Is it wise for the U.S. government to release the photos of the Hussein boys?

[Ben E Lou]

Will it do more harm than good? What do y'all think? I could argue it either way at this point.

PRIMARY PRO REASON AS I SEE IT
Releasing photographic proof could help break resolve of resistance fighters, therefore saving lives of American soldiers.

PRIMARY CON REASON AS I SEE IT
Releasing photographs could inflame terrorists and resistance fighters even further, costing more American lives.



Discuss.

[Easy Mac]

Pictures of the dead bodies or just pictures?

Dead bodies: No, or else we can't complain about anytime a terrorist shows the dead bodies of Americans on TV.

Normal Pictures: No big deal.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Pictures of the dead bodies or just pictures?

I've heard talk that we're considering releasing pictures of the dead bodies.

[Easy Mac]

Then under no circumstances. I'd think it'd be the most pathetic move of the "war on terrorism" if they did so.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Then under no circumstances. I'd think it'd be the most pathetic move of the "war on terrorism" if they did so.

Why?

[Anrhydeddu]

Pro:

I perceive one of the reasons for the hesitancy in Iraq is the dark shadow of the Husseins and Baath coming back to power and exacting revenge. This puts a hurt into that.

Con:

"inflame terrorists and resistance fighters even further" - par for the course. The hatred of them against the Allies/Israel runs very deep, always have and always will. This is not going to fan an already hot fire.

[Ben E Lou]

Oh....it is now mentioned in the second paragraph of a story on CNN.com

Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Posted: 11:14 AM EDT (1514 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, provided details Wednesday about the U.S. military raid that killed two sons of toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Following Tuesday's raid on a house in Mosul, a senior Pentagon official said the U.S. military is considering releasing photographs of the bodies -- identified as those of Qusay and Uday Hussein -- in an effort to convince skeptical Iraqis of their deaths.

[Easy Mac]

It screams of hypocrisy. We have always said we're better than the terrorists, and we got all pissed off when Al Jazeera sowed dead American soldiers.

Now that we've killed some of them, its ok for us to do the same thing?

[Ksyrup]

Release the photos over there. I don't think we need convincing that they're dead, so there's no legit reason for them to be shown on TV in this country.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I don't think we need convincing that they're dead, so there's no legit reason for them to be shown on TV in this country.

I agree with that, but I don't think it is reasonable to think that if our government releases them over there that American news outlets will hold off on showing them over here.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
It screams of hypocrisy. We have always said we're better than the terrorists, and we got all pissed off when Al Jazeera sowed dead American soldiers.

Now that we've killed some of them, its ok for us to do the same thing?

But there's a purpose, because the Iraqi people don't want to trust us, and may not believe us. Many of those people live in fear that the regime may come back to power, and is a primary reason why they are unwilling to cooperate with our efforts to rebuild. So I say let them see the pictures, but I don't think they need to be shown here. If you want to see them, you'd have to make a conscious effort to seek them out on some international website/TV station.

[Radii]

I agree totally with Easy Mac. If the Iraqis, or a terrorist group killed someone high up in the American Government somehow or high up in the American military and displayed the bodies on TV for any reason there would be an amazing uproar. I just don't think it's the right thing to do and don't see positive results coming from it.

Of course, I'm a bleeding heart liberal who thinks televising executions would be the a major downturn in our society, so eh.

[Fritz]

It doesn't really matter what the govt. does. If the govt. holds the images but dose not classify them, a news outlet will just file a FOIA.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If there's a way to do so without violating the terms of the Geneva convention (as I remember, that was the basis for complaints about the pictures of U.S. bodies) then by all means, release the pictures.

If not, then I'd lean toward not releasing them although I'm not really sure that the benefit of doing so wouldn't outweight the negative.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I agree with that, but I don't think it is reasonable to think that if our government releases them over there that American news outlets will hold off on showing them over here.

Why? The news outlets have shown some discretion in these types of matters before. Ultimately, though, I have no doubt they'd be shown here.

And anyway, I don't think the government should hold off on using the pictures to convince Iraqis that they are dead, just because they may make it onto TV in the US. I think the legitimacy of the purpose outweighs the perceived damage to our credbility here. This isn't like we're just holding their heads up by their hair in an effort to prove that we've conquered the country. We need for the Irawis to feel safe in their own country, and knowning these guys are dead will assist that end.

[Anrhydeddu]

We are trying to get Iraq to institute a more republic/democratic form of government and self-rule without fear of a totalitarian dictator. Maybe the methods were messy (it always have been) but can it be a noble goal? Contrast that to those that stated their goal is to destroy a culture. I think I can discern a difference.

