Join 3,375 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


tyrants gone wild?
May 20, 2005 11:11 AM   Subscribe

Saddam in his Underwear. No, this isn't a flash cartoon.
posted by ackeber (84 comments total)

 
I see London, I see France.....
posted by spilon at 11:12 AM on May 20, 2005


Is it just me, or does the headline "Tyrant's In His Pants" just not scan?
posted by Specklet at 11:15 AM on May 20, 2005


What is this "Cee En En?" Does it publish high-quality news articles like this frequently?

Heh, he's in his underpants! That's funny.
posted by ORthey at 11:15 AM on May 20, 2005


Its kind of funny that Saddam's a tighty whitey kind of guy. I would have thought he was either a commando stud or one of those silky high cuts that look like women's panties.

That said, since this is all over the news, why is it being posted here?
posted by fenriq at 11:17 AM on May 20, 2005


Little know fact fenriq, most tyrants wear tighty-whities, exceptions being Pol Pot who wore the bananna-hammock cause the chicks dug it and Stalin, who went commando because he didn't like the way underpants chafed at his "means of production".
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:18 AM on May 20, 2005


I think we finally found the WMDs. The dude's packin'.
posted by mathowie at 11:19 AM on May 20, 2005


Divine_Wino, thanks for that bit. Safe to say that ol' Shrubya's a tighty whitey kind of guy then?

I bet Tony Blair wears the silky style though. But I also bet he's got enough backhair to make a gorilla suit.

On Preview: Mathowie, I thought the same thing. And I just watched Dodgeball last night with Ben Stiller's "pump pack".
posted by fenriq at 11:21 AM on May 20, 2005


He looked well endowed to me too.

Maybe they can pin this one on Lynndie England.
posted by orange swan at 11:22 AM on May 20, 2005


I would have so guessed Stalin to be a boxers man. All the communists I've dated have been boxers men, I just assumed it was some sort of rule.

Also, yes, that headline is giving me a headache.

On preview:
mathowie's right. damn. maybe that's why the Bush men hated him so much?
posted by Kellydamnit at 11:23 AM on May 20, 2005


I think we finally found the WMDs. The dude's packin'.

At least we know why Condi took that secret trip now.
posted by DeepFriedTwinkies at 11:27 AM on May 20, 2005


Dick "Dick" Cheney, Saddam ..all tyrans are well endowed

*ducks*

I'll be damned if this is not seen as an unnecessary humiliation by some extremist or as a deserved humiliation by others.

Whatever, the final effect is some sympathy for somebody who deserve none except some basic human piety.
posted by elpapacito at 11:28 AM on May 20, 2005


I can see his dic-tator!!
Call Hans Blix!
posted by Floydd at 11:28 AM on May 20, 2005


So my Mom was right then? About always wearing clean underwear without holes in them just in case I get captured in a hidey-hole in the middle of the night. Who wouldda guessed ....
posted by ElvisJesus at 11:33 AM on May 20, 2005


Matt wins.
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:33 AM on May 20, 2005


What's even funnier is that, on the Globe and Mail's website today, they ran the photo with this caption:

“A man reads the British tabloid paper 'The Sun' carrying a picture of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in his underwear at a coffee shop in central London on Friday.”

Now just what the hell Saddam was doing in a central London coffee shop in his underwear is anybody's guess!

Groucho Marx lives! (In the 1930 movie, Animal Crackers, he said, “One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.”)
posted by Mike D at 11:40 AM on May 20, 2005


They just made Saddam into some sort of martyr. Now, all of his supporters can point and say "LOOK! Look how disgraceful they are! Look at how they've violated him!"
What's funny is that I'll agree with them.
posted by Jon-o at 11:44 AM on May 20, 2005


Matt wins.

Matt always wins. Metafilter's his ball, and if he loses, he takes it and goes home.
posted by item at 11:44 AM on May 20, 2005


He is suing over it now.
posted by gunthersghost at 11:50 AM on May 20, 2005


it's amazing how they gave the images to Rupert Murdoch's Sun. it's not like he also owns Fox's Pentagon news outlet
posted by matteo at 11:50 AM on May 20, 2005


ol' Shrubya's a tighty whitey kind of guy then?

W wears those novelty jams with the elephant trunk for the schlong, he thinks it's hilarious, everyone else is tired of the joke.

