Saddam and Our Changing Detainee Policy

by emptywheel

John Aravosis is right. There are two videos of Saddam's execution, the better quality one shot from right next to him on the scaffold.

The article keeps talking about the "unofficial" cell phone video. First off, we don't know for a fact that the video was unofficial. In fact, I'd wager that the White House and the Iraqi Prime Minister both wanted that video taken and distributed, just as Bush wanted the pictures of Saddam's dead sons publicly disseminated to "prove" their death.

Second, as for there being "one" cell phone video. Bull. I just watched what was clearly a second video, and it was pretty damn professionally shot for a "cell phone video." Check it out. Here is the crappy cell phone video.  Now here is CNN's coverage of a second video, a video that is obviously much better quality than the "cell phone video." And note that the second video is shot right next to Saddam, so it wasn't exactly done undercover.

Which reminds me. Remember our ever-changing policy on detainees the government tried to confiscate from the ACLU last month? Just as a reminder, here's the gist of that policy, adopted in December 2005 just before the McCain anti-torture amendment was passed by Congress.

The news media and PAO are generally permitted, and to some extent even encouraged, to photograph EPWs and detainees from the point-of-capture throughout the entire detainment process. The photographs or other visual media must be limited such that the EPWs and detainees are not displayed in any manner that might be interpreted as holding them up to public curiosity...

[snip]

U.S. Soldiers are prohibited from such photography unless done in an official capacity.

Two parts of the policy were interesting. That, at the time of the Abu Ghraib scandal, it was not expressly forbidden for soldiers to take pictures of detainees. And that, in some circumstances, it is encouraged to take pictures of detainees in the Iraqi theater of operations, from the point of capture throughout the entire detainment process.

Nice to see our policies at work, eh?

Update:

Swopa wins the first round of survivor family reunion by pointing out that there IS an official video, which appears to be the one CNN has.

Update 2:

Ah, thanks to hauksdottir for the reminder, here's what I was thinking of: the changing stories of Mowaffak al-Rubaie, courtesy of Josh Marshall. The currently operative story:

Rubaie, courtesy of CNN, "I believe there was an infiltration to the crowd inside the chamber. These people have done a lot of harm, and I honestly believe that this may well have been planned by one of these Arab television channels infiltrating, and probably this video has been sold to this Arab television station."

A witness recanting his own implication of Rubaie:

[Munkith ] al-Faroun first said that he saw two Maliki government officials making videos of the execution by holding up their cell phones as the events took place. He later identified one of the two men as Iraqi National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie. In response to Maliki government claims that it was one of the guards who took the cell phone video, al-Faroun said, not likely. "I am confident that they were not the guards, for I checked the guards. I kept them under my eye," he said.

As the intensity of the scrutiny into the story rose overnight, al-Faroun recanted his claim to have seen al-Rubaie making a video of the execution: "I am not accusing Mowaffak al-Rubaie, and I did not see him taking pictures." [emphasis mine]

And Rubaie recanting his own testimony.

al Rubaie on Dec. 29th ...

the whole process from A to Z has been videoed, and it's kept in a safe place, and there was absolutely no humiliation to Saddam Hussein when he was alive, and after he was executed. So there was no -- there was all respect to him, when he was alive, and after the execution when he was like a body, if you like. I'm honestly proud of the way it was executed. It was done in a proper way, in all the international standards and the Islamic standards, and Iraqi standards. I'm really proud of the way it went on ...

And today ...

Iraq's National Security Adviser, Mouwaffaq al-Rubaie, said the shouting was "unprofessional, disgusting and shouldn't have happened".

"This was supposed to be a uniting event between Shia and Sunni," Mr Rubaie told Sky TV, adding that Iraq's government would punish those found to be involved.

Sounds like there may be more videos, if two officials (plus perhaps a guard) took them. But it also sounds like Rubaie has demoted the video he may or may not have taken from official status to orphaned status.

Comments

[njr]

Laura Rozen asks

is it the documentary evidence of the taunting abuse going on at Saddam's execution that's offensive, or the taunting abuse that's offensive?

and emptywheel is noting the evidence is in duplicate... does the duplication help answer the question?

