U.S. launches probe into video of U.S. Marines urinating on Afghan corpses

[Scott]

There are varying view points of whether or not certain groups are covered under the Geneva Convention. I believe the Convention was written with a geo-political conflict in mind more so than an ideological one. This means that certain rights may be harder to enforce than others.

At a minimum, it is a convention that should be followed. Not doing so could result in more serious problems, such as being charged with crimes against humanity etc. The mistreatment of prisoners is wrong, regardless of the international conventions.

Just my opinion.

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry, but biased opinions are not facts no matter how many times they are repeated. The Taliban terrorists are not "spying for their own country" which is lead by Hamid Karzai. They are committing terrorists acts for the Taliban who are unlawful combatants that have no protections under the Geneva conventions.

If the Taliban are not spying for their own country then who are they spying for? You say they should be treated as spies......for who?

The Taliban are protected under the Geneva Convention,

Incorrect once more. The Taliban is a terrorist organization that is trying to destroy the elected government and they are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they have not signed it and they do not follow its rules and they do not not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from peaceful civilians..

Edited January 19, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Wallaby]

Sorry, but biased opinions are not facts no matter how many times they are repeated. The Taliban terrorists are not "spying for their own country" which is lead by Hamid Karzai. They are committing terrorists acts for the Taliban who are unlawful combatants that have no protections under the Geneva conventions.

If the Taliban are not spying for their own country then who are they spying for? You say they should be treated as spies......for who?

The Taliban are protected under the Geneva Convention,

Incorrect once more. The Taliban is a terrorist organization that is trying to destroy the elected government and they are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they have not signed it and they do not follow its rules and they do not not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from peaceful civilians..

Better tell the US govt then as they are of the view the Conventions apply to the Taliban.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2002 – President Bush said the United States would regard the Geneva Conventions as applying to Taliban detainees under U.S. control -- but not Al Qaeda detainees.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today the United States would continue to treat all detainees humanely and in accordance with standards set by the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

[wxyz]

Sorry, but biased opinions are not facts no matter how many times they are repeated. The Taliban terrorists are not "spying for their own country" which is lead by Hamid Karzai. They are committing terrorists acts for the Taliban who are unlawful combatants that have no protections under the Geneva conventions.

If the Taliban are not spying for their own country then who are they spying for? You say they should be treated as spies......for who?

The Taliban are protected under the Geneva Convention,

Incorrect once more. The Taliban is a terrorist organization that is trying to destroy the elected government and they are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they have not signed it and they do not follow its rules and they do not not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from peaceful civilians..

Better tell the US govt then as they are of the view the Conventions apply to the Taliban.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2002 – President Bush said the United States would regard the Geneva Conventions as applying to Taliban detainees under U.S. control -- but not Al Qaeda detainees.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today the United States would continue to treat all detainees humanely and in accordance with standards set by the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.defense.g...e.aspx?id=43960

"Bush decided that the Taliban would fit in the framework of the convention even though neither the United Nations nor virtually any country in the world recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government."

meaning they are not legally entitled to the geneva conventions

voluntarily deciding to do something does not mean they fall under the geneva conventions legally.

the talaban are not legally entitled to the geneva conventions per the geneva conventions

"The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions."

of which the taliban has not, nor has al qaeda, nor has hezbullah, nor has hamas, etc etc etc

Edited January 19, 2012 by wxyz

[koheesti]

the geneva conventions only apply when both sides are signatories to it, of which the taliban are not

"The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions."

of which the taliban has not, nor has al qaeda, nor has hezbullah, nor has hamas, etc etc etc

Of course. Terrorists will not sign the Geneva Convention and are not protected by it. They do not wear uniforms and should be executed as spies rather than enjoying the luxurious comforts of Guantanamo.

Can you be arrested for spying in your own country for your own country?

The Taliban (with its origins in Pakistan) is not the Afghan government. They sure seem to kill a lot of Afghan soldiers as well.

[Steely Dan]

The whole Geneva convention sidetrack is similar to other detours such as discussion off Abu Graib or even the Mai Lai massacre. It serves no purpose except to focus exclusively on wrong doing by U.S forces and not put it in the wider context of far greater wrongs committed by the enemy (yes, the enemy if anyone needs reminding).

I read a good comment the other day where the question was asked, can anyone remember an act of great heroism by U.S soldiers that received even 10% of the attention this case has? To put it bluntly the left wing press hate the military, who protect their freedoms, but don't have the guts to come right out and say it so instead the yellow fifth columnists burn a straw man to avoid addressing the broader question of who we are fighting and why.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11227/pub_detail.asp

A few Marines in Afghanistan did a really dumb thing: They emptied their “short arms” on a trio of Taliban corpses. The act was unacceptable. It was against military regulations and constituted a minor—very minor—infringement of the Geneva Convention.

