It warms my heart to know that I live in a country where somebody has got the time and inclination to write a letter complaining that a mass murderer has had his photo taken wearing underpants.

I am sure that the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs and all those who suffered the violence of Saddam's regime are sleeping better in their beds this evening for knowing there are some out there looking out for Saddam's dignity.

I say why stop there, for example did anybody consider the stress Hitler must have suffered from the Russian shelling of his bunker or perhaps we should be seeking to prosecute those Soviet citizens who tried to kill Stalin - attempted murder I would have thought.

Here! Here!

Funny Sun did not make the same fuss when Tony Blair let Pinochet walk out of a magistrates court?

The reason you should not humiliate prisoners, is when they get one of our boys or girls it will justify them kicking the shit out of them and humiliating them in public. It may go on but you do not encourage it. Of course the editor of the Sun does not have anyone in his family serving in Iraq so he can act as irresponsibly as he likes, he will suffer no come back.

As for the two ponces who want to gloat over Saddam why don't you join up and do something a bit more heroic that cheer for Rubert Murdoch selling newspapers or be proud we are British when the letter writer lives in Holland.

Well Norman Stanley Fletcher perhaps I can give you a view based on having served in Iraq. The people there now currently setting off suicide bombs and shooting at British troops really don't give a toss how we deal with Saddam or if we show pictures of him in his underpants. What is described in Britian as either the "Insurgency" or the "Resistance" is not fighting for Saddam and feels no loyalty or respect for him. They are fighting to establish an Islamic Iraq based on the Iranian design. Any British soldier taken prisoner will be killed by torture. How the British media treats Saddam is just not part of their world.


I have met and spoken with these people, they represent perhaps 10% of the Iraqi people and many of them are not even Iraqi. When I was there I met Jordanians, Iranians, Pakistanis and Afghans and they are focused on establishing a hard-line Muslim state. The people of Iraq and their view are not relevant as far as they are concerned. They want Islam and Sharia law to prevail throughout the Middle East and regard any halt to that as an act of war. I think perhaps this is one of those issues not fully understood in the UK, these people don't want your support, they don't care about your objections. They make no differentiation between British, American, French or Australian - we are all just 'effendi'. They are no more wanted in Iraq than Saddam was before them. The British media is playing this down but I know from talking to BBC and Sky TV peole out there it is well known.

I had a lot of concerns before I went to Iraq about how legitimate the war was and when I flew out I left a letter with my sister listing my concerns which I asked her to send to the papers if I was killed, having served there and seen the difference we made to the lives of the Iraqi people I think on balance the war was justified - just. Yes a lot of civilians were killed and without doubt some of those could have been avoided but when I saw and spoke to Iraqis who could for the first time talk without fearing retribution I heard the reality of their lives during the Saddam years and I know how they now feel. Yes they want us to leave but only when stability is secured and the attempts to turn Iraq into Iran of Taliban run Afghanistan are defeated.

Billy,

Thank you for the post. As the daughter of a soldier who served in Iraq and has now returned I had many arguments with my Dad about the war. I was firmly against it, he was unsure.

I understand why there are those who post to the newswire and slag off soldiers and even take pleasure in their deaths, perhaps if I was not the daughter of one I would too. When he returned I didn't talk to him for many weeks and sent a letter where I at one point called him a baby killer. The row between us upset my mother and my brother and with their help we met and discussed his time out there. He told me of the kindness he received from the Iraqi people, the children who ran next to his Land Rover calling out "David Beckham" and also the hatred he saw from those of the old regime who had seen their comfortable, corrupt lives overturned at a stroke. He talked about the fields they found near Basra full of the bodies of murdered men women and children, dead because they opposed Saddam and his henchmen. He showed me pictures of the fields where there were so many bodies they had to make a guess there was so many.

I don't know if the war was right or wrong, I know thousands of Iraqis died and that is shameful but I also know the soldiers from Britian who went there know they left a free country behind them.

No Billy I left the army before the first Iraq War and I have never been to Iraq. However, I speak Arabic, I know the middle-east very well and I know showing these pictures of Saddam will not play well to the ordinary arab in the street regardless of Saddam's record. If you are fighting a counter-insurgency you do not score home goals like that, not necessarily for the Iraq audience but for the wider auidence of the middle-east.