[Radii]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
But there's a purpose, because the Iraqi people don't want to trust us, and may not believe us. Many of those people live in fear that the regime may come back to power, and is a primary reason why they are unwilling to cooperate with our efforts to rebuild. So I say let them see the pictures, but I don't think they need to be shown here. If you want to see them, you'd have to make a conscious effort to seek them out on some international website/TV station.

And when Al-Jazeera showed captured American Soldiers there was no purpose towards their cause? I understand the purpose for wanting to do it but I still see it as an out and out hypocritical and repulsive thing to do.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Radii
And when Al-Jazeera showed captured American Soldiers there was no purpose towards their cause? I understand the purpose for wanting to do it but I still see it as an out and out hypocritical and repulsive thing to do.

Well, wasn't that done in contravention of the Geneva Convention? I don't know those rules, but if we can show these pictures without violating the same rules, then I think there is a higher purpose than just showing that we're "winning the game." We're beyond that stage - we're trying to rebuild their country and need the people to provide as much assistance as possible, and to the extent this would serve that purpose, then we should do it.

I understand your argument, but I wasn't one who got all bent out of shape during the war when that happened, because I would go home at night and see bodies of Iraqis on TV. Maybe not close-ups of their faces, etc., but dead bodies from the waist down as they were found by the "imbedded" reporters. I assume that wasn't a violation of the Geneva Convention. So I agree that there's some hypocrisy, aside from the legality of it all under the "rules of war."

[Easy Mac]

I think the point is, I can search through this board finding posts by people who were screaming out against the pictures of Americans who are seemingly in favor of this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Or maybe EasyMac, the real point is we didn't start this shit, we're just trying to finish it?

[Easy Mac]

so if you try to finish it, anything goes?

And I'm pretty sure we started the Iraq war, or have you forgotten already?

[panerd]

Agree completly with everything you are saying Easy Mac. I think the thread needs to be found about the US soldiers, and then the board can try and wither its way out of 100% hypocrisy.

[Anrhydeddu]

Ask the Kuwaitis.

[cartman]

Ogrish.com will have them posted any day now, I'm sure. Keeping the pictures deep-sixed is almost impossible.

PRO - The quickest way to quash any rumors is to post the pics. It will be some sort of closure to those whose lives were affected by them.

CON - Since there has been a delay in releasing them, the consipracy theorists will have a field day, even if the pictures eventually are released.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by panerd
Agree completly with everything you are saying Easy Mac. I think the thread needs to be found about the US soldiers, and then the board can try and wither its way out of 100% hypocrisy.

Would it be hypocritical if we're right and they're wrong? I'm curious what you think...

[Easy Mac]

That was the last war. I thought this one was about the WMD's or was that terorism?

[sachmo71]

No, I don't think they should show them. There are other ways to convince the Iraqis that they are dead. Word will get around to the people soon enough anyway.

EDIT: Besides, those who don't want to believe it will claim that the pictures are faked or that the bodies were made up to look like those demons. Sort of like the famous Hitler death photo...I just don't see it getting the bang for the buck.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Would it be hypocritical if we're right and they're wrong? I'm curious what you think...

I think its hypocritical to assume who's right or wrong when those two concepts are subjective.

[cartman]

Dola,

Part of the issue is that these were the leaders of the government, not merely pawns working for the decision makers. Case in point, Mussolini being hung by his feet in the Milan plaza was newsworthy and covered, rightly so. But put the same coverage on a normal soldier being hung like that and treated in the same way, there would be an outcry.

[cartman]

well, I thought it was a dola, but this is a fast moving thread!

[Anrhydeddu]

The issue of weapons and terrorism and Iraq goes back to the 1980s. Remember what they did to Iran and the Kurds?

From Clinton...

WASHINGTON — President Bush's erroneous reference to an Iraqi-Africa uranium (search) link was understandable, former President Clinton (search) said Tuesday, in part because Saddam Hussein's regime had not accounted for some weapons by the time Clinton ended his term in 2001.

Clinton's comments reinforce one of the pillars of Bush's defense of the war in Iraq -- that his Democratic predecessor was never satisfied that Saddam had rid himself of weapons of mass destruction.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for," Clinton said during a televised interview.

Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it," he said.

In his State of the Union (search) speech in February justifying the planned war in Iraq, Bush referred to British intelligence reports that Saddam had tried to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons production. His administration says it now believes those reports were based in part on forged documents.

