Saddams Pants

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by 2nd man down, Jun 30, 2005.


Should Saddam be allowed to Sue The Sun Newspaper for the undies picture?

  1. Yes he should

    3 vote(s)
  2. No he shouldn't

    16 vote(s)
  3. Couldn't care less

    12 vote(s)
  4. Can't make up my mind

    1 vote(s)
  1. 2nd man down

    2nd man down Moderator Staff Member

    Interested to see how opinion is divided on this issue..

    Saddam Hussain, a man who is allegedly guilty of multiple attrocities against his own people, and against the Iranians during the Iran - Iraq conflict, including the use of chemicals and mass slaughter of whole villages, is sueing the Sun newspaper because they published a picture of him in his underpants.

    Should he be allowed to pursue this case??
  2. rutty

    rutty Active Member

    They were an appalling set of scuds. I'd be embarrassed at being photographed in those.

    Seriously, I couldn't care less. The Sun has to abide by the same laws as everyone else and if they've illegally displayed an image of some grumpy old ex-despot in his undies then they should expect a lawsuit. If they get sued then that's something for the Mirror to crow about. If they don;t get sued then we've all seen Saddam in his y-fronts.
  3. PeterBale

    PeterBale Moderator Staff Member

    I realise this is a rather sensitive issue, but I would far rather those pictures had not appeared. The west is supposed to pride itself on fairness and equitable treatment, and are planning to have Saddam face a trial in due course. That being the case, and regardless of what we may think about him and what we believe him to have done, I think things should be left until the proceedings have been completed.

    Having said that, I see in the paper today that a convicted criminal is seeking damages from the police regarding pictures of him that they circulated after his conviction, so you do wonder where it will end.
  4. 2nd man down

    2nd man down Moderator Staff Member

    I personally feel that people waiting to stand trial, or actually standing trial should not be permitted to bring charges against anyone else until their own innocence is proved. I appreciate that you are innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law, but at the end of the day, if you are in that situation you are temporarily removed from the normal circles of society, and will be able to pursue any other issues once/if proven innocent.

    If you are guilty and imprisoned as far as I'm concerned you forfeit all normal human rights afforded to general society and should only be allowed to participate in the goings on of everyday life once you are legitimately free again.

    However I do feel that the Sun acted irresponsibly by publishing that photo...while we have troops standing in the firing line on foreign soil, this sort of thing can only put them in greater danger from the likes of those who supported Saddams regime.

    The "insurgents" don't seem to need excuses to inflict attrocities on western society, so why give them any more fuel for the fire with which to try to justify their actions?

  5. ploughboy

    ploughboy Active Member

    I agree with all you say 2MD but. . . . . where was your poll on the naked Iraqies?

    What about the page three girls? to be in a paper and associated with Y-front's like those!

  6. sevenhelz

    sevenhelz Active Member

    Interesting. I couldn't care less about the pictures myself; though I personally find it quite embarrassing to have to look at other people in embarrassing situations, it's a bit hard to empathise with the guy.

    I just wonder how far you would take this, 2md? Do you forfeit ALL human rights? I would think it depended on what your crime was, at least. :oops: Sorry I know this isn't quite the original topic. To relate that, I guess I would say he does have a *right* to sue. I just think it's stupid to do that - what exactly can he hope to gain, even if he won the case? Perhaps it's a sort of stalling thing, giving him time away from his cell or whatever? In which case I agree he shouldn't be allowed, imprisonment should mean /something/.

    Ooh gosh, you've made me think now. I think I'll have to have a lie down ;)
  7. bigmamabadger

    bigmamabadger Active Member

    This isn't really about Saddam's crimes per se. Does anyone in the public eye have the right to sue over pictures of themselves? Saddam Hussein is a public figure, and for that reason alone, may well have forfeited his "right" to privacy.

    I think he or his defence team should sue the Sun just for being stupid and inflammatory and as someone wrote earlier, putting our troops at further risk from loyalists. They've undone what little diplomacy was already there.

    However, being a cynical old badger the words "publicity stunt", "stalling for time" and "****** good lawyer" spring to mind.
  8. euphfanhan

    euphfanhan Member

    What beats me is why the sun thought we wanted to see saddam in his underpants??? But in answer to the question, I don't think he has much to complain about, he's alive, he's being fed, he is being treated a hell of a lot better than his victims. To be quite honest, I think thats more than fair. If the sun had printed pictures of him being tortured for example, that would be an entirely different matter, but I'm sure he can live with a bit of humiliation considering what he did. And out of interest, who gains the money from the sun being sued?
  9. iggmeister

    iggmeister Member

    I seem to recall the reason why Saddam's picture caused controversy was because it was in breach of the Geneva convention. That'll bethe convention that Western countries rant and rave about when a westerner is taken prisoner. We can't have our cake and eat it.

    The reason the Sun showed saddam in his undercrackers was very powerful. The Iraq nation then saw him at his most vilnerable i.e. looking afraid, in a humiliating state of dress in the hands (not literally!) of the very people he challenged and convinced his people were the enemy. Imagine if Tony Blair or Bush had been taken captive by Al Quaeda and were paraded around like that!

    The Sun did it to sell papers - nothing else. Now they will seek to claim that they did the responsible thing and that it was to break the aura his countrymen were so afraid of.

    As for Human Rights, everybody has them all of the time. If that changes then God help us all. Even prisoners deserve the rights. If they do not, what is to stop people from torturing them. I agree that they should not have it easy e.g. Sky TV etc but they should be given the basic necessities and left to get on with it. I don't know what the bare necessities are. Further, I accept that there has to be a balance between deterrent and rehabilitation, (although somehow I suspect that Saddam is a bit past rehab!!).

    I expect the Sun will be sued but will probably get away with it.

    Just my thoughts.

  10. 2nd man down

    2nd man down Moderator Staff Member

    Just for clarity, when I said the should forfeit all human rights afforded to normal society, I didn't mean they should forgoe all rights full stop. However the rights they should be afforded should be much less that those made available to those of us who will never see the inside of a prison cell.

    The right to a humane imprisonment is as much as they deserve.

  11. Di

    Di Active Member

    Let him try, and send him your terrier Solicitor. :wink:
  12. 2nd man down

    2nd man down Moderator Staff Member

    I have to dry him out first! :rolleyes: You drove the poor bloke to the bottle!
  13. Chris Sanders

    Chris Sanders Active Member

    The only thing Saddam Hussain should be allowed is a hanging..
  14. Andy Moore

    Andy Moore Member

    'I couldn't care less', but the less I see of him the better IMO
  15. T-Horn

    T-Horn Member

    Have to agree wth Sandman on this one. Not at all interested
  16. cjconnor24

    cjconnor24 Member

    Would have to agree on that one!!:tup
  17. bigmamabadger

    bigmamabadger Active Member

    He is still, under Western, Roman-based law, innocent until proven guilty. This is the law I believe he will be tried under, and until proven guilty he has as many rights as any other prisoner. Alleged crimes should have no bearing on his treatment.

    More perhaps than those being held in Guantanamo Bay...

    Devil's Advocate badger.
  18. Steve

    Steve Active Member

    The idea of letting him sue the media is laughable, he shouldnt even be alive. Common sense people, no one has the right to say live or die but this aint the same is it. An ASBO or rehab aint gonna help this sick puppy, or Osama, or Mugabe. Lets get real
  19. yonhee

    yonhee Active Member

    Why not :confused:
  20. Steve

    Steve Active Member

    For better reasons than he could come up with for the following. Taken from an Islamic groups website set up since his overpowering, giving people the chance to actually talk freely.

    The killing of Sunni religious leaders such as Abdul Aziz Al Badri the Imam of Dragh district mosque in Baghdad in 1969, Al Shaikh Nadhum Al Asi from Ubaid tribe in Northern Iraq, Al Shiakh Al Shahrazori, Al Shaikh Umar Shaqlawa, Al Shiakh Rami Al Kirkukly, Al Shiakh Mohamad Shafeeq Al Badri, Abdul Ghani Shindala.
    The arrest of hundreds of Iraqi Islamic activists and the execution of five religious leaders in 1974.
    The arrest of thousand of religious people who rose up against the regime and the killing of hundreds of them in the popular uprising of 1977 in which Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim the leader of SCIRI was sentenced to life imprisonment.
    The arrest, torture and executions of tens of religious scholars and Islamic activists in such as Qasim Shubbar, Qasim Al Mubarqaa in 1979.
    The arrest, torture and execution of Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and his sistre Amina Al Sadr (Bint Al Huda) in 1980.
    The war against Iran in 1980 in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed, and many doubles of that number were handicapped or missed.
    The arrest of 90 members of Al Hakim family and the execution of 16 members of that family in 1983 to put pressure on Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim to stop his struggle against Saddam's regime.
    Using chemical weapons in the North and the South the details of which are below.
    The occupation of Kuwait which resulted in killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and injuring many doubles of that number in addition to the destruction of Iraq.
    The assassination of many opposition figures outside Iraq such Haj Sahal Al Salman in UAE in 1981, Sami Mahdi and Ni'ma Mohamad in Pakistan in 1987, Sayed Mahdi Al Hakim in Sudan in 1988, and Shaikh Talib Al Suhail in Lebanon in 1994.
    The execution of 21 Bath Party leaders in 1979 in Iraq , the assassination of Hardan Al Tikriti former defence Minister in Kuwait in 1973, and the former Prime- Minister Abdul Razzaq Al naef in London 1978.

Share This Page