It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Hussein's Rights Violated - According to Uncle Sam

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 20 2005 @ 12:48 PM
Saddam Hussein once again graces the front page, only this time, he's in his undergarments. Somebody close to the former dictator snapped several photos of him, 'at home' in his prison cell. The Photos were printed by The Sun and The New York Post, and now the US Military is furious, and is promising a full investigation. They say that Saddam's rights under the Geneva convention might have been violated by exposing him while in captivity. Some arabs are outraged by what they perceive as an insult to their dignity, and Al Jazeera elected not to run the photos for fear of insulting the Iraqi people.
British and American newspapers published photos Friday showing an imprisoned Saddam Hussein clad only in his underwear and washing his laundry, prompting an angry U.S. military to launch an investigation and the Red Cross to say the pictures may violate the Geneva Conventions.
Britain's The Sun and the New York Post said the photos were provided by a U.S. military official they did not identify. The photos angered the U.S. military, which issued a condemnation rare for its immediacy.

President Bush said Friday he did not believe the photos would incite further anti-American sentiment in Iraq, which is edging toward open sectarian conflict.

"I don't think a photo inspires murderers," Bush said at the White House. "These people are motivated by a vision of the world that is backward and barbaric." He added, "I think the insurgency is inspired by their desire to stop the march of freedom."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

If irony had mass, this story would be a black hole. Geneva conventions? The President and his Military are fighting on behalf of the Geneva conventions? They're defending Saddam's right to privacy and dignity? They're altruistic efforts fail to impress, in my opinion.

Why are they really so upset that these photos got leaked? What do the photos show that shouldn't be seen? Or, is this a case of reverse psychology? They holler and scream about not wanting the photos shown, when actually the leak was scripted..but for what purpose?

Do these photos show an imposter? Do they show the real Hussein? Am I the only one who is intrigued by the bizarre nature of this story?

[edit on 20-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:01 PM
you might be on to something with the Purposeful leaking and raising hell about it angle, I mean saddam was a walking fortress in his day in the middle east, now he's a broken down half naked feeble old man, major psychological points there for someone to see their once mighty and almost omnipotent leader in such a state. And aint it kind of funny that people are PO’d about this picture when the man had torture and execution videos made???

Just like some of the peaceniks and others who argue that we should stop imposing ourselves on the Iraqis so they can be free to impose their own ethnic and religious cleansing on each other, the is only 2 ways that it was going to go after saddam regardless of what we did or didn’t do: a religious theocracy, think Taliban only worse because there is more religious and ethnic diversity in iraq than Afghanistan so there would have been more bloodshed and tyranny to get everything under control or another totalitarian dictator with government sponsor systematic torture apparatus and death squads with secret police files. At least we wont offer anything close to either of those options (they might get screwed out of some oil, but it’s wasn’t going to trickle down to the everyday Iraqi anyway) and at least they get some say in their government through local elections regardless of ethnicity, religion, political or tribal affiliation and they can openly rant against their government, try doing that with under a oppressive theocracy or dictatorship???

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:06 PM
BBC news just said on TV, that the picture is not violating the conventions because it was not the Whitehouse that released the photo. If the US government had, then it would be breaking the coventions, but they did not.

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:09 PM
Hey everyone grab a microscrope and point it over here; if you look closely you can see that I am infact playing the worlds smallest violin.

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:09 PM
Well, a slight tangent, I would argue Democracy is no better than dictatorship, because it simply substitutes mob rule in place of one poweful individual. That being said...

I'm still trying to figure this story out, I was up all night, but offline, and when I came on in the morning, I saw the same story running on something like 7 outlets, just from my quick list. Whenever a news story springs up so fast, like they sometimes do, I start thinking they were seeded by someone.

Question is, who? Would it serve the administration? Maybe. Would it serve Iraqi resistance? Maybe. Would it serve Russia? Only in a mild chuckle sort of way. So who benefits the most?

I'm not sure..but I'm thinking about it...

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:12 PM
Is is a bit weird, especially coming right after the Newsweek debacle, but I still think the most likely explanation is some military policeman or something shot this and sold it to the tabloids to make a quick buck.

[edit on 5/20/2005 by djohnsto77]

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:17 PM
If an employee of the US government released the photos, which were taken on Uncle Sam's dime, and in Uncle Sam's facilities, I believe that fulfills all the requirements. Just because the US government didn't officially sanction the photo, doesn't mean they didn't commission it, or allow it to leak. I think that angle needs to be scrutinized.

