8 Unaltered Pictures from Saddam capture

[RedSock]

On the website of a Stony Brook University student:

http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/slimowsk/saddam/

The student is not among the listed students however. Here is #3:

[apsuman]

1. This is a bad idea.

Do what you want, but, I highly suggest that you remove the picture because it shows the face of a soldier.

Don't get me wrong, you have the right to show the picture, but this is what the people on the right just love to latch onto.

First, Rush and Hannity and several other lower right wing types slam you and DU on their show, from that the DOD then makes a statement and then the press gets to run a story about how DU is endangering the lives of the soldiers, tieing it to MoveOn and their hitler ads.

Admins, you should remove this pic.

Anyone who knows the guy that posted the picture, you should encourage him/her to obscure the faces.

[OpenMindedDem]

2. I agree, the picture showing the soldier is not good.

[MsUnderstood]

6. Maybe someone should contact the web host

There are several pictures of soldiers in the capture photos. If you are concerned, you should contact the website hosting the photos and ask they be taken down. http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/.

[Wonk]

66. Apparently someone did. The pics are gone now. nt

[nini]

3. Though it's posted somewhere else doesn't mean it should be here

just to be on the safe side. If this was my son I'd prefer it not be shown all over the place (I would also kick my son's ass for posing like that but that's another story)

There is NO way hussein was not drugged in that pic.

[ima_sinnic]

8. it is NOT posted somewhere else

see my (unnumbered) post below

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Why should the faces be obscured? The crusader looks proud of himself

I would think that the right wingers would share his pride.

[Mistress Quickly]

7. Is he an Iraqi

I heard from somewhere that Iraqis helped with the capture, and notice no patches, etc on his uniform.

[Superfly]

10. Probably SOF

notice the goatee...

[Superfly]

11. Nevermind, changed my mind...

he looks like an Iraqi...

notice the goatee and gold watch. No SOF operator would wear a gold watch in an operational environment.

[OpenMindedDem]

12. He's wearing the Army's gortex jacket that covers all patches

and he doesn't look proud to me, but a little nervous.

[ima_sinnic]

why are we allowed to infiltrate folders in somebody's directory?

this person does not have a web page with links to these pictures. they are being stored in his or her web space and I don't believe we should feel free to browse them.
and like the poster above says, the soldier's face needs to be obscured.
I suggest you self-edit and remove your post.

[Cooley Hurd]

9. If the owner of the directory isn't smart enough to password-protect it...

...then he must not care too much if people "infiltrate" it.

[ima_sinnic]

13. oh please--you feel free to pry into anything not under lock and key?

so if I leave a letter out on a table, say in an envelope that's been opened, you would feel free to read it just because it's not locked up?

[Cooley Hurd]

19. Your table is inside your house...

The internet is a whole different story. Why do you think people have the ability to password-protect their webspace to begin with? The directories in my webspace cannot be accessed from the outside...

Oh please, indeed! :eyes:

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

51. sort of suspicious

[DrBB]

38. The internet is an open field

That default index page is something the server automatically puts up if there isn't a file named "index.html" (or .php or whatever) in that directory.

In other words, the system has built into it the assumption that if you put something in "htdocs" on an Apache webserver, you intended to allow other people to look at it, and this feature is there to facilitate that. That is what the internet is for.

Put it another way, if you don't want other people to see something, don't put it on the internet Either that, or password secure it.

What we have here is the equivalent of leaving a ten dollar bill on the sidewalk and hoping it will still be there tomorrow because it's not a particularly populous area. A.k.a. "security by obscurity." Not highly recommended if you really don't want to share.

[Cooley Hurd]

5. I don't see a problem w/ showing this pic (unedited)

Besides, I would imagine that soldier is very proud of it. After all, he did pose for the pics...

Who cares what the right wing thinks? People like Rush & Hannity are on their way out, anyway...

Say Hi to Ed Schultz, the new talk radio phenom!

[apsuman]

14. Then call ed schultz and ask him

Look, this isn't a right/left arguement.

Displaying identifiable pictures of soldiers is a REALLY REALLY bad idea. Besides his face, there is identifying information avaialbe on that picture. On some of the other pictures, there is EVEN MORE information avialable.