I like how all the tabloids are running this straight and all the "reputable" news sources cover it as a shame on them story and still get to show Saddam in his undies.

They just made Saddam into some sort of martyr.

That's setting the bar for martyrdom pretty low, I mean if it's just being seen in your Y fronts, struggling with you pants first thing in the morning, by everyone in the world, well... Let's just say I'm getting the 72 virgins too.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:52 AM on May 20, 2005


Today's media simply has no shame. They are the scum of the Earth... bumping lawyers into the #2 slot. If The Sun burned to the ground tomorrow, I would applaud... same goes for Newsweek. Let them all burn.
posted by Witty at 12:00 PM on May 20, 2005


It took 49 minutes for somebody to compare this to the Newsweek debacle. To me, it's more comparable to Ann Coulter's "leg shot" Time cover.
posted by wendell at 12:06 PM on May 20, 2005


Except i doubt anybody will perform a mercy killing of their daughter/wife/random person over the Coulter photo.
posted by TetrisKid at 12:09 PM on May 20, 2005


I'm surprised he didn't have red underwear like Manuel Noriega . . .
Saxy, saxy maaannnnn
posted by mk1gti at 12:12 PM on May 20, 2005


Dubya's probably smooth down there. Like a Ken doll.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:14 PM on May 20, 2005


"I'm going to sue, they made me cry."
posted by mk1gti at 12:16 PM on May 20, 2005


From the "Suing over it now" link :

The US military and legal experts said the photos - possibly taken more than a year ago - may breach Geneva Convention rules on the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

May?!?

Article 13 of the third Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war says, in part:

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity

Putting the guy on the front page in his underpants does not, if you ask me, qualify as protection against insults and public curiousity...

Not to mention article 3 :
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
If you ask me, somebody putting a photo of George W. Bush in his underoos on page 1 of a newspaper would pretty soon be accused of violating his personal dignity...

And, in the case of an Arabic newspaper, would probably get them bombed from a great height...

If he sues the Sun says they'll fight. Good. I hope they get taken to the cleaners. If not, if it's perfectly legal for the Sun (a British newspaper) to do what they like, then what's the point of Britain being a signatory? The British government could just hand prisoners over to public companies and tell them to go to town...
posted by kaemaril at 12:18 PM on May 20, 2005


Today's media simply has no shame. They are the scum of the Earth... bumping lawyers into the #2 slot. If The Sun burned to the ground tomorrow, I would applaud... same goes for Newsweek. Let them all burn.
posted by Witty at 12:00 PM PST on May 20


Why am I not surprised?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:20 PM on May 20, 2005


The US military and legal experts said the photos... may breach Geneva Convention rules on the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

Since when has the US started to care about the Geneva Convention? Doesn't the administration officially think of it as "quaint"?
posted by clevershark at 12:25 PM on May 20, 2005


Optimus, neither was I.

Hey Witty, but Fox News is a paragon of truth and decency, eh?
posted by fenriq at 12:27 PM on May 20, 2005


Today's media simply has no shame. They are the scum of the Earth... bumping lawyers into the #2 slot. If The Sun burned to the ground tomorrow, I would applaud... same goes for Newsweek. Let them all burn.

I got some burning barrels and some free time this weekend. Come on over! And once we're done with the free press, there are a some local merchants whose windows deserve to be smashed in.
posted by eatitlive at 12:29 PM on May 20, 2005


I actually think Witty's name, is in fact, witty. THis, in the same way that Alanis Morrisette's song about irony was ironic, simply because, although it was about irony it contained lists of things that were in no way ironic. That in itself is ironic. Or is it?
posted by Flem Snopes at 12:29 PM on May 20, 2005


It's touching to see how concerned "Witty" is over Saddam's dignity. Therein lies the real surprise.
posted by clevershark at 12:30 PM on May 20, 2005


Techincally, if it was shown that the US Govt' did their best to protect saddam from "insults and public curiosity... outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" then they should be within the Geneva Conventions, right? on this particular specific topic mind you

The Sun aren't the ones holding Saddam prisoner, so how do the Geneva Conventions apply to them? It's not as if they can choose to release him.

