My favorite video (weak stomachs stay away)

The problem is that the corpses really don''t look like them when they were alive, so there''ll be still some (or a lot) of skepticism among the Iraqis.

I think they do, lots of bloating after death. I think it will convince enough people to help though.

The Iraqis have had thirty years to learn not to trust everything they see on TV. The bodies should be paraded in downtown Baghdad to remove all the doubt.

I was hoping that was the next announcement.

Um.

Wasn''t there a media outrage at Al Jazeera''s images of dead American soldiers, and a lot of complaining about how that violated the Geneva convention?

That was a scam, this is very important in order to control Iraq IMO.

You need to read the Geneva convention''s rules. I am too lazy to post them.

Well, no need to post them. Just explain the difference between this and what the ""other side"" did.

To quote a Spiegel article, right now it''s not clear whether Udai and Kussai actually had a position in the Iraqi army or not. The Geneva convention protects/covers people who have (or had in case of killed combatants) some sort of military rank. Of course, military or not, it''s kinda questionable nonetheless and the human rights convention of the UN also has one or two things to say on the topic of human dignity - doesn''t matter if we''re talking about soldiers, criminals or whatever here.

Well, if they technically aren''t soldiers, then they''re public officials whose deaths would violate the ""no assassination"" Executive Order.

And am I the only one thinking that the Administration is trying too hard to convince everyone they''re dead? Today, they showed video of the bodies all ""cleaned up."" Great, now those accusations of the bodies being doctored for the cameras are ""factually accurate."" Look, just get an Arab doctor to do the DNA analysis and be done with it.

They already did Dental comparison and matched them.

But who''ll believe them? I''m afraid an independent study needs to be done to convince everybody. This mortician act earlier today will only make people suspicious.

I really don''t care anymore, I am confident we just removed the two ""VPs"" of IRAQ and that is a huge boost to the people risking their lives over there. That is what matters in my eyes.

Just looked at the new pics...they are really bloating now.

By ""everybody,"" I should''ve have said ""everybody in Iraq."" It''s easier to convince the US public, less easier to convince Europe. But convincing a Mid East public that''s convinced that every government official in the world lies through their teeth, that''s hard.

I don''t understand yet why it was necessary the US and EU media showed the pictures and movie? While I agree that it could help to strenghten the Iraqis confidence in the US troops, I don''t think anybody else will gain anything by this violation of the genever convention. After all going by these rules is what makes us better then them.

Maybe they''re trying to tweak Saddam into popping his head out of whatever hole he''s hiding in. Assuming said hole has satillite TV.

No one has really responded yet. A few technicalities, and an ""I don''t care"".

Why was it wrong for Al Jazeera to show ""that"" footage, but this is ok?

Well, the primary concern with the al-Jazeera footage was that the families of the POWs and the KIAs would learn the hard way what happened to their loved ones. And given the families of the characters this time around...

However, I will concede that today''s round of video footage is overkill at this point. About the only way to rid people of all doubt is to load the bodies on a couple of gurneys and parade them around Baghdad. I think that the Administration does need to state why what they''re doing isn''t a violation of international law in comparison to what al-Jazeera did.

Wasn''t there a media outrage at Al Jazeera''s images of dead American soldiers, and a lot of complaining about how that violated the Geneva convention?

Iraq violated the Geneva convention''s rule that prohibits ""Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment"" by televising interrogations.

Also, it appeared, from the state of the prisoners, that Iraq may have allowed ""Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture"", also against the Geneva accords.

The US was outraged in that the dead US soldiers seemed to exhibit single-shot head wounds, indicating execution, and this would be a clear violation of Geneva: ""Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited""

The Geneva convention applies only to ""Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces."" This definitely applies to the US soldiers.

Now, as to Saddam''s sons... Geneva would probably apply to them, as I think they held some sort of rank in the Iraqi military. However, the Geneva convention only applies to POWs, not to deceased soldiers.

The US had moral outrage at Iraqis showing dead US soldiers as trophies, but didn''t claim, as I recall, that the showing of the bodies itself was a Geneva violation. The US also didn''t want to show the bodies of Saddam''s sons, but did so because too many conspiracy theorists wouldn''t believe they were gone otherwise. When we did release the photos, they were as sanitized and unsensational as possible.

Personally, I don''t think we should have bothered. We should have documented our evidence, saved dental records and tissue samples, and handed the bodies over to the new governing council - who has as great a stake as we do in convincing the Iraqi people the old regime is gone. Let them take the heat for this issue, and start being seen as the arbiter of events in post-war Iraq, as much as possible.

Well, if they technically aren''t soldiers, then they''re public officials whose deaths would violate the ""no assassination"" Executive Order.

Not at all. The administration would have loved to capture them. They potentially had valuable information about WMDs and Saddam, and would have been a great feather in our cap. But when someone shoots at you, you shoot back. Oh well...

Thanks for doing the research I didn''t have the time to do ralcydan.

A distinction between civilian and military leaders in regards to Saddam was drawn up during Gulf War 1 in order to get around Gerald Ford''s ""no assassination"" Executive Order: if a foreign head of state puts on a military uniform, he then becomes a military leader and a legitimate military target. Then George W. Bush went and put on a military-issue flight suit for his carrier trip, not knowing he had made himself a legitimate target for military action.

I just had an idea for a movie: Weekend at Uday''s!!!!!!!

Excellent idea, starring:

Jon Lovitz as Uday
Ron Jeremy as Qusai

or vice versa?

You''d just need lookalikes. Or you could just use the actual corpses.

A distinction between civilian and military leaders in regards to Saddam was drawn up during Gulf War 1 in order to get around Gerald Ford''s ""no assassination"" Executive Order: if a foreign head of state puts on a military uniform, he then becomes a military leader and a legitimate military target. Then George W. Bush went and put on a military-issue flight suit for his carrier trip, not knowing he had made himself a legitimate target for military action.

Why, you sound positively hopeful at the prospect, Rat... Given that one of the 9/11 planes was potentially headed for the White House, I don''t think our enemies were waiting for Bush to don a uniform before considering him a target.

Also, the no assassination order has no bearing on Iraq. We were at war with Iraq, not acting covertly to remove its head of state. At war, the head of state is a legitimate military target, especially in the case of someone like Saddam, who actually directs the military.

And again, we didn''t assassinate Saddam''s sons, we killed them in a firefight. We wanted them alive and they chose not to be taken. Again - oh, well...

"ralcydan" wrote:

Also, the no assassination order has no bearing on Iraq. We were at war with Iraq...

I''m sorry, I missed the part where Congress issued a formal declaration of war against Iraq.

I missed the part where Congress issued a formal declaration of war against Iraq.

And you argue about semantics... I look forward to your open letter to the media, and every poster on the Internet informing them that they are incorrect in referring to the War in Iraq.

Since you argue the terminology instead of my point, I''ll assume you concede it.

Show me the part where Ford''s Executive Order allows assassinations during war-time. There are many arguments that say when Saddam put on the military uniform, he became a legitimate military target rather than a civilian leader. Funny how he only puts one on when his country gets attacked...

Funny how he puts a uniform on, adorned with medals, and never served in their military...

Are you refering to Saddam or W?