support the Marine acused of murder

[TRD2000]

AS I SAID BEFORE. THEY DIDN'T SIGN IT SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW IT.

AMERICAS CREDIT THAT THEY FOLLOW SOME OF WHAT THEY ARE OBLIGED TO DO AND HAVE A CONTRACTUAL AND MORAL OBLIGATION TO DO. YEAH RIGHT. And america is there to raise the standards of life for these people.

as for attacking the mosque great, no debate, if they are fighting from there you have to clear it. The fact that they cleared it way beforehand, forgot to pick up the wounded, then went back to kill the survivors somehow still doesn't "smell" right. Neglecting to pick up the wounded was either incompetence or inhumane. they shouldn't have had to go back, this situation was avoidable in the first place.


i was under the impression that America was there to raise standards not sink to new lows. raising standards my ass. this is SO off topic.

[Heep]

Originally Posted by syr74

However, should you actually bother to read the Convention it does not bind a country to its rules when fighting a foe that neither obeys or recognizes the Convention. In fact, if you are fighting an enemy that is fighting from religious places, etc. even if that nation is a signee that previously recognized the convention they forfeit their protection under the convention by violating it. Put simply, the convention implies that once a force openly violates and disregards the Convention the golves are off anyway. It is ridiculous (and blatantly untrue) to propose that the Convention requires a signee to observe the sanctity of a mosque while being attacked from it.

Interesting observation. I've never read the Convention, thus I had been declining to include it in any of my arguments; however, I can certainly understand the U.S. being free from it if the opposition does not follow it.

However, that does not change the fact that a wounded, unarmed Iraqi was shot without blatant provocation. If what the marine did was completely justified, then he is innocent, and should be free to go. However, none of us are in a position to make the decision of whether or not he was justified in his actions, and that's why I would like to see a trial commence, if, at the very least, to be fair to the Iraqi population that the U.S. declares itself to be so genuinely concerned about...

[TRD2000]

besides. if these aresn't enemy soldiers then they are civilians. they may well therefore be guilty of murder. and may be sentanced to death. but marines nor police have the power to judge someone like that. If this was a police officer caught on tape killing an unarmed person it would seem equally wrong. lets not mention the fact they are WAY out of their juristiction.

If Sadam and his evil sidekicks weren'ty allowed to sentance people to death like that then why should a US soldier? What was the humanitarian mission again?

[aloharocky]

Last night I watched a Special Forces officer sum it up this way: Al Queda is a group of fanatical murderers. We do not capture them, they do not want to be captured. We kill every one of them we find, and will continue to do so."

[syr74]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

AS I SAID BEFORE. THEY DIDN'T SIGN IT SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW IT.

AMERICAS CREDIT THAT THEY FOLLOW SOME OF WHAT THEY ARE OBLIGED TO DO AND HAVE A CONTRACTUAL AND MORAL OBLIGATION TO DO. YEAH RIGHT.

i was under the impression that America was there to raise standards not sink to new lows. i was under the impression that the convention required the signiataries to adhere to it in their treatment of prisoners, regardless of whether the people they caught were also signiataries. then again.... this whole war is about misleading the public in why and how.... so last weeks reasons don't really count for shit now huh. why would an agreement from that long ago.

raising standards my ass. this is SO off topic.

Again, might I direct you to read the Convention before citing it. You are incorrect, the Convention states that it affords the protection we are discussing only to signees of the convention. If you signed it you agree to observe these protections for everyone else who signed it. Not overly complex. There are protections afforded to peoples not affiliated with signees, but they have nothing to do with this discussion.

Non combatants are afforded protection no matter where they come from which leads many to believe the same is true of anyone including these terrorists...it is not. You might also have been misled by the fact that uniformed soldiers from countries/forces not violating the convention are afforded some protections by the convention. However, as we stated above these guys are not in uniform and would appear to have a policy of not honoring the convention.

And, that particular tidbit only actually applies to uniformed soldiers somehow caught in a war their nation is not actually participating in. An example of this would be the Russians and Germans fighting on Polish soil after Germany invaded. Imagine that the Poles already surrendered and are no longer an active combatant so techincally there is war taking place in their nation which they are not participating in. If the Russians capture a uniformed Polish soldier who is not aiding the Germans, since the Poles are not involved in the war on any side any longer he is afforded some protection wether his nation is a signee or not. Nothing like this applies in the scenario being discussed.

Wounded and sick soldiers are afforded protection by the Convention, but only if they have not being abusing this protection to make attacks. Even a signee would void their right to this protection under the convention by doing so. Booby trapping bodies or using this as an opportunity to ambush forfeits this protection. Even without readin the convention one would think common sense would tell people this. And once again, we are not fighting a signee of the Convention.

As for civilians and the like America does not need a convention to have a policy of respecting life as much as possible. The criminals here are the terrorists/insurgents not us. If you disagree, and I know that you do, so be it. War crimes happen in every military just as they do in every society. However, the US military has policy of not tolerating such activities and that makes the difference. The forces we are fighting are criminal organizations not simply organizations with criminals in them.

And, actually this is the topic as the Marine is being accused by some of a war crime. And while it can be argued that the term "war crime" means different things to different people it does help when those doing the accusing know what a war-crime is according to any general standard.

In conclusion your argument, even though it is fundamentally flawed, would at least be more convincing if you knew more about the Geneva Convention. I would also help if you stuck to a basic line of thinking and built upon it. That rant at the end of your last post just sounded desperate and did not exactly help your argument either.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

besides. if these aresn't enemy soldiers then they are civilians. they may well therefore be guilty of murder. and may be sentanced to death. but marines nor police have the power to judge someone like that. If this was a police officer caught on tape killing an unarmed person it would seem equally wrong. lets not mention the fact they are WAY out of their juristiction.

If Sadam and his evil sidekicks weren'ty allowed to sentance people to death like that then why should a US soldier? What was the humanitarian mission again?

Ah, once again we see a basic lack of understanding regarding the Convention. These are not soldiers, but they are not civilians either and that assumption is ridiculous. Their actions and tactics make them spies who can be shot on site even if from a signee nation.

Again, try to find a sound foundation for your argument and build upon it. The above looks desperate too.

[TRD2000]

i guess theres a fine line in appearance between desperation and exhaustion.

i still think the guy should be put on trial. to say that he is innocent before a proper investigation is rediculous. I'm inclined to believe that he should be innocent, and the people who left wounded there without care for long enough for them to be perceived as a threat again should be jailed.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Heep

Interesting observation. I've never read the Convention, thus I had been declining to include it in any of my arguments; however, I can certainly understand the U.S. being free from it if the opposition does not follow it.

However, that does not change the fact that a wounded, unarmed Iraqi was shot without blatant provocation. If what the marine did was completely justified, then he is innocent, and should be free to go. However, none of us are in a position to make the decision of whether or not he was justified in his actions, and that's why I would like to see a trial commence, if, at the very least, to be fair to the Iraqi population that the U.S. declares itself to be so genuinely concerned about...

See TRD, check out the above. Do I agree with the Heep? No. Does Heep build on a basic argument that he can at least support. Yes.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

i guess theres a fine line in appearance between desperation and exhaustion.

i still think the guy should be put on trial. to say that he is innocent before a proper investigation is rediculous. I'm inclined to believe that he should be innocent, and the people who left wounded there without care for long enough for them to be perceived as a threat again should be jailed.

I could live with an investigation into the matter that would lead to a trial if the facts supported it which is exactly what is happening now. However, I have to say this would really not make much difference as any lawyer defending the Marine would say "these guys reguarly disregard the convention and general rules of conduct in war so he is a threat" and it would never get anywhere near a trial.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by aloharocky

Last night I watched a Special Forces officer sum it up this way: Al Queda is a group of fanatical murderers. We do not capture them, they do not want to be captured. We kill every one of them we find, and will continue to do so."

If those are his orders, then the White House needs to publicly admit that it has authorised use of illegal tactics and is knowingly guilty of war crimes.

If those are nopt his orders, he should be courtmartialed. If Al Quaeda is intent on killing everyone who opposes them they are fanatical murderers.If Special Forces are intent on doing the same, then they must logically be the same.

[Pavlo]

Can somebody promise me that i won't get baned for expressing my opinion? I have something to say that some may disagree and act a little violent.

[Heep]

Originally Posted by Pavlo

Can somebody promise me that i won't get baned for expressing my opinion? I have something to say that some may disagree and act a little violent.

You won't get banned. (I'm a moderator)

Please phrase whatever you want to say as diplomatically and thoughtfully as possible, and please don't make any personal attacks on any members.

Other than that, speak your mind

[twospirits]

I won't sign it. In my opinion, the marine did wrong. From the online information as well as the video, the place was already checked beforehand and these marines were there just to pick up the wounded. The first group of marines already came through first and thus they had to check anyone of any weapons. This way the second group can pick them up. It wouldn't make sense for the first group not to check for any weapons cause that would put the second group of marines in jeapardy when they came to pick up the wounded. The marine either snapped, or committed cold blooded murder just because he wanted revenge over what happened to his buddy a few days earlier. Or Both. Regardless an investigation should be conducted. If the military court decides he did no wrong doing, then so be it. But with the evidense of the video and what I've just said of the first group clearing out any weapons, I will find it hard to believe he'll go scott free.

On a lighter note, back from page 4...

Originally Posted by Raz_Kaz

Just cuz you don't see something doesn't mean it's not there. I've been to the States many times, visited New York last summer. I thought the people in Queens were very pleasant people, but there were the ignorant ones too....is that BS as well?

Woo hoo, go Queens.


Seriously, I never met a Canadian I did not like. They are all friendly and
and nice. When us US citizens were France Bashing happy a while back and including the French Canadians, I felt ashamed.

Originally Posted by Heep

As for my bad experiences in the USA, call BS if you want, it doesn't change what's happened. I've never been to Texas so I have no idea what people are like there. I shouldn't be biased against the whole of the U.S. as nearly every state feels differently. I do, in fact, like the people in Florida, Alabama, and Maine, but some other states, notably New York, Mass., and Georgia are extremely rude, obnoxious, and ignorant towards Canadians,

Sorry to hear that the New Yorkers treated you bad Heep. We are all not like that.

Anyway back on topic,

I find it amazing that there is another military personnel that did the same thing (I believe Yogs brought it up) and yet he is not being investigated. Just because there was not camera crew does not justify that he did not wrong.

TS out

[TRD2000]

"Just because there was not camera crew does not justify that he did not wrong."

unfortunately there seems to be something about this whole stink invasion that goes by, it's not about justice, its about what you can get away with.

[Heep]

Originally Posted by twospirits

Sorry to hear that the New Yorkers treated you bad Heep. We are all not like that.

Actually you've been proven correct, as I was chatting for a while last night with a young guy who's been a New Yorker his whole life, and he was very pleasant. Though I suppose he should be, seeing as he married the girl that's lived down the street from me her/my whole life