Marine Corps probe video showing troops "urinating on dead Taliban"

[jollyjacktar]

To be fair to the man, he does have a bit of a point.  Unless you have been at the coal face, you really don't have a dog in the fight or any experience from which you may make comment with any intelligence/conviction.  A flat face has not walked the walk, what do they know?  These men should be judged by their peers, professionally speaking.  I believe that is the politician's point, and it is not without merit.

 

[armyvern]

No-one here that I have seen is making excuses, that is to say condoning, their behavior.  They are, myself included, stating that crap like this happens, has happened before and probably will again.  More like accepting that shitbirds will act this way despite the guidance available from their collective CoC and training they'll receive in their careers.  However how much you wish to gnash your teeth AV, from time to time crap like this will come to surface.  And it will be dealt with when it does, as is now.  You cannot predict stupid, except to predict it exists in past, present and future.  We will see this type of idiotic behavior again, mark my words.

There are other view points as well that I know you won't agree with, but there they are.  Shared with the usual caveats, full story at link.

I was referring to the comments and news stories defending these guys' actions because "they were stressed" etc and "our enemies do worse to us sooooo this is OK and excuseable..."

Either way, whether they think it's "OK" and want to defend their disgraceful actions or not - it is still a crime - whether those people like it or not. So, there you go.

'Shut your mouth... war is hell': Ex-Army state politician attacks 'self-righteous' critics of Marines caught urinating over Afghan bodies on video, By Daniel Bates, Lee Moran, Hugo Gye and Mark Duell

A politician who served in the U.S. Army for two decades today slammed those from outside the military who have criticised the four Marines seen in a video urinating on dead Afghan bodies.  Florida Rep. Allen West, an ex-Army lieutenant colonel, insisted the Marines were wrong but fumed: ‘As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085872/Urination-video-4-US-Marines-charged-hours.html#ixzz1jYyHIBwk

Same guy who said all the people bitching had never been there. Wrong.

 

[dapaterson]

To be fair to the man, he does have a bit of a point.  Unless you have been at the coal face, you really don't have a dog in the fight or any experience from which you may make comment with any intelligence/conviction.  A flat face has not walked the walk, what do they know?  These men should be judged by their peers, professionally speaking.  I believe that is the politician's point, and it is not without merit.

The Roman Legions entered into battle carrying a standard that read SPQR - Senatus Populusque Romani.  It identified who had sent them - the government and people of Rome.  Equally, that is who the Legions were accountable to - the government and people of Rome.


Soldiers remain accountable to their government and their people.  They are not a law unto themselves.



(For an interesting, related discussion, see: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/09/soldiers_and_warriors.html for "Warrior vs Soldier")

 

[Jarnhamar]

The Roman Legions entered into battle carrying a standard that read SPQR - Senatus Populusque Romani.  It identified who had sent them - the government and people of Rome.  Equally, that is who the Legions were accountable to - the government and people of Rome.

But isn't the phrase "In times of war, the law falls silent." also thought to have originated in Rome?

Cicero's in depth knowledge of Greek political history, It can be argued that his notion on war and law was inspired by Thucydides opinion on the violent nature of war and the realist approach in international relations.

At the time when Cicero used this phrase, mob violence was common. Armed gangs led by thuggish partisan leaders controlled the streets of Rome. Such leaders were nevertheless elected to high offices.

(For an interesting, related discussion, see: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/09/soldiers_and_warriors.html for "Warrior vs Soldier")

Thank was a really interesting article (thanks) probably worth it's own thread.
I've read about the Soldier vs Warrior theories before and find them very interesting.
I don't 100% agree about the authors views on honour where it's only a commodity to be gained or lost- like points in a video game.
I understand where he's taking his views of honour from. Samurai, Apache Warriors then stuff like honour killings like we see in the news recently in Canada.
I like to believe the only way you can loose your honour is by your own choices (someone else can't take it away).  These marines choose to forfeit their own honour.

While it may not be the most accurate use of the words I like the saying  'Integrity is how you act when people are around, honour is how you act when they are not'.



Given the article you posted, what does that say about our warrior platoons?

 

[armyvern]

But isn't the phrase "In times of war, the law falls silent." also thought to have originated in Rome?

But, civilized society has since moved on into this century; We have the LOAC, the GCs, and the , NDA, CSD of which you are well aware. We do though still represent our Nation, our Government and the Canadian people.

 

[cupper]

Apparently Rick Perry believes that this was not a criminal act, and is slamming the Obama Administration for it's reaction. Figured that someone would try and make hay for political purposes.