[koheesti]

It's widely accepted that since 2005 well over 90% of deaths in Iraq were at the hand of Iraqis and foreign insurgents.

i ask out of ignorance and not as an argument - where is this widely accepted?

from the most reputable source on deaths in Iraq since the invasion in 2003 - Iraq Body Count

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/plos-2011/

for a chart showing Analysis by perpetrator, weapon, time, and location (2003-2008):

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000415&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000415.t001

Of course, there are still those who believe in their hearts that the Coalition troops have done most the killing but the facts show differently.

[Orac]

It's widely accepted that since 2005 well over 90% of deaths in Iraq were at the hand of Iraqis and foreign insurgents.

i ask out of ignorance and not as an argument - where is this widely accepted?

from the most reputable source on deaths in Iraq since the invasion in 2003 - Iraq Body Count

http://www.iraqbodyc...bers/plos-2011/

for a chart showing Analysis by perpetrator, weapon, time, and location (2003-2008):

http://www.plosmedic...ed.1000415.t001

Of course, there are still those who believe in their hearts that the Coalition troops have done most the killing but the facts show differently.

The problem with these figures is that they do not address the issue fully as they only show part of the story. It needs to be remembered that the foreign insurgents being refered to were almost certainly not there under Saddams reign.

The rights or wrongs of regime change is a different argument and whether the removal of Saddam was worth it is a difficult question to answer but the decision to take the actions that coalition forces did means they must take some responsibility for the consequences which is not only the deaths that can be directly attributed to them.

[flying]

To put it bluntly the left wing press hate the military, who protect their freedoms, but don't have the guts to come right out and say it so instead the yellow fifth columnists burn a straw man to avoid addressing the broader question of who we are fighting and why.

Oh brother............. lack a reasonable fact based response?

Edited January 19, 2012 by flying

[wxyz]

It's widely accepted that since 2005 well over 90% of deaths in Iraq were at the hand of Iraqis and foreign insurgents.

i ask out of ignorance and not as an argument - where is this widely accepted?

from the most reputable source on deaths in Iraq since the invasion in 2003 - Iraq Body Count

http://www.iraqbodyc...bers/plos-2011/

for a chart showing Analysis by perpetrator, weapon, time, and location (2003-2008):

http://www.plosmedic...ed.1000415.t001

Of course, there are still those who believe in their hearts that the Coalition troops have done most the killing but the facts show differently.

The problem with these figures is that they do not address the issue fully as they only show part of the story. It needs to be remembered that the foreign insurgents being refered to were almost certainly not there under Saddams reign.

The rights or wrongs of regime change is a different argument and whether the removal of Saddam was worth it is a difficult question to answer but the decision to take the actions that coalition forces did means they must take some responsibility for the consequences which is not only the deaths that can be directly attributed to them.

are you blaming the coalition for the ongoing deaths in iraq now that they have left?

are you holding the coalition forces responsible for all the deaths saddam did between gulf war 1 and gulf war 2, for not taking him out the first time?

are you also blamimg the coalition for the deaths in kuwait by saddam for the coalition not getting there soon enough?

are you also blaming the coalition for not preventing the millions killed in the iraq iran war?

are you blaming the coalition for all the deaths in libya as well?

are you blaming the coalition for all the deats in syria?

are you saying that the muslims are not responsible for any deaths of other muslims?

[flying]

It serves no purpose except to focus exclusively on wrong doing by U.S forces and not put it in the wider context of far greater wrongs committed by the enemy

Well.............The wrong doings by the Marines is On Topic isn't it?

The wider context<sic> as you put it is off topic in this case isn't it?

[Steely Dan]

It serves no purpose except to focus exclusively on wrong doing by U.S forces and not put it in the wider context of far greater wrongs committed by the enemy

Well.............The wrong doings by the Marines is On Topic isn't it?

The wider context<sic> as you put it is off topic in this case isn't it?

And who helps set the topic rolling, which is now in it's twelfth page?

[wxyz]

"Bush decided that the Taliban would fit in the framework of the convention even though neither the United Nations nor virtually any country in the world recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government."

meaning they are not legally entitled to the geneva conventions

voluntarily deciding to do something does not mean they fall under the geneva conventions legally.

the talaban are not legally entitled to the geneva conventions per the geneva conventions

"The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions."

of which the taliban has not, nor has al qaeda, nor has hezbullah, nor has hamas, etc etc etc

The Taliban are covered under the Geneva Convention. End of story.

Do you think anyone would take any notice of a person that says the the best way for the US to deal with torture allegations is not to take any prisoners?

You talk nonsense.