Yes if the "insurgents" get hold of any British troops they are probably going to end up dead, but what is new? The same thing happened in Ireland but we did not show IRA prisoners on the front page of the Sun in the pants. The Germans executed British POW's but that did not allow us to show nazis in their pants on the front of newspaper. Neither is it an excuse to break the Geneva Convention ourselves is it? If you wind-up the Arab population in Egypt it is not a squaddie in Iraq who will end up killed but some western tourist wandering around an archaeology site. The British Army is the best but it cannot protect everyone everywhere.

Last time the British had to sucessfully gain to control of Iraq, from an evil and despotic government, they did it with less than a dozen intelligence officers, including T.E. Lawrence. Lawrence didn't parade prisoners in their underwear, did he?

If you feel that you need to defend Rupert Murdoch's right to make money out of the war by selling newspapers then go ahead, unlike Iraq it is a free country.

I respect your view Norman Stanley but I think you are wrong. My experience of the average "Arab on the street" is that he doesn't really care that much about Saddam. In Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and UAE, all places I have been to recently they were pleased to have seem him gone.

Yes of course some religious radicals can whip up a quick crowd for the benefit of CNN or the BBC and their ever ready cheque books but the average Arab is more concerned with Israel and the Palestinians than he is Saddam.

Don't get me wrong I don't think the Sun should have printed the pictures but at the same time I can't get that excited about it and neither will the average Iraqi or the wider Arab world.

billy, you know you are a bastard, a prepaid killer and we are not interested in your opinion, just wonder you would never come back alive!!!

Thanks kacho I really enjoyed your well thought out and reasoned contribution. I think what I enjoy the most is knowing you are reading this and have now heard my opinion on something even though you didn't want to.

Every1s foccusing on the British troops as if they are superior the the hundreds of Iraqis dying everyday because of a farce. To Billy and all other soldiers just to let you know Iraq can never be free. There will always be foreign troops there the start was made by the 'democratically elected government' decission to allow 14 permanent american bases in the country. The Economic arrangements have already been made and the contracts have been given the oil is not owned by Iraq and neither is 3/4 of the infastructure. Soldiers that decide to go to wars are 1 of 2 things. Immoral or miseducated. Im not gonna tell you or any other one what they are but when you decide to go to these wars you are taking lives of innocents and risking your own so that the powers that be will be able to secure more cash via contract selling weapons and controlling regions. Imperialism is an old game it used to be fought in the name of religion, today its freedom but the result is the same. The people who most support it and funilly enough never risk their lives for it (they find people like you to do that) are the people who gain from it. Freedom? THey dont know the meaning of the word, they work closely and knowingly of their actions with some of the most brutal regimes, Iraq too was once an ally and the weapons they're 'looking'were sold by the same govts that now shout out against them. As long as there are people willing to do their dirty work there will be wars and chaos. I value an Iraqis life millions more than any soldier in there and soldiers now must have the moral obligation to refuse to fight in any of the wars to come. Then and only then will they have done the right job. Its impossible to understand how there can be so many suckers wiling to die in the name of profit. It happened when the Nazis fought and its happening now. an invasion is an invasion and whether its the Nazi flag in Iraq or the British one they are equally as evil and every1 should hope these flags are not to be seen in any country but their own. If that means the iraqis are dealing with it by means of armed ressistance then so be it. Im with them just as id be with the UK if they were invaded. So stop acting like the british troops are as sacred as cows are in India and call for an immediate end of the occupation of Iraq. All troops and companies out of the country now.

Dear All

Let’s deal in practicalities. Yes, the US is trying to steal the oil and privatise the infrastructure with a puppet government to boot…. But the insurgents are scum, have no doubt about it, and as Billy says, this is about them establishing a fascist state.
Whether or not the Sun published the pictures I don’t think matters… People in the middle east might not care that much but it does send out a message of double standards.

Other facts, the Sun is right wing and irresponsible and cares more for sales figures than anything else. I believe that anything that can damage the Sun, or change it’s line to a more moderate one is a bonus, so write to them…

But at the moment, we have troops in Iraq, and a set of militias with not respect for human rights or life waiting to try and take over… so what we going to do? Pulling everyone out now would be a mistake in my opinion, I reckon we try to calm things down and get the Iraqi’s a sense that they are stakeholders in their future, and they can kick out the puppets when they are ready.

Better go and do more useful things that write this.

