Log in

View Full Version : U.S. investigates tabloid's Saddam photos



MasterYoda
05-20-2005, 10:51 AM
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050520/050520_saddam_hmed_330a.h2.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7917696/

BAGHDAD - The U.S. military acknowledged Friday that a photo of ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his underwear, which a British tabloid newspaper published on its front page, was real and said it was "aggressively" investigating how it could have been taken and by whom.

The photo and others also published not only angered the U.S. military, which issued a condemnation rare for its immediacy, but were expected to further fuel anti-American sentiment in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East.

The White House also weighed in, with spokesman Trent Duffy saying that President Bush "has been briefed on that situation and he strongly supports the aggressive and thorough investigation that is already under way."

“The president wants to get to the bottom of the investigation, it would be premature to make any sort of suggestions or speculation about the source or the motivation,” Duffy said.

Source: Idea to weaken insurgents
The Sun newspaper said it obtained that and other photos from "U.S. military sources," adding it would publish more photos on Saturday.

Those sources, the Sun stated, said they were handing over the pictures “in the hope of dealing a body blow to the resistance in Iraq.”

The Sun's front-page photo Friday shows Saddam clad in only his underwear. Other photos inside the paper show Saddam washing clothing by hand and sleeping in bed.

Lawyers for Saddam, who is being held at an undisclosed location, said they intended to sue the newspaper and possibly the U.S. military.

Reaction in Iraq
Iraqis gathered in coffee shops in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq watched as some Arab satellite networks showed the photos.


May 20: The U.S. military is investigating and has condemned the publication of pictures showing Saddam Hussein in his underwear. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.

Today show
“This is an insult to show the former president in such a condition," said businessman Abu Barick, 45. "Saddam is from the past now, so what is the reason for this? It is bad work from the media. Do they want to degrade the Iraqi people? Or they want to provoke their feelings.”

In northern Kirkuk, Marwan Ibrahim, a 31-year-old civil servant, said the pictures were a “humiliation for a man who in the near past was the leader of Iraq and a top Arab leader in the region.”

Others, however, were not so kind.

“Saddam Hussein and his regime were bloody and practiced mass killing against the people, therefore, whatever happens to Saddam, whether he is photographed naked or washing his clothes, it means nothing to me. That’s the least he deserves,” Hawre Saliee, a 38-year-old Kurd, said.

Photos may be year old
The U.S. military said in a statement that an investigation was under way.

"The source of those photos is unknown at this time. It is believed the photos were taken over a year ago," the statement said.

"We take seriously our responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all detainees," the U.S. military said. "This lapse is being aggressively investigated to determine, if possible, who took the photos, and to ensure existing procedures and directives are complied with to prevent this from happening again."

The military also said the pictures may have violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military regulations on treatment of prisoners.

"These photos were taken in clear violation of [Department of Defense] directives and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals," the statement said.

"The specific issue here is that these images are against policy. It’s not the content of the photo that is the issue at hand, but it is the existence or release of the photos,” U.S. military spokesman Staff Sgt. Don Dees elaborated later.

He added that the military would question the troops holding Saddam as part of its investigation.

The International Committee for the Red Cross, which is responsible for monitoring prisoners of war and detainees, said the photographs violated Saddam’s right to privacy.

“Taking and using photographs of him is clearly forbidden,” ICRC Middle East spokeswoman Dorothea Krimitsas said. U.S. forces are obliged to “preserve the privacy of the detainee.”

Source explains reasoning
The Sun quoted one military source as saying that the photos show that "Saddam is not superman or God, he is just an aging and humble old man.”


“It’s important that the people of Iraq see him like that to destroy the myth," the source added. "Maybe that will kill a bit of the passion in the fanatics who still follow him."

“It’s over, guys. The evil days of Saddam’s Baath Party are never coming back — and here’s the proof,” the source said.

The newspaper said the pictures were taken at a top secret location where Saddam was being held in a 12-foot by nine-foot cell, watched 24 hours a day on closed circuit television by special forces and military police.

Awaiting trial
Saddam, 68, was driven from power by a U.S.-led invasion in April 2003 and captured by American forces in Iraq the following December. He is facing charges that include war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity stemming from nearly 25 years in power.

Specific allegations against Saddam include the gassing of minority Kurds in 1988, the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the crushing of rebellions by Shiites and Kurds in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. He also stands accused of killing domestic political rivals.

It is unclear when Saddam’s trial will begin formally, as the pretrial investigation is still under way.