This picture places every single one of these soldiers in extra danger. I do not know what is worse, that you don't see the danger, or that you somehow think it is fair that these men can be identified so that a price can be put on their head, or their family's.

[Cannikin]

16. At least the soldiers are safer now that he's captured.

[Cooley Hurd]

17. We see the faces of soldiers every day on TV...

What makes this different? Because Saddam's in the picture? There's a price on EVERY soldier's head in Iraq, despite having a photo-op with Saddam. That's because Bush lied and put every one of these men in harm's way.

[apsuman]

20. the difference is...

The difference is that the pictures we see everyday are of generic soldiers. Even if we see their faces, and names and ranks, and units, their function is simply as one of the larger machine.

These pictures allow a hussein admiring type to track down these specific soldiers and avenge this particular task.

Look, here in America we have a long tradition of the military always following civilian command. If the actions of these soldiers is inappropriate, the civilian leaders are the ones that should be held responsible. And, they have the bodyguards to protect them from such a threat.

[Cooley Hurd]

Any Saddam "admirers" are targeting any and all US soldiers anyway...

...including the guy in the photo.

[apsuman]

23. Again, the difference is...

While the hussein admirers are targeting US soldiers, they are not targeting individuals.

And, let's say there is enough information in these pictures to identify even one soldier. Performing a rigours check of available internet resources your could find you their house, here in America. While W has the secret service protecting him, Major Smith does not have the Secret Service protecting his house.

[Cooley Hurd]

26. So, there's Iraqi agents running around the US, targeting the families...

...of the soldiers in Iraq? Man, why are you wasting your time posting here? Call Tom Ridge, now! ;) Code Orange! Code Orange!

Sorry but your explanation is about as far-fetched as those Iraqi model airplanes flying 6000 miles and hitting NYC with botulum...

[Ripley]

43. LOL!

Now that was funny!

[spindoctor]

15. To quote Donnie Rumsfeld:

"The Geneva Convention makes it illegal for prisoners of war to be shown pictured and humiliated and it's something that the United States does not do."

- Donald Rumsfeld, Mar 23, 2003

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. One day, someone posted a list of names. I hit alert, which I never do

In my alert note, I said that while I do not support the crusaders, neither do I admire the bush regime's tactics enough to imitate them.

There was no way to know from this list of names which if any were indeed in the military, in Iraq, or had committed war crimes, nor any indication that their names were freely given to the list-maker.

The crusaders in these pictures do not appear to me to have posed under duress, and it appears that they are in Iraq, and are involved in the activity shown.

The regime considers itself above all laws, treaties and conventions.

I do not agree.

[Bonobo]

18. Hey it's free speech.

If the guy wanted to be "protected", he should stayed outta the picture.

Let's not be cowed by the fascists into hiding in the cellar. I applaud the decision to post the pic.

[apsuman]

21. yes, he has the right to show the pic.

Look, I think think it is a really bad idea to show the pic. You have the right to do so, but I think it is a really really bad idea.

Also, all it would take is for Drudge to write a little story about how DU is just like those hitler nuts at MoveOn and all of a sudden DU, a place I like, is under the gun fromDrudge, Rush, Hannity, the DoD, and then the mainstream press picks up on it.

[Cooley Hurd]

22. Then alert the mods...

...it's their job to judge whether this picture is appropriate or not. Not yours...

[Ripley]

24. What about the soldiers shown on ABC actually killing

Iraqi's? In a video.

[Cannikin]

25. Then we must matter or they wouldnt care.

[RandomKoolzip]

28. Wait a minute: the student is not listed in the directory?

I don't get it...it's on a site owned by a STony Brook student who's not listed as a student? WHose website IS it then?

[jor_mama]

31. Under FERPA, the student could have anonymity at the school

The Federal Education Right to Privacy Act (1973) allows students to withhold their information from anyone who would inquire. So the fact that you weren't able to find the student at the school directory has no bearing on whether or not they're a student.

On another note, I think this is a bad idea. Someone (Drudge, Rush, et al.) will catch it and have a hayday.

