I’m not questioning why the Iraqis need to see proof. In fact, I read a quote by one Iraqi businessman who said he wanted to see the bodies tied to the back of a car and dragged through the streets before he’d believe it.
But I am questioning why any of the rest of the world needs to see it. What possible motive, outside sensationalism or boasting, could there be for broadcasting these pictures in American and European media?
It’s just inevitable. If its news somewhere, it’s news elsewhere. The mere fact that they WEREN’T being shown in the rest of the world would make the world want to see them, even if people didn’t already want to see them in the first place.
How would you keep the American and European media from showing the pictures if you released them in Iraq?
Well, obviously one can’t prevent it. But hearing it justified by our media as a necessary part of the strategy to convince Iraqis is dishonest.
Somebody like Collounsbury is in a better position to comment than I, I’m sure. But I’d say yes. Saddam’s Baath party was primarily dominated by members of his family, and as has been mentioned, Uday and Qusay were very high up there. One was his appointed successor, the other ran some of the state-run TV stations, etc. Their misdeeds (Uday was particularly vicious, I understand) are unhidden because, as the President’s sons, they didn’t need protection.
Dead enlisted men – dead leaders – dead Iraqis – dead Americans.
Got new for you … a dead body in Iraq with a bullet in his face is a dead body in Iraq with a bullet in his face.
There is no friggin way Rumsfeld can say, “those pictures are a violation of the Geneva Convention,” speaking about pictures of people that they killed and then turn around and say, “I’m glad I made this decision” in showing pictures of people that we killed.
Nope. They might be “high-ranking officials in the Bush Administration,” but technically, I wouldn’t call them leaders. Unless you want to admit tat they’re the puppetmasters behind George…?
Exactly. If we’re going to condemn others when they are showing pictures of dead bodies, we should be willing to accept criticism when we do the same.
And for the record, I did not object when al Jazeera showed the videos of dead American servicemen, and I don’t object to the Pentagon’s showing of Uday and Qusay’s autopsy photos. War is an ugly mess, and IMO more people should be exposed to such graphic imagery. I just find the disjoint between condemnation and celebration from the war hawks to be annoying.
A report on CNN.com states:
They were never prisoners of war, therefore there is no violation of the Geneva Conventions. End of story.
So are you saying it was okay for al Jazeera to show footage of the American soldiers killed in battle? After all, they were killed before they could be taken as prisoners of war…
Might I suugest another category for them then? Ok so they weren’t soldiers. And they weren’t civilians or they wouldn’t have been targets. And they weren’t illegal combatants since they were in uniform, so they must be… Unlawful Militia.
Hey, stop throwing things, I didn’t start creating new categories.
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
Assuming our friend Raed is a reasonably typical Iraqi… he’s not, he’s Christian, for one, by the way, but from a man in the street perspective, he certainly seems to want to see the pictures, note that it’s from yesterday before the pictures went up.
And is it me or did that one streak make it look like one of them shot himself in the head from underneath the chin?
The Geneva Convention in this case applies to enemy combatants, which, ironically, is exactly what the U.S. has implied that they were to avoid the claim that they were assisinated (which is sort of odd, given that the thing against it is not a treaty but a mere Presidental order, which can be changed at any time).
This ongoing game of dancing classifications pretty much makes the Geneva Convention moot anyway. When you can make up new names for things on the spot which aren’t covered by the treaty, what’s the point of the treaty?
You know we in the west are so “offended” so easily. We sit in our relative safety and judge right and wrong in a war zone thousands of miles away. We complain on one hand that soldiers are being killed daily by Iraqi resistance and then complain when steps are taken to demoralize that same opposition by displaying proof that their leaders are dead. We can be easily divided into two “complaining” camps. One will complain at ANYTHING done by this administration and one will complain at ANY dissention to this administration.
Have we lost the capacity for independant thought? Are we so blindly led by our ideologies that we cannot see that circumstances are often different and warrant different treatments?
These men were thugs that participated in the terrorizing and murdering of large parts of the Iraqi populace. The Iraqi people deserve to see the pictures as proof that they are dead, even if the USA has to sacrafice its part of its own righteousness to do it. Would the USA like to always be seen in the best light? Sure. But this time we have to eat a little “hippocracy” crow so that the Iraqi people can be assured the job is done regarding the two sons.
You will notice that in Iraq you will hear complaints only from Saddam sympathizers and in the west you will hear complaints only from people who are opposed to the actions in Iraq anyway.
al Jazeera is an independant news organization. They can show any footage they like.
We dont have to like it and we have the ability to voice our displeasure, but they still do what they like and are not representing any one government.
Amnesty International said that disseminating the pictures does not violate the Geneva Conventions. I think they know what would or wouldn’t violate the Geneva Conventions, don’t you? Whether they were soldiers, “enemy combatants”, or whatever you care to call them, they were not prisoners of war; they were not captured, they were not detained, they did not surrender, they were not incarcerated. The Geneva Conventions that are relevant to this argument do not apply unless they are prisoners of war. Can you point out a section of the Geneva Conventions that states otherwise?
Cuckoo- you are bringing in all these pesky facts that are going to get in the way of perfectly good emotional arguments!
I agree that the pictures needed to be shown, and it was right to show them. I simply disagree that there is any consistent principle that supports being outraged at showing dead bodies in one case for propaganda purposes and not in another. It is precisely the fact that people have different ideologies that is the problem: obviously you will consider anything your ideology supports as justified by special circumstances, even if it is inconsistent.
But the WORLD is not consistant. Before the Iraq War people were asking why we were not invading N Korea if they were a threat, treating them the same as Iraq. Well it is because the CIRCUMSTANCES are DIFFERENT.
I think we can still be outraged at the showing in trophy-style of American POWs and war dead, yet still present this proof of the demise of the Hussein boys.
Your theory works fine in a vaccuum, but poorly in the real world.
You can do whatever you want. Just don’t appeal to any sort of principle in doing so unless you can explain what the difference is other than we like soldiers and we dont like Hussiens. Everyone thinks they have good reasons and special circumstances. Sometimes they do. But these things have to be argued for more than just “well, we have good reasons.”
We do have principles. And you summed them up right there. We place a higher value on honourable fighting men thatn we do on filthy, evil, murdering, raping, torturing tyrarnts. Any problem with that?