One Iraqi judge on the tribunal has been assassinated.

Saddam’s Jordan-based defense team includes lawyers from several countries across the Arab world, as well as Europe and the United States.

It is not the first time there has been an outcry over images of Saddam.

Pictures and video images of Saddam being examined by a medic after his arrest were widely criticized — even by the Vatican. A top Vatican cardinal said at the time that American forces treated the captured Iraqi leader “like a cow.”

T Park
05-20-2005, 11:02 AM
he killed 3 thousand people he deserves shit like this.


Might be a violation of the Geneva convention, but fuck it.

Clandestino
05-20-2005, 11:54 AM
could be photoshop! i've seen some guys in here with some serious skills!

The Ressurrected One
05-20-2005, 12:43 PM
he killed 3 thousand people he deserves shit like this.


Might be a violation of the Geneva convention, but fuck it.
That's right, let's...

...a) make the butcher look sympathetic, and

...b) give the "Arab Street" another excuse to explode over American abuses.

Why don't we just follow the freakin' rules and quit muddying the waters with all this stupid stuff?

Aggie Hoopsfan
05-20-2005, 01:06 PM
Tpark, you're way off base on this one. THere is no good news with this.

desflood
05-20-2005, 01:58 PM
No matter who is in the picture, it's still a pretty classless move.

Clandestino
05-20-2005, 02:03 PM
i wonder why he isn't wearing the itchy, scratchy brown underwear the military issues at basic training!

Nbadan
05-20-2005, 02:35 PM
Eh, most of the people who this will offend are already fighting us in Iraq.

Nbadan
05-20-2005, 04:04 PM
Responding to possible reactions to the publication of photos of Saddam Hussein in his jail cell in his underwear:

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.''

boston.com (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/140/world/British_American_tabloids_publP.shtml)

Hummm...but a article substantiated before by various foreign sources does motivate people?

Bandit2981
05-20-2005, 04:07 PM
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/sc/2005/sc050518.gif

Gatita
05-20-2005, 05:11 PM
That's right, let's...

...a) make the butcher look sympathetic, and

...b) give the "Arab Street" another excuse to explode over American abuses.

Why don't we just follow the freakin' rules and quit muddying the waters with all this stupid stuff?

Because some American feel that they don't have to.

JoeChalupa
05-21-2005, 07:27 AM
I'm sure this was the work of enlisted personnel because I'm sure the CO or any Officers had no idea this was going on. :angel

NameDropper
05-21-2005, 08:06 AM
http://www.nypost.com/img/front052005.gif


Rumor has it your BVD's will keep your WMD,s hidden and safe!

MsMcGillyCutty
05-21-2005, 09:07 AM
I pictured him as a boxers kinda man.

Useruser666
05-21-2005, 09:47 AM
That pic looks so fake. It looks "techno-colored"! :lol

Hook Dem
05-21-2005, 11:31 AM
http://img11.echo.cx/img11/2418/geyness0vw.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

CommanderMcBragg
05-21-2005, 12:21 PM
When they captured him I said this and I'll say it again - We will be judged very harshly by how we treat him. Even though we may feel that he deserves bad treatment, we have to strive to treat him at least fairly, because the war was already judged by many people to be wrong.

Maybe people in the US who never want to travel, never want to do business with foreigners or tourists who come here, or never want to live anywhere else in the world, don't have to worry about it. But that certainly isn't everyone.

We aren't self-contained and we are dependent on other countries; how we treat him and how we are perceived really does matter for our future.

come on now. Think people, think!

spurster
05-21-2005, 01:16 PM
It hard to feel too outraged over this when there is much worse going on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/international/asia/22abuse.html

Despite autopsy findings of homicide and statements by soldiers that two prisoners died after being struck by guards at an American military detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, Army investigators initially recommended closing the case without bringing any criminal charges, documents and interviews show.

...

While the initial recommendation to close the case was ultimately rejected by senior officials, documents show that the inquiry was virtually at a standstill when an article in The New York Times on March 4, 2003, reported that at least one of the prisoner's deaths had been ruled a homicide, contradicting the military's earlier assertions that both had died of natural causes. Activity in the case quickly resumed.

...

Following "a review of investigative shortfalls," the Criminal Investigation Command finally took the Bagram inquiry away from agents in Afghanistan in August 2003, assigning it to a task force based at the agency's headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Va. In October 2004, the task force found probable cause to charge at least 27 of the military police guards and military intelligence interrogators with crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter to lying to investigators. Those 27 included the seven who have actually been charged.

