The picture which shames US army

A secretly taken picture of an American soldier frisking an Afghan child has shocked human rights campaigners across the world.

The picture was given to Aljazeera.net by the Islamic Observation Centre to highlight the plight of children in Afghanistan.

It will now be shown to delegates and discussed at the Washington Conference on Civil Liberties in America on Saturday, 25 October.

Taken by a strategically-placed camera, and using a telephoto lens, the undercover photographer snapped a four-year-old child having his clothing searched by a heavily armed US soldier.

View Photo:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A3BAAADE-2A12-4F4C-A8B6-BB616AF33F30.htm

but I can't get worked up over this. The kid isn't being molested, assaulted or abused. He's being frisked, and from his stance, it appears voluntarily.

I just don't see any shame involved in this. The insinutations that it was all done by "secret camera" is meant to imply that somehow the soldier is doing something wrong. I don't think s/he is.

Bulldozing olive groves -- that was shameful.

might change your mind...

:)

taken photos of US operations is not always allowed.....I see no implication of right or wrong...

it is absurd to say otherwise. There are NO TELEPHOTO effects in this pic and the lens was at about normal shoulder height when the pic was taken. The perspective cannot alter lens height it can only average the angles so that they approach dead on. It can be seen clearly in this photo that the vantage was at about shoulder height but that the lens had to be tilted downward to get the image.

Get a camera and try this. Put a trash can in the street and look at it thru the camera from about ten feet. Then go a hundred feet away and look again, comparing the angle your cam has with the street. You will see at a distance the vantage is almost parallel with the street but acutely downward up close.

This article is totally full of shit. The crap about a hidden cam is patently false and assumes that the readers are as stupid as the author.

The soldier had no fear of being photographed and obviously did not use his weapon to take the camera away.

Nicely done, yeah if this were a telephoto shot, it would have to be up in a balloon :7

Kids alays agree to be frisked "voluntarily" when adults with guns ask.

if he's even being frisked. It could be any number of things.

is the English Sunday Express reporter who was captured by the Taliban before the Afghan war. It was feared she would be executed, and she then discovered that "evidence" designed to incriminate her was planted and given to the Taliban.

The Taliban then released her and she moved to the middle east, where she converted to Islam. She believes MI6 tried to get her killed.

Weird: http://www.muslimuzbekistan.com/eng/ennews/2002/08/ennews27082002_1.html

...demining zones littered with Clusterbomb Happy Meals.

as the whole war is. But don't put it past this kid to have a grenade in his jammies!

typical american ignorance of other cultures...sad really...

I had a good freind in Viet Nam...and a kid had a grenade in his diaopers...(is that cultually ignorant??? Is it a nappy, perhaps?) and blew apart a few people....folks at war are not above using their kids....and soldiers are not above protecting their own butts!

would any person or child choose to run around with grenades or explosives....NOT

they were forced into it....cause and effect.....those who attack will ALWAYS lose..it is the way...everything returns to balance....

worship their parents? At that age, don't they do as they are told?

Of course people go around with explosives strapped to them....do you have any access to news?

stopping your son or daughter on the playground to pat them down when all they were doing was minding their own business just playing??

all of those kids who were patted down will at some point consider joining the fight against the invaders when they get older, due simply, to this incident they experienced as a child. America is breeding terrorists.. we have got to stop and think about a different way to fix the problem.. cuz force is doing nothing but killing people.

if you were lied to by your own country, and thrust into harm's way...you are 17...no way to tell who is friend or foe??? You are confusing people with their so-called leaders....

what they were told. We are human beings and responsible for our own actions.. period. I didn't see anyone with a gun to the head of that soldier who was frisking the 4 year old. He wasn't forced.. sorry.

...the soldier had no more choice in the matter than did the child.

Failure to obey a direct order (frisking the child) is punishable by a fine, and/or reduction in rank, and/or jail time, depending on the severity of the incident.

Under combat conditions, officers are under orders to shoot those that fail to obey direct orders. I knew a guy that had to do that in Vietnam.

that was my point

:shrug: You don't wish for our soldiers to protect themselves???

during my stint as a NYC preschool teacher. Dastardly.

Should the US withdraw from Iraq and let the UN take the lead role?

Yes :
71%
No :
24%
Unsure :
4%

Number of pollers : 18110

:dem: :kick:

like the picture of the draft dodging idiot on an aircraft carrier declaring that hostilities were over.