And on the topic of this not being a flash game... it will be soon.
posted by anthill at 12:32 PM on May 20, 2005


I have to say that of all Geneva Convention violations ever, I am the least annoyed about this one.
posted by oaf at 12:37 PM on May 20, 2005


This is just sad. :-)
posted by arkine at 12:39 PM on May 20, 2005


The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to the Sun. It applies to Britain, though.

Oh, and the this BBC news article says that "The Sun quoted US military sources who said they handed over the pictures in the hope of dealing a blow to the resistance in Iraq.

"It's important that the people of Iraq see him like that to destroy the myth," the paper's source was quoted as saying. "

THAT (if true) is a violation of the Geneva Convention, and clearly illegal. The Sun willingly took these photos - thus acting as conspirators - and published them, and if that's not illegal it damn well ought to be.
posted by kaemaril at 12:39 PM on May 20, 2005


oaf : Hey, Oaf, what do you suppose the US would have said if Iraq had started putting on shows of American POWs in their boxers? "Well, heck, fair enough"?
posted by kaemaril at 12:41 PM on May 20, 2005


Meanwhile, in an alternative universe... an America under foriegn occupation gets to see Dubya with his cajones showing, after being arrested for war crimes.

I hope Saddam sues for billions and wins, just so I could see the faces of FoxNews reporters when they hear about their new CEO.

It's the Bush Administration and the Rupert Murdoch media empire that's "quaint"... in pretty much the same way that Atilla the Hun or The Book of Revelations is.
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:42 PM on May 20, 2005


Keep doing what you're doing, you sexy thing!
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:46 PM on May 20, 2005


kaemaril writes " Oh, and this BBC news article says that 'The Sun quoted US military sources who said they handed over the pictures in the hope of dealing a blow to the resistance in Iraq."

Oh brother, apparently the military still thinks the insurgency is about Saddam... no wonder people say you guys will be there for a few more years.
posted by clevershark at 12:49 PM on May 20, 2005


Hey Witty, but Fox News is a paragon of truth and decency, eh?

Doesn't have anything to do with it... nor did I make any such claim. See, you just assume (for what purpose I can't imagine) that I'm an ultra-righty that loves Fox News. Not true, on either count.

It's touching to see how concerned "Witty" is over Saddam's dignity. Therein lies the real surprise. - "clever"shark

I don't care about the man's dignity. He can burn too. But you would have never seen a similar image published during WWII. I bet if you asked The Sun if they thought the British soldiers should be brought home tomorrow, they would certainly say , "Of course, we hate the war, blah blah blah". But they have no problem making life on the average British soldier as painful and hellish as possible while he's there.

"Hey, we don't care how much anti-coalition sentiment we stir up by publishing this image. It's not our problem. We don't care if we make things even more dangerous for our soldiers and volunteers. We just want to sell more papers."
posted by Witty at 12:51 PM on May 20, 2005


Oh, I see. Witty is only worried about political correctness.
posted by eatitlive at 1:05 PM on May 20, 2005


"I don't think a photo inspires murders," Bush replied. He said Iraq's insurgents are "inspired by an ideology that is so barbaric and backwards that it's hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think." I love how Bush can be so profound!
posted by michaelonfs at 1:13 PM on May 20, 2005


bet if you asked The Sun if they thought the British soldiers should be brought home tomorrow, they would certainly say , "Of course, we hate the war, blah blah blah".

Actually, The Sun is the most pro war newspaper in Britain, by a long way.
posted by ZippityBuddha at 1:18 PM on May 20, 2005


Ah. This spectacle will surely convince the Iraqi people that they should abandon hope for sovereignty, abandon their resistance and run laughing into the arms of the US occupation.

This is a war crime. It may seem petty compared to all the (bloody) others we've committed, but it's a war crime nonetheless. The Sun is complicit, but the US is ultimately liable because we possess him and are responsible for him.

I despise all despots, but I side with the world court in my support the dignity of all people, even despots. What are we, animals? Why not release the tapes of him being water boarded?

On Preview: Actually, The Sun is the most pro war newspaper in Britain, by a long way.

Shallow stupidity and support for an illegal occupation... what's the connection?
posted by squirrel at 1:25 PM on May 20, 2005


I bet if you asked The Sun if they thought the British soldiers should be brought home tomorrow, they would certainly say , "Of course, we hate the war, blah blah blah".