[Swopa]

Now here is CNN's coverage of a second video, a video that is obviously much better quality than the "cell phone video."

Isn't that the official video... i.e., the one that stops before the actual hanging?

[emptywheel]

Swopa

I may be misunderstanding--but I thought the Iraqi government first admitted there was an official video then backtracked and said it was unofficial. That's not right?

[Looking forward to the "survivor show/family reunion")

[Swopa]

No, at first the Iraqi govt. released an official video without any sound (for reasons that are now apparent), and which ended before the actual execution.

Within about a day of that video, the cellphone video started bubbling up on the Web.

[emptywheel]

I'm still looking for the link on their backtracking. But for now I'll cede you the first round of survivor.

It's triple elimination, isn't it? I'm not done until Ari is named as Pincus' source--and he and Bartlett as "2"?

[Swopa]

Actually, I meant to mention in the earlier thread that I'm accepting dinner bets on 1x2x6, payable either during the Libby trial or at YearlyKos.

That would include Pincus as one of the 6, Ari/Bartlett as "2", and any official on Air Force One as "1" (e.g., Powell, Card, Bartlett).

[Swopa]

Oh, and the core theory (for anyone who hasn't been following along) being that the Washington Post's "1x2x6" story in late September 2003 described a string of calls (to "six or more reporters") made from Air Force One on July 12, 2003 (by "two top White House officials"), as observed/overheard by a "senior administration official" who blew the whistle to the WaPo.

[emptywheel]

I'll take that bet--though I doubt highly we'll get an answer to that at the trial.

I wouldn't necessarily bet a dinner agaisnt Fleischer as Pincus' source (maybe a beer, though). But Fleischer/Bartlett as 2? Dinner it is.

[Swopa]

I'd be surprised if we learn during the trial, but then again, who knows what things might come crawling out when Fitz and Libby start lifting rocks. (If Team Libby really intends to impugn Ari by saying he was on the hook to be indicted, then news of who he leaked to almost has to come out, doesn't it?)

And I agree, Fleischer leaking to Pincus as a one-off event is only worth a beer.

The thing I'm a little shaky on is Bartlett as part of "2", since he never seems to have been hinted at otherwise as a leaker. So a caveat I'll insist on is that if 1x2x6 might really be 1x1x6, with Fleischer making all the calls -- especially if Bartlett is the "1" SAO and intentionally fingered himself as part of the "2" in order to divert suspicion. (Which would be an awesome bank shot on his part!)

[Jeff]

I want in, badly, but I want to clarify the terms of the bet. Which elements of your Theory have to prove correct for you to win? I'd bet against Fleischer and Bartlett as 2 - in fact, I'd almost bet that Bartlett is 1 (which in turn means that 1 was on Air Force One, but did not witness 2 making 6 or so calls on July 12).

I believe 2 were Rove and Libby, and I believe, less confidently, that 1 was Bartlett (but that's really a guess). I am skeptical that there were six, at least six reporters called before Novaks' column came out.

[Swopa]

My terms are laid out in the comments above. If Rove/Libby are "2", I'm buying. Bartlett is possible as "1" in my theory, but IMO only if he's part of "2" as well.

I don't think we'll ever find out the names of all 6 reporters, if in fact there were "six or more." So I'd ask simply to accept multiple reporters, including Pincus, called from Air Force One.

[emptywheel]

Agree with you Swopa--this will only come out in an attempt to impugn (and how!) Ari.

But let me clarify, since I've already laid my credit card on the table. An Ari to Pincus leak does not itself prove Ari is 2. I'm arguing that Pincus' source (whoever it is--I do think Ari is a real possibility) is not part of 2, you're arguing it is, so this bet is only satisfied if there is some indication that Ari leaked to more than just Pincus. How do we know though whether the multiple ROve and Libby leaks are 2, or the (in that case) multiple Ari leaks are 2?

[Jeff]

OK, so the essence of it is that Bartlett and Fleischer on board Air Force One on July 12 are 2. That seems fair. Multiple reporters is good enough for me - that's the significant claim, not the precise number.

I'm in, but I suppose it's only fair that I put up Rove and Libby as my 2. I presume if neither is right, nobody wins.

