Video of the Paul Johnson Murder

[Ilmater]

I'm quite sure that I'll be either berated or banned for asking for this, but I was wondering if anyone knew where the video of Paul Johnson's murder is?

No, I'm not a sick f*** that gets off on this kind of thing. In fact, I couldn't bring myself to watch the Nick Berg video. However, I have kept it, and I would like this as well. As a history buff, I think it's important to, one day, have these images to show to future generations to illustrate the kinds of things that these terrorists were doing to try and break our resolve. I've seen some terrible footage of the horrors of past wars, and actual videos only further enable one to grasp what horrors were involved. I don't think that telling someone 70 years from now that some of our fellow Americans were kidnapped and beheaded exemplifies the kind of horror and anger that we felt without showing the video.

Do I think it's neccessary? No. But I do think that is has a far greater impact.

So either point me in the right direction, flame the sh*t out of my thread, or send me on a two-week vacation. I'm actually expecting the thread to just be locked and my question to remain unanswered, but you never know.

P.S. I really don't see how posting this would be a bannable offense, but I guess I'm not in charge...

 

[alchemize]

Nick Berg's video was posted (by yours truly). I think everyone should watch the videos/see the photos so we know what kind of people we are up against.

There was no video (yet) of Paul Johnsons. Just photos. Drudge had links if you want to post them.

PS How come all the tinfoil folks have shut up about Nick's video, etc.? Wasn't Paul in an orange jumpsuit? There must be a larger consipiracy!!!

 

[gsaldivar]

ogrish.com usually has them.

 

[Train]

Posting images/videos of murders is against the Geneva Conventions. Just because Al-Jazeera does it does not mean we can sink to thier level. The Geneva Conventions is most likely not enforcable on civilians, so its up to you.

Edit: spelling

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train
Posting images/videos of murders is against the Geneva Conventions. Just because Al-Jazeera does it does not mean we can sink to thier level. The Geneva Conventions is most likely not enforcable on civilians, so its up to you.

Edit: spelling

Might want to tell that to the Bush Administration since they released that video of Saddam undergoing a medical examination.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Train
Posting images/videos of murders is against the Geneva Conventions. Just because Al-Jazeera does it does not mean we can sink to thier level. The Geneva Conventions is most likely not enforcable on civilians, so its up to you.

Edit: spelling

Only if it's POW. Civil persons aren't covered.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train
Posting images/videos of murders is against the Geneva Conventions. Just because Al-Jazeera does it does not mean we can sink to thier level. The Geneva Conventions is most likely not enforcable on civilians, so its up to you.

Edit: spelling

Might want to tell that to the Bush Administration since they released that video of Saddam undergoing a medical examination.

So clearly then you think they should NOT have shown video then? You disagree with that?

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: Train
Posting images/videos of murders is against the Geneva Conventions. Just because Al-Jazeera does it does not mean we can sink to thier level. The Geneva Conventions is most likely not enforcable on civilians, so its up to you.

Edit: spelling

the geneva convention only applies to signers of the geneva convention. unless you are a representative of a government body, you are free to post anything you please.

 

[thebenjamins]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I'm quite sure that I'll be either berated or banned for asking for this, but I was wondering if anyone knew where the video of Paul Johnson's murder is?

No, I'm not a sick f*** that gets off on this kind of thing. In fact, I couldn't bring myself to watch the Nick Berg video. However, I have kept it, and I would like this as well. As a history buff, I think it's important to, one day, have these images to show to future generations to illustrate the kinds of things that these terrorists were doing to try and break our resolve. I've seen some terrible footage of the horrors of past wars, and actual videos only further enable one to grasp what horrors were involved. I don't think that telling someone 70 years from now that some of our fellow Americans were kidnapped and beheaded exemplifies the kind of horror and anger that we felt without showing the video.

Do I think it's neccessary? No. But I do think that is has a far greater impact.

So either point me in the right direction, flame the sh*t out of my thread, or send me on a two-week vacation. I'm actually expecting the thread to just be locked and my question to remain unanswered, but you never know.

P.S. I really don't see how posting this would be a bannable offense, but I guess I'm not in charge...

i saw the nick berg vid, but im not going to see any more, its just not nice to watch it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train
Posting images/videos of murders is against the Geneva Conventions. Just because Al-Jazeera does it does not mean we can sink to thier level. The Geneva Conventions is most likely not enforcable on civilians, so its up to you.

Edit: spelling

Might want to tell that to the Bush Administration since they released that video of Saddam undergoing a medical examination.