Seriously, are you unaware that The Sun is a right-wing Rupert Murdoch rag?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:29 PM on May 20, 2005


He looks like Mario.
posted by perianwyr at 1:29 PM on May 20, 2005


"Hey, we don't care how much anti-coalition sentiment we stir up by publishing this image. It's not our problem. We don't care if we make things even more dangerous for our soldiers and volunteers. We just want to sell more papers."

Dude, they'd also say "We want to whip up pro-war sentiment in an effort to sell more papers." It's a revolting publication, but not because of political bias. It's revolting for its shameless demagoguery, which I would think any Bush fan would be proud of.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:36 PM on May 20, 2005


Seriously, are you unaware that The Sun is a right-wing Rupert Murdoch rag?

No... I did not know that, my apologies. I guess I don't pay close enough attention to The Sun. But my position and opinion of their behavior/choices remains the same.
posted by Witty at 1:37 PM on May 20, 2005


Saddam wears underwear. Uh huh. Ok then.

Why, this is almost as significant a revelation as Tony Danza's ownership of a penis.
posted by scheptech at 1:42 PM on May 20, 2005


That's setting the bar for martyrdom pretty low

You must know that I obviously don't mean martyr in the strict sense that we're familiar with (like illuminated icons of tortured saints with stigmata, etc.)

Saddam is unquestionably the bad-guy, no matter how much the US govt bolstered him in the past. He's a murderous dictator without a moral leg to stand on. However, with the release of these photos, he's become another example of brutal Western arrogance for the Islamic fundamentalists.

Before the release of these photos, the US could at least tentatively occupy some vague moral high ground insofar as the "Whatever else comes of the invasion, we deposed Saddam, the nutcase murderer" thinking goes.

But now he's been exploited. As bad a guy as he is, he's still getting kicked while he's down and that's a terribly shameful, embarrassing, simple minded thing to do.
Previously a loathed prisoner for obvious and apparent war crimes, Saddam is now a victim of indignity that many people, especially Iraqi POWS and their families, can identify with. And even those who can't directly identify are still going "tisk tisk" at what has now become a circus.

Big Mistake. Really.
posted by Jon-o at 1:44 PM on May 20, 2005


And I thought the Iraqi insurgents were just trying to throw the foreign invaders out of their country!

Now let me see, who can I think of who is
"inspired by an ideology that is so barbaric and backwards that it's hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think."

Ummm, still thinking...
posted by cleardawn at 1:45 PM on May 20, 2005


Jon-o, I was having a larf, which I am wont to do. I totally agree that it is a stupid move, totally intentional on the part of someone higher up and doomed to backfire.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:54 PM on May 20, 2005


Saddam Hussein is not a prisoner of war. A prisoner of war is simply a soldier who was acting out his duty who is held prisoner until the end of hostilities and then released. Saddam Hussein was not following anyone's orders and will not be released at the end of hostilities. He is a criminal, plain and simple, who broke international law and murdered many people. Now, I'm not arguing this is a smart move or that I approve of it, I'm simply taking issue with the labeling of Saddam Hussein as a prisoner of war.
posted by PigAlien at 2:02 PM on May 20, 2005


I just thought of something, it would have been way funnier if the US had only issued him Underoos, like maybe Hulk Underoos or even Spongebob.

Now THAT would have been inhumane treatment!
posted by fenriq at 2:03 PM on May 20, 2005


Wonder Woman or, godbetweenusandevil, Wonder Twins.
posted by Divine_Wino at 2:20 PM on May 20, 2005


I will laugh and laugh and laugh if he successfully gets a court date over the Sun's publication. I wil laugh and laugh and laugh until I am physically ill if he actually wins the case.

I wonder why he hasn't been put to trial and executed yet. It really shouldn't be that difficult a process.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:26 PM on May 20, 2005


Yes, Saddam's lawyer was just on CNN pointing out he's been in prison for 19 months and hasn't yet had any charges laid against him. He seems to think Saddam's right to due process is more important than his underwear. He seems to think due process is one of those things that separates "them" from us.

The war on terror is also a war of ideas or ideologies, interestingly we seem to have two opposing cultures each claiming the moral high ground, each claiming to be more righteous than the other.