[Jeff]

How do we know though whether the multiple ROve and Libby leaks are 2, or the (in that case) multiple Ari leaks are 2?

Isn't the key here that the question is who 1 fingered as 2 to the Post in September '03 - regardless of the underlying facts? Especially since it's quite possible 1 got some if not most of the details wrong?

[Swopa]

An Ari to Pincus leak does not itself prove Ari is 2... this bet is only satisfied if there is some indication that Ari leaked to more than just Pincus.

Exactly right.

How do we know though whether the multiple Rove and Libby leaks are 2, or the (in that case) multiple Ari leaks are 2?

If we learn of multiple Ari leaks, we'll almost certainly learn how they happened, which would answer whether they fit my 1x2x6 model or not. Since the Rove/Libby leaks are already known, it would take the "1" source stepping forward and saying, "Yes, that's what I meant" (or something nearly as definitive).

[Rayne]

You guys are a hoot!! I am laughing my keister off at this exchange!! I think this administration has rubbed off on you, you're making up the rules as you go along. Think about it: was the discussion Dick had with whomever over that scrawled upon newspaper article, "What I didn't find in Africa" like the one you're having? Did they quibble about who would talk to what journalist, or at what point they knew the jig was up? Heh. I can see it now, DeadEye writing out all those questions as they chipped away at who would do what when, constituting a win for them...

And yes, I think Jeff's right on that last point at 21:25; unless you know who 1 is, you can't really know who 2 are. The two are clearly dictated by the 1, since there is the possibility that there was another variant arrangement, with 1-prime blowing the whistle to WaPo on at least another 2-prime. Don't get me started on the possible permutations of the 6-plus...

Too funny.

[Rayne]

Swopa 21:43 -- why would "1" step forward and not WaPo? I missed this part. Or why not both, under oath?

[emptywheel]

Thanks Rayne. I actually went and dragged Jeff into this because I knew we could use a little humor. NFL Playoff picks? Bah!! We've got real wagers going on here.

[Swopa]

Rayne, I don't think the reporters involved will be asked to out the "1" SAO under oath, although it's entirely possible that they could describe him/her more precisely in a way that would make it pretty obvious who he/she is.

Particularly if the "2" are Ari/Bartlett people other than Libby, Libby's team might be motivated to call Colin Powell the suspected "1" to the stand and ask, "Did you ever witness anyone telling a reporter about Joseph Wilson's wife?"

[emptywheel]

Also, Mike Allen has never been listed in anyone's witness list, so it's unlikely he'll be there to reveal his 1.

[Rayne]

Thanks, Swopa. I guess I can only marvel at the feel you folks have for what will be asked. I think part of my confusion comes from the Fitz case versus Plame civil case: did Fitz already ask the "1" SAO, and is this going to be introduced without having to call the "1" in the course of the civil suit? Or is it the other way around, that during civil case Plaintiff's attys. will ask what Fitz couldn't or wouldn't, and is not already covered in our line of discussion?

Gah. Wish my psychic powers were a bit more developed.

EW -- definitely better than NFL Playoffs, by a long chalk.

[emptywheel]

It's the second--the Wilsons, if their case doesn't get thrown out--will have broader leeway for discovery.

[John Lopresti]

1 of 2 was Condi. This only works if viewed in 2007 terms when today Negroponte is announced to have migrated to State. I would guess Bolton wanted to be one of the leakers, too; it fits his m.o. at that time; how about his stovepipe associates; seems lots of folks Wanted to Help leak. It has a congruency with the ethos of the grand Brooks Brothers Rebelion. I wonder what Bush has planned for Bolton's next assignment. Maybe HSA was too amorphous for NePo to endure Two More Years; or perhaps a leak now in Foreign Relations committee has forewarned NePo HSA is about to be streamlined after legislature hearings. If I am right, the terms of my demand for spoils will be: a wholesale price version of the first book in the Anatomy of Deceit series.

