About the burned corpses in Afghanistan
- Posted by Beth on October 21st, 2005 filed in General, Journalism, Support the Troops
THANK YOU to commenters Prchrmn2 and Larry, for this:
To (everyone who mentions the Geneva Convention), who appears to know nothing about the Geneva Convention - Direct Excerpts:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html
“The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.”
This means that all sides have to agree for anything to apply to anybody!
“Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”
This means if someone is not a player that that those who are bound are still bound to others that are bound (by signature)(the whole Idea was to fight a gentlemans war!).
Prohibitive Acts Apply Only To Consenting Powers!
Humane Treatment Only Applies To Those Who Are Alive!Read also Art 3.(1)
“Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.”
“Deceased internees shall be buried in individual graves unless unavoidable circumstances require the use of collective graves. Bodies may be cremated only for imperative reasons of hygiene, on account of the religion of the deceased or in accordance with his expressed wish to this effect. In case of cremation, the fact shall be stated and the reasons given in the death certificate of the deceased. The ashes shall be retained for safe-keeping by the detaining authorities and shall be transferred as soon as possible to the next of kin on their request.”
Larry added this:
Couple interesting things from the GC:
“Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.”“Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.”
I should’ve looked it up myself, but I didn’t. THANKS, Prchrmn2 and Larry!
I’ve moved these comments up as a post, because these are CRUCIAL elements to the story.
With that knowledge, now go see Jason Coleman’s update to the issue at hand. He’s transcribed the interview with Steven Dupont (the embedded journalist), and IMHO, makes the issue quite clear. Excerpt:
So now things are becoming clearer. Stephen says that he does believe that the Airborne unit was burning the corpses of the two Taliban soldiers for hygenic purposes. We can get into rotting corpses later, but for our purposes here, lets keep it simple. The Airborne troops were ordered by their officers in the field to burn the corpses because they had been in the elements for 24 hours and were beginning to smell. Stephen recognizes that this was the intent of the Airborne troops, and it WAS NOT the intent of the Airborne troops to desecrate the bodies. As we’ll see a little later, the corpses were NOT placed deliberately facing West (toward Mecca) and that the corpses were merely burned for hygenic purposes.
Now in this clip Dupont also goes into the role and scripting of the PsyOps unit a bit. Dupont recognized again that the purpose of the PsyOps unit is to conduct psychological warfare against the Taliban fighters in the village. Dupont states that for the purposes of the announcements into the village, the PsyOps “used the fact” that they were facing West. Dupont admits that tht PsyOps operatives were intentionally tring to incite anger in the Taliban so that they would come out and fight. That the goal of the announcements by the PsyOps operatives was to “Smoke em out”. Note that “used the fact” is a turn of phrase, and does not necessarily mean that the corpses were actually “in fact” facing West, as we’ll get into later.
I certainly hope that those who have questions or who continue to insist that this was some kind of evidence of wrongdoing will have the intellectual honesty and integrity to find out the facts. Not only with this story, but with EVERY story that the media sloppily tosses up for you to use to reinforce your (idiotarian) beliefs that we (Americans)–and specifically, the military–are a bunch of monsters, following orders from the eeeevil “BushCo regime.” Time to grow up, kids.
There’s a war going on, and I’m tired of –no, not tired of, furious about–the propaganda war being fought by the mainstream media and the anti-victory (charmingly called “antiwar”) sheep. How it can be construed that anyone with an anti-victory agenda would have the slightest clue about how war is or should be conducted is beyond me. There’s a reason why war is conducted the way it is, and it’s not just done based on some guy’s bright idea out in the field. There are reasons, well thought-out reasons that are time-tested for centuries, why things like PsyOps are done. It’s because they WORK, and face it, nobody ever said war was a damn Girl Scout camping trip. Just because you, anti-victory loser, can’t bear the thought of the discomfort of war, it doesn’t mean it should be conducted like a camping trip. That said, I’m pretty sure that if “your guy” were President, you’d have no problem with it. I know there are plenty who are against all war, but nobody seriously wants war to happen. It JUST DOES happen, and when it does, you fight to WIN–it’s not just about giving candy to the kids. Never has been, never will be. The only way to eliminate war is to eliminate the human race.
Quit fighting on the enemy’s side by doing their propaganda work for them, Chickenjihadis.
You’re either with us, or you’re against us.
Hardcore Conservative says:
Beth,
I prefer to call ‘em Leftist lemmings
dingo says:
Afghanistan is a party to the convention. That means its citizens, enemy combatants or not are privilege to the protections. The Geneva convention pertains to militias and organized resistance movements. This was recodified in 1949 due to the resistance movements found in German occupied territories.
Larry - there is no clearly defined application of article two. We actually studied this provision back in college in a military strategy class when we were looking at the former Yugoslavia. So far, all fingers point to contracting being bound. Most international commentary, including the red cross, is that the 1949 convention meant to apply the spirit of the convention to the contracting parties even if the opposition was a non-contracting party unless the non-contracting party explicitly rejected it. There has NEVER been any authoritative declaration that a contracting party is not bound when in conflict with a non-contracting party (by treaty or international court). In the current situation, we have remnants of the former government (Taliban) who never explicitly withdrew from the convention.
I think that we are bound by the convention legally in this instance.
I am going to give our soldiers the benefit of the doubt on this and believe it was for health reasons - but, learning a lesson that this could obfuscate our objective, hope they don’t do it again regardless of the reasons.
Hardcore Conservative says:
Enemy combatants are NOT The Geneva convention!
