http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/24/sprj.irq.sons/index.html
CNN.com is reporting that the US will release photos of the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein, I suppose to “prove” to the Iraqi people that they’re actually dead. What irritates me about this is the fact that the Pentagon and White House made such a stink about the Iraqi’s releasing/broadcasting photos of dead American troops. Doesn’t this strike anyone as more than slightly hypocritical?
Wasn’t the stink over the Iraqi’s releasing footage of captured soldiers being questioned on camera.
Absolutely. But that’s America.
Of course it is. Not that it will stop the Bush apologists from calling this a good thing. :rolleyes:
Should be amusing to see if any of the commentators, war hawks, and political pundits who denounced al Jazeera’s displays will speak up against this.
Wait, did I say amusing? I meant “pathetic.”
For those charging hypocrisy: What international conventions does releasing pictures of dead leaders of other countries violate?
Accusing people of being hypocritical is so easy, because you don’t have to take a stand on the actual issue with valid reasoning and such.
Rather than criticising this action, or at least in conjuection with it, why not offer an alternative method of offering proof to the Iraqi people that these two monsters are dead? I think we can all agree that it is important to ensure that the fact of their deaths is believable by the Iraqi populace.
These two jerks weren’t soldiers, they were public figures. The standard for releasing pix of them is, and should be, lower. Enquiring Iraqis want to know ! Now if George does a little “happy dance” at their funeral… Nah, I’ll bet he doesn’t even show up.
They’re releasing these pictures for the same reason that pictures of Nicolae Caucescu and his wife were released. They’d become such figures of evil to their country that people didn’t feel safe unless they knew they were really dead.
Not exactly the same thing. I mean, if you want to get technical, you can quote the article of the Geneva Convention that states that POWs shall not be subject to public humiliation and redicule. But then you’d have to debate whether or not these two were POWs, war criminals, or whatever. And it doesn’t take into account the fact that motives are different here.
I didn’t know that either Uday or Qusay were leading Iraq – I thought that was Saddam’s job.
Once more, when the shoe was on the other foot:
“I don’t know that either Qusay or Uday were leading Iraq.”
Split hairs, why doncha? That’s always good.
Oh, try this. Is there a difference between POWs, being terrorized on TV—Shoshanna Johnson looked terrified----and releasing pictures of dead psychopaths to ease the fears of their victims?
C’mon, really. Are these at all the same? This equivalency stuff is just getting old.
Saddam was the number one leader true, but his two sons controlled the Iraqi military, secret police, a few newspapers/TV etc…I would think it fair to say they were leaders in Iraq, even if they answered to Saddam.
Whatever they were, they were not soliders (i.e. not enlisted in the army) so I would hold that the Geneva Convention did not apply to them.
There are x-rays that prove it. I’ve seen one on the BBC site as well as the pics. Why release the pics one of which show a bearded very bloody face which would only convince the already convinced*
There’s your answer. Images 4 and 5 on the following link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3093637.stm
*I’m not saying it’s not him BTW.
What are the alternatives? There’s still a sizeable contigent of people who think that Elvis is still alive and jamming with Jim Morrison, probably for Princess Di, on the same soundstage that the moon landing was filmed. Showing the pictures will somewhat decrease the number of moonbats who will be claiming they lunched with Uday and Qusay in the future.
I suppose you could also claim that figures in the public eye, either famous or notorious, don’t have the same claims to privacy as normal citizens.
I don’t know where I stand on the rights of the deceased here, and I agree that the people of Iraq probably need to know for sure these two are gone.
However: I’m also certain that if US soldiers - much less leaders - were displayed in this manner, the reaction here would be one of profound outrage.
Also: I’m noticing this tendency among Americans- people here seem to think that, for one reason or another, nobody is a POW protected by the Geneva Convention except American soldiers. What’s up with that?
I agree. Unless those are photos of dead Iraqi enlisted troops, then it’s not the same thing as showing dead American enlisted troops. Since they aren’t, it isn’t hypocrisy, except for those who feel the need to go out of their way to find fault with Bush on everything.
I mean, it’s not enough he’s screwing veterans, lied about the need for war, etc., etc.?
You wouldn’t call Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld an American leader?
As other posters have pointed out, this was in reference to enlisted soldiers, not political leaders. Though I suppose one may always equivocate if one so desires.
How well known are these to typical Iraqis? I mean you can be terrorized by “Uday” or “Qusay” but if you’ve never seen them, how would these pictures ever help the average Iraq?
Are their faces as well known as their fathers?
IMHO the standard should be higher, not lower (though not for these particular two) for civilians, or at least equal.
I agree that if a country killed Dick Cheny, and displayed photographs to prove it, Americans would be outraged. However, most Iraqis don’t seem to be particularly outraged by the move.
I’m not sure the quibbling over the status of persons photographed is truly of merit when the question is which behavior is more outrageous, and who is being hypocritical. There’s a big difference between citing a legal convention and trying to appeal to pricinciple in general. “Outrage” doesn’t generally fall under the former. The real difference really just seems to be one of whether or not one thinks the soldiers/sons were good or bad people, not any sort of consistent principle. I think releasing the photos was probably what was needed for propaganda purposes, but I don’t think it’s consistent with any defensible principle that would bar showing the bodies of dead soldiers for propaganda purposes.
I’m not sure an X-ray can be shown to be “recent”. How would I, Mohammed six-pack Iraqi, kow if the X-ray didn’tojust came from the medical files? I agree that the picture of Qusay is hard to recognize, even I recognize Uday in his picture.