Think about it like this - while shopping at the supermarket, you get accosted by two supermarket employees on their lunch break. They pull down your pants and snap a picture. Are they to blame? Sure. Is their employer to blame? Partly. This is the reason that employment contracts stipulate behaviors that can and cannot be engaged in on the clock, on the premises, or sometimes even at home.

If the employee violates those rules, they are subject to termination. However, if they break those rules and a third party is injured, the third party may have a very good chance of recouping damages from the employer, due to negligence and failure to provide a safe environment.

I also find it terribly amusing that the words 'Geneva Conventions' came out of the mouths of the US Military. I thought those treaties were a thing of the past, an outmoded way of thinking, tactics not useful in combatting terrorism, yadda yadda.

Edit: dj - I agree with you, but I'm still interested in talking about the legality, and the possibility that this was a controlled leak. Truth is that we'll never know one way or another, but I think it's important to identify who benefits from this event?

[edit on 20-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:22 PM
The Sun says it will print more pictures tomorrow. I think the pictures are stills from a security camera, also Saddams lawyer says he is going to sue the paper.

Like many, I couldn't give a toss.

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:36 PM
Quoting Lysergic

Hey everyone grab a microscrope and point it over here; if you look closely you can see that I am infact playing the worlds smallest violin."

Well I'll be darned. You should put that thing up on the eBay.

Serious though, it does seem like the dog is being wagged. We'll soon see.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Lanotom]

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:36 PM
So Saddam now has been seen by the world in underwear. Ummm, i'll have to think about this one. Its probably just a diversion to take us away from something hotter brewing. This government is never to blame, as you all know, they know nothing- ever. Right.

Lets find out who benefits from a picture of a sagging pair of shorts

The question is, Is that really Saddam dragging his wares
or is it an impostor?

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 02:09 PM
The US said the photos appeared to breach Geneva Convention rules on the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The conventions say countries must protect prisoners of war in their custody from "public curiosity".
Posted May 20, 2005 10:01 AM PST
Category: IRAQ

This is total hypocrisy on the part of the US, which has ignored the Geneva Convention in their use of torture on innocent people. I wonder what tomorrow will bring.....

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:31 PM
This story kind of makes one wonder if perhaps the sleazy tabloids might have asked someone to take the pictures for them.

At this point no one knows who the sources of the photos was, it could have been an American or Iraqi for all we know. I certainly would not put it past the Iraqi resistance to get someone to take a photo for them, just so they could make it look like the US did it, when they did not.

A question for our British members; Is your media protected by rights similar to the US first amendment rights where the media does not have to tell you where the photos came from?

Either way, I say the main blame here is against the media for printing them, not who took them. Do not get me wrong, I still feel if they learn who took the pictures they should also be punished.

[edit on 5/20/2005 by shots]

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:10 PM
Haha! That's a hoot! America trying to make it look like they obey the Geneva Convention? Since when???

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:21 PM

from WyrdeOne
Question is, who? Would it serve the administration? Maybe. Would it serve Iraqi resistance? Maybe. Would it serve Russia? Only in a mild chuckle sort of way. So who benefits the most?

I don't know about the benefit, but I believe that it harms the US the most. It shows that our military are not disciplined enough to prevent something like this from happening.

And, happening so quickly after the Newsweek fiasco, I wonder if there is a tie-in somehow.

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:47 PM

THe US has allready declared that enemy combatants in IRaq are not prisoners of ware thus dont fall under the geneva convention. Heck they dont even call them prisoners.

Besdies, SOMEONE in the prison had to allow SOMEONE with a camera to shoot Saddam in his tighty whites. Either they know who it is, or they dont want anyone to know that they screwed up

the irony gets thicker every day.

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:57 PM
Looking at those pictures of Hussein in his undies... wonder Bush felt so threatened by him.

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 08:15 PM
Same with me, kegs.
Seems The Sun has had second thoughts?
If not, they certainly are not posting them front page.
Must not have received the 'outrage' they had hoped and intended the Saddam-in-briefs picture would bestow.
From their Saturday paper--front page:

In pictures: Some of Saturday's front pages


[edit on 20-5-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 08:32 PM
How much do you suppose Dominos paid for that last minute, front page advertisement?

Did they have to pay, or was it a return scratch?

This story is shaping up like another in the long line of teaser hooks, interchangeable glowing worms to bite at.

Anyone else get that feeling?

new topics

top topics


log in