doesn't have much relevance to whether you would be considered a POW or not.

he was captured in a war, sounds like a POW to me. (no, i don't believe that the "war" was over when W said so.)

 

Apparently the US decided he was a POW. Whereas of course Afghans actually captured during a war aren't - they're 'Enemy combatants'. Hmmm....interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3384359.stm

 

call it an adjective and blame it on media all you want ...

my intention is not to start an argument but rather make sense of the facts ...

And the facts are that there is an exploitation of a loop hole in article 4 and Article 84 of the geneva convention

article 4 being that he is not a
subordinate and therefore he can be held accountable - not just following orders.
and because of what he did to the Kurds - not conducting his operations in the customs of war.

in article 84 because he is to be triad in a regular court rather then a military court, he cannot be held as a POW because a POW is only subject to court martial.

like i said ... i'm just trying to following the reasoning ... since cry about it won't do anything ... i'm forced to try and make sense of it.


EDIT .... however based on what caveman just posted -- my entire interpretation falls apart ... but i guess thats the beauty in the leggier of the law ... open to interpretation