Murderer Marine

Remove all ads!

Hi BOC,

First off I got the information from this web page:

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

"It's still a violation, since the judgment of the marine was wrong but you can give him the benefit of non-intention (not sure if this the correct term in english), which means that he didn't have the intention to execute the insurgent."

So his judgment was wrong. So what you are saying here is that if the marine had shot the man, and he did have a bomb on him it would have been justified?

If an enemy force is using suicide tactics, including but not limited to feigning being wounded then detonating themselves, then they are in violation of the agreement. As such they are not provided the full protections of the agreement. Now don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean that the US shouldn't play by the rules, far from it. What it does mean is that when one side decided on tactics that are in violation of the convention, the other side must enact tactics to protect themselves.


"I cannot see how a wounded man, who can barely move, will prove that he is incapacitated."

He can't. But that doesn't matter when you are fighting in a force that openly uses suicide tactics.

Here is something else interesting:

"The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, [Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions."

The information you are referencing comes from the 1977 protocols(I). Interesting stuff. BUT, neither the US nor Iraq ratified the 1977 protocols and are not bound by them.

 

Can't agree with that. To report a crime is never treachery. To commit a crime is never understandable, even if you think it's a lesser crime than the one you are actually committing.

If the bit about advising the troops NOT to read Geneva Convention so that they wouldn't have qualms obeying orders, now that merits a court martial. Preferably international one and public, transmitted on the TV. Heinous crime, if you ask me.

And I must agree that it's abhorrent that no one above the rank of sergeant gets any real punishment.

Edit: Also, the state of war doesn't make you morally obligated to buy the lies of your government or military command. Don't know how it works for everyone, but my loyalty goes to the truth before the government.

[ November 24, 2004, 05:48: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I would like to think this goes for most people. Its scary to think otherwise.

 

What a bull Black Beard. I'm with Chev on this one. Truth is what counts. When your side commits atrocities they are pigs, and when siding with pigs you go to smell like a pig yourself sooner or later.

Just think about this israeli officer who emptied a magazine into this 10 year old palestinian girl because it ran into his checkpoint-zone without permittance - was reporting that murder treason?
Without a whistleblower it would have never come out and a murderer would have been free and unpunished. Just think about the palestinian point of view - an Israeli murders a little girl in cold blood and doesn't get punished - if you still needed a reason to blow up Israelis, how about that one? Israel HAS to punish him to keep face. If it doesn't it blesses his deed.

Or a fictious case: How about a German officer reporting on atrocities committed by Germans in WW-II - what may have caused an outcry that could have stopped them? Would he have have committed treason to his government? Would he have been a traitor?

If you say "Yes, traitors!" to both questions, you need your ethics re-adjusted.

In a conflict truth normally is sacrificed first on the altar of partisan politics. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean this is right. That some people steal or murder doesn't justify both crimes either.

If the US want to be as morally superior as they claim or feel to be they have to stick to the rules, even at risk of putting themselves into disadvantage. Who gives a **** about what Iraqis do - the only thing that counts is what the US does. Don't forget the US chose to invade Iraq, they have to live with the painful consequences.
The Brits are putting themselves on disadvantage in Northern Ireland every day, relatively more successful as their US cousins in Fallujah.

Whoever reports such incidents in fact helps the US, insofar as it may force the boneheaded "we have to bomb them back into the stoneage to break their fighting will" fraction to rethink. I do not at all care wether a change in US tactics is forced upon them by bad press or by recognising that brute force will fail, though I would prefer the latter.

Even neocon warmongers have now, after some painful pondering recognised the possibility that the violence against US troops in Iraq first of all is a consequence of them being there, uninvited, and think loud about the unthinkable: Hawks push deep cuts in forces in Iraq.

That much for the stupid "we're bringing the war to the terrorists" thesis right-wing partisans like to utter. When the Iraqi insurgency is US induced, the US aren't fighting the war on terror there, but nothing but a mess of their own making.

[ November 29, 2004, 10:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Well the British forces are not at such a risk anymore and the reason is simple - both sides started treating each other with respect i.e. talks not force. If the British were going to bomb Belfast and Londonderry the trouble would be worse than it was in the 70's and 80's. Of course things are not perfect but at least we can go to shopping malls without fear bombs and shootings. The Americans should read about NI history and politics instead of running in 'all guns blazing' It did not work here and it will definately work in Iraq. For an army to combat terrorism they should not act like terrorists themselves!

 

What I meant with putting themselves at a disadvantage is that they, in retaliation for terrorist attacks, didn't resort to use their doubtless superior firepower of air force and army to retaliate.

Point is: There isn't a military solution for every problem - which doesn't mean there is no solution.

 

hahahha Yes there have been no 'surgical' strikes on Belfast Catholic churches or hospitals.

 

The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. The US in Iraq are in a lose-lose situation. In Iraq the US try to impress the rest of the world, the arab world especially, by killing peasants and rag-tag militias armed with AK-47s and RPGs by using their vast technical and military superiority.
And moronic rightwing pundits get boners over kill-ratios, space-age weapons and how great US snipers are and brag that the US kill about ten times as many insurgents than they kill Americans. Boo-Yah.

Except that it's irrelevant. What they don't get is that it is always a question of the relationship of forces.

If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a bastard ... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. It's a dilemma for which there is simply no escape. A grownup beating down a kid unavidably is seen as a bully and will be resented. It is perception and perception alone what counts.

Had the brits resorted to massive force as the US did on Falluja, Najaf and Sadr City they would have probably lost Northern Ireland.

 

Its just like at highschool. If you get bullied everyone laughes at you and calls you 'weak'. If you strike back at the bullies they get their friends involved. In the case of Iraq some of the insurgents can be in the place of the 'bullied' and some of the marines can be the 'bullies'.

Regarding Ragusa - the British did come hard on the Ira (70's to mid 80's) but they discriminated against catholics (i.e. treated catholics as potential IRA recruits) this met with harsh consequences. Of course this is to a much smaller extent to what the americans are doing to the Iraqis.

People can learn a lot from history.

 

@Llandon

You are right. I thought that USA had ratified the protocols but after your post I did a little research and I found that USA and Israel are the only countries of the western world which haven't ratified the protocols and therefore they are not bound by them.

Although in the conventions of 1949, which are ratified by US, the following is stated:

The iraqi could fit in this category considering the chaos in Iraq today but ofcourse this is something open to any interpretation. If we accept that he didn't fit in this category, what happens is that he was not considered a combatant but he was still under the protection of the conventions and like the mercenaries he was subject to penal laws.

What I'm saying is that what matters is the result, and this man died just because the marine was afraid to confirm that he was incapicated and because the marine considered man's breath as a sign of hostile action.

Weird, I use the same source but I still haven't managed to locate this paragraph.

The problem with this logic is that it is something like a collective punishment IMO. Simply you can't say that every insurgent will detonate himself because a number of insurgents did it before. Its case must be judged seperately.

 

Amazing enough. The US likes the edge human rights and other rules of law give them over their opponents - just look at all their lambasting about Saddam's atrocities (and the stunning silence about the practices happening in Jordan or Egypt or Morocco when they interrogate prisoners the US sent there to be interrogated) while being quite relucant to expose themselves to it.

I dislike this selective outrage.
Bleh ... but this is getting ....