Clinton confined his remarks to biological and chemical weapons, and did not say whether he would consider credible any report that Saddam had wanted to build a nuclear weapons program.

Nonetheless, he suggested that Bush's mistake was par for the course -- and that it was time to move on now that Bush had acknowledged the error.

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," he said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to without messing up once in a while. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now."

Clinton said ending tensions in Iraq should be the priority now -- another echo of the current White House's talking points. "We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq."

Clinton made his remarks as a call-in guest on a program observing the 80th birthday of Bob Dole, his rival for the White House in 1996.

[Ben E Lou]

Incidentally, if I recall correctly, the uproar about the photos was because some idiot wanted them shown on American TV before the families had been notified.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I think its hypocritical to assume who's right or wrong when those two concepts are subjective.

It is subjective, as wars are. But throughout history, wars usually are viewed as the lesser of two evils (like the Union's cause of destroying a slave culture). You can argue that not having wars is preferable but do you seen any evidence thoughout world's history where this can be realistic?

[Easy Mac]

Is the US going into Grenada considered terrorism? We went in with the intent to overthrow a government? Iraq went into Kuwait to attempt to overthrow Kuwait.

(Note: Nowhere am I arguing these sons aren't the scum of the Earth, I just can't see how people are arguing for seeing the photos when if Iraq did this, we'd want them hanged.)

[Ben E Lou]

Dola--

I think it speaks to how tough a question this is that at present this thread has 32 replies, 170 views, and only 10 votes. As opinionated as this crowd usually is, that is interesting.

[panerd]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Would it be hypocritical if we're right and they're wrong? I'm curious what you think...

I really bought into, and still believe, the main ideals behind both the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. We are better people than the terrorists. While I don't think releasing the pictures makes us terrorists, I don't think it sends the same message to the rest of the world.

Do as I say, not as I do?

[Easy Mac]

But the rules of war cannot be subjective based on who is doing them.

And seeing as how the discussion isn't even about this, I'm not sure why you're trying ot make a completely different point.

[cartman]

Here's another perspetive on this:

The outcry over Al-Jazeera showing the pictures of the dead American soldiers came, in part, from the fact that they were trumpeting the fact that they had pictures of DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS, no names, just a particular brand of dead soldier. There was no weight or caring for who the dead were, just the American image the dead were representing.

But currently the discussion is to release only the photos of Uday and Qusay. There is no discussion to release the photos of the other two killed in the raid. So we are not rushing to publish photos of DEAD IRAQIS, we are deciding to publish the photos of two of the key lynchpins of the dictatorship, who helped to create and sustain the image the world had of Iraq.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I think its hypocritical to assume who's right or wrong when those two concepts are subjective.

And there really lies the crux of most discussions about anything to do with Iraq.

You see right & wrong as being subjective.

I see the right & wrong in the general topic of Iraq as so crystal clear that only a fool fails to recognize it.

And, as someone once put it, I am a person who does not suffer fools particularly well.

[Easy Mac]

Is that all you do now, call people names? You can't actually argue a point, so it makes you feel better to look down on others who are actually willing to put up coherent arguments.

I will take you seriously when you cease speaking like a fool.

[panerd]

What if President Bush were captured and killed and video was shown of his dead body? This would be a just killing to probably over half the world. (So this begs the question.. does a majority make it right?) But I don't even want to discuss whether it's right. Would citizens of the United States be even more pissed off and ready to fight if this happened? Won't terrorists be more pissed if the sons are shown?

[vtbub]

Originally posted by panerd
What if President Bush were captured and killed and video was shown of his dead body? This would be a just killing to probably over half the world. (So this begs the question.. does a majority make it right?) But I don't even want to discuss whether it's right. Would citizens of the United States be even more pissed off and ready to fight if this happened? Won't terrorists be more pissed if the sons are shown?

We'd show it, just like we show the Zapruder film and Kennedy's autopsy photos.

My guess is that we will have no choice but to release them and that the mainstream press will not show them. Organizations like Pacifica and Drudge will use them to try to spin the story to their point of view. A picture might appear in Time or Newsweek.

[cartman]

To answer your question panerd, I'm not looking at it from wrong or right, but should we/shouldn't we.

Since Bush is the de facto leader of the free world, he is the decision maker, and thus if he were killed in an armed shootout, an ambush, whatever, showing his demise would be a newsworthy event, not because someone died, but who it was that died.

[Mustang]

Why even debate this?

