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

[Ulysses G.]

I am not referring to serious aid to the enemy. I am talking about helping their cause. It certainly doesn't do anything for the US military cause. And I am not talking about the legal definition of aiding the enemy.

Hey, at least I am not as deluded as a poster who thinks it's a war crime!

Yes indeed, I can imagine the defendants at Nuremberg being in even hotter water if they were also up on a piss rap.

Technically, it's called a Golden Shower Offense and is not taken lightly by the judges..

Edited January 14, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[gopnarak]

I am not referring to serious aid to the enemy. I am talking about helping their cause. It certainly doesn't do anything for the US military cause. And I am not talking about the legal definition of aiding the enemy.

Hey, at least I am not as deluded as a poster who thinks it's a war crime!

Yes indeed, I can imagine the defendants at Nuremberg being in even hotter water if they were also up on a piss rap.

The nature of the charges are unclear although desecrating bodies is a crime under US military law and the Geneva conventions.

The deputy commander of US forces in Afghanistan, lieutenant general Curtis Scaparrotti, said in a message to troops on Friday that "defiling, desecrating, mocking, photographing or filming for personal use insurgent dead constitutes a grave breach" of laws governing armed conflict. He said it also violates "basic standards of human decency, and can cause serious damage to relations with the Afghan government".

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said she believed the men may be guilty of a war crime.

guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/13/us-marines-identified-video-court-martial

Don't call me deluded. I just read it in the news. If Hillary Clinton believes its a war crime, its hardly some propaganda hyperbole by the 'enemy'.

[Scott]

It is currently being considered ''grave breach'' of the laws of war.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/corpse-abuse-a-war-crime-20120114-1q0j1.html

[Ulysses G.]

You might as well assert that someone who shoplifts a beer from a convenience store is also "probably capable" of murder.

Stealing bubble gum as a child is one of the classic signs of someone on his way to being a serial murderer!

[philw]

Not wishing to condone the actions of these soldiers in desecrating the remains of their enemies, but did you know that in the 1st and 2nd Afghan wars, whenever a non Muslim member of the British forces where captured by the Pashtuns, they where staked out on the ground, their mouths kept open with a wooden stick, then the Pashtun women would straddle them and urinate into their mouths taking it in turns until they drowned..........we are now being told by the media that it is unacceptable to Islam and that they would never desecrate bodies?

Yes,but, that was then and this is now.......

With all that that implies.

Are we going forwards or not ??

[Ulysses G.]

Not wishing to condone the actions of these soldiers in desecrating the remains of their enemies, but did you know that in the 1st and 2nd Afghan wars, whenever a non Muslim member of the British forces where captured by the Pashtuns, they where staked out on the ground, their mouths kept open with a wooden stick, then the Pashtun women would straddle them and urinate into their mouths taking it in turns until they drowned..........we are now being told by the media that it is unacceptable to Islam and that they would never desecrate bodies?

Now THAT is war crime, but totally ignored by all the same people who want these Marines crucified for a very minor offense.

[gopnarak]

You might as well assert that someone who shoplifts a beer from a convenience store is also "probably capable" of murder.

Stealing bubble gum as a child is one of the classic signs of someone on his way to being a serial murderer!

I wouldn't compare the act of killing someone and then urinate on the dead body with stealing bubble gums.

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/13/us-marines-video-urination-war-crime

[Jingthing]

To be fair about this, clear combatants killing other clear combatants is not a war crime. Rather, that is war.

[Ulysses G.]

I wouldn't compare the act of killing someone and then urinate on the dead body with stealing bubble gums.

There was nothing illegal about the soldiers killing Taliban terrorists.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[gopnarak]

Not wishing to condone the actions of these soldiers in desecrating the remains of their enemies, but did you know that in the 1st and 2nd Afghan wars, whenever a non Muslim member of the British forces where captured by the Pashtuns, they where staked out on the ground, their mouths kept open with a wooden stick, then the Pashtun women would straddle them and urinate into their mouths taking it in turns until they drowned..........we are now being told by the media that it is unacceptable to Islam and that they would never desecrate bodies?

Now THAT is war crime, but totally ignored by all the same people who want these Marines crucified for a very minor offense.

That was somewhat 150 years ago.

[Tonto21]

To give a fair opinion on this subject, I don’t think you needed to have been a service man, active service record or not. You simple need to think how you would view a situation where you, should you be killed in a violent act end up with some <deleted> pissing on your lifeless body!

