help the marine that killed the insurgent enemy
- Thread starter thrasherfox
- Start date
Sorry, but there is no way that I can sign such a petition. First of all, I do not even know who wrote the bloody thing, so how do we know that the facts are correct. It is too easy to sing a patiotic tear jerking song, and get citizens to blindly fall in line.
Even if we assume that all the facts in the story are correct, I still wouldn't sign it. Most Americans would argue that America is great because of the rights, freedoms and tenants that we live by. Fortunately or unfortunately, right or wrong, the military is guided by some very clear rules. As a country, we helped form the Geneva Convention and we live by it. Under our own rules, we are not allowed to kill defenseless people, whether they are the enemy or not. According to the story, the victim did not show a weapon or attempt to injure US troops in any way. he was a potentially injured enemy, ready for capture. He should have been taken into custody. I understand the dangers involved with taking him into custody, but they are dangers that the military understands and accepts.
So if the story happened as it reads, the soldier shoud be punished. He broke our own rules.
NOW HERE IS A PETITION I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SIGNNING:
If the petition says that the enemy is using the Genva Convention and US Rules of Engagement in order to trick and kill our troops. I would be willing to sign a petition stating that we should only follow the Geneva Convention when fighting enemy who also follow it. However, I cannot talk out of both sides of my mouth. Either we live within the guidelines that we set for ourselves, or we change them.
I VOTE FOR CHANGING THEM RATHER THAN LETTING VIOLATORS OFF THE HOOK!
<!--EDIT|Thinker62
Reason for Edit: None given...|1101251662 -->
Even if we assume that all the facts in the story are correct, I still wouldn't sign it. Most Americans would argue that America is great because of the rights, freedoms and tenants that we live by. Fortunately or unfortunately, right or wrong, the military is guided by some very clear rules. As a country, we helped form the Geneva Convention and we live by it. Under our own rules, we are not allowed to kill defenseless people, whether they are the enemy or not. According to the story, the victim did not show a weapon or attempt to injure US troops in any way. he was a potentially injured enemy, ready for capture. He should have been taken into custody. I understand the dangers involved with taking him into custody, but they are dangers that the military understands and accepts.
So if the story happened as it reads, the soldier shoud be punished. He broke our own rules.
NOW HERE IS A PETITION I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SIGNNING:
If the petition says that the enemy is using the Genva Convention and US Rules of Engagement in order to trick and kill our troops. I would be willing to sign a petition stating that we should only follow the Geneva Convention when fighting enemy who also follow it. However, I cannot talk out of both sides of my mouth. Either we live within the guidelines that we set for ourselves, or we change them.
I VOTE FOR CHANGING THEM RATHER THAN LETTING VIOLATORS OFF THE HOOK!
<!--EDIT|Thinker62
Reason for Edit: None given...|1101251662 -->
ralnsplder
Registered
I cant see the potition at work, but if it was what I think it is then I have actually seen vidoe of it and it was messed up. If it is the one where the marine just killed a guy that was just sitting there. In the video that I seen there were a few guys laying on the ground and you hear one marine saying something like I don't think he is dead, then you see another marine raising his weapon and shooting the guy and saying " he's dead now". That video was messed up
Exactly, people who are pro one side or another can easily manipulate a few elements of the written story and get us all worked up in support of his cause. I reserve judgement till I see wht happened for myself.
So if it is the video that you saw, would you sign the petition?
So if it is the video that you saw, would you sign the petition?
ralnsplder
Registered
I am not sure, but I would probably say no. I am also in the military and we have rules for a reason, No it isn't fair, because they don't follow them, but that is what makes us a better country. If we were to allow our people to just start random killing, we would be no better then they are. It is also acts like that that cause the people over there to hate us even more and will put more americans lives at risk. Killing a man that seems wounded and has no weapon and not even showing emotion make me wonder about the individual.He apparently has no reguard for life other then his own.
Yes I know with the situation over there it is hard, but I can't see killing someone just because you can, even if he is an enemy. if he cannot harm you then why should he be killed.
I saw the video, I served in the Marines, I work for the DoD. And you have valid points.
I still stick behind me signing it however for my own reasons.
I still stick behind me signing it however for my own reasons.
I could be wrong, but I believe the Geneva convention applies to uniformed soliders. Terrorists are not uniformed. Terrorists do not follow the rules of war. Terrorists pretend to be civillians/dead then when the oppurtunity is right they become combantants again.