Rick Perry defends Marines accused of urinating on Afghan corpses

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-perry-defends-marines-accused-of-urinating-on-afghan-corpses/2012/01/15/gIQALCZ60P_blog.html

The article title is a little sensationalist and misleading, but I wonder what Rick's take would be if the situation was reversed?

 

[Journeyman]

Rick Perry defends Marines accused of urinating on Afghan corpses

“But, you know, when you’re in war, and history kind of backs up — there’s a picture of General Patton doing basically the same thing in the Rhine River. And although there’s not a picture, Churchill did the same thing on the Siegfried line.”

Not even remotely the same.

He's a Presidential candidate? What a fucking idiot.

 

[Tow Tripod]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087023/World-War-II-photographs-American-soldiers-fight-survival-brutal-Battle-Saipan.html

I'm not condoning what these Marines did but at the same time I won't lose any sleep over another 3 dead Taliban fighters. I'm well aware of the GC,LOAC,NDA but who knows what happened prior to this incident. We can all sit here and be combat quarterbacks but at the end of the day these Marines will be charged and dealt with.
Nobody will ever hold the Taliban criminally responsible for the vile acts they have conducted since the west has become involved in Afghanistan.

FYI great war photos in the link above of Marines conducting warfare against detestable murders and scumbags from a generation before.

Thank you for your time!

 

[jollyjacktar]

The Roman Legions entered into battle carrying a standard that read SPQR - Senatus Populusque Romani.  It identified who had sent them - the government and people of Rome.  Equally, that is who the Legions were accountable to - the government and people of Rome.
Soldiers remain accountable to their government and their people.  They are not a law unto themselves.
(For an interesting, related discussion, see: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/09/soldiers_and_warriors.html for "Warrior vs Soldier")

Yes, we are accountable to our civilian overlords.  Always.  We can, however, still be accountable to them while at the same time be judged by our peers.  And I still submit, that unless you have been there, you cannot fully understand being there.  And that, would put our civilian overlords at a disadvantage of understanding to some degree.  Why else would we have our Military Justice system?

 

[aesop081]

Maybe what is missing from the video is that the Talibans were on fire and the Marines were just putting them out this way, as water was unavailable.

Humanitarians of the year i say !

Ok, ok....i know........i know........

 

[X Royal]

We tend to rely on such things as zero tolerance and blanket policies to punish all instead of holding people accountable for their actions......

The zero tolerance I was referring to was a far simpler concept.
It was the simple meanings of the words and not a policy.
What I meant by it is if things like this happen prosecute to the fullest. No excuses to downgrade charges or skipping charges for things like extra's.
Not a simple charge like conduct unbecoming only.
Nowhere did I refer to "punish all instead of holding people accountable for their actions".
Only punish those responsible. To me that would include those doing the act, the person filming it and yes anyone who had direct knowledge of the act and failed to act on it.
Any one in a direct command position who had knowledge of the act and failed to act on it would also be guilty of an offense.
Even a junior private after seeing the video should have been responsible enough to report the incident.  Failure to report a serious crime you have direct knowledge of is completely wrong. Seeing a video would be enough direct knowledge in my opinion. I know in this example many will say peer pressure would stop them from reporting it and you may be correct but peer pressure is not a legal excuse.

 

[OldSolduer]

The zero tolerance I was referring to was a far simpler concept.
It was the simple meanings of the words and not a policy.
What I meant by it is if things like this happen prosecute to the fullest. No excuses to downgrade charges or skipping charges for things like extra's.
Not a simple charge like conduct unbecoming only.
Nowhere did I refer to "punish all instead of holding people accountable for their actions".
Only punish those responsible. To me that would include those doing the act, the person filming it and yes anyone who had direct knowledge of the act and failed to act on it.
Any one in a direct command position who had knowledge of the act and failed to act on it would also be guilty of an offense.
Even a junior private after seeing the video should have been responsible enough to report the incident.  Failure to report a serious crime you have direct knowledge of is completely wrong. Seeing a video would be enough direct knowledge in my opinion. I know in this example many will say peer pressure would stop them from reporting it and you may be correct but peer pressure is not a legal excuse.

Agreed. But organizations these days would rather "drain the lake" . Mind you, in recent times we've seen senior pers held responsible for their flagrant violation of policy. And that is a good thing

And yes prosecute to the fullest - however  be cognizant of the facts that serious charges ( in the civilian legal system)  are often downgraded because the Crown cannot meet the standard of proof, and thus many serious charges are dealt with via plea bargain. The trial judge is generally bound to accept these deals. The CF does the same.