So this points to something meaningful. In those terms, both these things, lack of due process, and undie shots, represent a loss for the west. What's really interesting is they are both entirely self-inflicted.
posted by scheptech at 2:30 PM on May 20, 2005


If there were 10 potential suicide bombers waiting patiently in line for another western target to throw themselves at, I suspect that after the publication of that pic there will now be 11 or possibly even more of them waiting to earn their right to 72 virgins or whatever.
Saddam is under our "care' and we are ultimately going to be viewed as responsible for attempting to debase their guy, their religion, way of life etc. - Every move of ours for two years has reeked of shortsightedness.
Then sometimes I think, no way could we be so short sighted. This administration sees this whole thing in a way we are unwilling to. -- Such as provoke them until there is another attack on the homeland so we can be stirred up again and will support a new phase in our takeover of the middle east. Nahhh. Just my imagination running amok.
posted by notreally at 2:37 PM on May 20, 2005


This will be a huge help in prolonging the indefinite War on Terrer. People who own equity in military contractors should celebrate from every hill this joyous expression of freedom of speech. Then we should all celebrate Bush dismantling that freedom with the extension of the PATRIOT Act. It keeps getting better and better...
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:12 PM on May 20, 2005


And the seer speaks...
posted by Witty at 4:06 PM on May 20, 2005


*fapfapfapfap*
posted by iron chef morimoto at 4:10 PM on May 20, 2005


Just listened to President Bush's comment (on NBC Nightly News and referenced online) regarding the situation: "I don't think a photo inspires murderers. I think they're inspired by an ideology that is so barbaric and backwards that it's hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think."

Uh, what about the photographs from Abu Ghraib?
posted by ericb at 4:18 PM on May 20, 2005


Psst. Hey, PigAlien: Whether or not Saddam is a POW may be a subject of some debate; however the Bush Administration was on record as saying that Saddam will be treated as, and have all the privileges of, a POW. So it's kinda academic, isn't it?
posted by kaemaril at 4:25 PM on May 20, 2005


I like how all the tabloids are running this straight and all the "reputable" news sources cover it as a shame on them story and still get to show Saddam in his undies.

Like when they reported on the bloggers' shameless exposure of "Jeff Gannon" as a male gay prostitute? I'm shocked, shocked to find out there's hipocrisy in the mass media.

And PigAlien, Saddam is a PoW, just like Göring, Dönitz et al. were before being indicted in Nuremberg. Whether he may be judged for crimes against humanity is a different matter.
posted by Skeptic at 4:30 PM on May 20, 2005


BTW, what I don't understand is in which way these pictures are any more demeaning than those of Saddam's medical examination after being captured. Strange of the Pentagon to suddenly be so worried about public exposure of prisoners...
posted by Skeptic at 4:32 PM on May 20, 2005


Skeptic: Perhaps because the Sun is claiming that these photos were deliberately released in order to humiliate/demean Saddam in an effort to rein in the insurgents?
This may (or may not) be true, but coming so close to Newsweek, etc I rather suspect the Pentagon wouldn't like to admit to it...

Also, because the Pentagon (if memory serves) tried to claim that the "medical exam" shots were released to show that Saddam was OK, not in an effort to demean him. No such excuse could possibly work for this set of photos.
posted by kaemaril at 4:43 PM on May 20, 2005


He is a criminal, plain and simple, who broke international law and murdered many people? He and Bush have something in common...
posted by sacrilicious at 4:49 PM on May 20, 2005


A pretty boy in his underwear
a pretty boy in his underwear
if there's a better reason to jump for joy, who cares?


-The Magnetic Fields, "Underwear"
posted by goatdog at 6:13 PM on May 20, 2005


Wanna bet worse Saddam pics are soon to be released?
posted by buzzman at 6:41 PM on May 20, 2005


"Saddam Hussein... is a criminal, plain and simple, who broke international law and murdered many people."

Not true. He is an innocent man until convicted. He sits in a prison, uncharged of any crime, and has been denied his due process.