The Geneva Convention does not apply to Terrorists, period.
Exactly Charlesbusa -
You are not wrong, you get the point
You are not wrong, you get the point
Sorry but we may have to agree to disagree on this one. I could argue about whether the enemy is a real enemy or a terrorist. I could argue that the President declared war, and that makes them the enemy. But neither is necessary. The Geneva Convention is designed to guide how WE behave in combat, during military operations. It does not govern how the enemy behaves. I doubt if it states that the rules only apply to uniformed enemy, the rules apply to any military operation against hostile forces. That is one of its flaws. It potentially puts the good guys at a disdvantage. Unfortunately, it doesn't state that it only applys if the enemy agrees to play by the same rules. Now you and I might want it to say that, but it simply doesn't.
But OK, lets assume that we were never really at war because they are not uniformed enemy. So what do we have left? What rules are the military bound by, the Constitution? The Bible? Federal, State, Local laws? You cannot get around the fact that we still have a soldier who put a bullet in the head of an unarmed individual. That would be a crime under any rule you can evoke, but go ahead give it a shot. Tell me what law or rule you want to use to justify shooting an unarmed or disarmed man in the head. You can't argue that he was killed because others have played dead and become combatants later. That would be an argument for taking him prisoner, not shooting him in the head.
Hey I want us to win too, and I don't want to see our boys killed, but don't ask me to endorse a cold blooded murder. Yes, it pisses me off that our hands are tied by our high and mighty rules, but they are what define this country. Throw our morals out the window and we will soon start to find mass graves created by our boys because it is easier to kill an insurgent than to take him prisoner.
What would stop a police officer from using that same argument. "Yes, your honor, I had subdued the individual. He was covered by several fellow officers. But I thought he was faking death, so I shot him in the head to prevent him from getting up later and becoming a threat."
[/QUOTE]
Is that what we want? Not me. Anyway, I will give you guys the last word cause these kind of discussions tend to get out of hand. I respect you guys. I do see your point and share your passion to protect our troops. I just think that there are limits, and it sounds like one of our own crossed over the limit this time. But it is easy for us to say since we aren't there.
Is that what we want? Not me. Anyway, I will give you guys the last word cause these kind of discussions tend to get out of hand. I respect you guys. I do see your point and share your passion to protect our troops. I just think that there are limits, and it sounds like one of our own crossed over the limit this time. But it is easy for us to say since we aren't there.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the Geneva Convention covers Terrorists. The only rules that apply are the ones our own military/country/people uses.
I am almost positive that the international communtiy cannot call for a war crimes trial because these are not uniformed soldiers we are fighting in Iraq. Also I think the Senate is the only ones who can declare war. The President cannot declare war, but can send troops to battle.
But anyway, we agree to dissagree. You have valid points and I do respect your opinion Thinker62.
<!--EDIT|Charlesbusa
Reason for Edit: None given...|1101269303 -->
Here just a tidbit from the Geneva Convention;
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
© That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Here's where you can get more;
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
It's full of legal talk and I can't make a clear understanding of the wording.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
© That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Here's where you can get more;
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
It's full of legal talk and I can't make a clear understanding of the wording.
ralnsplder
Registered
they are not really terrorists, they are soldiers in their own fight for whatever reason. That still doesn't give us the right just to kill at will. There are rules of engagement in every battle fought. apparently they werent firing first if he was laying there.
That man killed the guy with no thought about it at all, what happens when he gets home and someone pisses him off and he takes the same attitude? Most of the people I know that have been over there and are returning do not like killing people and have a hard time dealing with it, this guy seemed like he liked it.
Everyone makes a big deal about them kidnapping and killing our people yet we think it is ok to do the same to theirs???
Believe it or not most of our soldiers do not want to be there, they are there because it is their job and they are told too. Well the same applies to our enemies. they are doing what they are told it is their job not always a choice. In the United states soldiers do not have the right to just say I no longer want to be in the military and get out the next day. you are made to serve until your time is up or you go to jail. After all we are in their country, what are they supposed to do??
Don't get me wrong I am proud to be an american and a soldier and I love my job, I chose to be in the military. Just always look at both sides of the story, they probably feel the same way about their military and their country.
