Hussein Bodies Shown to Skeptical Iraqis NY Times; Arabs ‘shocked but convinced’ Ireland On Line; Hussein Photos Don’t End Doubts Detroit Free Press.

US Under Fire for Displaying Photos:

The U.S. decision to allow TV journalists to film the bodies of what it says of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s two sons was harshly criticized by law experts, human rights advocates and media specialists Friday, July25 .

“The release of the bodies in public acts in contravention of the Second Geneva Convention, which provides protection to the war casualties,” international law professor in Cairo university Abdulla Al-Ashaal told IslamOnline.net.

“The Convention stipulated that war deaths should not be mutilated,” Ashaal said.

For human rights experts, allowing journalists to air the graphically depicted mangled bodies did not take them by surprise, since the U.S. occupation forces had committed many of such large-scale violations before and after rolling into Baghdad on April9 .

Hard to determine if this was a calculatd affront on the US’s part or a typically culturally insensitive blunder like all the others that leave us scratching our heads about why we are hated:

In the Arab world, moral prospective of releasing dead bodies in a battered state is almost a taboo given its contradiction with a wide religious belief that death should be treated with sanctity.

“Publishing photos of mutilated corpses is haram (Forbidden), under the Islamic Law or Sharia,” said Mohamed Emara, a prominent moderate Islamic scholar. Islam Online, UK

Rumsfeld Glad He Released Grisly Photos Reuters; On TV, a sharp divide over the display Washington Post. With Photos US Buries Old Dilemma:

This squeamishness about violent death is a relatively modern sensibility. Highwaymen and bandits were once drawn and quartered, and hung in pieces at country crossroads as a cautionary display. In the modern West, however, the industrialisation of death has been coupled with a curious reluctance to display photographic evidence of what that industrialisation means. The photos of Pearl Harbor show no American dead. The government banned publication of any photos of dead US servicemen until more than two years into WW-II. ‘‘Eventually they decided this was dishonest and released three photos from Buna Beach in New Guinea,’’ said historian and critic Paul Fussell. ‘‘The pictures of the dead didn’t show any faces.’’ Fussell acknowledged the photos did at least show bodies, but said, ‘‘Unless you show guts hanging like Christmas decorations, you’re not showing what war is about.’’ Indian Express

“Important for the Iraqis to see them’:

Rumsfeld said it was crucial to convince skeptical Iraqis that two of the most vicious characters in their father’s regime were gone. And he said the decision was consistent with the terms of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits the display of enemy bodies for purposes of curiosity.

It was also likely a sign that Washington’s credibility on the streets of Iraq had badly eroded and a signal the Bush administration was aggressively trying to stem the daily attacks on their soldiers — attacks that spiked upward after Uday and Qusay Hussein were slain by U.S. troops in Mosul in a four-hour firefight Tuesday.

When enemies of the United States have paraded American casualties in past conflicts, it has provoked rage here, most recently when Rumsfeld himself was angered when Iraqis allowed television to film dead Americans and PoWs cowering in fear after their capture in the early stages of the war in March. Toronto Star

It is distasteful gloating, equivalent to the Iraqi release of the bodies of US troops killed in the invasion which the US condemned as a lurid indecency and a violation of the human rights of the war victims. We don’t get to be the arbiters of right and wrong, applying our own relativism whenever it is convenient. The hypocrisy, which is probably Rumsfeld’s to own, stands naked for the world to see along with the photos, and is equally abhorrent. When we violate the Geneva Convention, the higher purpose by which we claim to justify it makes us unfettered by moral niceties. Oh, but that’s the story of the entire invasion of Iraq, isn’t it? Consider the other convenient effects of the timing of the killings and the furor over the photos and ponder whether it was a calculated effort to divert attention from the mounting “Bush lied” furor; his plummeting approval in the polls; the damning Congressional report on 9-11 The Nation

concluding, among other points, that Iraq of course had nothing to do with al Qaeda UPI

; and the brewing scandal about the administrations redaction of parts of the report that would be ‘too upsetting’ to our friends the Saudis. And whether the pitiful minds in the White House actually believed it would halt the rising tide of killings of the occupying American forces NY Times.

Now it’s right war, wrong reason: “A school of thought is emerging that Saddam Hussein was not so much covering up his possession of banned weapons as his lack of them.” — Daniel Schorr, NPR’s senior news analyst writes in the Christian Science Monitor. Was Hussein’s lack of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors an attempt at keeping up the pretense of having WMD as a deterrent against hostile neighbors such as Iran and the Kurds?

Republicans fret about impact of Iraq, economy on Bush’s standing

For the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, rank-and-file Republicans say they are worried about President Bush’s re-election chances based on the feeble economy, the rising death toll in Iraq and questions about his credibility.

“Of course it alarms me to see his poll figures below the safe margins,” said Ruth Griffin, co-chair of Bush’s 2000 campaign steering committee in New Hampshire. “If he isn’t concerned, and we strong believers in the Bush administration aren’t concerned, we must have blinders on.”

Poor Republicans may be destined to have more sleepless nights if they believe everything they read in the polls…

Also: National Hispanic group says Bush administration has disappointed Latinos [thanks, Ray]

“The Secret Service used ‘profoundly bad judgment‘ in seeking to question a Los Angeles Times cartoonist over a political cartoon depicting a man pointing a gun at President Bush, a senior House Republican said Tuesday.” Ironically, the cartoonist is apparently a Bush sympathizer not threatening but commisserating with the President’s current political woes, according to This Modern World, which I thank for this blink.

“A vegetarian ‘ape-diet’, based on the foods our simian cousins eat, is as effective in lowering cholesterol as an established cholesterol-lowering drug, reveals a new study. High cholesterol levels increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

The key components of the ape diet are plant sterols, found in plant oils and enriched margarines, viscous fibre, found in oats, barley and aubergine, and soy protein and nuts.

People with raised cholesterol following this primitive diet had their levels of bad cholesterol slashed by about a third – the same reduction provided by the statin drug, lovastatin.

…(H)umans may be evolutionarily adapted to the diet, which is similar to that eaten by gorillas and orangutans.”

New Scientist

“A new genetic study deals a blow to claims that humans reached America at least 30,000 years ago – around the same time that people were colonising Europe.

The subject of when humans first arrived in America is hotly contested by academics.

On one side of the argument are researchers who claim America was first populated around 13,000 years ago, toward the end of the last Ice Age. On the other are those who propose a much earlier date for colonisation of the continent – possibly around 30,000-40,000 years ago.” BBC

“

Rosy cheeks seem to be crucial in the dating game, for monkeys at least.

Females of a common primate, the rhesus macaque, prefer males with red faces, a study has shown.

It signals high levels of testosterone which, in many male animals, mean a healthy immune system and good genes.

A rosy glow might also act as a similar cue in humans, say British researchers.” BBC