I have no idea what the US does.

 

[GAP]

Maybe what is missing from the video is that the Talibans were on fire and the Marines were just putting them out this way, as water was unavailable.

Humanitarians of the year i say !

Ok, ok....i know........i know........

Well.......those tracer rounds do have a touch of phosphorus on them, and they could have ignited the IED material they might have been carrying....so.................

ditto on "Ok, ok....i know........i know........"  ;D

 

[X Royal]

And yes prosecute to the fullest - however  be cognizant of the facts that serious charges ( in the civilian legal system)  are often downgraded because the Crown cannot meet the standard of proof, and thus many serious charges are dealt with via plea bargain. The trial judge is generally bound to accept these deals. The CF does the same.

I have no idea what the US does.

Yes I agree that charges are often reduced by plea bargains.
But this has nothing to do with the leadership laying the appropriate charges in the first place.
What happens at the trial phase is not in the control of those laying the charges nor should it be. To intermingle both to the responsibility of the one laying the charges would defeat the concept of a far trial.
As for "The trial judge is generally bound to accept these deals. The CF does the same" the judge is never bound to accept these deals but I agree they generally do accept such plea bargains.

 

[OldSolduer]

.
As for "The trial judge is generally bound to accept these deals. The CF does the same" the judge is never bound to accept these deals but I agree they generally do accept such plea bargains.

Beg to differ, but it is pretty much recognized in Canadian law that the judge has to accept the recommendations of the Crown and Defense and that includes plea bargains. Too many judges are afraid of being overturned on appeal.

I do believe that the judge can reject the recommendations if the administration of justice would brought into disrepute - or words to that effect.

Having said all this - I think we agree that these Marines must be tried before the appropriate court.

 

[mariomike]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087023/World-War-II-photographs-American-soldiers-fight-survival-brutal-Battle-Saipan.html

FYI great war photos in the link above of Marines conducting warfare against detestable murders and scumbags from a generation before.

A different generation than today. That doesn't make either necessarily better, or worse, than the other, in my opinion. That's for others to judge.
For example, this was LIFE magazine's "picture of the week" in May 1944: "Phoenix war worker Natalie Nickerson penning her Navy boyfriend a thank you note for sending her a Japanese soldier's skull he gathered as a souvenir while fighting in New Guinea.":
http://www.timelifepictures.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=50693116&cdi=0

 

[Redeye]

Really good op ed from Al Jazeera of all places. Worth a read!

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201211572445109707.html

 

[Jed]

A different generation than today. That doesn't make either necessarily better, or worse, than the other, in my opinion. That's for others to judge.
For example, this was LIFE magazine's "picture of the week" in May 1944: "Phoenix war worker Natalie Nickerson penning her Navy boyfriend a thank you note for sending her a Japanese soldier's skull he gathered as a souvenir while fighting in New Guinea.":
http://www.timelifepictures.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=50693116&cdi=0

I'm glad you added this perspective on the issue.  It seems to me that too many people want to exact retribution from these errant troops to the fullest extent of the law. While this action was exceedlingly stupid and harmful to the organization, I would hope some sense of perspective is maintained. After all, do the people of the west feel that drawing a cartoon of Mohamed merits death threats or extremely violent action?

 

[Journeyman]

Really good op ed from Al Jazeera of all places. Worth a read!

For the past several years, I've had al Jazeera book-marked as a 'go to' site for international news.

I find they habitually show much less bias than any news service in Canada or the US -- primarily because they report on international events without the inevitable local need to slap whichever domestic political stripe isn't paying the news directors' rent.

Al Jazeera's OpEd pieces can widely vary in quality and bias.....but hey, by definition, they're opinions.

 

[Redeye]

For the past several years, I've had al Jazeera book-marked as a 'go to' site for international news.

I find they habitually show much less bias than any news service in Canada or the US -- primarily because they report on international events without the inevitable local need to slap whichever domestic political stripe isn't paying the news directors' rent.

Al Jazeera's OpEd pieces can widely vary in quality and bias.....but hey, by definition, they're opinions.

I'm a fan of them for the same reason. Their coverage of the events in Libya and Egypt earlier this year was top-notch, and their news service is pretty well done. It's funny that they get slagged a lot by people as some kind of "Voice of Jihad", or as though they're the mouthpiece of the Qatari government, but indeed, they tend to seek out a good balance of views.