Hussain and LOAC

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by BuggerAll, May 20, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Is it just me, or does the treatment of the (alleged) criminal Saddam Husain break LOAC.

    The Sun is revolting at the best of times and I don't want to see pictures of Iraqi crims in thier shreddies on the front cover, but I'm concerned that it breaks the rules, and that is bad for all of us.

    Any comments.....
  2. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    When I say "(alleged)" I'm being strictly barrack room lawyerish. He is as yet unconvicted. Just as well I'm not on the jury becasue I'm already convinced that he is guilty and should be strung up - sooner the better.
  3. The US authorities seem to think that it may well be a breach of LOAC, assuming that the photographs are genuine.

    BBC Story (clickable link)

    Some would argue that a dangerous precedent was set by the official release of video footage showing Saddam being medically examined after capture. There may have been good reasons for showing him to the Iraqi people in American custody, but that could have been done without releasing the medical examination footage. I have no problem with that footage being taken as a confidential record, but I like to think that any British military doctor would have protested at its publication.
  4. In my opinion it is. We would be the first to say something if British troops were planted over the front page of the Al-Qaeda Times or whatever the modern terrorist reads these days. Ironically (but perhaps not unexpected) it was the Scum who went on about outrage of parading captured British soldiers. We can't complain about others doing it if we (as a nation) do it ourselves. Time to write a letter.
  5. Another example of a sh1tty UK Tabloid trying a cheap shot to get some papers sold without a thought to the squaddies out there who might be in the firing line once the angry man on the street decides that the coalition are 'taling the p1ss'.

    These people are in the 'news bussiness' or so they would have us believe, yet they don't know when the publishing of certain kinds of photos are in breech of LoAC. They published them because they were 'news worthy'. They obviously haven't got a clue what 'news' is. It has to be an really sad day in the news world when an old man in underpants gets to be a news item.

    I haven't bought a copy of any British tabloid 'newspaper' for a very long time, and this isn't going any way to convince me that I should ever start.
  6. I f*ing hate the Sun.
  7. It's humiliation, nothing less. The Sun, like the Mirror, gives not a sh1t about the repercussions of it's actions as long as they are unlikely end in the libel courts. Anyone with even a shred of loyalty to Saddam is going to be outraged by this, and to be honest, I don't really blame them.

    When is someone going to leak a 'story' about Prince Harry at Sandhurst that is going to result in some very stupid looking tabloids? Please?
  8. You will find that the winners decide what was right and wrong in battle!!

  9. b*llsh*t you fecking crow! read the article or even have the decency to investigate the issue. The Yanks are screaming blooody murder that the Scum is in breach of the Gen Convention.

    Oh, by the way, the winners did decide on the rules here, and as before, the rules state that the persons in question is charged and tried before a court of law in the country concerned - ie Iraq, hence why he is in jail.

    grow up you git!
  10. This won't end up in a libel court...and I can't think how the Scum can be got under LOAC (not being military) - but what about whoever took and leaked the photos? Presumably they can be brought to account?
  11. Apparently it might...
    Saddam to sue Sun!
  12. I am glad that the Mirror and the People have already lined themselves up on that front - they made up an entire week of stories on him that are so far from the truth that they had better get the money back from their 'source' for breach of contract!

    That's not the half of it - if SH is considered a POW then he should be protected from 'public curiosity': members of the Chain of Command responsible for his detention could be charged with war crimes (in extremis).

    The Sun can be got at in a number of ways - SH has nothing to lose and his lawyers would exploit any situation to raise his profile to suit their ends.

    This is not about reporting news its about selling newspapers.
  13. I'm writing to the Press Complaints Commission and a nasty letter will also be en route to the editor of the Scum.

    This is a disgrace that will cause deaths, as the Abu Ghraib pictures did, and as the Newsweek fiasco has. Public opinion in the Middle East and in Central Asia will be volatile enough as it is, with breaking stories of US torture in Bagram.
  14. Let me get this right then ... the US release a bunch of pics just after Saddam's capture showing him in rag order with someone's fingers in his mouth and that's OK. The Sun publish a pic of him in his Y-fronts and suddenly it's a war crime ?

    If Saddam was in a reality TV show we wouldn't blink an eyelid at the pics. Mind you, the way those wastes of airtime are going someone's probably approached him about one.
  15. To be fair, the original pics of Saddam showed him receiving a medical checkup which, it could be argued, showed compassion by the captors. Something along those lines was necessary to show he'd been nabbed.

    And reality TV shows don't cost lives.

    Edited. A bit.