[harmonyguy]

41. Anonymous Student? NOT. Also NBC now has the pics.

Actually the student IS listed. Just the naming convention isn't what you might have expected.

Most of the photo's have already appeared on military.com, who apparently was the source of the original one. Also NBC is already claiming them as exclusive, although their versions are VERY grainy, almost like they'd been shot from TV or from a newspaper. They've also had some additional areas blurred.

http://www.nbc10.com/slideshow/news/2766767/detail.html

[Rockholm]

29. Why did soldiers have camera's with them?

Gun (check); ammo (check); walkie talkie (check). Am I missing something? And how the heck did he get that pic developed? Did the soldier have a digital camera? I hear there are other pohotos out there. Did the Kurds REALLY have Saddam all along?

[RedSock]

30. where i got the link

I found the link here.

I don't see a problem with this being visible at DU, though I am certain the mods could edit my post if they choose. If I included only a link, everyone here could see it just as easily.

And I'm about as concerned what Rush et al. say about me/DU as I'm about what they think of me/DU. ...

Please -- oh let's not do this or that, Rush might not like it. He might say something bad about the Dems.

[Cannikin]

33. If it wasnt for Rush, I'd have never found DU...let him rant..

Free widespread advertising.

[TeeYiYi]

34. I'm glad you posted these images. Thanks . . .

The day I give half a shit about what insanity or oxymoron think about DU, you have my permission to cuff me upside the head. These images were posted publicly and are obviously common knowledge just like the videos of us killing Iraqis and the pictures of us transporting prisoners on that cargo plane. Remember them? They're all still around and available for public consumption. There are some obviously proud soldiers making sure this stuff makes the rounds. And as far as blurring the faces of the soldiers . . . what about Saddam? Anyone concerned about the Geneva Convention rules being violated with him? And remember Uday and Qusay? No blurring there. How about the wounded Iraqi in that video that gets a bullet salad in place of POW status. War is not for the feint of heart. I don't condone anything about the death and suffering that that this war has wrought. But I sure as hell DO condone the right to free speech in making sure that the truth about these atrocities gets out.

TYY

[ShaneGR]

32. Standard Op Procedure

At least 4 members of every combat platoon are required to carry video or photographic equipment. The theory is that if the crap hits the fan, they can document the evidence of what happened. This is true for all units currently on duty in potential combat zones.

[TeeYiYi]

36. Yes and Yes . . .

Yes digital and Yes Kurds. Always bring a camera to a staged capture dontcha know?

TYY

[Guaranteed]

39. Some of these pics, analyzed, could support the theory that

the capture was staged. I think that, if nothing else, justifies posting these pics.

I've made copies of my own, as a precautionary measure.

[Cooley Hurd]

46. I looked for ripened dates on the trees...

...but didn't see any, however this picture led me to question:

Does this look like $750,000 to you? That would be 7500 $100 bills, and that looks a bit short, if you ask me...

[Military Brat]

49. And I'm wondering if those bills have consecutive serial numbers

If that isn't the strangest looking photo, as if they really expect us to believe that Saddam was going to bribe the U.S. soldiers.

Furthermore, Saddam could supposedly have been captured by anybody, there were so many people after the reward money, so why did he supposedly have in his posssession only U.S. currency to bribe whoever caught him?

[Ediacara]

54. Yes it does look like $750,000

If you haven't worked in a bank $750,000 sounds like a tremendous sum of money. It isn't.

Each of the rubber-banded bundles of cash is probably 100 bills, ie $10,000. All you need is 75 bundles (which is probably what is pictured) and you have $750,000.

And to answer a question from a different post, no these are NOT consecutive notes. Consecutive notes are cleaner for one thing, do not have spaces between the notes visible in side view (these notes do), and are strapped with a gray strap made of paper, and not rubber bands.

That being said.... these pictures seem a little fake to me...

[Silverhair]

65. Looks about right.

When I was working my way through graduate school I worked for Wells Fargo Armored Car Service, and as part of my job, often handled bags of money. That's about the right size for that many NEW hundred dollar bills. Old ones would need about twice the volume.

[jmowreader]

58. I always took a camera to the field

Most of us did. You never know when something will come up you'll need a picture of.