[oldtree]

being somewhat experienced with video, this "second video" isn't professional by any means. It is a higher light input camera than the cell phone video, but not by much, so it is not as grainy, and it is likely tape, due to it not having the glitches associated with a cell phone cam. it is not on a tripod, it wavers on horizon, it has a zoom range of greater than a few points that cell phones usually have. It could easily be a digital still camera doing video. the light is overexposed, but it is hard to tell considering SH is the only one with out a mask.
the person shooting the video is quite close to the person who's hand goes up, and you can judge the distance when the zoom range changes. The person is also known to be shooting the video by the person on the camera right, as they are acknowledged by that person. I am only guessing at from 3 to 6 feet. we don't know where the zoom range started, ie; if the shooter had all ready zoomed in. if there is a better picture of the size of the platform, it would be easy to determine the location of the person shooting this video. it may be that this person is standing over the area next to the trap door. but it also appears that no one is in front of this person, indicating they have the prize position for doing photo or video. In the second cell phone one showing SH from below, it shows where the other person shooting the video seen on CNN is standing, what appears to be 3 feet from the executioner on camera right again, but the camera person isn't seen in the video
there is a light on at camera right, pointed to SH. during the jumble just before the drop, the rougher images of the cell camera flashes over to the person shooting the more stable video for a fraction of a second, but there is no clear view of anything but perhaps what they were wearing.

nope, only the fact that the person was clearly there to get the video is indicated. not that it was a pro video by any means, that is clearly contradicted by several motions that camera person made. amateur all the way.

someone needs a video analyst

[hauksdottir]

CNN called and talked to their on-site source after Hussein was dead... and their report mentioned the sound of chanting as background noise during the call, and the source said that people were dancing around the body, which was right in front of him. I was amused by Josh's comment that it surely sounded like somebody in the room had a cellphone.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011765.php

If this source didn't take the leaked snuff-film, there were AT LEAST 2 cell phones in the execution chamber.

The only way to prove the source's innocence of making the snuff-film would be to compare the chanting behind the phone conversation (which I presume that CNN recorded) with that of the snuff-film. If they synchronize exactly, the callee couldn't have been recording while talking, otherwise his own voice would be in the snuff film. If the snuff-film ends because of an incoming call, well, we know who filmed this version. Maliki's investigation will probably finger the lowest possible fall-guy, though.

I'm going to presume that the guards may have had their phones embargoed before the helicopter flight, but that all of the ministers and judges had theirs with them (what authority in America would order Chief Justice Roberts or NSA Stephen Hadley to hand over his phone?), and that anybody with video capability took a record.

Rubaie said the execution was videotaped and photographed extensively from the time Hussein was transferred from U.S. to Iraqi custody until he was dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/29/hussein/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Distributing it was probably considered a great idea, as proving death beyond all doubt. Just as the US commissioned a huge framed portrait of Zarqawi's dead head and Hussein's dead sons were exhibited, the Iraqis were following our example, in the hopes of disheartening any remaining followers... or merely for bragging rights.

Bush claims not to have seen the video. Bulldickeys on that. A man who keeps Hussein's pistol as a trophy in his desk? A man who watched the film of the statue being pulled down over and over? A man who would send hundreds of thousands of people to war and bankrupt his own country to avenge a threat to his daddy? A man who put firecrackers in frogs and watched them explode mid-air has no innate aversion to killing and viewing death in person, so why would he pretend to have niceities about seeing the execution of his hated enemy?

When Bush is in the dock for his own war crimes, I wonder if he'll display the discipline of Hussein and accept his fate... or if he'll blubber like a bully in a corner?

[emptywheel]

hauks

Yes, I think you're right. And of course, there were the flashes going off, which suggests several more camera phones.

As to Bush not seeing the video? Nope, I don't buy that either. This is the guy who laughed at Tammy Faye (was that her name?). He's probably playing the video off the ceiling of his bedroom.

[Sally]

We all know how Bush will act when he's in the dock for war crimes. It won't be pretty but nothing about him is.

[Jeff]

Thanks, Rayne, for the deeply substantive, if somewhat difficult to understand, comments. It reminds me of comments over at - oh, never mind.

[Rayne]

You're welcome, Jeff...I think...?

[Jeff]

I think...?

More or less exactly my initial reaction to your comments.