Don

Which part of 14 permanent US bases didnt you understand? How will the Iraqis ever be able to kick out any puppet govt when their country is overlooked by the PERMANENT eyes of US troops. No doubt there are more bases to come from U.S and others. Whats wrong with leaving now,(troops and foreign capital)getting a truly independent body of security forces to overview new FREE elections where the parties running arent all pro west, and once a govt is established they can fuck off and let the iraqis determine their future. Money should also be given to that govt so that it can spend it as it likes (rather than fucking profit making western companies raping Iraqs wealth for their benefit)Most of you seem to think the ressistance is mainly made up up saddam loyalists. Wake up. The ressistance is a mix of Shia's Sunnis and yes many extremists from alquaeda and saddam loyalists. The goal however which unites them all is 1. To end the occupation. Theres nothing wrong with that im sure any sane person in the UK would do the same if the UK was occupied. Most of these people would stop when the job is done. As for the definition of extremism and fascism. Funny how you dont find the US/UK extreme and fascist when they shoot kill torture bomb innocent men women children and babies. A bit of double standards me thinks.

MANUFACTURED CONSENSUS - THE SUN AND SADDAM HUSSEIN

How Anti-War Dissidents Are Singled Out For Attack
Just over one year ago, British journalists and politicians were fulminating over photographs published in the Daily Mirror that appeared to show Iraqi prisoners being abused by British soldiers. The British military, it was claimed, now possessed incontrovertible proof that the pictures were fake. Mirror editor, Piers Morgan - a fierce opponent of the war - was condemned far and wide for inciting additional hatred of British troops in Iraq, so putting their lives at risk. The Daily Mail's Melanie Phillips said on BBC's Newsnight programme:

"I think it's an act of treachery, actually, against the interests of this country. At a time of war, to publish a lie which puts our troops in such an appalling light is unforgivable." (Newsnight, BBC2, May 14, 2004)

In the House of Lords, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass asked:

"Did the dishonest activity of Piers Morgan not compare with the treachery of William Joyce? Was it not high treason and should not this latter-day Lord Haw-Haw be made to feel the full rigours of the law? What action, including criminal charges, does the Government anticipate will be taken against the former editor?" ('Morgan "Like traitor Lord Haw-haw",' The Express, May 28, 2004)

William Joyce, a British passport holder, fled to Nazi Germany a few days before the start of the second world war in 1939 and spent the duration broadcasting anti-British propaganda.

Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's former press chief, told a parliamentary committee:

"If it transpires that these pictures are fake, staged, a hoax, then I don't honestly see how Morgan's position is tenable." (Alison Hardie, 'Ingram asked to apologise,' The Scotsman, May 12, 2004)

The intensity of the political and media assault was more than enough to see Morgan sacked by his employer, Trinity-Mirror. The media were as one in nodding sagely at the outcome. A Daily Telegraph leader commented:

"It is no exaggeration to say that Morgan's decision to publish those fake photographs put thousands of young British lives at risk in Iraq, and has jeopardised everything that our Servicemen have sacrificed so much to achieve. What may have seemed like a bit of a game to Morgan was a matter of life and death in Iraq. The Mirror is well rid of him." ('Morgan's last tabloid tale,' Daily Telegraph, May 15, 2004)

An Independent leader observed:

"The ramifications of the Mirror's misjudgement were unusually grave, because of the subject matter and the climate in Iraq. The lives of British servicemen and women were probably placed at risk. Mr Morgan's editor's chair will be seen as the appropriate price for his misjudgement." ('So farewell, then, Piers,' The Independent, May 15, 2004)

Peter Preston wrote in the Guardian:

"The staged photographs increased the pressure on our boys in Basra and made it, perhaps, more likely that they themselves would be in danger. You can certainly see why the Mirror should have been sure before it published. You can certainly make a hanging case out of it." (Preston, 'End of the Piers show,' The Guardian, May 16, 2004)

Although definitive proof of the fraudulence of the photographs was promised, it has never been provided - the issue was simply forgotten and the media moved on.