How did he get the picture developed? The Army and Air Force Exchange Service is operating in Iraq, minilabs are not large...maybe he just dropped 'em off at the PX.

[Silverhair]

64. Why shouldn't a soldier have a camera along?

In a recent Newsweek article, small digital cameras were mentioned as being popular among the troops.

[Dhalgren]

35. I may be nuts (and my wife is sure I am), but

I just don't believe this guy is Saddam. I compare pictures of him, pre-invation, with this one and it is close, but not quite. I don't know, I just don't think it's him.

[DUreader]

37. Some of the pics have the date, and a wound appears on his forehead

above his right eye

ô

[Snivi Yllom]

40. I think the Pentagon should punich the soldier who took these

Clearly the soldier who took these should not have been taken "trophy" phots. Disgraceful.

[TexasMexican]

45. I disagree.

[supercrash]

42. Whats wrong with you guys ?

Of course we can show their pics...who cares ?..the guys wants to be seen...I could care less if this comes back to bite him

I suppose Rummy forgot about this picture, which was obviously taken by the military

[TexasMexican]

44. Questions about the Geneva Convention

According to the Geneva Convention, is it wrong to take the pictures? Or is it wrong to display them?

If its the picture taking that is wrong is it wrong for the "government" to take the pictures? How about as individuals? If the guy that took this picture was a private individual and not doing on the governments behalf would it then be okay?

If the picture taking is okay, but its the displaying of them that is wrong? What if it is a private individual or corporation that displays them? It doesnt appear that the US Government officially released these pictures (although they could have unofficially).

[iverglas]

52. Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

The US continues to violate this Convention -- the release of photographs and video footage of Saddam Hussein after his capture was a violation. The release of video footage of him being medically examined was a grossly offensive violation.

This Convention can be read here. (A list of all 1949 Conventions and 1977 Protocols is here.)

The Convention defines "prisoner of war" and includes this provision:

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

It also says:

Art 14. Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. ...

Art 127. The High Contracting Parties undertake, in time of peace as in time of war, to disseminate the text of the present Convention as widely as possible in their respective countries, and, in particular, to include the study thereof in their programmes of military and, if possible, civil instruction, so that the principles thereof may become known to all their armed forces and to the entire population.

Any military or other authorities, who in time of war assume responsibilities in respect of prisoners of war, must possess the text of the Convention and be specially instructed as to its provisions.

Art 129. The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article. ...

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

(Release of photographs is not a "grave breach".)

It is generally agreed (including by Rumsfeld) that releasing photographs/film footage of POWs is a violation of the Convention. Saddam Hussein was plainly a POW.

The Convention of course applies only to the parties -- the states that have signed it -- and not to individuals. The photo in question here raises an interesting question. Presumably, it was released (and probably taken) in violation of a rule made by the US to be followed by members of its military -- one of the "measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention" that the US is required to take. So release of that photo by an individual would not technically be a violation of the Convention; however, the release of the photos and video footage of Saddam Hussein post-capture by the US military/government plainly were.

As an aside, "trophy photos" can be a double-edged sword. The photos taken by members of the Canadian military (airborne) in Somalia, of the teenaged alleged looter whom they had captured and whom they tortured to death, were the central evidence in the public inquiry and criminal charges that resulted from the incident.

.

[the populist]

47. Saddam Hussein was DRUGGED and the capture was STAGED n/t

[Nlighten1]

48. Something I just noticed about this soldier...

He is remarkedly baren of Load Bearing Equipment. All he has on is the fancy schmancy gortex desert jacket. Not exactly the correct uniform for assaulting an enemy position.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

50. He's wearing the patented

"receiving drugged prisoner from Kurdish kidnappers" suit. It needs to be more streamlined so he could more easily pay the $25,000,000 in the handoff

[Cooley Hurd]

53. Pics to be on CNN/Wolf @ 5pm ET...

:kick:

[Ediacara]

55. Question about pic #6

Who's the guy in the far right of the pic with the baseball cap, turtleneck and windbreaker?

He seems a little..... out of place?