And the thing is, no matter whether you are from the left or the right, you cannot deny these facts without denying your Constitution and denying the Bill of Rights.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:09 PM on May 20, 2005


The Constitution or Bill of Rights doesn't make sense when neither apply to a non-American. Saddam can be called whatever a US citizen wants. He cant sue.
posted by movilla at 7:20 PM on May 20, 2005


insomnia, he may be innocent in the eyes of the law, but he's not innocent in fact. I still agree with you, however. The principles of our constitution are fairly worthless in my eyes, if they don't apply to anyone under the care or jurisdiction of our government. And sacrilicious, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
posted by PigAlien at 7:23 PM on May 20, 2005


So why the hell isn't the Administration stepping up to the plate and doing what they must surely know a leader of nations would do?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:08 PM on May 20, 2005


Actually what is Saddam's current legal status? Didn't the provisional government claim legal custody (while the US of course retained actual custody)? What has happened since the elections? Mind you I'm just wondering about the legal fictions here, not the, ummm... "facts on the ground".
posted by dopeypanda at 12:31 AM on May 21, 2005


The Sun publishes more photos
Movilla : when neither apply to a non-Americans I'm, not entirely certain what you're suggesting here, but if you're really suggesting the constitution doesn't apply to non-Americans may question would be : What, none of it?

So, under US law a non-American isn't entitled to a fair trial, or a jury trial, whilst in US custody? A non-American in US custody doesn't have miranda rights? A non-American in US custody can be compelled to act as a witness against himself? A non-American in US custody can be prosecuted for the same crime as many times as a US prosecutor wants?

I suspect the Supreme Court would probably disagree with you, but what the heck, go to town. Whle you're at it, it's no wonder the US seems to enjoy locking people up and torturing them, since the eighth amendment doesn't apply to non-Americans...

Oh, and laws against slander and libel make no distinction, as far as I'm aware, between citizens and non-citizens, so that bit about anyone can call Saddam anything they like isn't strictly true :)
posted by kaemaril at 3:45 AM on May 21, 2005


may=my. Whle=while. D'oh!
posted by kaemaril at 3:46 AM on May 21, 2005


The bounds of Constitutional rights are territorial, not based upon nationality or custody. Virtually all rights related to crime and punishment, and most other rights for that matter, under the U.S. Constitution extend to foreigners while on U.S. territory.

The pro-detainee court decisions that have come down in the past year or two have all rested upon territoriality, including a rejection of the Bush Administration proposition that Guantanamo ought not to be deemed effectively U.S. territory.

I don't believe that anyone contends that Saddam's jail by the airport in Baghdad is on U.S. territory. Mere custody by the Army isn't going to magically confer Constitutional rights upon him.
posted by MattD at 6:35 AM on May 21, 2005


Phew, that's a relief. For a minute there I thought that the US might not be complete hypocrites, and actually believed what their constitution had to say about people's rights. Good thing there's an unwritten "Apart from when we're not in the US, wink wink" clause there. Hey, who cares if the army doesn't behave according to the constitution it's sworn to depend if it's on foreign soil? No worries, guys, you just keep on applying those electrodes to people's genitals, it's not like it's unconstitutional or something 'cos you don't have to abide by the constitution of the United States of America when you're on foreign soil! Hooray for foreign soil! We can do what we like! Wahoo!
posted by kaemaril at 8:21 AM on May 21, 2005


Oh, and for the slightly less sarcastic reply: If you're in the custody of the United States Of America, irrespective of whether you're on US sovereign soil or not, you really ought to be treated the same way as the United States of America would be legally required to treat somebody in their custody on their sovereign soil. Otherwise, the US government can easily bypass any constitutional protection by shipping any citizen it wanted to screw over overseas...

Oh, wait, I forget... it's already doing that.
posted by kaemaril at 8:24 AM on May 21, 2005


My favorite Iraqi regards the publication of these pictures as an insult to her country, and I'm inclined to agree with her. Nobody wants to see their former head of state humiliated while in the custody of another country no matter how much of a murderous asshole he was.
posted by teleskiving at 9:47 AM on May 21, 2005


As far as my limited understanding goes, the right to due process is also part of international law which the U.S. is allegedly in agreement with. I think this is what Saddams lawyer was referring to, he's not supposed to be held without trial whether he's on U.S. territory and govened by U.S. law or he's elsewhere and covered by international law.

No doubt the plan is for Iraq to westernize to the extent that Saddam can receive his western style trial and execution in Iraq. Maybe that's just taking a little longer than expected...
posted by scheptech at 10:04 AM on May 21, 2005


kaemaril, you rocked this thread.
posted by squirrel at 11:04 AM on May 28, 2005


« Older Well today is the opening day of one of the most p...  |  Happy Birthday Morphine!... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments