Photo inconsistencies

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

In those photos with lyndie england, the ones where shes giving the thumbs up to those naked iraqi prisoners, I think I can spot two inconsistencies.

Warning: This could be taken as rascist, its not, its simply an observation.

1. The cigarette in her mouth is aweful white isnt it?
2. The skin color of the prisoners, it isnt the color of most iraqis. This makes me think that its actually caucasian soldiers that she is pointing at. After all, isnt their skin a bit pink in the photos, I was under the impression that people of arabic descent had more tan skin.

[laughingduelist]

take a look at other photos of Iraqis and Arabs in general. Most people in the near/middle east are no more dark than southern Europeans.

[Artisan]

In those photos with lyndie england, the ones where shes giving the thumbs up to those naked iraqi prisoners, I think I can spot two inconsistencies.

1. The cigarette in her mouth is aweful white isnt it?
2. The skin color of the prisoners, it isnt the color of most iraqis. This makes me think that its actually caucasian soldiers that she is pointing at. After all, isnt their skin a bit pink in the photos, I was under the impression that people of arabic descent had more tan skin.

Nope... Color and color balance is relative and subjective
Film is exposed, pigments respond varaibly. Negative developed more variable chemical reactions. Photo printed, more pigments respond (variably). Photo digitized, colors "interpreted" by electronic device. Digital image displayed on your monitor. Monitor's color settings are arbitrary and variable. You are far too removed from the source to judge any inconsistancies.

Not to mention that natives of Iraq come in all kinds of shades - as do cigarette papers. Do not engage keyboard before putting brain into gear.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

my bad. Gratuitious extra letters.

[MikeHarm]

I think that Bush and Rumsfield have acknowledged the pictures as being real in talking to the media. The red cross came forward with information on their report detailing some of the stuff going on similar to this.

In addition to pictures and video being released, If its the photo I"m thinking of the woman in the pictures you were talking about also talked to the media recently making excuses and saying other people told her to do it and it wasn't her fault this week as well.

[telkanuru]

Because the excuse "I was just following orders" is completely original with no historic precidence or negative associations. Oh, that makes the US look reeeal good. Bah. I saw those excuses. One of the family members of a soldier in one of the photos said something along the lines of the actions 'didn't look too serious, it was just kids stuff'. Well, now we know where they got it from. O tempora! O mores!

[MikeHarm]

I bet there are some kids who were bullied by some of these folks in high school who will be cheering when the convictions start rolling in.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Because the excuse "I was just following orders" is completely original with no historic precidence or negative associations. Oh, that makes the US look reeeal good. Bah. I saw those excuses. One of the family members of a soldier in one of the photos said something along the lines of the actions 'didn't look too serious, it was just kids stuff'. Well, now we know where they got it from. O tempora! O mores!

I heard a radio interview with someone identified as the uncle of one of the guys involved while at work. The interviewee had a southern (Texas?? I am bad as discerning) accent, and seemed to be middle-age, to judge from the voice.

Anyway, the interviewee claimed that his nephew had gotten no lessons on Geneva conventions, nothing on how to treat prisoners, and positively no briefing on arab culture. The thing his nephew was accused of? He was accused of forcing the prisoners to stand naked facing a wall, bend over, pull their buttocks cheeks apart and expose the lower orifice of the gastrointestinal tract.

My thought: If someone *needs being taught* that such behavior is wrong, then they should never be put in a position of power, let alone have weapons.

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

Unless, say, they had gotten word that some of the prisoners had gotten hold of contraband and might be hiding it. Ever heard of a body cavity search? They even do them to---gasp!---American citizens on occasion!

I'm leery of jumping the gun on this issued, having been embarrassed having done so in the Yee matter and feeling foolish about it afterward. We do not yet have all the facts, and things can take surprising turns. ( Already there have been allegations that some of the British pictures at least may have been dummied up---equipment and uniform items not issued to troops in Iraq, trucks not used in theater in the background, etc. These may be wishful thinking, but it may be wise to reserve judgement just a little while longer... )

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Unless, say, they had gotten word that some of the prisoners had gotten hold of contraband and might be hiding it. Ever heard of a body cavity search? They even do them to---gasp!---American citizens on occasion!

On the interview segment aired on radio, the uncle did not offer this as an explanation. I guess that he would have, if that exonerating circumstance was open to him.

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

The uncle was there? Or did he just have a brief conversation with his nephew by phone or email? Was the communication unmonitored and thus completely frank and complete? This is one of the problems with third-hand information...

[Louweasel]

Unless, say, they had gotten word that some of the prisoners had gotten hold of contraband and might be hiding it. Ever heard of a body cavity search? They even do them to---gasp!---American citizens on occasion!

But they don't point a camera up their backsides while they do it. And I'm fairly sure you don't make the person being searched yank their own bum cheeks apart. Rubber gloves and a screened area, not a bunch of squaddies standing round laughing and taking pictures.

[Inquartata]

But they don't point a camera up their backsides while they do it.

These days they probably do, for evidentiary purposes if nothing else. Defense lawyers and their clients can allege anything they like otherwise.

And I'm fairly sure you don't make the person being searched yank their own bum cheeks apart.

Again, you might be surprised...

Rubber gloves and a screened area, not a bunch of squaddies standing round laughing and taking pictures.

I'm with you there. Although it IS a war zone, so who knows how much civilized sophistication is lost...

[Louweasel]

These days they probably do, for evidentiary purposes if nothing else. Defense lawyers and their clients can allege anything they like otherwise.

Let me revise that. They don't in Britain. As you refer to defense lawyers and evidence I'll speak from a point of domestic criminal law rather than miltary practices and the geneva convention (admittedly for all I know it may be legal under that to film an intimate search of person but i'd be surprised) I'd post a link to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its codes of practice, but nobody'd read it. In summary, an intimate body search (i.e. of orifices other than the mouth) must be performed by a medical practitioner (i.e. a doctor/nurse not a policeman etc) and must be authorised by an officer of the rank of superintendent or above (for comparison a superintendent is in charge of a whole police station), and it must be believed that they have class a drugs (i.e. the worst ones) or something else that could be used harm them or others in there, and that this is the only way of removing it. In custody areas in brit police stations etc there are security cameras in the corridors and at the front desk, but in interviews only audio recording may take place, and in rooms where people are searched or where clients have consultations withtheir solicitors, no recording may take place at all.
But who knows what they could be allowed to do in the US, or indeed under military circumstances? Surely you can't be a hell of a lot crueller to a prisoner of war than to a domestic prisoner? I mean, for reasons of practicality a non-doctor might have to do such a search i suppose, but surely you have some sort of medic kicking around a POW camp? And still...cameras?

Anyway, it's all disgraceful. Anyone in/taking such photos as have been discussed in this thread, which are not found to be faked, should be properly punished.

[epeemike81]

But they don't point a camera up their backsides while they do it. And I'm fairly sure you don't make the person being searched yank their own bum cheeks apart. Rubber gloves and a screened area, not a bunch of squaddies standing round laughing and taking pictures.

and shoving a broom handle or light stick up there is right out.

-m

[epeemike81]

Let me revise that. They don't in Britain.

the voice of experience???

-m

[Louweasel]

the voice of experience???

-m

Cheeky! Let's just say I have a smattering of knowledge of certain areas of criminal law. I don't really want to post my job on the interweb for all and sundry to read but if you are really curious you can pm me.

[Louweasel]

the voice of experience???

-m

Yes dear.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

The hole broomstick/plunger thing really grosses me out.

[Tireur]

Although it IS a war zone, so who knows how much civilized sophistication is lost...

Oops, wrong again. Being in a war zone only excuses Democratic candidates for their "atrocities".