Damn if we do, damned if we don't.

Release the pictures and try to show to the Iraqi people that "Yes, Saddam's sons are dead" and the United States is labelled and hypocritical that we are showing pictures of dead bodies. There will also be the group that will think the bodies are staged and photographed in the same studio the moon landing took place.

Don't release the pictures and everyone will think the United States is lying, Uday and Qusay are alive and doing well in downtown Baghdad.


End result. Everyone hates the United States Government and wants to accuse or bitch about the Government no matter what.

[neofied]

I think there's a vast difference between the Uday and Qusay photos and the POW photos. The POWs were rank and file soldiers. Uday and Qusay were the sons of Saddam, heirs to a regime, and wanted men. In the eyes of the government, they were war criminals.

I think by releasing the photos is we proove that we can find whoever it is war looking for -- even the most influential figures in Iraq. It sends a message that anyone who resists, supports Hussein, the dead regime, and Ba'ath will be subject to a similar fate.

It's sort of like a public execution.

For Americans, it will help show that we can get the job done, that we must perservere in the hunt for Hussein, bin Laden and other wanted men (and women). It'll boost American morale and be proof positive to everyone that despite the daily losses of U.S. troops -- progress is being made.

[Radii]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
And there really lies the crux of most discussions about anything to do with Iraq.

You see right & wrong as being subjective.

I see the right & wrong in the general topic of Iraq as so crystal clear.

Edited to remove what could be/was perceived as name calling.

I'm not sure why this matters. To you, this war was a crystal clear "right" on the US part. I think that's irrelevant to this discussion.

When we take an action, we must take it at least with an understanding of how various parts of the world will view it. You may call the people who disagree with the United States policy on this war fools, but if you fail to recognize that they are out there and are very numerous then you're missing a major point.

I still say we should not show the photos simply because of what I view as a hypocracy here. But on top of that, we must understand that a lot of people totally disagree with the war, and a lot of those people are our allies. If parading around the dead is going to piss off our allies, we should take that into consideration.

What's so damned bad about saying "I'm right, I know I'm right, but I'm going to at least take into consideration the disagreements my friends have with me, even though they are wrong" and handling a situation in a different way as a result?

Morally right vs. wrong in the war effort itself IMO does not give us the right to do things that we would condemn our enemies for.

[neofied]

I just hit me, but how can you can this hypocracy?

The photos of the US soldiers were of POWs, both living and killed after capture. Those photos violated the Geneva Conventions relating to the photography of POWs. Those rules are in effect under the assumption that POWs are to be treated with respect, dignity, or whatever you want to call it.

Uday, Qusay, Mustapha (Saddam's grandson) and the bodyguard were killed in a battle, a firefight. They weren't POWs. It's sort of like when you have a police shootout and it airs on TV news. I see no difference. The rules that applied to POWs wouldn't apply in this case.

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by neofied
I just hit me, but how can you can this hypocracy?

The photos of the US soldiers were of POWs, both living and killed after capture. Those photos violated the Geneva Conventions relating to the photography of POWs. Those rules are in effect under the assumption that POWs are to be treated with respect, dignity, or whatever you want to call it.

Uday, Qusay, Mustapha (Saddam's grandson) and the bodyguard were killed in a battle, a firefight. They weren't POWs. It's sort of like when you have a police shootout and it airs on TV news. I see no difference. The rules that applied to POWs wouldn't apply in this case.

neofied - the uproar way back when was about showing American casualties of war.

[neofied]

The American casulaties of war though were the POWs. I remember. It was the pile of bodies. Those were alleged POWs, killed by their captors. There's a big difference there.

There also was uproar of showing the living POWs on television.

Of course, the US networks showed the Iraqi POWs and casulaties throughout, so showing the dead pictures of Hussein's brood would be a moot point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Radii I'm not sure why this matters. To you, this war was a crystal clear "right" on the US part. I think that's irrelevant to this discussion.

It was actually meant more as a remark on a tangent point than on the original subject. I figured that would be clear, perhaps it wasn't as clear as I expected. Sorry 'bout that.

I was primarily (perhaps even completely) observing that a reference to the subjectivity of right and wrong once again seemed to be central to one of the countless Iraq-oriented debates I've read/heard/seen/ participated in both online & offline.

I'm of the growing opinion that attitudes about the existence of absolute right and wrong might be a pretty fair predictor of positions when it comes to Iraq.

That's what I had in mind, maybe it was more of a stream-of-conscious comment than typing on a message board allowed to come through.

Jon