Earlier this month all allegations were dropped against the only soldier charged with faking the photos. "Apparently, there was no hard evidence of a hoax after all," Piers Morgan comments in the New Statesman. (Morgan, Diary, New Statesman, May 30, 2005) Morgan told the BBC last month:

"I think it is time the Government and the Ministry of Defence and the Queen's Lancashire Regiment put up some real evidence that these pictures were indeed a hoax. We have already seen from court-martials that much worse than we put forward was going on." (Chris Brooke, 'Army loses fight over hoax soldier,' The Sunday Times, April 24, 2005)

The lack of proof one year on casts an interesting light on all those perceptive souls who, +after+ Morgan had been sacked, claimed they had known all along that the pictures were an obvious hoax. Thus, the BBC's Andrew Neil:

"They were fakes from the start, they were clearly fakes. I said [so] within two days of seeing them." (Newsnight, May 15, 2004)

Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, said of the Guardian's picture editor, Eamonn McCabe: "He was sure they were hoaxes." (ITN, 10:30 News, May 15, 2004)

Channel 4's Jon Snow was never in doubt: "It was pretty obvious they were a hoax from beginning to end." (Channel 4 News, May 15, 2004)

Eve Pollard, former editor of the Sunday Mirror commented: "It was inevitable - he had to go." (BBC, Newsnight, May 14, 2004)

It would be funny, but for the usual caveats.


Serious Impacts - The Sun And Saddam Hussein

A year on, and the Mirror's pro-war newspaper rival, the Sun, this month published photographs of Saddam Hussein in his underwear. Previously published photographs and footage of Saddam's December 2003 capture and medical examination were felt by many Iraqis to be deeply disrespectful and humiliating - insurgents have cited this specific event as a factor in motivating their resort to violence.

George Bush's deputy press secretary, Trent Duffy, said the release of the Sun's pictures violated American military regulations, and probably the Geneva Conventions. He added of the conflict Iraq: "I think this could have a serious impact." (David E. Sanger and Alan Cowell, 'Hussein Photos in Tabloids Prompt US Call to Investigate,' New York Times, May 21, 2005)

The third Geneva Convention (Article 13) states: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated... Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

Also:

"Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour ..." (Richard Beeston and Michael Theodoulou, 'Saddam "to sue for $1m" over photos taken in prison cell,' The Times, May 21, 2005)

The Daily Mail reported fears that the photographs, which have been published extensively on the internet and shown on several Arab satellite TV stations, "could spark a bloody backlash. There could also be wider anger across the Middle East at the degradation of a man who says he is a Muslim". (David Williams, 'Saddam vows to sue over leaked pictures,' Daily Mail, May 21, 2005)

The Los Angeles Times suggested that the pictures "could be seen as a slap at Sunni Muslim Arabs", noting that many members of the minority already feel disenfranchised and humiliated by the invasion and the ouster of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni. The paper added:

"The images also could anger Muslims outside Iraq who feel that the United States is insensitive to Muslim beliefs and culture. Muslims typically take care to avoid appearing in public in less than full attire." (James Gerstenzang and Louise Roug, 'Hussein Photo Angers US,' Los Angeles Times, May 21, 2005)

A government worker in Baghdad was quoted as saying: "Regardless of whatever he [Saddam] was before, he is still an Iraqi. The goal of showing these pictures is to put shame on the Iraqis." (Ibid)

Certainly the timing of the publication of the photographs could hardly be worse - at least 620 people, including 58 US troops, had been killed in Iraq in a massive upsurge in violence since April 28, when Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari announced a new Shiite-dominated government. The figure now stands at more than 700 killed. On May 29, one British soldier was killed and four wounded by a roadside bomb in the south of Iraq.

In short, the pictures have created an international storm on a par with last year's furore over the Mirror's 'hoax' photos, and they also appear likely to have lethal consequences for US-UK troops in Iraq.

But while political and media commentators demanded the head of the Mirror's anti-war editor for endangering British lives, there has been negligible criticism of the Sun's managing editor, Graham Dudman. A typical comment was provided by Guardian Unlimited, citing Paul Dacam, a law firm media partner:

"There's a potential this breaches his rights of confidence and privacy. The question is whether there's a public interest in showing these very personal shots, particularly on the front page." ('Saddam pics no goldmine, says Clifford,' Guardian Unlimited, May 20, 2005)

But there have been no shrieks of "high treason" and "treachery" at the endangering of British troops, no calls for Dudman to be sacked. Dudman is entirely unrepentant. When Media Lens asked him if he thought the published pictures had put British soldiers' lives at increased risk, he replied simply:

"The Sun is proud to run the pictures and we will be running more tomorrow." (Email to Media Lens, May 20, 2005)

