Who do you blame for the Saddam picture?

[Goldmund]

Myself -- it's against my principles to blame Murdoch of Sun or the NY Post. If a journalist gets a piece of information or a photograph using legal means, he or she is free to print it as far as I'm concerned. Now, of course, I do think it's incredibly tasteless and idiotic to print pictures like this, but that's why I don't read tabloids. The "news" that Britney gained another 2 pounds is not any less newsworthy than this, for that matter.

But the Sun reporter didn't have access to Saddam's cell. Somebody on the "inside" of the military or US intelligence did, and decided to take these pictures as a form of psychological intimidation, and simply gave it to whatever newspaper would take it and pay for it. In my mind, they are the ones who broke the Geneva conventions, not Murdoch.

What say you?

[GCP]

1. Rumsfeld or Bush

My theory. Gotta keep the sheeple entertained.

[bowens43]

2. The immeadiate fault lies with the US military

and the bush administration. The administration is ultimately responsible for everything that has happened as a result of the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. It's a distraction, nothing more

Don't pay attention to the potential death of the fillibuster, and democracy...

Someone start a poll on who's sexier, Saddam in undies, Bush, or Rush.

[Goldmund]

4. OK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3697755

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. Distracting the distracted

[Goldmund]

10. Who's distracted?

I don't think you need to treat DUers with the same gloves you would treat the general masses with.

[whistle]

5. I blame Murdock for encouraging such a thing by paying money

...for the photos. It would be hard to prove, but Murdock, or agents of his tabloids, may have very well arranged for the photos to be taken. Of course an insider would have to have taken the photos, but the encouragement of insiders is as big a crime as the act itself.

[barb162]

6. I disagree with journalists or others who print these things.

The news editor should have showed discretion and NOT printed the damn thing

[Goldmund]

8. They may have been indiscrete, or tasteless, or stupid...

...but they did nothing illegal.

[barb162]

13. Yes it isn't illegal, but it certainly is degrading and humiliating

[Goldmund]

14. True

But journalists are not and should not be barred from degrading and humiliating.

However, the military explicitly is barred from that by the Geneva conventions.

[Kansas Wyatt]

7. CBS specifically pointed out the tabloids were owned by Murdoch

[roguevalley]

11. The actual possession and transfer, it had to be a Brit or an Aussie.

They did give it to a British paper. Logic would suggest either. But you never know. If anyone dies from this, Murdoch needs to go to jail.

[Goldmund]

16. Why Murdoch?

Is it not just a small leap from there to saying that Isikoff neads to go to jail?

[bullimiami]

12. i dont know whos direct fault this is but the military acting all outraged

is a crock of bullshit.
they were showing propaganda pictures of saddam as soon as they captured him.

NOW when they didnt control the propaganda they get all outraged and say how its a violation of the geneva convention they are guilty of breaking over and over.

f them.

[Just Me]

15. The cooperative effort by the corporacrats led by the neoCONS.

They worked together to profit eachother.

[bluestateguy]

17. Not sure

Apparently some "military official" sold it to the paper, which means it was either an immature military officer or one of the neo-cons in the Pentagon. In any case, that is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, and if that's not your concern, then it undermines our support from the Arab people. It makes Saddam out to be a sympathetic figure to many people, which is not what we need. When Saddam paraded and shamed American POW's on Iraqi TV in 1991 and in 2003 Americans were justifiably outraged. But, "he did it first" is no excuse for that kind of behavior. In fact it's a fundamentally adolescent response, if in fact, we the Americans are supposed to be the advanced, modernized nation that we say we are.

Let me make it clear that I have NO sympathy for Saddam.

[Goldmund]

18. "Let me make it clear that I have NO sympathy for Saddam."

Of course, that needn't even be said. This isn't about Saddam, but about the conduct of the war.

[bluestateguy]

20. I know. You're right.

But of course, you have to say that as a throat clearing, CYA thing, because some people will assume you are sympathyizing with Hussein if you dare to express any outrage over this blatant violation of the rules of warfare.

I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

[William Bloode]

19. I wanna know what the big deal is?

It's just a picture of an old man in his drawers. We have the memo story, we have the whole Koran/Gitmo ordeal, filibusted issue yet the focus is on a picture of an old feller in skivvies.

[Goldmund]

21. It isn't my focus, and it isn't the focus of DU

It's just another topic to talk about.

Whether or not it's a big deal doesn't depend on us, but on effects of this publication, as of yet unknown.

[MADem]

22. Move the debate, that is the trick

No one advocates desecrating a text that is religious, even if they don't share the faith. It smacks of thuggery.

On the other hand, putting up photos of a deposed dictator who was not especially kind to his people, to put it mildly, will result in a divergence of opionion.

Move the debate, don't look there, LOOK HERE!

We'll see where the "investigation" takes them.