Marine Urination Video

ComputerBreath wrote: [Um...no, I looked at the Geneva Conventions...they mainly deal with the treatment of Prisoners of War and their belongings...there is information about proper handling of a Prisoner of War that dies while in captivity, but there is nothing that I could find that talks about enemy bodies that were not previously POW's.

I did not look at U.S. Military Law (I'm assuming you mean the UCMJ) until just now and found that there are a few articles that could include desecration of a body (Failure to Obey an Order could be one, if the ROE addresses these types of behavior) but nothing specific addresses abuse of a body.

If you know of some other law or convention that specifically talks about abuse of an enemy's body, please provide a link.

Just so you know, I spent 20 years in the Air Force and retired almost 7 years ago.

My God. I can think of a couple of billets that I had where I could have used you as my YN1.
Regards,
STGC Belfer, USN, (Ret)

ComputerBreath wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

ComputerBreath wrote: Neither the Geneva Conventions nor any other international conventions or documents to include the Law of Armed Conflict address desecration of an enemy's body...I would bet that this type of "rule" is a Rule of Engagement established by the Theater Commander. If they haven't been established, I'd bet they will be if this proves to be true.

IMO...way out of bounds...especially if you have any understanding of Arab/Muslim culture and traditions. I believe the Marines that did this, if they did in fact do it, were giving the ultimate (in their eyes) insult...the problem is they only desecrated the bodies...the insult was to the rest of the Muslims...and torquing them off probably isn't the best idea in the world.

I too am going to wait for what the investigation proves...then maybe I'll pass judgement.

U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention prohibit the desecration of bodies of people killed in war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... _blog.html

Um...no, I looked at the Geneva Conventions...they mainly deal with the treatment of Prisoners of War and their belongings...there is information about proper handling of a Prisoner of War that dies while in captivity, but there is nothing that I could find that talks about enemy bodies that were not previously POW's.

I did not look at U.S. Military Law (I'm assuming you mean the UCMJ) until just now and found that there are a few articles that could include desecration of a body (Failure to Obey an Order could be one, if the ROE addresses these types of behavior) but nothing specific addresses abuse of a body.

If you know of some other law or convention that specifically talks about abuse of an enemy's body, please provide a link.

Just so you know, I spent 20 years in the Air Force and retired almost 7 years ago.

Don't know if this actually qualifies, but the Conventions do talk about ( http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/365?opendocument ) it in Chapter II - Wounded and Sick: "Art. 15. At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled".

May all depend on one's definition of "despoiled", I guess. I am also a vet (U.S. Navy) during the Vietnam War era, and am not condoning or condemning anyone or anything. Just trying to help clarify, or maybe confuse even more, a little bit.

For me, the jury is still out. I distinctly remember the My Lai massacre and the public and world outrage that incident caused. So many complexities with so few answers. So my take is to let the Corps do the investigation they say they are doing and let the chips fall where they may:

Marines name general to handle investigation of video ( http://www.stripes.com/news/marines-name-general-to-handle-investigation-of-video-1.165890 )

zhawke wrote:

ComputerBreath wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

ComputerBreath wrote: Neither the Geneva Conventions nor any other international conventions or documents to include the Law of Armed Conflict address desecration of an enemy's body...I would bet that this type of "rule" is a Rule of Engagement established by the Theater Commander. If they haven't been established, I'd bet they will be if this proves to be true.

IMO...way out of bounds...especially if you have any understanding of Arab/Muslim culture and traditions. I believe the Marines that did this, if they did in fact do it, were giving the ultimate (in their eyes) insult...the problem is they only desecrated the bodies...the insult was to the rest of the Muslims...and torquing them off probably isn't the best idea in the world.

I too am going to wait for what the investigation proves...then maybe I'll pass judgement.

U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention prohibit the desecration of bodies of people killed in war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... _blog.html

Um...no, I looked at the Geneva Conventions...they mainly deal with the treatment of Prisoners of War and their belongings...there is information about proper handling of a Prisoner of War that dies while in captivity, but there is nothing that I could find that talks about enemy bodies that were not previously POW's.