[Cooley Hurd]

56. Holy shit! That's the guy who delivered my pizza last night!

...hope they tip him well for this run! :o

[fla nocount]

57. Why do we assume that this is Saddam?

And who is the cranked up freak in pic #4? (third from left) A burned out Semite with a beard that resembles Hussein? So what, he had multiple doubles on the payroll and in a country where cousin marriages are encouraged for property retention much of Tikrit must have a look of familuarity.

Why would the machine treat Saddam any different than Hinckley or bin Laden? He was a good boy, he did his job and had been for years. He didn't have Castro's moxie and didn't have weapons of mass distraction. Most in his administration including the official mouthpiece were christians and he loathed Islamic nut-jobs, hell, if the whores are to be believed, he tortured and gassed them. So tell me, why would a good citizen of the machine be treated so shabbily.

Remember, Rove is involved and we are all idiots that want our questions answered quickly so we can get back to chewing our cud and discussing world events.

[rman]

61. When Bush says it's Saddam,

i have reason to doubt that it is Saddam.

[Cooley Hurd]

62. Colonel James Hickey

He's the CO of the group that took Saddam from his Kurdish captors...

He's a little too jovial, don't you think?

[OneTwentyoNine]

59. Nasty cut about left eye disappears,cut about right eye appears...

Compare the pics,that cut about the left eye should still show up in the last pic,it looks fairly deep. That cut,bump whatever above his right eye is not in the capture pic or the one where he's being escorted.

Who the hell are all those guys that are non-military?? The guy with the ballcap shows up in two different shots...

David

[kittykitty]

60. Shoes? in Pictures #2 and #3?

Aren't the Army guys supposed to be wearing boots?--as in "boots on the ground?" I see a shoe with a buckle and black sneakers. Can't tell about the guy's tan shoes next to the black sneakers.

[KansDem]

63. If I didn't know that Charles Manson was locked up in San Quintin...

I'd swear they recaptured him...

[Exgeneral]

67. this seems weird to me

Sorry, the file was not found

URL
http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/stu/slimowsk/saddam
Read attempt failed.

[Ediacara]

69. The pics still work

http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/slimowsk/saddam/01.jpg
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/slimowsk/saddam/02.jpg
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/slimowsk/saddam/03.jpg
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/slimowsk/saddam/04.jpg
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/slimowsk/saddam/05.jpg
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/slimowsk/saddam/06.jpg
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/slimowsk/saddam/07.jpg
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/slimowsk/saddam/08.jpg

Copy and paste the above URLs into your browser

[cryofan]

72. these individual jpg urls are not working either

[Sapphocrat]

71. They're out there if you really want to find them...

...and it doesn't take much looking.

[harmonyguy]

68. Was the 4-man 'hero' shot taken BEFORE the capture?

Ok, so there are at least seven new photos of Saddam's 'capture', most of which have been splashed around in various forms of the media by now.
A couple of them have a date on them in the lower right corner. I'm not aware of any digital cameras that do this on the print, so I'm thinking that many of these are regular photos which were then scanned. Except for a couple of them. These are the 'unofficial' capture picture we've all seen of the soldier with the blurred face (today's version is unblurred) leaning over a disheviled Saddam, and a shot of four guys and the 'green box' of money.

For those that downloaded the files from the link above (before it was pulled), opening the pics in a binary viewer (you can even use Notepad, just don't save the file after) shows that the one with the now-unblurred face was taken with a Canon PowerShot SD100 (Firmware version 2.00) on 2003:12:13 at 20:35:46. That time seems to match up with the time on the watch on the hand with the glove (20:34).

The picture of the four guys and the box, was apparently taken with a Canon PowerShot S200 (Firmware version 1.00)on 2003:12:13 at 13:06:53, apparently several hours earlier.
But wait, this looks like a four-man 'hero shot' taken AFTER the capture, or is it a celebration BEFORE the capture? If before the capture, why does the Green Money Box appear?

Tough to tell. I just find it hard to believe that the photographer would have the wrong date and time set in his camera. Even if the camera clock was set to a US time zone, wouldn't the date then be off by a day one way or the other?

Any ideas?
HG

[Ksec]

70. with any luck, bush and saddam will be sharing a cell

and become good friends. And maybe theyll both get visited by some big stud that will find them both attractive....