May 20, 2005
The Burning Question For Saddam - Boxers or Briefs?
As you may know, The Sun has been kind enough to shock the world and give us an image of Saddam Hussein in his underwear. Well, maybe not shocked, but at has provided a stir in the world. By certain reports, the U.S. has violated Geneva Conventions with the release of this photo. While the image may be unflattering and inappropriate they are incapable of violating Geneva Conventions.
In order to violate Geneva Conventions in the manner suggested, the prisoner of war needs to be photographed and have that photograph published in a denigrating manner. While this photograph can be construed as denigrating it is not a prisoner of war in the photograph.
On June 30th, 2004 the United States turned custody of Saddam over to the Iraqi people. The United States still stood watch over him, but they are serving as assistants to the Iraqi people. Nearly all of the high level captives, those depicted on the internationally popular deck of cards, were turned over at the same time as well.
There is, however a violation of official U.S. policy regarding the release of the photo. According to US Staff Sergeant Don Dees:
A policy prohibits us from exploitation of detainees and that policy is in place to preserve their dignity.
He also went on to say that there is an ongoing investigation as the how this happened, the individual responsible and if he did in fact violate the U.S. policy.
In defense of the individual releasing the pictures is stated intention was as follows:
"Saddam is not superman or God, he is now just an ageing and humble old man. It's important that the people of
Iraq see him like that to destroy the myth," the source was quoted as saying."Maybe that will kill a bit of the passion in the fanatics who still follow him," the source said. "It's over, guys. The evil days of Saddam's Baath party are never coming back -- and here's the proof."
Now that we have completed the legalities of this story there is only one "looming" question left for Saddam: Boxers or Briefs? See for yourself:
This post is also available at Blogger News Network.
Photo curtesy of AFP
Okay. . .
I never thought I'd see Saddam in his under-balookies. I think I thought he didn't wear any, if I ever thought about it which I don't remember ever doing.
He's a has been but the Baathists still consider them their hero. Stay tuned next time for--Boxers or Briefs? Will Saddam's lawyer successfully sue whomever they decide is guilty, like the Great Satan, Bush? Will Saddam plant something new in his garden? Does he have a new exercise in the 4300 square foot courtyard he's been given to exercise in? How many times do they fluff his pillow for him before he retires at night, and will it have a chocolate on it when they turn down the bed for him like they do at the Hilton?
Posted by: Cao at May 21, 2005 02:40 PMJust be glad they didn't show the backside where the skid marks were!
Posted by: Jay at May 21, 2005 02:45 PMSomeone took the picture, and that isn't good. Someone provided the picture to the Sun (maybe the same person who took the picture), and that's worse. Given that the use this kind of publicity seriously undermines our Country, authorities need to hammer the dickens out of whoever those "someones" are. Incidents such as this simply detract from the focus of our War on Terror, and we cannot afford that. At least, that's the way I see it.
Posted by: Mustang at May 21, 2005 03:07 PMI refuse to look. Now, if there were some hot terrorist babes in jail wearing thongs.....
Yes, yes, tastless, I know. People were wrong to release those photos, but they are a damm site better then releasing ones on Saddam feading people into wood chippers. The Lefties are freaking out about the prior. I wonder what they would say on the latter? So far, they refuse to believe that it happened. Perhaps they could ask that woman reporter that had her tongue cut out by Saddam. She would have a tough time answering, though.
BTW, not arguing with your position here, J, though it may appear that way.
Posted by: William Teach at May 21, 2005 04:34 PMI think that wearing tidy whities is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Posted by: Nickie Goomba at May 21, 2005 05:53 PMIt is my understanding that he wears the back of them bunched into a t-back, because the infidel Americans will not let him wear anything with some pizazze. I demand t-backs for Sadaam.
Posted by: jess @ LOSLI at May 21, 2005 07:02 PM* into makeshift t-backs
Posted by: jess @ LOSLI at May 21, 2005 07:04 PMthere goes dinner :)
Posted by: William Teach at May 21, 2005 09:40 PMPhoto could be touched up, AW. Newsweek said he wore leopard patterned thongs.
Posted by: Mustang at May 22, 2005 01:53 AMA thong? Sure, and pierce his nipple too, and one of those spikey hair do's. Maybe a very large hoop earing, and a tatoo on his hiney. What should the tatoo say?
As tempting as it it to photoshop the hell out of this guy I'm going to have to err on the side of decency.
Posted by: Jeremy at May 22, 2005 11:54 AMMy wife was shocked. She was certain that he was a boxers sort of guy.
Just so we can all get it straight, now: evil dictators wear briefs.
How did Clinton answer that question?
Posted by: Steve at May 22, 2005 08:07 PMI heard once from a librarian in NY, that Clinton went commando.
Posted by: jess @ LOSLI at May 22, 2005 10:39 PMcomment about ua striking memorial weekend is false. Look at iam141.org for true union update, you will note there is no legal way for a strike to happen this weekend. Please check info out before writing, untruths not only hurt ua, but more importantly, the employees of ua who do not want a strike, but also do not want to be replaced by minimum wage, untrained workers which has happened at other airlines.
Thank you.