Obviosuly the soldier is searching the child for that bunch of flowers he was told he would be presented to him upon bursting through the families front door.

and our teachers and schools, and the unions that back the fascists, should be shamed for frisking, metal detecting and searching lockers. I almost forgot the policemen and women, the federal buildings and courthouses and those totalitarian Hitler-like nightclubs that all frisk people. OHHHH the shame......

http://rense.com/general43/echo.htm

The Littlest Echo

although I wouldn't want to have a contest. They both are sickening as well as gut wrenching.

Looks like one of the children of thalidomide, probably with his father or mother.

It shames the US.

Look, those soldiers are in a horrible situation--they don't want to be there and there HAVE been attacks by civilians. They are trying to stay alive. If that means they search little kids--well, it isn't out of the question that somebody might consider strapping some plastic explosives around a kid's waist and blowing them up. There are sick folks in EVERY corner of the world.

I place blame squarley on the asshole that sent our guys in there to begin with--Shrub.

I feel huge sympathy for the civillians there, and those poor kids are seeing up close and personal how screwed up the US is right now. I do not, however fell harshly against some soldier who is over tired, on edge and actually in a high risk situation.

Laura

First - I think it shows the fear and circumstances of undermanned troops in Afghanistan. The fear that youth could be used to carry serious firepower - is not necessarily unfounded.

Then I think back to our rhetoric pre and during the invasion.

We would get rid of the Taliban - and 'liberate' the people of Afghanistan.

Then we would help establish a democracy to bring stability to the country and region. This democracy would be a beacon to the region (which is how it would bring stability to the region).

We would provide massive support to repairing the infrastructure.

What happened?

Shortly after the Taliban collapsed.... we signalled our limited commitment by resisting calls from other Allies to provide Peace-Keeping support. We would primarily provide support around Kabul, and would continue excursions to go after al queada. Then we pulled troops and support - and moved many to Iraq - far in advance of any Iraq action (because the serious planning, and allegedly an agreement between bush and blair was made in March 2001, to invade Iraq).

Then in the president's first budget post the Afghan invasion - he included NO request for funds for aid or rebuilding Afghanistan - the House GOP was reported to be so embarrassed - especially given the increased rhetoric from the All the Presidents Men about 'ousting the repressive Iraq regime, rebuilding and establishing a democracy that would provide stability to the region' (same rhetoric - while stiffing the first place the rhetoric was used). So the house GOP put in a line item (small) for Afghanistan.

Thus we left troops undermanned, under supplied, and never gave the resources for rebuilding. We resisted international efforts for 'Peace Keeping' which would have been spread throughout the country and helped to prevent the re-emergence of the War Lords power and chaos which led the people to support the repressive Taliban in the first place.

We have learned that Al Queada and the Taliban have regrouped both within Afghanistan and in the border areas (some being hosted - not necessarily officially - by our Ally Pakistan). Thus attacks targeted at the US Troops are ongoing.

I have compassion of the circumstances of both the Afghan civilians living through yet another post-war period and under conditions that reportedly are as bad as any period during and after the Soviet Invasion, and for the very difficult and tenuous circumstances facing the US servicemen and women who have been left in Afghanistan. And who represent the promises not kept to the Afghan people.

When Sen. Graham first criticized the Bush policy - it was not on the grounds that war and invasion to fight terrorism was wrong. It was not even against the *shudder* concept of preemption as a legitimate reason to go to war. It was that it diverted troops and resources from the real area of trouble - and would make the US less safe because of the diverted resources, the diverted manpower, and the diverted policy attention. While I don't agree with his support for "preemption", I do agree with the concern of the diversion of resources.

Once we invaded in Afghanistan, I believe that we had an obligation to ensure new stability - and part of that would have been through the type of economic investment we are seeing in Iraq - at least those parts of that investment which hire Iraqis for the manpower of the various projects. Were that to have happened in Afghanistan, along with a period of extensive peacekeeping, more individual citizens would have had an economic allegience to the new government rather than to the war-lords (allegiences kept through fear rather than positive interests). The whole situation today - nearly two years after the invasion - would be very, very different.