[Rayne]

Not certain which part wasn't clear; maybe I wasn't being particularly articulate, or perhaps it was because I was thinking of the bets in terms of a linear equation, like so:

1x2x6 = Swopa's bet =
[Any AF1 x Ari/Bartlett X (Pincus+5)]

1'x2'x6 = EW's bet =
[(not 1) x (not Ari/Bartlett) x (Pincus+5)]
(where ' = prime, distinguishing different values of the same variable in a mathematical expression)

1"x2"x6 = Jeff's bet =
[(any 1 or 1') x (Rove/Libby ONLY) x (Pincus+5)]
(where " = distinquishes different values of same variable not previously expressed)

Now I'm scratching my head about the (1), (1'), or (1"), because your comment upthread suggested that the (2), (2') or (2") were dependent upon (1), (1'), or (1"). In other words, your bet is not (any 1 or 1') but (not 1)...capice?

To Swopa and EW -- do you and Jeff all understand the 6 = (Pincus+5)? or is there some variant in the bets that hasn't been clarified?

[Jeff]

Here's my overall view. I feel pretty confident that the source (1) for the 1x2x6 story in the Post got some parts of his (I believe it's a him) wrong. In particular, I suspect it is true that he failed to distinguish between calls that were made to reporters before Novak's column was published and calls after Novak's column (July 14, 2003). Thus, I think there may not have been 6 reporters to whom the 2 leaked before Novak's July 14 column. It's also perfectly possible that the 2 disclosed Plame info to reporters during conversations where the reporters called the officials and not vice versa. However, I do think the essence of the story is probably accurate - that 2 top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to multiple reporters before Novak's column ran. I believe the two officials who 1 was talking about were Rove and Libby.

I suspect that 1 was not an eye-witness to all these calls, but knew about them second-hand for the most part. Perhaps there was a meeting in September 2003 where people discussed what they'd done in this regard, and Rove and Libby admitted their calls. And 1 relayed some of that to the WaPo. I could imagine Bartlett in this role.

I am doubtful that Adam Levine is the actual source for the Post, as Isikoff and Corn's book, Hubris, at times hints; Novak has taken that as an assertion, and I think that's not necessarily correct. What makes me doubtful is that I doubt Levine qualifies as a senior administration official, though if he does, I wouldn't bet against Levine.

[Rayne]

Okay...now how do I write a linear equation for that? ;-)

1"x2"x6" = Jeff's bet =

(where 1" may be any 1 or 1') x (Rove/Libby) x (Any 6 or more)

True? False?

[Jeff]

Close. In place of (Any 6 or more) put in (Multiple, but likely less than 6).

I'll stick with "any" if I can. But for record, they probably include Miller, Cooper, and Novak. Pincus appears to be out, unless Rove was his source, which is possible but not likely. Woodward doesn't count, not Dickerson. And unless something has changed recently, Fitzgerald knows of no other reporters who became aware of Plame before Novak's column.

[Rayne]

Ah, capice. Which definitely means 6", different from EW and Swopa equations.

So...how does one pay up? As I see it, this is a matrix; there are three different variables, therefore three different bets, unless you three have agreed on an all-or-nothing. Methinks EW has a bet on 2 versus 2' with Swopa, and with a 2'=2" condition, both you and EW would have to buy Swopa that beer. But in a condition where 2' exists but 2" does not, EW is on the hook for the beer by herself.

?

Might have to make a drinking game out of this, replete with board and tiddly-winks...

[Jeff]

As best as I can see, the dinner bet really hinges on the identities of 2. There is perhaps a sort of gentleperson's bet on who 1 is or even more on how 1 came to believe what s/he believed about 2 (specifically, through direct observation, on AF1, or some other way, as through later discussion, for instance). And there's a kind of side bet for beer strictly on whether Pincus' July 12 source was Fleischer. There are a number of related interesting questions (who were the reporters, how many were there in reality, and so on), but I don't think any bets hinge on them.

[gjh]

深圳物流、深圳物流公司，深圳货运公司,深圳搬迁 深圳搬迁公司 深圳搬家公司 深圳市清洁服务公司

[Cynthia Castillo]

vastidity unconvinced huntsmanship swow ludicroserious difformity pectinid northwardly
Cleveland Area Homeschoolers
http://www.salentolink.com

深圳物流