http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.03E.Hallib.Iraq.htm
The point? I think you know the point. 
Duffer
Not sure why you quoted my post in that. Basically I’m against war but fully support our troops actions in having the means to conduct the military ops they are given.
So I’m definately not anywhere near Dio’s state of mind (thank God) because I’m capable of differentiating between the actions of soldiers from the actions of politicians. Politicians have the luxury of time to think about their actions with little consquence. A soldier has very little time to make life and death decisions which may cost him hs own life.
Where Dio would be pleased if the soldier was shot in the head as retribution I think that the only thing that soldier deserves is rest after a long ordeal.
You actually believe that this kind of stuff isn’t happening on a day-to-day basis and call me niave?
Barbaric and wrongful acts will continue to happen because it *is[i/] a war. Discovering and eliminating those things is most definately important. But taping it for Al-Jazeera’s next recruiting video is a guarentee for reprisals.
Ah well…the GC still requires a minimim level of “humane treatment,” no matter what.
DtC and usar_jag
I’m trying to follow the Geneva Convention info/explanations you guys are posting and it appears to me you are saying the same thing:
2 signatories – all rules of GC apply
signatory and non-signatory – sig is bound to act within the rules, therefore the non-sig is protected by the GC and the sig is not protected, however if the non-sig acts outside the strictures of the GC then the sig is no longer bound to comply
Current Application: Our troops are bound but not protected; insurgent troops* are protected but not bound. At the point insurgent army acts outside the strictures of the GC our troops are no longer bound.
*for the sake of the example I assume these troops qualify as an army, I understand that to be another question.
Is this correct? It seems to me you are both saying this but in different terms. Sort of a weird double negative thing with the “sig v non-sig”. It’s a damn good chance it’s just me, in which case would one of you kindly correct my error?
Thanks,
Sharron
Here are the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention, which do not depend on the status of the insurgents:
As for the soldier in question, two words: War Crime.
If that happens, hopefully he will be tried by people who understand more about the effects of battle on his mind than the pitchforked mob that shows up on this thread.
FUCK his mind.
Dammit, I’m sorry, I fucked that up by not seeing the introduction to that quote, which is from Article 3 of the G.C.:
I’m not clear whether the current clusterfuck falls into that category. While the conflict is solely within the territory of Iraq (which is a High Contracting Party to the Convention), I don’t know whether the conflict is “not of an international character.” It’s no longer nation vs. nation – it’s nation versus other nation’s rebels. But on the whole, I think Article 3 applies here. Even if it doesn’t, I’m willing to bet that there are other treaties outlawing summary execution of prisoners and battlefield casualties, and I’m even more willing to bet that murder and manslaughter are crimes under the UCMJ.
Hopefully he will be tried by a court that understands and applies the relevant law, and by a jury of officers and/or enlisted personnel who are willing to fairly evaluate the testimony and evidence and apply the facts as they find them to the law in delivering their verdict.
You’re too late
Ah, here we go, the UCMJ provisions outlawing murder and manslaughter. Looks to me like this guy had “a premeditated desire to kill,” and some people have certainly been arguing that he did it “in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation.” Can’t find any list of affirmative defenses available under the UCMJ, though I assume there’s some sort of justification or privilege defense that would ordinarily be available to persons engaged in combat with the enemy. Of course, whether such a defense could possibly apply in these circumstances is somewhat doubtful.
From what nugget of information did you glean his ‘premeditated desire to kill’? Mind you, not a bad thing for a Marine to have, but what are you basing your claim on?
Judging from some other reports, it looks like the Marine will be OK, perhaps a minimum of mickey-mouse bullshit to go through, but I would amazed if he served any time. Still, that this whole event is even an issue with some people is more than a bit disgusting. (Especially given the realities of warfare in Iraq.) How many Americans need to die or be wounded by fake surrenders and rigged dead/injured insurgents before some of you realize the the GC are fine in principle, but shouldn’t be a suicide pact that we force on our troops?
Bubba- My point was exactly that it happens, perhaps often. It is extremely unrealistic to the point of incredible to believe, as you apparently do, that merely by telling the reporter “don’t release that video” that word won’t get out.
Yeticus - I don’t recall saying the soldier in question was a murderer. perhaps you would be good enough to find it for me? I recall saying that I didn’t see it as radically different from any number of cop shootings/movie scenes we see/hear about from time to time. And I recall pointing out that we don’t know if he was able to see that both hands of the guy were empty. And I recall pointing out that the prior days’ marines who left folks wounded had things to answer for, and I recall saying that the Administration had started this war on the theory of pre-emptive strikes to protect yourself were perfectly okey dokey. But I honestly don’t recall saying that the soldier in question was a murderer.
From the conversation that the soldier had with the troops that had taken up positions inside the mosque and met him outside the mosque as he approached, It appears to me that the Iraqis had been checked out as wounded prisoners.
… No threat was apparent, they were unarmed. It was not in the heat of battle. It was murder. What other conclusion can be drawn?
It sure wasn’t the ambiguous, fog of war, Full Metal Jacket climax/end scene. I’ll tell you that. No compunction or mercy in this soldiers act.
How come the embedded reporter knew immediately that the wounded Iraqi was an unarmed prisoner, but the soldier didn’t?
Bad day for kids and guns. Murder charges against an Army Lieutenant came in just yesterday. And he didn’t even pull the trigger:
I’m sure if this story shakes out, some butterbar will fry here, too. And then there’ll be justice.
Anyone remember the Lancet article about civilian death rates in Iraq?
And how 53% of those who died were women or children?
Anyone making excuses for the marine seeing horrible things better make some about the insurgents having watched close family members die.
Well there’s your problem. You are mistaken in what I believe.
I would be telling that reporter. Don’t release that video. Outside of a military trial it can only intensify the recruiting of more insurgents.
And just what is accomplished when “word gets out”? Justice? Or support for the enemy?
Consider the difference between the film being used by the military to investigate an infraction of protocol and the film being used by Zarkawi to recruit fresh human bombs.