They were for Saddam photos before they were against them

Amidst all the other things that the Pentagon didn't plan for in the invasion of Iraq was the convergence of the camera and tabloid cultures. Photos are easy to take and disseminate, and the combination of infamy and/or cash ensures they eventually find their way into the public domain. Exhibit 748 of this phenemenon is today's scoop in the Sun, their apparently authentic photos of Saddam Hussein's domestic life in detention. The Pentagon is of course outraged:

"These photos were taken in clear violation of [defense department] directives and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals," a Multinational Force Iraq official said in a statement.

The spokesperson seemed to catch themselves just in time with the insertion of the "possibly" before the Geneva line. Because in addition to all the mixed messages from the Administration on where and when the conventions apply, they published their own photos of Saddam -- over and above what was necessary to prove that he had been captured:

[December 2003, CNN] Amnesty International said Saddam should be classified as a prisoner of war and that his treatment should be covered by the Geneva Convention.

Nicole Choveiry, Middle East spokeswoman for Amnesty International, criticized the release of any image that seemed to serve no purpose.

"We didn't disagree with a picture of Saddam being released that proved his identity but not with those that showed him being medically examined," she told CNN.

In addition to the well-known dental exam photo, there was another of Saddam meeting Ahmad Chalabi that was published in a Chalabi-owned newspaper. No purpose was served by this photo other than a straight gloatfest by Dick Cheney's pal Chalabi. In fact, if the Pentagon is serious about its investigation of where the Sun got the photos, the Chalabi angle would be a good place to start. But given that the Administration still hasn't tracked down the leaker of Valerie Plame's CIA status 2 years after the event, we don't like their odds of finding this leaker either. It must be Newsweek's fault.