I guess we should have waited to bring him up on charges for deraliction of duty until the terrorist, yes that's what they are, rolled over and blew a grenade up killing the remaining soldiers in his unit, and the other terrorist who had his hands up in the air who was not shot. Then we could spout our non-sense about how he didn't do his job and court marshal his sorry ass. Get over it people the guy shot someone who moments earlier was probably using a mosque as a snipers nest and shoting innocent cititzens of Falujah in the back of the head on his way out the door to go infest another hideout because our boys pushed them out of that one. And yes you can kill at will, that's war. They have had plenty of opportunities to leave or surrender before this so eliminate the enemy by what ever means you can bring to bear. What a crock of crap stirred up by the media. Didn't the election show the peace at any cost, American hating people, and media that they are in fact in the minority on this and that trying to make news instead of reporting it was repudiated?
Move on...
Sorry but this stuff bugs me...I signed it too!
ralnsplder
Registered
for that much, everyone over there could be a terrorist, maybe we should just start killing anyone we see, just to make sure. JUst bomb the entire city until there is nothing left, I mean the little kids playing in the street could be possible suicide bombers. Point is he didnt have a weapon and he was wounded, we cant just kill people on what might happen. look at all of the car bombs at the guard shacks. should we just start blowing the cars up befor they get there? I mean who knows they could have just bombed someone the day before.I guess we should have waited to bring him up on charges for deraliction of duty until the terrorist, yes that's what they are, rolled over and blew a grenade up killing the remaining soldiers in his unit, and the other terrorist who had his hands up in the air who was not shot. Then we could spout our non-sense about how he didn't do his job and court marshal his sorry ass. Get over it people the guy shot someone who moments earlier was probably using a mosque as a snipers nest and shoting innocent cititzens of Falujah in the back of the head on his way out the door to go infest another hideout because our boys pushed them out of that one. And yes you can kill at will, that's war. They have had plenty of opportunities to leave or surrender before this so eliminate the enemy by what ever means you can bring to bear. What a crock of crap stirred up by the media. Didn't the election show the peace at any cost, American hating people, and media that they are in fact in the minority on this and that trying to make news instead of reporting it was repudiated?Move on...
Ohhh and if you can kill at will, why was he removed from his unit??
Getting pist, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) but didn't the local civilians and those not associated with the terrorists have plenty of time to get out of this city? Those who remained was there to fight and or die trying. I also believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that just moments before this a few of his unit members was blown up by a "Helpless man" pretending to be dead as he blew himself up. I do guess we will have to agree to disagree!!!!!!!
...but...but...They started it
Seriously though; How can you tell who the fugg you're fighting over there. I say we use restraint/caution during the first couple of days of an attack, then whoever has NOT left the area is fair fuggin game.
Take the gloves off of our troops and let them kick some a$$. The ragheads are just a bunch of chicken shiot cowards. They don't have the guts to stand toe-to-toe and fight like a nation. They have to resort to terrorist tactics.
Put a few Snipers of our own out there with some thermal imaging and night scopes and let them walk around wondering all of the time. We'll see how trigger happy they get.
I can't vote from work...Gov't PC
<span style='color:orange'>EDIT: These opinions are only mine, and in no way reflect the opinions of my employer.</span>
<!--EDIT|stkr00
Reason for Edit: None given...|1101299397 -->
Seriously though; How can you tell who the fugg you're fighting over there. I say we use restraint/caution during the first couple of days of an attack, then whoever has NOT left the area is fair fuggin game.
Take the gloves off of our troops and let them kick some a$$. The ragheads are just a bunch of chicken shiot cowards. They don't have the guts to stand toe-to-toe and fight like a nation. They have to resort to terrorist tactics.
Put a few Snipers of our own out there with some thermal imaging and night scopes and let them walk around wondering all of the time. We'll see how trigger happy they get.
I can't vote from work...Gov't PC
<span style='color:orange'>EDIT: These opinions are only mine, and in no way reflect the opinions of my employer.</span>
<!--EDIT|stkr00
Reason for Edit: None given...|1101299397 -->
I would sign the petition but since I work for the DOD I am not sure the political/legal issues that can arise from my signature.
plus I'm at work also.......opps I promise to get off Hayabusa.org,,,,,,,,,,I promise,,,,,,,,,,,ok right now..............................just one more post to check
Similar threads
