 |
|
Space05us
|
|
The report is on Yahoo.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by C0ckney
i don't see how the pictures are that bad, they show him sitting on a chair, in his undercrackers, washing his socks.
what's been violated, his right to put on a pair of trousers, or his right to a washing machine  |
If he has POW status, taking and using his photograph for purposes of humiliation violates the Geneva convention. I would assume he's classified as such, rather than a common criminal, because we don't trust in the reliability of the Iraqi detention system and we want to make sure he's there to be tried, convicted, and located in front of a convenient wall.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
mtg, wouldn't that depend on who took the picture and how it got out.
like for example if a freelance photographer took it and then it got used, would this violate his rights. or if someone in the army took it for some innocent purpose, but it got leaked by someone, would this violate his rights.
or would there have to have been someone in the army taking it, and an intention to use it to humiliate him?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by C0ckney
mtg, wouldn't that depend on who took the picture and how it got out.
like for example if a freelance photographer took it and then it got used, would this violate his rights. or if someone in the army took it for some innocent purpose, but it got leaked by someone, would this violate his rights.
or would there have to have been someone in the army taking it, and an intention to use it to humiliate him? |
He's in the custody of the US military, so unless there's some huge breach of security, a freelance photographer would have to be given access to him and allowed to take the photographs. That in itself would be a violation, unless there was an objective military reason for taking the photographs, or some other mitigating reason.
There's no real punishment, and no real sanction, so as far as I know, there's no body of law to detail what acts or circumstances clearly cross the line and what dances up to the edge of it.
It seems clear that the photographer was allowed access to Saddam for the purpose of taking those photos, and the results speak for themselves. Not that I'm terribly sympathetic, as I think the SOB should never have come out of his little hole, or should have been promptly dealt with before now. The lack of control of the situation on our end does bother me, though.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-05-2005 23:35
|