Granted, having just expired say, crashing into the back of a stationary ‘Eddy Stobart’ lorry at over 90 MPH your chances of getting swamped on by an irate lorry driver are, to say slim. But just think about it……..How would you like that, or maybe how would your friends react to this?

To answer a question your asked; did the topic ever come up about getting peed on, well no, not directly, however, any hint that a body had been mutilated, or ‘messed’ with, be it there’s, ours or civvies was always a point of gossip. Personally, the bravado in me would say; “Elvis has left the building” what’s it matter to me now. But in reality the idea of some maggot pissing on me. Dead or not, does not sit well. More to the point, I would have a massive sad on should a fallen comrades body be miss treated.

You are right in saying there are far greater things to worry about on the job. My main issue with all this is how it shows a lack of command and control, thin end of the wedge; so to speak……No discipline leads to no C and C and little troop cohesion………= poor effective fighting unit.

And 'Credo'....As for someone pissing on a dead body in what could be termed as a combat zone, by a solider was not covered under the Geneva Conventions. Common Article 2 relating to International Armed Conflicts: It may not say “no pissing on dead bodies” it does not have to. Just like every military law book, (whatever country) there will be a point of law that covers all eventuality not covered by a special one, tailor made for given offences. I would lay good odds that the Geneva Conventions have their own version of this.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Tonto21

[Carib]

Some of you US apologists on this forum are disgusting, if these had been US soldiers, than all hell would have broken lose coming from the same persons.

But if it concerns "others" than it is always made to look OK-ish, and there are always excuses found whether it is about torture, killing whole innocent families, blowing up cattle or dogs or as in this case the desecration of bodies.

I know these things happen, but please don't defend it, it makes you look foolish. The most disturbing is to read ( a few times already) that they were dead, so it wasn't all that bad or words similar, I remember a few occasions where US soldiers dead bodies were desecrated, so that must have been OK too than, right??.

Just think before you write, and turn the tables in your mind, the outcome may even be a bit more balanced, that is if you are capable of doing that.

[TAWP]

The 'victims' are dead, they will not be complaining. So what is the big deal - really - about?

[Ulysses G.]

From a military point of view, I would imagine that most military men and women are upset at their stupidity, but the act itself barely registers. Death tends to trump a little urine to those who have faced combat.

Exactly. Combat soldiers have a lot more to worry about from the enemy when they are alive.

[Jingthing]

It makes the enemy even more motivated and angry so all things considered, a bad move.

[gopnarak]

I wouldn't compare the act of killing someone and then urinate on the dead body with stealing bubble gums.

There was nothing illegal about the soldiers killing Taliban terrorists.

So you think these teenage pranksters ( thats how you called them) who did something what Hillary Clinton believes is a war crime are sane, wise, mental fit and mature enough to judge who to execute with their sniper rifles?

[kerryk]

The modern (since the helicopter) Western soldier sees a lot more combat than did his predecessors. The average infantryman in the Pacific theater during WWII 40 days of combat, Vietnam 240 days. That's a lot of action.

I would bet the troops on both sides are not very concerned about being peed on after death.

I think Hillary is making a mountain out of a molehill. Of course what do I know, I have always thought Hillary was making mountains out of molehills.

You have two classes of people reacting here. Soldiers who after all were the ones involved and non soldiers. The soldiers don't give a darn on either side.

[Jingthing]

Clinton is making a big deal about it for diplomatic reasons. Wisely so. It would be incompetent to do otherwise.

[bonobo]

I wouldn't compare the act of killing someone and then urinate on the dead body with stealing bubble gums.

There was nothing illegal about the soldiers killing Taliban terrorists.

So you think these teenage pranksters ( thats how you called them) who did something what Hillary Clinton believes is a war crime are sane, wise, mental fit and mature enough to judge who to execute with their sniper rifles?

You really need to grasp the politics of this. Clinton is coming down hard on this because she has to. This is being blown way out of proportion here and abroad, and that could have very serious consequences to Americans at home and abroad and to NATO troops in Afghanistan. It is her job to defuse the situation to the best of her ability, to show that the US government does not condone the actions. She is doing what she has to do, but I am pretty positive that the act itself is not considered a major "crime" by the powers-that-be. What is of concern is the fallout.

