I might have to take the pics down

It seems since I have posted the new pics I was skeptical about posting I have been recieving a high number of e-mails per day with mixed reviews. Below you will see that I am even recieving e-mails from Marines of substancial rank in my own command (Which I have posted below). What do you all think?

E-Mail:
From: "Rob ******" <*********@hotmail.com>
To:
Subject: A tip
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:17:33 -0800

You've got some great photos on your website. I think photos like these
need to be shown however I'd take off the ones showing the Iraqi
soldier. It's against the Geneva Convention. Drop me an email or talk
to the Legal officer if you've got a question.

S/F,

Maj Taylor
USMC

Well,

Such is life and US military/gov.

But dont worry,

We still will be able to see this kinds of images from Iraq..

They just might not be taken by US army personel..

Oh btw..

democrazy?

My a$$!

Haven't had a chance to look at them yet as the server was jammed. Looking forward to seeing them.

Publishing pictures of captured "enemy" troops is against the Convention. The note seemed friendly enough so I would not feel singled out but you might want to comply more so that others cannot say the convention was broken (in this instance anyways).

Actually it's captured personel in their detainment area or personel who have not yet been cleared through intel. I called my legal officer as suggested and he said it was just fine

What is the site? I would like to look.

Glad to hear that the letter of the Convention is on your side as Pics like those need to see the light of day. Good stuff.

How is showing an Iraqi soldier against the Geneva Conventions but not an endless loop of Saddam unbathed being inspected like a rabid dog?

International laws never applied to the USA, you didn't know
- but to be serious. The USA did it right in my opinion, they didn't show any pictures of normal soldiers being captured or higher generals. Udai, Kusai and their nice father Saddam are objectivly prisoners of war and geneva convention doesn't allow to show them but they were right to do so as their dead/capture represented the end of an era. and btw. - Would most believed the USA without pictures and show-off? Probably not

www.geocities.com...

That one Major who e-mailed me about taking those pics down sent an message back from my reply and he gave me the link to his website that has quite a few pics from Iraq, however most of them are shots from/of F/A-18's. There are also links to a bunch of other sites containing pics. Let me know what you think. Enjoy.

www.pbase.com...

It was a democratic body that VOTED on the international rules. His inability to show the pics is democratic. Democracy does not mean freedom to do anything. It means the rules/laws/limitation are set by majority vote of the public.

ScienceGuyQ,

They are pictures.

What law says that certain kinds of pictures cant be showed?

For all i know.. all pics except those that contain 'kiddy porn' are 'permitted'.

Try going to your local military base, take a few pictures and publish them somewhere and see how quickly youre arrested!

Are there any that you are leaving up? If so, where could I view them at. I have just recently joined ATS (if a month is recent), and dont believe I have been to your site, or seen the pictures here.

Just scroll up to see all the links that I have posted.

Fulcrum:
There are quite a few categories that you can fall under as far as pictures. Militarily, one example of pictures not allowed to be taken and/or published are those of captured POW's. If it's against the law to publish pictures of dead combatants, then Time magazine would have been shut down 1 week into production.

ROFL

Bull#, dont take them off.

1. He doesn't leave his full name
2. Didn't use a military email
3. It is against the geneva convention for the americans to take them, especially the ones of Saddam, maybe you should direct that back at him.

Interesting point regarding Saddam....as yes, that is technically a violation of the convention....

As for what law it's against....there's a specific article of the Geneva Convention that protects against humiliating POWs, etc. It's pretty vague, so it'd be pretty easy to dance around. Also, one could claim that the capture of Saddam was actually a military objective in and of itself, and that he is not a POW, but a criminal detainee, therefore nullifying the breach of the Convention....

Oh well, in any case, he had to be shown on tv in order to lessen the ongoing violence and uncertainty there....

lol. Criminal detainee ?? Illegal combatatant ??

Don't like the law? Change a POW's name.

I think the Geneva Convention is dead.It's a great shame as it protected all soldiers who sign up to protect their respective countries.
The need by the USA/UK to justify this latest war to their own public led inexorably to 24 hour media coverage including,in the first week,live footage of the Battle for Umm Qasar(excuse spelling).
Such media coverage is not compatable with the Geneva Convention.

All sides of any conflict feel they are in the right.This is an unchanging fact.However,the current US administration actively deny those that oppose them the honour of being recognised as a soldier.

That international law can be circumvented by simply changing a detainees status is one thing but hailing our own troops who have killed as heroes and branding Iraqi troops who kill(in a declared war) as murderers or even rapists is truly hypocritical.

So in this new world we deny soldiers who dare to stand against us while defending their own land the honour of being soldiers and imprison them for being successful.

Anyway these are political decisions not military ones.



[Edited on 9-1-2004 by John bull 1]