Saddam officialy declared a POW

[Argyll]

Sky news reporting
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12970056,00.html

Does this mean that the photo's shown on this site of his capture are now against the geneva Convention,and will they subsequently be removed?

[Vance]

The pictures of him weren't for humiliation or gloating. It was for the truth. For the Iraqi people to know he was really captured. How many Iraqis would beileve you if you say you caught him but didn't show any pictures of him??

[oldsoak]

POW ? - wasnt he nicked after cessation of hostilities ? How did we work that one out ? Not that it matters, he can still be tried and hung from the walls of one of his palaces...

[ibstolidude]

Why?
How do those photos violate the Geneva Convention?


Do you refer to article 13 or to which article do you feel posting his photgraphs (especially those released by the US gov) will violate. Do these pictures constitute a failure to protect him from “insults and public curiosity"? or perhaps do they affirm to the world that Saddam Hussein is in fact in custody, alive, and in decent health.

just curious?

[Argyll]

No I mean the one where he's pinned to the ground with a smiling Middle Eastern origin man kneeling over him,which totaly contradicts what the 4 ID CO and Gen Sanchez and for that matter the USG said in the way he was apprehended!!
If that photo is not for "souvinier" purposes then what else is it for?

This one

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/operation_red_dawn/abz.jpg

[Apogee]

The Geneva Convention doesn't talk about lying. Maybe you're saying that the harsh manner in which he was aprehended was against the Geneva Convention. If thats the case, I'd disagree. Those soldiers had every reason to reguard him as armed and dangerous. They needed to take the necessary steps to make sure he was not a threat to them.

[ibstolidude]

No I mean the one where he's pinned to the ground with a smiling Middle Eastern origin man kneeling over him,which totaly contradicts what the 4 ID CO and Gen Sanchez and for that matter the USG said in the way he was apprehended!!
If that photo is not for "souvinier" purposes then what else is it for?

This one

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/operation_red_dawn/abz.jpg
Ah so which article do you feel is in violation?

or is it the "US Military isn't allowed to lie to Argyll" one? ;)

And it is my understanding that the photograph to which you refer was not in fact released by the Detaining Power.

Which article do you feel was violated?

I'm not being a ****(well no more than is my typical nature), I am actually curious.

[Vance]

No I mean the one where he's pinned to the ground with a smiling Middle Eastern origin man kneeling over him,which totaly contradicts what the 4 ID CO and Gen Sanchez and for that matter the USG said in the way he was apprehended!!
If that photo is not for "souvinier" purposes then what else is it for?

This one

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/operation_red_dawn/abz.jpg
Wasn't that picture taken by an SF soldier? The quality looks like it. Can a government be held responsible for what one if its soldiers does?

[One?]

No I mean the one where he's pinned to the ground with a smiling Middle Eastern origin man kneeling over him,which totaly contradicts what the 4 ID CO and Gen Sanchez and for that matter the USG said in the way he was apprehended!!
If that photo is not for "souvinier" purposes then what else is it for?

This one

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/operation_red_dawn/abz.jpg

If that guy was only an Iraqi Translator he should of beaten the **** out him and ease the pain of all iraqis. Screw the geneva convention because his own people are taking revenge.

But if he was a US soldeir thats a different story.

[Uncle Sam]

I don't think that picture was intended to be a "souvenir"...




...It was intended to be "proof"... :D

[Argyll]

I'm talking about the blatant way that photograph has been taken!

I'm not a Saddam lover but you guys are full of excuses and BS at times!!

From what I understood of this particular moment captured on film,in all it's glorifying colour,and look closely at the pricks face(Saddam),he was forceably removed from the spider hole,he spat at one of the Guys and he smacked him in the face with his rifle,decking him,and the picture was then taken,his mouth is full of blood,and has cuts and abrasions on the side of his face......not the signs of a man who went quietly then is it?

So why tell the whole world's media that he appeared out the hole himself arms raised and was supposed to have muttered the immortal word "I am Saddam Hussien,Predident of Iraq,I am willing to negotiate",as to which someone said "President Bush sends his regards"

2 different versions of the truth,and I'm pretty sure there are other versions out there too!!

[Uncle Sam]

A picture really IS worth a thousand words...huh ???

[Argyll]

Ok RIP if that photo was indeed intended to be proof...........to whom?as it was never released to the public
The guys on that mission knew "exactly" who was there,so no need for proof!
One
I think that's exactly what happened the translator got some payback.

