Saddam to Sue Over Prison Photos

I think its fairly clear that the Geneva Convention was violated with the release of demeaning photos of Saddam Huessein. Personally, I think the guy should be beaten regularly and embarrassed as much as possible. But what I think is irrelevant here.

Anyway, below is a link to the article where Saddam's lawyer claims he will sue The Sun as well as anyone who helped in the release of the pics of Saddam in his tighty whities. Does anyone know of any instance of the US or other nation being sued in civil cour for violations of the Geneva Convention? Can you even sue a newspaper for violating the Geneva Convention, when they themselves are not a signatory to it? Does anyone here with a background in law feel that Saddam even has a case?

I don't see the point of Saddam even suing, it's not like he can use the money for anything other than his defense fund. And it's fairly clear that no expense has been spared with hiring lawyers in his defense. I'm sure his family has access to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. Therefore I don't see the point of him suing to recover a few hundred grand or a couple million dollars.


news.bbc.co.uk...

I don't think there is a case here. I think if the pictures were taken in a manner in which the intent was to ridicule, embarass, demean etc, then there might be a case, but this is simply a picture of a prisoner in his under garments. Nothing major. I'm not well versed in the Geneva Convention, but I would be surprised if this picture is in violation. Perhaps if the pictures were of him not wearing any clothes....

If one of us posted the pictures here, is that violationg the Geneva convention?

It was inappropriate for those pictures to be out, but it is hard to set aside contempt for someone like Saddam.

None of us knows the truth of anything, so we should treat him fairly. No matter how difficult it is if we wish to claim the moral highground.

Originally posted by DCFusion
I don't think there is a case here. I think if the pictures were taken in a manner in which the intent was to ridicule, embarass, demean etc, then there might be a case, but this is simply a picture of a prisoner in his under garments. Nothing major. I'm not well versed in the Geneva Convention, but I would be surprised if this picture is in violation. Perhaps if the pictures were of him not wearing any clothes....

Maybe little Saddam is something he's not proud to show off?

Edit:

As far as I know (and I'm a law student) the NewsPaper automatically signs the agreement when it prints its articles in the U.K. or any Nation that has signed the treaty.

He should have a case as the photos are in a Prison and last I checked it is illegal to use photos in Prisons unless you get permission from the person in the photos.

Although Saddam's kids are dead (well sons) and he is is Prison for the rest of his life. Err...what's he going to do with the money? Can anyway say "Buying time" since he can't be put to death while this case is going on? Which will take years.

[edit on 23-5-2005 by Odium]

release of the pics of Saddam in his tighty whities

Man I can see it now....every celebrity from tom cruise to britany spears to paris hilton is gonna sue......

Ok, maybe not paris

when has the US of A ever taken a *insert rude word* of any type of i nternational law?
mostly the jeeniva convention?

just let the guy go, with the law circus in the US he's liable to come out ahead anyway.:shk:

jeeniva

I think you mean...GENEVA

maybe you were doing that on purpose...I suck at spelling so whenever I get the chance to shine...I take it

Originally posted by SportyMB

jeeniva

I think you mean...GENEVA

maybe you were doing that on purpose...I suck at spelling so whenever I get the chance to shine...I take it

lol i should really take more time in typing words

Perhaps all the people he had tortured and all those relatives of people he had killed and totured should sue him.

I do not think he has a leg to stand on. thousands of WWII prisoners were photographed in far worse conditions by the Japanesse (sp?)

Hell anyone can turn on their own TV and see a guy in his shorts, it is very common these days.


I also checked

www.genevaconventions.org...

and no where in the entire convention does it state anything regarding the taking of pictures/photos, in fact the words are not even in the text of the convention or google did not pull them up when I did a search of the site. If they are in there from what I read I did not see them, so as I stated I doubt he has a leg to stand on.

ARTICLE 13. -- HUMANE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS
PARAGRAPH 2. -- OTHER PROHIBITIONS

The concept of humane treatment implies in the first place the absence of any kind of corporal punishment. But it does not only have this negative aspect. The present provision adds the notion of protection. To protect someone means to stand up for him, to give him assistance and support and also to defend or guard him from injury or danger. It is therefore a positive obligation for the Detaining Power at all times which follows from the obligation to treat prisoners humanely. The protection extends to moral values, such as the moral independence of the prisoner (protection against acts of intimidation) and his honour (protection against insults and public curiosity).

You might wish to go read the Geneva Convention and the reason the Japanese never got prosecuted was because the were given Amnesty of their War Crimes if they would share their technology with the U.S.A. under Operation Overcast, etc, etc.