You refuse to answer questions.

You are a troll.

look in the mirror if you are looking for a troll

the taliban are only covered by the USA because they voluntarily said they would treat them as if they did qualify

big difference

and it is stupid as well, since the taliban has not said they will do the same

Who cares what you think.

You think providing facts is trolling? That's a good one.

Opinion: Those that say reasons why they shouldn't be covered.

Fact: They are covered.

Next.

they are only covered because president bush said he would grant them some of the terms of the geneva conventions, not because they had them under the terms of the geneva conventions.

imo they should follow the geneva conventions which clearly state neither al gaeda nor the taliban qualify for them.

unless of course al gaeda and the taliban agree to the terms of the geneva conventions, then they would qualify,

they haven't, so the don't,

so the NATO troops should not be bound by them and al gaeda and the taliban should be treated accordingly

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry, but biased opinions are not facts no matter how many times they are repeated. The Taliban terrorists are not "spying for their own country" which is lead by Hamid Karzai. They are committing terrorists acts for the Taliban who are unlawful combatants that have no protections under the Geneva conventions.

If the Taliban are not spying for their own country then who are they spying for? You say they should be treated as spies......for who?

The Taliban are protected under the Geneva Convention,

Incorrect once more. The Taliban is a terrorist organization that is trying to destroy the elected government and they are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they have not signed it and they do not follow its rules and they do not not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from peaceful civilians..

Better tell the US govt then as they are of the view the Conventions apply to the Taliban.

Read more carefully. Bush made a decision to appy the Geneva Convention rules to them, but that does not mean that they have the right to them. He could have treated them just like their comrades in Al Queda who he denied them to.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

It serves no purpose except to focus exclusively on wrong doing by U.S forces and not put it in the wider context of far greater wrongs committed by the enemy

Well.............The wrong doings by the Marines is On Topic isn't it?

The wider context as you put it is off topic in this case isn't it?

And who helps set the topic rolling, which is now in it's twelfth page?

The News editor?

Still......the topic is the topic... no?

If you want to talk wider context.....not so bad......the other guys are worse etc...

Well it should take one off topic post ...no?

At the end of the day........This topic is/was Marines peeing on corpses

Responses to the usual this is not so bad........ Was to show that yes....in fact it is not the worse &

comes as just another in a line of offenses.............Closer to on topic ...yes?

To those who claim that folks who deem wrongful things done in their countries name as offensive

are somehow ungrateful......or hate those who protect their freedoms............hogwash

It in no way diminishes ones patriotism to complain when injustices are done in their countries name.....In fact it defines the word

Patriotism

Blind justifications & making excuses for wrongful acts done in our countries name is in fact quite the opposite of patriotism.

As it does nothing to uphold the honor & respect those before our time fought so hard to earn.

Edited January 19, 2012 by flying

[Wallaby]

Read more carefully. Bush made a decision to appy the Geneva Convention rules to them, but that does not mean that they have the right to them. He could have treated them just like their comrades in Al Queda who he denied them to.

Have a look at your own post. You said the Taliban are not protected. Clearly they are. Just move on, it isn't a big deal anyway, I'm just clarifying for you that they are protected.

[Ulysses G.]

Read more carefully. Bush made a decision to appy the Geneva Convention rules to them, but that does not mean that they have the right to them. He could have treated them just like their comrades in Al Queda who he denied them to.

Have a look at your own post. You said the Taliban are not protected. Clearly they are. Just move on, it isn't a big deal anyway, I'm just clarifying for you that they are protected.

Wrong again. I said they are not protected by the Geneva Convention and they are not. They are protected by George W. Bush's generosity and that can be withdrawn if any other President decides to. .

Edited January 19, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

And who helps set the topic rolling, which is now in it's twelfth page?

The News editor?

Still......the topic is the topic... no?

I see, but Abu Graib and the treatment of living enemy prisoners in another Country, or the Mai Lai massacre which occurred a generation ago are on topic?

Blind justifications & making excuses for wrongful acts done in our countries name is in fact quite the opposite of patriotism.

Who is making excuses or justifying what happened, pointing out that the weighting it's been given by some is simply stating something stinks far worse than urine here.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Steely Dan

[soundman]

There have been a number of complaints sent to report center about this topic straying right off topic.

Please get back to the subject at hand.

"Probe into soldiers urinating on corpses".

Thank-you.

[Scott]

I will close this topic at this time and clean it up.

It is WAY too far off the topic and has way too many inflammatory and baiting posts.

When it's re-opened you can expect a few posters to be absent.

//CLOSED FOR CLEANING//

[Scott]

As much as I would like to leave this topic open, it has passed the point of no-return. There isn't even a hint of the OP in the topic.

//CLOSED//