I think our administrations policies created this mess and when viewing pictures such as these - which are unsettling - I would point the blame back at the administration for creating this inevitable situation.

thanks for bringing it all back into focus again so coherently. It seems so long ago that we invaded Afganistan--the pipe line and all of it seems a blur in light of the Iraq invasion--there is simply just too much Bush atrocities to even remember it all. Women were going to be freed from the Burqua--and Laura was the heroine who was going to do it. She dropped that fast enough and abandoned those women who placed their faith in Bush and Laura. The reintroduction of the very lucrative poppy farms is not mentioned either by too many people. Where is that at I wonder.

Nor was the camera placed "strategically". Whoever took the picture was standing about eight feet away using a "normal" to wide-angle lens.

Seriously, we don't need this kind of propaganda here. It makes everybody look bad, especially whoever posted it.

There's PLENTY and I mean PLENTY of real photographs you could use that show the crimes of our war in Iraq. You don't need to make stuff up.

I just don't get it.

What's shameful about frisking a kid?

If I were a soldier, I'd be frisking everybody. And then, just to be sure, I'd probably frisk them again.

Afghanistan is a war zone lousy with terrorists. I'm sorry, but certain indignities come with the territory.

.

...the place is definitely a War Zone, but I thought the Afghans lived in Afghanistan. But now they're "terrorists" in their own country?

Interesting.

If you wish to point a finger at shame point one at the folks that use kids to tote bombs. I am an experienced combat fighter and we always frisked the kids. If you did not..they killed you. Their parents know they are innocent and ignorant of war so they USE them for horrible things.

My bet was that this kid came forward for the frisk and then asked for the soldier’s chocolate from his MRE. He probably got it.

There is nothing to gain by spinning an issue like this. I do not think we Democrats do a service to anyone when we attempt to make issue of what we don’t understand.

Support your troops. Go there. Fight with them. Then cast your stones.

Our Fearless Leader ordered us to attack an ENTIRE country in order to track down those people we're being told attacked us on 911. That has led to quite a bit of hate and discontent on the part of the Afghan people because we're apparently attempting to reduce them to pre-Ice Age conditions.

IMHO, our troops shouldn't be there in the first place, much less forced into situations that involve frisking children because our guys are in a constant state of fear bordering on panic. I won't even discuss how I feel about being in Iraq.

There's no sense in lashing out at people expressing honest opinions...save your irritation for those that got us into this mess in the first place.

And yes, I'm former military, too.

and you will see that I did exactly what you say.

It was lazy and over protected fat asses Americans that got us into this war. People like Bush that have never seen the heat. There were very few folks like me (I grew up in Europe, the son of a Foreign Service worker and was off to Vietnam at 19 as a LRRP) that supported that war. I was and am now dead against the war in Iraq. I am also dead against a little kid being used to kill an American soldier as no American should die that young and so far away. Nor should that kid be ripped to bits by a bomb under his coat or by another American soldier in response to the killing of one of his own. If the kid has a satchel charge on him let’s get it off, find out who put it there and educate the people in who are their true friends. But you knew that being a well experienced grunt that has had to do such things in the past...right?

NO our troops should not be there but there is no reason to associate liberal thought with lame notions like "they should not be there so they should not defend themselves". I doubt this guy is panicked and if he was and if you are as you say, prior military, you would agree that he would be back in a safe fire zone calling in TAC air to handle that situation. I never went into a vill unless I was sure the people were somewhat on our side or indifferent and likely to cooperate in my number one objective: To stay alive!

IN so far as reducing the Afghan to 'pre-Ice Age conditions' I will not argue that. Though I might point out that the soldier in the pic has nothing to do with that and might, like some soldiers, wish the best for the people of the land he is fighting in. Often a frisk is a way to see if the folks are on the "up and up" but you know that right? Being prior military? Once you can turn your back on them in safety you can set about possibly helping them or declaring them OK so that no 'zippo raids' or other horror can pass. But you know that right?

As far as when and who or what I will say..that is up to me my man. You might try the GOP out for a change as they love to dictate thought and control the message with censorship and power. I will stick to my way.

..."but you know that right"? Tell you what, pal, you can take that crap about trying out the GOP and "stick" it anywhere you want along with all of the questions that seemed to imply that I wasn't prior military. Seems like YOU'RE the one that's trying real hard to get people to think that YOUR opinions are the only valid ones to have on this topic. "But you know that right"?