I wrote that this is being blown out of proportion because other acts, acts which are far more serious and blatantly against US law and military regulations do not get the same worldwide press. On the scale of crimes committed by troops, this really is sort of the stealing bubblegum example given previously.

When a US soldier raped a 15-year-old Iraqi girl, then killed her and her family to cover it up, it made news, but not to the same level as this. That soldier is now serving a life sentence, as is right. But this urination incident is causing a much larger furor.

One of the more iconic photographs of WWII was of the burnt head of a Japanese soldier being spiked on the front of a tank. That photo ran in Life magazine. When some people protested, the official response was basically that stuff happens in war. (The same issue had a photo of a mistreated cat, and that photo generated twice the complaints as the severed head photo.)

[koheesti]

I know it is for armchair generals to decide this stuff; what is bad and what is not but do you really think it makes any difference to a soldier? Are the Taliban sitting around campfires discussing what happens to them after they die?

The pissing is more of a problem for the living than the dead. Nothing ever matters to the person who is dead. Does any dead person really care where they are buried or if someone puts flowers on their grave? We'll never know until we get to ask them. In the case of pissing soldiers, If I were a soldier in Afghanistan I know I wouldn't like the fact these idiots made a video that can fire up the enemy even more.

[koheesti]

You have two classes of people reacting here. Soldiers who after all were the ones involved and non soldiers. The soldiers don't give a darn on either side.

Were our soldiers motivated just a little bit in the battle of Fallujah after seeing US contractors burned to bits, their bodies torn apart and hung from a bridge?

What were soldiers thinking in 1993 while watching that video of the practically naked, lifeless body of one of their comrades was being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu to the delight of locals?

[TomTao]

Find the idiot with the camera and smash the camera, people make a big fuss about what the American soldiers do, the fools with the cameras don't help, no-one seems to make a peep about what the terrorists do, between blowing people up, beheading hostages, demanding ransom payments for abuctees and more. These soldiers are in a highly stressful situation, should they have done what they did? No, put yourself in their shoes, these terrorists do not obey any international coventions regarding conduct during combat, the soldiers have to, they get frustrated fighting an enemy that doesn't fight by the rules while the soldiers conduct is held under a microscope by all the armchair generals. Rebuke them if you must, but first compare the soldiers conduct with the enemy.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[midas]

I am not referring to serious aid to the enemy. I am talking about helping their cause. It certainly doesn't do anything for the US military cause. And I am not talking about the legal definition of aiding the enemy.

Hey, at least I am not as deluded as a poster who thinks it's a war crime!

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/the-laws-of-war/

[bonobo]

A "war crime" is a rather broad term, primarily for acts which contravene the Geneva Convention. But just as "crime" is a broad term, so are "war crimes."

It is a crime to steal a candy bar. It is a crime to break someone's window. It is a crime to rob a bank. It is a crime to murder someone. All of these crimes carry differing degrees of punishment, and to treat one crime the same as another is ludicrous.

Same here. Urinating on a dead body fits best under the desecration prohibition. But is is way down on the scale of things and wouldn't normally result in judicial action being taken. Only the fervor which it has generated will make it a legal case.

We (the Allies) tried many, many people for war crimes after WWII. That does not mean the gallows were going into overtime. Comparatively few people were executed or served long prison sentences. Many never served a day after their conviction, and many others served only short periods of time in prison. Different crimes deserve different punishments.

Despite what many post here, this crime was a minor one from a legal standpoint. The Marines in this case were stupid, extremely so. BUt this hardly makes them hardened criminals.

[gopnarak]

I wouldn't compare the act of killing someone and then urinate on the dead body with stealing bubble gums.

There was nothing illegal about the soldiers killing Taliban terrorists.

So you think these teenage pranksters ( thats how you called them) who did something what Hillary Clinton believes is a war crime are sane, wise, mental fit and mature enough to judge who to execute with their sniper rifles?

You really need to grasp the politics of this. Clinton is coming down hard on this because she has to. This is being blown way out of proportion here and abroad, and that could have very serious consequences to Americans at home and abroad and to NATO troops in Afghanistan. It is her job to defuse the situation to the best of her ability, to show that the US government does not condone the actions. She is doing what she has to do, but I am pretty positive that the act itself is not considered a major "crime" by the powers-that-be. What is of concern is the fallout.

I wrote that this is being blown out of proportion because other acts, acts which are far more serious and blatantly against US law and military regulations do not get the same worldwide press. On the scale of crimes committed by troops, this really is sort of the stealing bubblegum example given previously.