Nbadan
05-21-2005, 02:26 PM
Nice stuff Spurster. Apparently, everyone knew that prisoner abuse was also likely happening in Afghanistan, everyone that is, except for Afghan President Hamid Karzai...


Afghan president 'shocked' by U.S. abuse - report
Sat May 21, 2005 4:30 AM ET

By Robert Birsel
KABUL (Reuters) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Saturday he was shocked by a U.S. army report on abuse of detainees in Afghanistan, saying his government wanted custody of all Afghan prisoners and control over U.S. military operations.

The abuse described in the report, including details of the deaths of two inmates at an Afghan detention center, happened in 2002 and emerged from a nearly 2,000-page file of U.S. army investigators, the New York Times reported on Friday.

"It has shocked me thoroughly and we condemn it," Karzai told a news conference. "We want the U.S. government to take very, very strong action, to take away people like that."

Karzai, a staunch ally in the U.S.-led war against terrorism, is due to leave on a U.S trip later on Saturday. He will meet President Bush for talks next week.
(snip/...)

Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-05-21T082927Z_01_N21148760_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-AFGHAN-USA-ABUSE-DC.XML)

Nbadan
05-21-2005, 02:52 PM
More from Seymour Hersh on the prison abuse scandal


The 10 inquiries into prisoner abuse have let Bush and Co off the hook

It's been over a year since I published a series of articles in the New Yorker outlining the abuses at Abu Ghraib. There have been at least 10 official military investigations since then - none of which has challenged the official Bush administration line that there was no high-level policy condoning or overlooking such abuse. The buck always stops with the handful of enlisted army reservists from the 372nd Military Police Company whose images fill the iconic Abu Ghraib photos with their inappropriate smiles and sadistic posing of the prisoners.
...
There is much more to be learned. What do I know? A few things stand out. I know of the continuing practice of American operatives seizing suspected terrorists and taking them, without any meaningful legal review, to interrogation centres in south-east Asia and elsewhere. I know of the young special forces officer whose subordinates were confronted with charges of prisoner abuse and torture at a secret hearing after one of them emailed explicit photos back home. The officer testified that, yes, his men had done what the photos depicted, but they - and everybody in the command - understood such treatment was condoned by higher-ups.
...
By the beginning of October 2003 the reservists on the night shift at Abu Ghraib had begun their abuse of prisoners. They were aware that some of America's elite special forces units were also at work at the prison. Those highly trained military men had been authorised by the Pentagon's senior leadership to act far outside the normal rules of engagement. There was no secret about the interrogation practices used throughout that autumn and early winter, and few objections. In fact representatives of one of the Pentagon's private contractors at Abu Ghraib, who were involved in prisoner interrogation, were told that Condoleezza Rice, then the president's national security adviser, had praised their efforts. It's not clear why she would do so - there is still no evidence that the American intelligence community has accumulated any significant information about the operations of the resistance, who continue to strike US soldiers and Iraqis. The night shift's activities at Abu Ghraib came to an end on January 13 2004, when specialist Joseph M Darby, one of the 372nd reservists, provided army police authorities with a disk full of explicit images. By then, these horrors had been taking place for nearly four months.

Three days later the army began an investigation. But it is what was not done that is significant. There is no evidence that President Bush, upon learning of the devastating conduct at Abu Ghraib, asked any hard questions of Rumsfeld and his own aides in the White House; no evidence that they took any significant steps, upon learning in mid-January of the abuses, to review and modify the military's policy toward prisoners. I was told by a high-level former intelligence official that within days of the first reports the judicial system was programmed to begin prosecuting the enlisted men and women in the photos and to go no further up the chain of command

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1489115,00.html)

Nbadan
05-21-2005, 03:05 PM
Genuine Headline: Bush probes Saddam's pants (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005230454,00.html)

:lol

cherylsteele
05-21-2005, 05:13 PM
If the Bush admin doesn't know who took the photos...then the question becomes who is it?
How did he get past guards?
If he can take photos will he be able to "rescue" Saddam and help him escape?

I think the security of his cell is what is being questiioned here not the actual photos?

I love those photos though.

Nbadan
05-24-2005, 03:16 AM
wrong thread, but love those BVDs.

Useruser666
05-24-2005, 09:10 AM
That photo still looks totally fake. It's like when they put two celebrity pictures next to each other that don't match.