2wlady wrote: Understanding the behavior doesn't excuse the behavior. I just hope the punishment for these marines fits the "crime" and they get back to their jobs.
This is what I was trying to convey when I was talking about the Geneva Conventions (then when someone mentioned Military Law, the UCMJ).
The first thing that has to happen is it has to be determined that a crime has been committed according to the UCMJ. This could include failure to obey a lawful order or a couple of other ones. Especially if the Rules of Engagement (ROE) mentioned anything about desecrating or abuse of a corpse.
If in fact a crime was committed, then depending on what option the commanders take, the perpetrators could get a number of different punishments, as determined by the rank of the punishing officer, the rank of the individuals doing the crime, and how much of the book gets thrown at them.
More than likely, nonjudicial punishment will be given and, again, depending on their rank and the rank of the punishing officer, they could lose one pay grade or all of them; get additional duty; spend some time in confinement or confined to post; lose some extra pay; and/or be ineligible for reenlistment...or they could be discharged (though I do not see them being dishonorably discharged...the rules for this are very strict...they'd probably get discharged under other than honorable conditions, which is not a dishonorable).
Of course, there are other scenarios. And there may be a determination that a crime never occurred. Military justice is not usually quick...we may know by May or later...or we may never know.
Not condoning or condemning the behavior...merely stating facts regarding military justice and punishment.
2wlady wrote: Understanding the behavior doesn't excuse the behavior. I just hope the punishment for these marines fits the "crime" and they get back to their jobs.
This is what I was trying to convey when I was talking about the Geneva Conventions (then when someone mentioned Military Law, the UCMJ).
The first thing that has to happen is it has to be determined that a crime has been committed according to the UCMJ. This could include failure to obey a lawful order or a couple of other ones. Especially if the Rules of Engagement (ROE) mentioned anything about desecrating or abuse of a corpse.
If in fact a crime was committed, then depending on what option the commanders take, the perpetrators could get a number of different punishments, as determined by the rank of the punishing officer, the rank of the individuals doing the crime, and how much of the book gets thrown at them.
More than likely, nonjudicial punishment will be given and, again, depending on their rank and the rank of the punishing officer, they could lose one pay grade or all of them; get additional duty; spend some time in confinement or confined to post; lose some extra pay; and/or be ineligible for reenlistment...or they could be discharged (though I do not see them being dishonorably discharged...the rules for this are very strict...they'd probably get discharged under other than honorable conditions, which is not a dishonorable).
Of course, there are other scenarios. And there may be a determination that a crime never occurred. Military justice is not usually quick...we may know by May or later...or we may never know.
Not condoning or condemning the behavior...merely stating facts regarding military justice and punishment.
I don't think that the Geneva Conventions apply in this case. UCMJ definately, and possibly ROE, although I doubt their ROE addressed not pissing on bodies.
The reason that I think that the GC doesn't apply is that the GC applies to countries at war. We are at war with terrorism, not with Afghanistan. That is not to say that I agree with what happened at all.
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
Robert A. Heinlein
I have been trying to be somewhat laying low on this, but after all the news and those that just dont have a clue about things over there
Personally, give them some NJP, article 15, let them pay and fine and get back to the job at hand. They are snipers groups, they usually save lives AMERICAN lives. I don't want to hear the whineness as we have no clue how many deployments or what thier last 24 hours were like. You wasn't there so you do not have the damn right to judge. Say what you want to but judge them not even. Lionhead posted what Lt Col West, now in the House of Reps, read it, it applies well here. This ass stupid government sent those men over there, they followed those orders and deployed, how many time who knows. Then they do the job they are trained to do, and do something stupid and all of a sudden they are damned to hell. NOT EVEN. I support them. pissing on the enemy not a real big deal, would have been better had they not. Karasi he can kiss our arse. He is corrupt and runs his mouth, dont give a damn about him. He needs to shut the hell up. These men are doing what they were ordered to do, by the US CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT. It is called combat, they shoot at us we shoot at them, we just happen to be alittle better at it. Wheres the outcry and whining when they cut the heads off our troops and parade them around, or kill our troops and drag them around. etc. I dont hear all the outcrying about all that .
navycpo7 wrote: You wasn't there so you do not have the damn right to judge.
Shouldn't this apply to everything in life, not just this incident?
I agree, and I am no angel here. I try not to especially when I do not either understand something or have little knowledge, but I am sure I have on a few things.
navycpo7 wrote: You wasn't there so you do not have the damn right to judge.
Shouldn't this apply to everything in life, not just this incident?
No.
neptunechimney wrote: In general when there have been conversations of military topics I have not felt that if you have never been in the military you are not entitled to a position.Although I would value the opinion of a vet over a civilian if his service was relevant to the discussion.
In this case I think it unlikely that the Marines stumbled across these bodies why taking a hike across the field. I think it likely that they killed them in a fire fight.
I withhold an opinion and give zero weight to anyone's opinion who has not been a similar circumstance. All of which is not to say you are not entitled to have and voice an opinion, but I mean come on, really?
navycpo7 wrote: You wasn't there so you do not have the damn right to judge.
Shouldn't this apply to everything in life, not just this incident?
No.
neptunechimney wrote: In general when there have been conversations of military topics I have not felt that if you have never been in the military you are not entitled to a position.Although I would value the opinion of a vet over a civilian if his service was relevant to the discussion.
In this case I think it unlikely that the Marines stumbled across these bodies why taking a hike across the field. I think it likely that they killed them in a fire fight.
I withhold an opinion and give zero weight to anyone's opinion who has not been a similar circumstance. All of which is not to say you are not entitled to have and voice an opinion, but I mean come on, really?
There is a difference between ones opinion and someone making judgement. At least to me there is a big difference.
I see very little difference... And I don't have to have been in the military in a similar circumstance to recognize despicable behavior when I see it.