Nice try hippie :lol:
Hardcore Conservative says:
That should have said
Enemy combatants are NOT covered by The Geneva convention!
They are not in uniform so they are not covered under it
Nice try hippie :lol:
Paul says:
Burn them, for whatever reason if it will result in the total destruction of our enemey who wants nothing less of us and is willing to go to any measure to annihilate us. Destroy them, intimidate them, put them in fear of breathing, of walking, of sleeping. Do everything to protect one American soldier, hold back nothing. Finish this by all means nescessary so that for a thousand years no Islamic fanatic will think of attackinmg the United States again. Burn them, over and over again. Find out what frightens them, scares the crap out of them and do it and do it some more.
dingo says:
“They are not in uniform so they are not covered under it”
there again, you run into some legal gray areas, i.e. which section of Part 2, Art 4 do they fall under. The Taliban have never had a uniform, prior to or post invasion. Therefore art 2(4)(2)(a) is not applicable. Additionally, Taliban fighters could easily fall under Part 2(4)(3).
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Obviously they had a command and control structure (although greatly disrupted now).
Additionally, even spies and saboteurs are to receive “humane treatment” by the occupying force even though they have givin up all rights under the convention.
I am not trying to argue that Taliban fighters are not a bunch of animals who have no respect for international law. But we have to make sure that we are not shooting ourselves in the foot. As much disdain it may bring to some of you, we need to be “liked” by the Afghan people.
Hardcore Conservative says:
“(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.”
They ARE NOT part of a regular armed force they are TERRORISTS
dingo says:
“They ARE NOT part of a regular armed force they are TERRORISTS”
Once again - gray area when it comes to the Geneva convention. There is a distinction between Taliban and Al Qaeda. It may just be a technicality, but that is what law is by definition - technicalities.
Hardcore Conservative says:
Bullshi’ite there is NO Gray area they are not in uniform therefore they are NOT covered
So Dingo how long have you been a Al Qaeda groupie? :roll:
MacStansbury says:
the crux of the argument that the Taliban was a uniformed enemy washes away when we categorize them as a terrorist organization. just because they were in control of an entire country does not mean they are part of the Geneva Conventions’ regulations.
had it been a group of solemn soldiers crying and giving eulogies, this wouldn’t be an issue. guys laughing at people that were trying to kill them for being dead is what makes this footage useful. not truthful or genuine, but useful.
Red State Rant says:
Chicken jihadis
Beth and her readers clarify some aspects of the burned corpses story. Maybe my outrage meter is broken, but I can’t help feeling that this is another much-ado-about-nothing story. The PsyOps people used the occasion of the burning of the corpses to r…
TJ says:
Great post
… my trackback = denied :(
/TJ
Today’s NIF
MacStansbury says:
TJ - try Wizbang not Haloscan
Larry says:
Not that I am a genius, but I see the whole problem as us reacting to the idiots, and “libtards”. I love that word and “fucktards”, thanks Beth.
Recently AQ said they captured some Marines and it wasn’t true. How many man hours did we burn trying to shine the light on that lie? A lot. They know how to use the net and the MSM, and we need to start propagating our own disinformation. Okay, we need to lie. Let them react. Our center of gravity is the nations will. The MSM is at the very least a tool of the islamotards, and we need to treat them as such. Where in the world does it say we have to tell the truth in a military campaign? It’s ignorant. Let’s get in their OODA loop.
Small Town Veteran says:
Business as Usual
2Slick doesn’t post as often as he used to but when he does he still knows how to get his point across as clearly as anyone I’ve ever read. Read this, for instance, and pay particular attention to this passage:[I]f
Small Town Veteran says:
About that “Geneva Convention” … (Re-post)
Something I read on 2Slick’s site a little bit ago (the subject of my next post after this one) made me remember I’d posted this last November (here) and then failed to follow up on it. I’m going to repost
Bill Faith says:
Excellent post, Beth. I linked to it from two separate posts on my site. About two hours before I read it I promised my readers a series of posts explaining what the Geneva Conventions do and don’t cover; I’m still going to do those posts but I’m going to have to work very hard to improve on your post.
Cleetus says:
We’s finally fightin’ fire with fire over there. They nedd to get used to the idea this is a war and not a dammed tea party.
I say we send our boys some lighter fluid and matches. Those camel jockers deserve worse.
dingo says:
“So Dingo how long have you been a Al Qaeda groupie?”
That is tough to say. I sent in my fan club dues in April, but I didn’t get my card and decoder ring until August (shi’itety mail system over there).
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Traitors and Chickenjihadis says:
[...] It’s a confirmed kill! Oh, but it’s “not nice” to say such things, is it. Tough. The propaganda the left vomits up is FAR less “nice” to real patriotic Americans. I don’t say nicey-nice things about my enemies, and these people ARE the enemy. And not just the Al-Kos Army, everyone like them, including their “mainstream” media mouthpieces. Follow all the links in Rusty’s post, especially Jeff Goldstein and John of Castle Argghhh!, who expertly dismantle the idiotic White Phosphorus meme (the latest piece of pro-terrorist propaganda with which the chickenjihadis aid the enemy). Related posts here: Free Speech vs. Aiding the Enemy The Left’s “Vietnamization” of Iraq Are You Patriotic? Support Victory About the burned corpses in Afghanistan The Propaganda War Quagmire??? This is WORSE than “Screw ‘em”! Beth posted this in General, Support the Troops, Moonbattitude, The War, Iraq Permalink MAIN Trackback URL for this post: http://bamapachyderm.com/archives/2005/11/23/traitors-and-chickenjihadis/trackback/ [...]