Saddam's Underwear Fall-Out

Last night on another site, I wrote about this photo, giving my initial reaction.

My post, from 8:16 PM yesterday:

The British press never ceases to amaze me.

I imagine the American mainstream media would love to splash a picture of Bush and/or Cheney in underwear.

To be fair, they did give us those shots of Bill and Hill in swimsuits, dancing on the beach, during that "spontaneous" private moment. That's seared into my mind, unfortunately.

I am somewhat concerned about the Arab world's reaction to the Sun's cover. I hope the picture of Saddam doesn't set off massive riots.

Waiting for the noose

When I first saw that the Sun had chosen an underwear shot of Saddam for its cover, I felt it was just another example of the typical over the top nature of the British press, tabloid fodder. I remarked about the possibility of the image inciting violence, but I doubted that would occur.

Maybe it's just me. As an American, I'm accustomed to media doing whatever it takes to sell their product without concern for the consequences. Profit and ratings matter more than the fall-out.

Did Americans riot when European leaders and the press treated President Bush in an unforgivingly disrespectful fashion?

Another example--Did Catholics riot when Pope Benedict XVI's past was distorted to depict him as a hateful, murderous Nazi, rather than a victim of its brutality?

Of course not. Although I found those portrayals extremely offensive, I never considered acting out violently. Accordingly, I felt that showing Saddam in his underwear, while inappropriate, wouldn't have the power to spark riots.

However, judging by U.S. and world reaction to the photo of Saddam, perhaps I shouldn't have dismissed its significance so quickly.

From AP:

The U.S. military on Friday condemned a British newspaper's decision to print photographs of a captive Saddam Hussein, including one showing him in his underwear.

A front-page picture in the tabloid Sun showed the former Iraqi dictator, clad only in white briefs, folding a pair of trousers. Another on an inside page showed Saddam hand-washing a piece of clothing.

The Sun said it obtained the photos from "U.S. military sources."

A statement by the U.S. military in Baghdad said the photos violated military guidelines "and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals."

It said the source of the photos was unknown, but they were believed to have been taken more than a year ago. Saddam was captured in December 2003 and remains in custody. He is charged with war crimes, but no date has been set for his trial.

The military said it was "aggressively" investigating to determine who took the pictures.

"We take seriously our responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all detainees," the statement said.

More reaction, from thisislondon:

Sensational pictures of Saddam Hussein in his underwear were printed last night - reigniting the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

Saddam is being held by U.S. guards and it is believed the photographs, printed in later editions of today's Sun, were taken by American sources.

The newspaper would not say how it came by the pictures or give any details about how they were taken.

...Under the Geneva Convention and special agreements with the United Nations, the U.S. and its allies are forbidden to release photographs of prisoners of war such as Saddam.

The picture is certain to enrage his fellow Sunni Muslims and former members of his political party who are now part of the insurgent movement in Iraq.

'If this photograph proves to be genuine, it might result in a new intensive wave of violence,' said a Pentagon source last night.

'Again, presuming it's genuine, its release will be tremendously embarrassing to us. We must find out where this came from.'

President Bush comments:
LONDON (Reuters) - Washington promised an investigation on Friday into how pictures of Saddam Hussein in his underpants were splashed across the front-page of Britain's biggest-selling daily newspaper.

...The Sun quoted U.S. military sources as saying they had handed over the pictures "in the hope of dealing a body blow to the resistance in Iraq."

Other photographs showed Saddam, with short, dyed-black hair and a mustache, washing clothes by hand and asleep on his bed.

The photos later appeared in the New York Post. Both papers are owned by Australian media baron Rupert Murdoch.

A U.S. military statement said the pictures might be a year old. They contravened Saddam's rights as a prisoner and could have broken the Geneva Convention, the military statement said.

"Multi-National Forces-Iraq is disappointed at the possibility that someone responsible for the security, welfare, and detention of Saddam would take and provide these photos for public release," the statement said.

"This lapse is being aggressively investigated to determine, if possible, who took the photos, and to ensure existing procedures and directives are complied with to prevent this from happening again," it said.

The White House said President Bush had been told of the pictures and "strongly supports the aggressive and thorough investigation that is already under way."

Saddam's lawyers expressed outrage.

"In our opinion this is a violation of all international agreements and human dignity, therefore we must sue the people responsible and the providers of these pictures, because if you look closely you can see that they were taken from his prison cell," lawyer Ziad Khasawneh of Saddam's defense team said.

"This is considered as another Abu Ghraib and we will take the necessary legal actions which we have already started," he told Reuters in Amman.

..."Saddam is not superman or God, he is just an aging and humble old man," The Sun quoted the military source as saying.

"It's important that the people of Iraq see him like that to destroy the myth. Maybe that will kill a bit of the passion in the fanatics who still follow him.

"It's over, guys. The evil days of Saddam's Baath Party are never coming back - and here's the proof," the source said.

The newspaper said the pictures were taken at a top secret location where Saddam was being held in a 12 by 9 foot (3.6 by 2.7 meter) cell, watched 24 hours a day on closed circuit television by special forces and military police.
_____________________________

I agree that the matter should be thoroughly investigated. I in no way condone the mistreatment of prisoners. I believe we must uphold the guidelines of the Geneva Convention.

That said, let's not forget what this man did. Genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity are not morally equivalent to taking a photo of a man in his underwear.

Outrage over this is misguided. It is a disgrace when compared to the lack of outrage Saddam's crimes receive among liberals and so-called human rights organizations.

Put this in perspective.

What's worse?

Being responsible for murdering, dismembering, torturing, and raping thousands OR being shown in your underwear?