Thought Control And The Critical Mass Consensus

The above is an excellent example of how the establishment is able to shape reality to serve its ends. With restricted access to facts and trustworthy sources, it is often extremely difficult for the public to determine the truth on any given issue. In forming a judgement, people are heavily swayed by the appearance of a consensus created by multiple sources arriving at the same conclusion. When a large number of authoritative commentators - political, media, corporate and military - are seen to agree, many people will assume that their conclusion must be reasonable. If the Guardian is saying it, if senior politicians and journalists on Newsnight and Channel 4 News are saying it, it must be true. The psychologist Stanley Milgram noted:

"The individual often views authority as an impersonal force, whose dictates transcend mere human wish or desire. Those in authority acquire, for some, a suprahuman character." (Milgram, Obedience to Authority, Pinter & Martin, 1974, p.162)

Thus, by the time Piers Morgan was sacked, the sheer weight and apparent diversity of authoritative criticism was such that many people were convinced that Morgan +had+ to be sacked for endangering British lives, that the photographs clearly were faked, and so on.

If the same criticism had been levelled at the Sun's Graham Dudman, doubtless many people would also have been persuaded that he was guilty of treachery, that he obviously had to go, and he might well have been forced to resign. But this did not happen, because the establishment did not want it to happen.

In a similar way, many people were persuaded by a critical mass of establishment opinion that Saddam Hussein presented a threat, that a war backed by a second UN resolution would have been legitimate and warranted. Many people accept that the US-UK "coalition" should continue to fight its war unhindered in Iraq. In fact all of these arguments were and are little more than absurdities.

If the kind of criticism ranged against Piers Morgan were ranged against the illegal US-UK occupation - with a range of powerful opinion demanding a genuinely international solution to the escalating slaughter - public opinion would be very different. As it is, there has been almost literally zero discussion, anywhere, of the possibility that a peaceful resolution to the conflict might be sought through negotiation and compromise.

Why? Because anything less than outright Western victory and control in Iraq is not even thinkable for the establishment with the power to generate a critical mass consensus. Even though Iraqi insurgents are resisting an illegal superpower occupation of their country, there is almost no sense whatever in the mass media that their cause - whatever one might think of their means - is fundamentally legitimate. By contrast, the power of establishment propaganda is such that almost everyone accepts that similarly motivated fighters resisting Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s were "freedom fighters". It is taken for granted that they had the right to defend their country from attack.

Thought control in modern society, then, depends on a narrow range of elite interests creating the false impression of a broad consensus. This helps explain why so much media content makes so little sense. The less we truly understand about politics in Iraq, Northern Ireland, the European Union, Africa, climate change and so on, the more likely we are to meekly accept the manufactured 'consensus'.

State-corporate control is, however, facing an unprecedented challenge. John Naughton writes in the Observer:

"What's happening is a small but significant change in our media ecology. All journalists worth their salt have always known that out there are readers, listeners or viewers who know more about a story than they do. But until recently, there was no effective way for this erudition or scepticism to find public expression. Letters to the editor rarely attract public attention - or impinge on the consciousness of journalists.

"Blogging changes all that. Ignorant, biased or lazy journalism is instantly exposed, dissected and flayed in a medium that has global reach." (Naughton, 'Journalists must stop being in denial: bloggers are here to stay,' The Observer, May 29, 2005)

If this new global medium is rooted in compassion for suffering, it will expose the lie of a corporate press inherently compromised by corporate greed. This, in turn, will loosen the grip of propaganda on the public mind, so generating very real opportunities for progressive change.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. When writing emails to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to:

Graham Dudman, managing editor of The Sun
Email:  Graham.Dudman@the-sun.co.uk

Good comments, fair enough, permanent bases, but where is the multi national force going to come from? no one out there fancies it, maybe we should be lobbying governments to get together and for the US/UK to let other people in.

As for supporting the insurgents then that is out of the question, they are suicide bombing (with foreigners and iraqis) their own people with no regard for human life... and they are not even attacking the occupying forces most of the time.

Ideally we can nationalise the iraqi oil/electric/everything industries and use the cash to build the country... I think in the long term though, only the Iraqi people can demand that.

Double standards is the whole issue esp. re: guantanamo and bringing violence to regions of the world... It is disgusting to bomb anyone, and the UK and US must face their responsibilities, but practically - how can we push forward.