Just curious since you seem to building a mountain out of thin air, do you know of ANY cases in Afghanistan or Iraq where the kids have been used to carry satchel charges or grenades? I bet the answer is a definite "no", and that includes the time that Afghanistan was occupied by the Soviets. I personally think that even the most ruthless folks in the Middle East think more of their children than do the folks living in Southeast Asia, but that's just my personal opinion. Hopefully, that's still allowed on DU.

than do the folks living in Southeast Asia?? What a racist thing to say! You mean those dirty slopes in Southeast Asia don't care about their kids? After all you did say they care less than even the most ruthless parent in the Middle East. You sure have shown your true colors.

Do the Palestinians allow their children to throw rocks at tank and get shot at while they...well what are they doing??? Sitting at home? Watching T.V.? I know they are not out there attacking the tanks.

cannot rationalize why this is happening to him. He will grow up to
be a young man who is very angry--because by then, he will have learned
why it was done to him.

unlike the American fools that make such comments these kids are not weak or frail. They have lived a life from conception where such things are the norm. They are not cowardly TV addicted safety freak American brats. They are war born and war worn children that have more balls that most American adults.

There is absolutely no application of American paranoia and "be afraid, be very afraid "..moronic TV induced cowardice in these kids. They are not in fear of a smoke alarm not working, germs in the toilet or pork not being cooked well enough. They are in fear of being ripped into large pieces of trembling flesh by a bomb or shoulder fired enhanced weapon. They see that every day. These are not fat assed little momma's boys but young men. Yup they are angry and yup they will fight some day. Our fat assed little spoiled shitty kids are going to get their ass kicked by them.

Frankly I cannot wait.

They have lived a life from conception where such things are the norm. They are not cowardly TV addicted safety freak American brats. They are war born and war worn children that have more balls that most American adults.

That boy looks to be about 3 or 4 years old, and most likely doesn't have a single TV in his village, so not only is it illogical to compare his background with those of his American counterparts, but it is foolish to consider that a child of such a young age has 'balls'.

Having been a boy in America and knowing several now, I fail to see any validity in your contention that they are 'safety freaks'. Boys universally push boundaries and most commonly don't exhibit high regard for safety.

There is absolutely no application of American paranoia and "be afraid, be very afraid "..moronic TV induced cowardice in these kids. They are not in fear of a smoke alarm not working, germs in the toilet or pork not being cooked well enough.

Neither, to my experience, are American boys of the same age.

They are in fear of being ripped into large pieces of trembling flesh by a bomb or shoulder fired enhanced weapon. They see that every day.

While a rough and sometime brutal life, I highly doubt that that's something they see every day.

These are not fat assed little momma's boys but young men.

Your powers of observation are, at the very least, bracing. How do you do it?

Yup they are angry and yup they will fight some day. Our fat assed little spoiled shitty kids are going to get their ass kicked by them.

Frankly I cannot wait.

In case it might have escaped your uncanny insight, boys who turn into front line combat troops, in any culture and in any conflict are nothing remotely similar to 'fat assed little spoiled shitty kids'.

That you cannot wait for something that will never come must be quite frustrating for you.

...join up with the "other side" since you "cannot wait" to see "our fat assed little spoiled shitty kids..." getting "...their ass kicked by them."

Maybe you need to take a break...IMHO, your comments are going WAY too far.

Whatever shall I do :eyes:

Here is why, in Vietnam, the VC would sometimes pack their children with explosives and detonate their OWN CHILDREN to kill Americans. The military has an institutional memory of such events. If they received any intelligence that children were carrying explosives, they would take it very seriously.

I don't feel any rage at that photo. In fact, I think the soldier is actually being very careful with the child. I think it's terrible that the world could believe that an American Soldier would harm a child. I won't believe it, and no one else should either. This is a professional military, filled with men and women reared with good values. With the casualty rates that we've seen, better to be safe than sorry, and it even affords additional protection to the kids.

There are a lot of body bags that came back from Viet Nam filled up because of little kids carrying grenades and guns. Little kids are cute and all that, but they are still little kids who some adults just view as mobile weapons platforms.

Blame the bad guys, not the grunts just trying to stay alive.

What is the difference?

...made the wrong move? Did anyone have loaded weapons pointed at you and your son? Were the security officers from another country that was occupying your country?

Just a few differences right off the top of my head.

The point is, security is security, regardless of age.

Humiliation of the civilian population is inseparable from Occupation by a foreign army. One of the predictable consequences * didn't think about -before- starting his glorious war.

As humiliation goes, this little scene doesn't seem worth much special notice.