When a US soldier raped a 15-year-old Iraqi girl, then killed her and her family to cover it up, it made news, but not to the same level as this. That soldier is now serving a life sentence, as is right. But this urination incident is causing a much larger furor.

One of the more iconic photographs of WWII was of the burnt head of a Japanese soldier being spiked on the front of a tank. That photo ran in Life magazine. When some people protested, the official response was basically that stuff happens in war. (The same issue had a photo of a mistreated cat, and that photo generated twice the complaints as the severed head photo.)

One question is: Who are the dead men? Just because they are dead doesn't make it save to assume they were really "enemy combatants" or taliban terrorists. And dead talibans don't lying around like bubblegum in a candy shop. I think we can assumed these men were just killed moments before by the same soldiers that can be seen in that video. Was it really justified to kill them?

If the excuse is valid that they were just some teenagers, almost still kids with little experience and the most stupid thing they have done was to film their action. How can you trust that these stupid kids actually kill the right people and only the right people and not everyone else and that they don't see killing as a funny game?

Of course, Clinton had to do that. The PR line will be that is an isolated incident and and of course we will punish the wrongdoers. That anon has the PR value to show that we are still the good guys with high moral values because we don't let them to get away with it.

If also the powers-that-be not considered this incident a major "crime" and just pretends to play alittle bit along by these laws and rules to defuse the situation and avoid a blowback. Wouldn't that be devious? I think Clinton really believes what she says and has also actually no clue what that war looks like if you stand in combat dress on a dusty road somewhere in an Afghan village.

For the fallout - other news say that the Taliban itself are not really upset by it and said it won't harm peace talks.

"“It’s not a new thing that has happened. It’s normal with the American forces and their allies. The foreign forces have always discriminated and abused human rights in Afghanistan,” says Qari Yousef Ahmadi, a spokesman for the Taliban. "

csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2012/0112/Taliban-says-urination-video-won-t-harm-peace-talks.-Why-not

The anecdote about the 'outrage' about a maltreated cat compared with some protests letters triggered by a photo of that Japanese soldier skull spiked on a tank i found mentioned in the wikipedia article "American mutilation of Japanese war dead". The practice of collecting Japanese body parts as trophies actually a war crime even if was accepted by many and not that uncommon. Acts supported by the US war propaganda of that time described the enemy, the "Japs" as subhuman, as animals, yellow vermin, snarling rats says the article. The whole thing probably not a part in that war to be very proud of. But that was then, 70 years ago.

So i don't know why you mentioned that Japanese skull as example, as it isn't a case of nothing much to be worried about or concerned. If that war is in the name of democracy and a winning hearts and mind mission it will not work out if there is some underlying or even open racism and some lack of knowledge what war crimes actually are.

The deeper question is is that really an isolated incident or is that a more common mindset across the NATO units in Afghanistan? How trigger happy are these soldiers there and what they think about the locals and how much respect do they have for them.

And as for the argument it is overblown by the the press, out of proportion and exaggerated, and that in the western media... What can then be said in reverse about all these reports and news we hear about the things the enemy does, allegedly?

[Ulysses G.]

One question is: Who are the dead men?

Taliban terrorists.

[Wallaby]

One question is: Who are the dead men?

Taliban terrorists.

Link please.

Reports I have read indicate they don't know.

[endure]

Not wishing to condone the actions of these soldiers in desecrating the remains of their enemies, but did you know that in the 1st and 2nd Afghan wars, whenever a non Muslim member of the British forces where captured by the Pashtuns, they where staked out on the ground, their mouths kept open with a wooden stick, then the Pashtun women would straddle them and urinate into their mouths taking it in turns until they drowned..........we are now being told by the media that it is unacceptable to Islam and that they would never desecrate bodies?

Now THAT is war crime, but totally ignored by all the same people who want these Marines crucified for a very minor offense.

Now that WAS a war crime. It happened 150 years ago...

[Ulysses G.]

Link please.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/foreign-policy/war-terror/audio-cnn-contributor-dana-loesch-supports-urinating-taliban

[endure]

If those marines were UK marines I suspect that the whole of the UK would be up in arms expecting them to face the full rigour of the law. As they're US marines we get the full set of apologia comparing them to the people that they're supposed to be morally superior to. If they are morally superior they should have kept their cocks in their pants.