I did not look at U.S. Military Law (I'm assuming you mean the UCMJ) until just now and found that there are a few articles that could include desecration of a body (Failure to Obey an Order could be one, if the ROE addresses these types of behavior) but nothing specific addresses abuse of a body.

If you know of some other law or convention that specifically talks about abuse of an enemy's body, please provide a link.

Just so you know, I spent 20 years in the Air Force and retired almost 7 years ago.

Don't know if this actually qualifies, but the Conventions do talk about ( http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/365?opendocument ) it in Chapter II - Wounded and Sick: "Art. 15. At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled".

May all depend on one's definition of "despoiled", I guess. I am also a vet (U.S. Navy) during the Vietnam War era, and am not condoning or condemning anyone or anything. Just trying to help clarify, or maybe confuse even more, a little bit.

For me, the jury is still out. I distinctly remember the My Lai massacre and the public and world outrage that incident caused. So many complexities with so few answers. So my take is to let the Corps do the investigation they say they are doing and let the chips fall where they may:

Marines name general to handle investigation of video ( http://www.stripes.com/news/marines-name-general-to-handle-investigation-of-video-1.165890 )

Despoiled - "Steal or violently remove valuable or attractive possessions from; plunder" Personally... I find it hard to believe that anyone on this thread is looking for a way that this is not absolutely barbarian and wrong. Excuses like "Neither the Geneva Conventions nor any other international conventions or documents to include the Law of Armed Conflict address desecration of an enemy's body" or "Although I can empathize with the Marines they were wrong" ... no... there is no empathy needed here... there is no need to find nuances in the Geneva Conventions... it's wrong... period... 100 percent wrong.

Wrong... and I hope they prosecute the men responsible to the nth degree of the law.

Um, do we actually need to have to examine some international agreement to figure out whether it's dishonorable and despicable to pee on the bodies of the enemy? And post the disgusting display on flippin' YouTube?

So, does the saying "innocent until proven guilty" mean anything here? If they are, in fact, guilty of this allegation, hopefully an appropriate punishment will be meted out. I've seen so many posters dispute the veracity of quotes, links, and everything else on the Internet, it seems to me a little patience might just be in order until the facts can be sorted out and, hopefully, revealed. Until then, I stand by my post that the jury is still out.

And if the investigation shows that they gave the corpses a golden shower, I would be satisfied with a captain's mast with regards to the discipline. I see no need to take it beyond that to an admiral's mast or a court-martial, the alleged offense isn't of a degree that warrants formal proceedings IMNTBHO. Tell them to slap the dead with a shoe the next time around instead of piddling on them, send them to bed without supper and be done with it. On an atrocities of war scale from 0 to 100 with 100 being engaging in genocide, this would be about a 0.2.

Well its amazing. No one here knows thier state of mind, what thier last 24 hrs or even 12 hrs were like. There is way to many variables here. Wrong yep they should not have done it. I like a few other vets will wait to see what the investigation brings out, before I make any comments. They will be punished, to what degree should they be, not a slap on the wrist but not 5 years in prison either.

PrintSmith wrote: And if the investigation shows that they gave the corpses a golden shower, I would be satisfied with a captain's mast with regards to the discipline. I see no need to take it beyond that to an admiral's mast or a court-martial, the alleged offense isn't of a degree that warrants formal proceedings IMNTBHO. Tell them to slap the dead with a shoe the next time around instead of piddling on them, send them to bed without supper and be done with it. On an atrocities of war scale from 0 to 100 with 100 being engaging in genocide, this would be about a 0.2.

This is war. The men have come to dispise and hate the enemy. The president should have told Karzai to stuff it.
What is bad is the lack of camaraderie and the betrayal by their fellow Marine. This means that the morale is broken.

Arlen wrote: This is war. The men have come to dispise and hate the enemy. The president should have told Karzai to stuff it.
What is bad is the lack of camaraderie and the betrayal by their fellow Marine. This means that the morale is broken.

So you figure "morale is broken" if not all the Marines in the area think a little "joke" like this is funny? Or maybe even thought it brought shame on all of them?

All I can tell you if one of those guys was MY boy, when he got home he'd be eating off a mantelpiece, full-grown tough guy Marine or not.