Vance ,
That photo was taken for private viewing and had nothing to do with showing the truth,as nobody outside of that unit was intended to see it
especially guys on forums like us!!
The proof was already shown!!

But you guys are constantly criticising media for distorting the truth yet when your own Military does it you all believe it to be true?


Now if correct me if I'm wrong here but I never said they were against the convention,I asked does the picture,and particular the one I referenced to,go against the Geneva Convention,and if it did,would it be removed,it was an open and honest question,because I know a "humiliating "picture when I see one,proof can be shown when standing up ,or like the one sitting on the chair!
I personaly couldn't care left if the "clean" guy had his **** in Saddams ass.

[Uncle Sam]

I was being sarcastic...about the proof stuff

But the other post wasn't

[duck]

The decision on what version of events is put out is made in the Pentagon and the White House. If they want to have Saddam trying to negotiate and receiving regards from Dubya the soldiers are obliged to present this version. After all the Military is not alien or immune to Politics.

[Argyll]

The 1000 word's one?
Listen up guys,I'm not saying this is wrong in any way,hell I'd be taking a ****load more than one picture on this if it was me!

But here's one for you all to ponder,during the mission to seize the dam the SOF troops had helmet mounted cams etc,and also the rescue of Jessica Lynch,why don't you think camera's were not used on this one?
Or is there another twist in this tale ;)

[Trigger]

Why do you care so much Argyll? Who cares if he was facing north or south when they slapped the flexicuffs on him?
No offence, but what's next? a critique of his haircut? :|

[Argyll]

I don't care but other than the innacuracy of the reports,most of you guys have came down hard when it came to media reporting innacuracies,but when it's good old Uncle Sam it makes it alright!!
2ndly I know another version of Op Red Dawn,as do a few others who post here do,and it will never make headlines,and I get pissed off listening to stories that are not entirely factual,! ;)

[ibstolidude]

Ok RIP if that photo was indeed intended to be proof...........to whom?as it was never released to the public
The guys on that mission knew "exactly" who was there,so no need for proof!
One
I think that's exactly what happened the translator got some payback.

Vance ,
That photo was taken for private viewing and had nothing to do with showing the truth,as nobody outside of that unit was intended to see it
especially guys on forums like us!!
The proof was already shown!!

But you guys are constantly criticising media for distorting the truth yet when your own Military does it you all believe it to be true?


Now if correct me if I'm wrong here but I never said they were against the convention,I asked does the picture,and particular the one I referenced to,go against the Geneva Convention,and if it did,would it be removed,it was an open and honest question,because I know a "humiliating "picture when I see one,proof can be shown when standing up ,or like the one sitting on the chair!
I personaly couldn't care left if the "clean" guy had his **** in Saddams ass.

My beef has nothing to do with which stories are the truth... I was only questioning how you felt that the photo violated the Geneva convention...all governments lie, but unfortunately (like objections in a court of law) violation of the geneva convention are limited to specific article.

So in answer to I asked does the picture,and particular the one I referenced to,go against the Geneva Convention,and if it did,would it be removed,it was an open and honest question,because I know a "humiliating "picture when I see one,proof can be shown when standing up ,or like the one sitting on the chair!
I personaly couldn't care left if the "clean" guy had his **** in Saddams ass. - No I do not feel that the photo in question is a violation of the Geneva convention articel 13 as only the Detaining Power can be in violation of that article...the Detaining Power did not release the photgraph..However I do feel that if the individuals that released this photgraph were found to be inviolation of the OPSEC rules for the operation, or if the goevernment feels they ated in a way that could have compomised the US's efforts to apear in compliance, they will be dealt with..I also feel that posting if on the internet lacks discretion, .............but it is a HELL of a pic!! ;)

But what do I know.I'm no layer ...& I figured the pic for false the first time I say it.. Shows the world what an ass I am!

[Argyll]

Yes it is one hell of a pic far better than any of the official ones!!

The fact that it came from an "SOF" operator mailed to a writer/journo does make OPSEC look pretty piss!!
I wonder if he told him to post it on the net on his behalf?
If he didn't give permission to do so,then is Weismann in a **** load of trouble for breaching OPSEC?
Is the taking of opportunistic photo's like this in breach of OPSEC/PERSEC?

[StarvingStudent47]

If I was President, I would officially declare Saddam a POS.