Pentagon: Nothing will be done about gruesome photos-of-dead for porn scandal.

[Fear_Itself]

@Weirddave

Jesus Blalron, how old are you, 5? Soldiers of every army known to man have posed for photographs over the bodies of their enemies since Matthew Brady started wartime photography.

This presumes that all the pictures are of insurgents or terrorists. How can you tell by looking at a picture that some of them are not innocent bystanders?

[Metacom]

@Futile Gesture

Would you be asking this question if they were pictures of dead Americans?

Yup.

[RTA]

I have no problem with it. Let the American taxpayers see with their own eyes what it is they are paying for. (Rather than the sanitized version of reality presented by the Dept. of Defense.)

[buttonjockey308]

Actually Futile Gesture there have already been a LOT of pictures of dead Americans freely distributed across the globe, granted, not for porn credits, but for ratings (yeah Al Jazeera, I’m talkin’ to you) and like RTA I have no real problem with it.

Photos of war dead not sanctioned by the DoD are scarce because this war, like every war in our modern era is about PR. Everything from Vietnam to Gulf 1, to present day Iraq is about spin control, and making sure that facts don’t get in the way of “progress”.

[Revtim]

@RTA

I have no problem with it. Let the American taxpayers see with their own eyes what it is they are paying for. (Rather than the sanitized version of reality presented by the Dept. of Defense.)

I have no idea what the legal implications are regarding this stuff, but I certainly agree with this statement in the moral sense. I wonder how many people might be a tad more reluctant to reflexively march to a president’s drumbeats of war if they had a more accurate vision of what they were supporting.

[Weirddave]

@Derleth

Weirddave: You have something of a knack for jumping into the least popular side of any argument, guns blazing.

What unpopular argument am I making? It just seems naive to me to be surprised about this kind of shit, since it’s been going on since time immemorial. The insurgents in Iraq have their own photos of this type. So does Al-Queda, or the Palestinians or the Israelis. Anyone you care to name.

@Futile Gesture

So’s wife-beating. And theft. Calling it ‘human nature’ doesn’t mean people shouldn’t find it unacceptable.

And where did I say that it should be considered acceptable? My take is that it’s inevitable. (And truthfully, it doesn’t bother me that much-on either side-because it’s part and parcel of the reality of war. War is not clean or nice or fun. War is mean, viscous, brutal, horrifying, dehumanizing and messy. Sometimes it is also necessary)

[MovieMogul]

Testimony of W. Hays Parks before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs (excerpted; emphasis added):

In addition to the GPW, there are other Geneva Conventions relevant to the current conflict. In particular, the United States and Iraq are both parties to the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. The title of this Convention is a bit misleading because it also provides protection for the dead. In particular, this Convention:
– Requires parties to the conflict to protect the dead against pillage and ill-treatment; and
– Requires parties to ensure that the dead are honorably interred, their graves respected, and information as to their identity, etc., provided to the International Committee of the Red Cross…

The United States and Coalition forces conduct all operations in compliance with the law of war. No nation devotes more resources to training and compliance with the law of war than the United States.

Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the GPW, which the United States fully observes in this conflict…

Our aims and acts are precisely the same in the current conflict [as in Desert Storm]: We are providing, and will continue to provide, captured Iraqi combatants with the protections of the Geneva Conventions and other pertinent international laws…

Based upon briefings and reports in the media, it appears that Iraq has once again committed violations of the Geneva Conventions and related laws of war. I will mention just three.

First: Iraqi Television and al-Jazeera have aired a lengthy tape of deceased U.S or coalition service members. I understand that some of you have seen the tape; I will not describe it in any detail. Suffice it to say that this tape, which was apparently made with the consent or at the direction of the Iraqi regime, shows fundamental violations of the Geneva Convention obligations, including prohibitions on pillage and ill-treatment of the dead, the duty to respect the personal dignity of all captured combatants, and possibly the prohibition against willful killing, torture, inhumane treatment, or the willful causing of great suffering or serious injury to body or health of a POW.

Parks is Special Assistant for Law of War Matters to the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General.

I guess the question is, do photographs of dead enemy soldiers and the subsequent submission of said photos for public consumption on a porn site constitute “ill-treatment”? How would that be different from our assertion that the broadcast of a video tape showing dead U.S. soldiers constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention by the Iraqi regime?

[Futile_Gesture]

@Weirddave

And where did I say that it should be considered acceptable?

And where did I say you said it should be considered acceptable?

[Yeticus_Rex]

Trading one kind of porn (sensational) for another kind of porn (sexual). Not surprised at all.

[Weirddave]

@Futile Gesture

And where did I say you said it should be considered acceptable?

