The International Committee for the Red Cross, which is responsible for monitoring prisoners of war and detainees, said the photographs violated Saddam's right to privacy.
"Taking and using photographs of him is clearly forbidden," ICRC Middle East spokeswoman Dorothea Krimitsas said. U.S. forces are obliged to "preserve
the privacy of the detainee."
Aside from U.S. soldiers, the only others with access to Saddam are his legal team, prosecuting judge Raed Johyee and the ICRC.
Khalil al-Duleimi, Saddam's defense lawyer in Iraq, criticized the American handling of Saddam but said he would not comment on the photographs until he learned whether they were genuine.
"I don't doubt such behavior from the American forces because they don't respect the law. They impose the law of force and the law of the jungle," al-Duleimi said about the pictures being taken. "They don't respect human rights and I expect them to do anything."
Saddam was captured in December 2003 while hiding in a concealed hole in the ground near his hometown of Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad. He is charged with war crimes, but no date has been set for his trial.
It is not the first time there has been an outcry over images of Saddam.
Pictures and video images of Saddam being examined by a medic after his arrest were widely criticized — even by the Vatican. A top Vatican cardinal said at the time that American forces treated the captured Iraqi leader "like a cow."
One photo makes it possible to answer the question "Boxers or briefs?" without his answer. I guess that wouldn't be very presidential.
Yet I'd think that Saddam's legal defense team might want to be careful with this line of attack. Oh sure, the chance to join with the Easily Offended in complaining about US actions is darn near irresistable, but this probably isn't the wisest move by Saddam's lawyers.
Consider, if we're supposed to be outraged over this, shouldn't the torture and deaths of hundreds of thousands justify far more outrage? Isn't slaughtering hundreds of thousands treating them "like cattle"?
Don't rape, summary executions, and Oil for Food, and all the rest qualify as not "respecting the law"?
Wasn't virtually every aspect of Saddam's reign of terror "clearly forbidden" under some standard of the international community?
Look, those photos should not have been published. Appropriate punishments all around, of course. But making a big deal about them on behalf of Saddam is foolish. I'm no lawyer, but this line of defense seems like a loser to me. Do the attorneys of a man under arrest and heading for trial really want to raise the issue of who is guilty of practicing the law of the jungle?