February 05, 2005

LEGALITY, THEY BRAYED:

Iraqi Police Use Kidnappers' Videos to Fight Crime (CHRISTINE HAUSER, 2/05/05)

In one scene, the videotape shows three kidnappers with guns and a knife, preparing to behead a helpless man who is gagged and kneeling at their feet.

In the next, it is one of the kidnappers who is in detention, his eyes wide with fear, his lips trembling, as he speaks to his interrogators.

"How do I say this?" says the kidnapper, identified as an Egyptian named Abdel-Qadir Mahmoud, holding back tears. "I am sorry for everything I have done."

In the first week after the elections, the Iraqi Interior Ministry and the Mosul police chief are turning the tables on the insurgency here in the north by using a tactic - videotaped messages - that the insurgents have used time and again as they have terrorized the region with kidnappings and executions.

But this time the videos, which are being broadcast on a local station, carry an altogether different message, juxtaposing images of the masked killers with the cowed men they become once captured.

The broadcast of such videos raises questions about whether they violate legal or treaty obligations about the way opposing fighters are interrogated and how their confessions are made public.


Freakin' NY Times--go tell the Iraqi people they're being too mean to terrorists.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 5, 2005 09:56 AM
Comments

That's all right; just wait until they start covering the4 Saddam Hussein trial and execition.

Posted by: Lou Gots at February 5, 2005 10:03 AM

That's all right; just wait until they start covering the4 Saddam Hussein trial and execition.

Posted by: Lou Gots at February 5, 2005 10:04 AM

The Saddam trial looks like it will unite virtually all the world's 'usual suspects' like Ramsay Clark and Jacques Verges. We should make it our business to identify and tag the members of the 'Saddam Fan Club' from Sean Penn to Peter Jennings.

Posted by: Bart at February 5, 2005 11:11 AM

Where can I send my donations for rope?

Posted by: ray at February 5, 2005 12:12 PM

Treaty obligations? Treaty obligations? What treaty obligations? Is that just a catch phrase writers at the NYT simply throw in like parsley on a dinner plate?

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 5, 2005 02:53 PM

AOG:

On the other hand, Treaty obligations has the advantage of being obvious nonsense here, as opposed to the more common and logically equivalent usage International law.

Posted by: Mike Earl at February 5, 2005 04:57 PM

One of the biggest advantages of acting on behalf of a democratically elected government is/will be that the police's obligations to protect its citizenry will trump all other obligations (real, or those the NYT's will dump on them).

Posted by: Moe from NC at February 5, 2005 05:52 PM

How dare they, err ah, we, use video tapes in such a way! It might demoralize the brave insurgents.

Posted by: Phil at February 7, 2005 02:57 PM
« NO MOVING ON (via Pat H): | Main | WHY CONNER PETERSON WAS 2004'S MAN OF THE YEAR: »