When you quoted my post and replied “Calling it ‘human nature’ doesn’t mean people shouldn’t find it unacceptable”, the strong implication is that my post was calling it acceptable.

[The_Hook]

@Weirddave

Jesus Blalron, how old are you, 5? Soldiers of every army known to man have posed for photographs over the bodies of their enemies since Matthew Brady started wartime photography. You can argue all you like about the ethics of trading these photos for porn, but stop acting so surprised that photos like this are taken. They’re common, mundane even. It’s so widespread a practice that I would call it human nature.

Well, I don’t remember any pictures of the Confederate Army with hoods on or an allied soldier pointing at a Nazi’s lil’ Hitler. Nope, don’t remember that.

[Derleth]

@Dr. Rieux

Well, Brady used to rearrange and pose the bodies to make the compostions better, so he falls jsut a little short of “straight documentation.”

Do you have a cite for this? I’m not attacking the claim, it’s just so different from everything else I’ve heard about his work that I have to know more.

Weirddave: Your whole post comes off as “It’s not a big deal.” Clearly, the consensus here is that it is a big deal. Hence my statement.

Your first line in that post had a lot to do with it as well.

[Futile_Gesture]

@Weirddave

When you quoted my post and replied “Calling it ‘human nature’ doesn’t mean people shouldn’t find it unacceptable”, the strong implication is that my post was calling it acceptable.

No, the strong implication is that your post was saying that people shouldn’t think it worth mentioning, as it’s ‘human nature’, big deal. While my post said that if people consider it unacceptable (and I think they should), they should be encouraged to say so.

Otherwise the sickos who have no problem with it would never know.

[MovieMogul]

Oh this is rich. So, even though my previous post suggests that displaying these photos might violate the Geneva Convention, the Pentagon doesn’t seem to care.

However, when the Administration is forced to cough up more incriminating evidence of torture, then they’re quick to cite the GC in their defense. :rolleyes:

Scumbags.

[Weirddave]

@Derleth

Weirddave: Your whole post comes off as “It’s not a big deal.” Clearly, the consensus here is that it is a big deal. Hence my statement.

Your first line in that post had a lot to do with it as well.

@Futile Gesture

No, the strong implication is that your post was saying that people shouldn’t think it worth mentioning, as it’s ‘human nature’, big deal. While my post said that if people consider it unacceptable (and I think they should), they should be encouraged to say so.

Nope, sorry. the entire thrust of my post was plain:

@me

Soldiers of every army known to man have posed for photographs over the bodies of their enemies since Matthew Brady started wartime photography…snip…stop acting so surprised that photos like this are taken. They’re common, mundane even.

That fact that you are reading more into what I clearly stated goes to show your bias, not any ridiculous contention that I was condoning trading photos of war dead for porn.

@The Hook

Well, I don’t remember any pictures of the Confederate Army with hoods on or an allied soldier pointing at a Nazi’s lil’ Hitler. Nope, don’t remember that.

I might suggest you do a little bit more research then, because photos of grinning soldiers posing over enemy dead exist from both wars.

[Blalron]

@ArchiveGuy

Oh this is rich. So, even though my previous post suggests that displaying these photos might violate the Geneva Convention, the Pentagon doesn’t seem to care.

However, when the Administration is forced to cough up more incriminating evidence of torture, then they’re quick to cite the GC in their defense. :rolleyes:

Scumbags.

They can’t have it both ways.

[ouryL]

I agree.
Our Troops should get unfettered access to all the porn they want!!

[SmackFu]

Soldiers trade these kind of photos between themselves constantly. You have no idea whether the ones who traded it for porn are the ones who took them.

In fact, if you had a friend in the army who sent you these, you could trade them for free porn without even being in the armed forces yourself.

[hildea]

There’s an article about this in my newspaper today. Some quotes (translated from Norwegian by me):

I’ve seen the photos [from nowthatsfuckedup.com]. I wish I hadn’t.
[…]
But the worst photo is of a woman who has lost a leg, where you see a huge, open wound, and where you can also see the woman’s genitalia. Caption: “Nice pussy/bad foot.” Among the comments under the photo, there’s some discussion about why it looks like the woman is shaved, when “they shower once a month or less”.
[…]
Under the heading “Falluja fun” there’s a long video of a group of soldiers who shoot against various targets in a city, while yelling “whooo!!” Caption: “Just some guys who test their weapons… against living targets.”

Hearts and minds, anyone?

[The_New_Guy]

Seems to me the “trading them for porn” part is a red herring. The issue is whether releasing these photos to the general public is a violation of the Geneva Convention. The rest seems to be mere sensationalism. Trading pics of dead people for porn isn’t the problem, it’s that these happen to be people who were killed in the Iraq conflict, right?