So clearly then you think they should NOT have shown video then? You disagree with that?

Correct.

The U.S., being a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, violated the Conventions by airing the video of Saddam.



http://www.fair.org/extra/0403/pow-tv.html

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: thebenjamins

i saw the nick berg vid, but im not going to see any more, its just not nice to watch it.

I agree. I don't think I want those images in my head forever.

 

[gsaldivar]

So clearly then you think they should NOT have shown video then? You disagree with that?

Saddam was shown on TV in order to "prove" to ordinary Iraqis that Saddam was in U.S. custody. Saddam's Army and Republican Guard may have otherwise carried out standing orders left by Saddam, for fear of reprisal by Saddam if he returned.

It's very likely that showing Saddam on TV convinced at least some of Saddam's Army, Repiblican Guard, and other and hi-ranking government officials that Saddam was gone for good, and that there was a reduced personal risk for them for choosing to defect, desert their posts, and/or lay down their arms.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train
Posting images/videos of murders is against the Geneva Conventions. Just because Al-Jazeera does it does not mean we can sink to thier level. The Geneva Conventions is most likely not enforcable on civilians, so its up to you.

Edit: spelling

Might want to tell that to the Bush Administration since they released that video of Saddam undergoing a medical examination.

So clearly then you think they should NOT have shown video then? You disagree with that?

Correct.

The U.S., being a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, violated the Conventions by airing the video of Saddam.



http://www.fair.org/extra/0403/pow-tv.html

Fair enough. But if they hadn't posted the video, there'd be a crowd of people who would say the US was lying about having captured him - would you be one of them? Food for thought.

 

[conjur]

They could have shown a photo of the capture of Saddam or something like a mugshot. Something that does not show the prisoner in a humiliating manner.

 

[thebenjamins]

hmm, well here goes, ogrish have pics for abdul aziz al-muqrin and a few cronies.

im sure the pics are from one of the arab media channels anyway, but here are the links, and the photos arent more graphic than the ones of saddam's sons last year.

top right muqrin, also mentions someone called dakheel, and mateeri, and the caption is the party of killing is finished.

muqrin body

muqrin face

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: conjur
They could have shown a photo of the capture of Saddam or something like a mugshot. Something that does not show the prisoner in a humiliating manner.

You don't think a mugshot is humiliating?

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: conjur
They could have shown a photo of the capture of Saddam or something like a mugshot. Something that does not show the prisoner in a humiliating manner.

:roll:

IMHO protecting the lives of US servicemen/women in Iraq is FAR more important than protecting Saddam Hussein from "humiliation".

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train
Posting images/videos of murders is against the Geneva Conventions. Just because Al-Jazeera does it does not mean we can sink to thier level. The Geneva Conventions is most likely not enforcable on civilians, so its up to you.

Edit: spelling

Might want to tell that to the Bush Administration since they released that video of Saddam undergoing a medical examination.

So clearly then you think they should NOT have shown video then? You disagree with that?

Correct.

The U.S., being a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, violated the Conventions by airing the video of Saddam.



http://www.fair.org/extra/0403/pow-tv.html

You've really gone off the deep-end I'm afraid.

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: Train
Posting images/videos of murders is against the Geneva Conventions. Just because Al-Jazeera does it does not mean we can sink to thier level. The Geneva Conventions is most likely not enforcable on civilians, so its up to you.

Edit: spelling

ssshhhhh... don't say Geneva convention out loud like that !!
... not while we have these guys holed up in Guantanamo

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train
Posting images/videos of murders is against the Geneva Conventions. Just because Al-Jazeera does it does not mean we can sink to thier level. The Geneva Conventions is most likely not enforcable on civilians, so its up to you.

Edit: spelling

Might want to tell that to the Bush Administration since they released that video of Saddam undergoing a medical examination.

I didn't know the BUsh administration owned the networks and showing a video of a medical exam is not humiliating so I do not believe it violates the geneva convention.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I didn't know the BUsh administration owned the networks and showing a video of a medical exam is not humiliating so I do not believe it violates the geneva convention.
------------------------
The Bush government had to provide either the video or the access necessary to shoot the video in order for it to be shown on the networks and around the world.

Don't tack bad arguments onto ones that are less bad. They make your whole statement seem less defensable, unfair as this is.

I don't know enough about the Geneva convention to know whether the specific video was a violation, but I think a strong argument could be made that the purpose of the video was not simply to show that the capture was real, but also to show saddam as a defeated, hopeless man. I suspect that if this argument is considered strong, the video would be a violation.