McCain a hero, but today's Marines have endured more
A "breaking news" banner comes on the TV: "Marines videotaped desecrating Taliban Dead." Then I see a blurb: "Sen. John McCain quoted as saying ‘it makes me so sad.'" Whoa. Wait a minute. McCain had only been in combat in Vietnam for a short while (23 missions) before being shot down. He was 30 years old at the time. These young Marines are in their 20s and have completed 23 missions the first month they were deployed in Helmand Province, which is the Taliban's "birthplace." No one can ever say that John McCain is not a great hero for what he suffered as a POW. But Sen. McCain never fought on the ground, day-in and day-out for eight straight months or more. He never saw many of his buddies being killed by Taliban snipers or Taliban IEDs. He grew up with a four-star admiral grandfather and father. He had a "legacy" appointment to Annapolis the day he was born.
The Marines never had his advantages (he almost blew it, graduating 894th out of 899 in his class). These Marines get a shower every 10 days for three minutes. They live on packaged meals. They live in tents in the snow and the heat. Many Marine units can't receive packages, the choppers only bring in food, water and ammunition (maybe letters) once a week.
Geneva Convention, my patootie. Where does the Geneva Convention allow "drone" killings in Pakistan?
Leon Ceniceros
Mesa
Dale Whiting posted at 9:08 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.
Leon,
So what's your point? Because these volunteer snipers have had it tougher than did McCain, he is not permitted to be saddened in reflecting on their sub-par performance? Or because the Geneva Convention was written in an age where wars were fought under more civilized conditions, one uniformed and disciplined force from one nation waging a contest over possession of land against another, therefore its rules against treatment of the bodies of fallen foes no longer apply?
Leon, these kids are volunteers. Perhaps they did not appreciate what their enlistment contract would mean for them when they went to Afghanistan. Perhaps they were just too naive! But if we loosen up our response to their actions now, more such conduct from similarly naive solders is reasonable to follow.
No, Leon, the appropriate action on your part and on my part is to get the heck out. Counter-insurgency/Nation Building just is not the right approach in Afghanistan. And nothing points more strongly to this point than does the actions of these naive Marines. But those slaps on the backs of their hands now being proposed by the likes of you and others are clearly inadequate to the crimes committed.
Face the facts objectively. You constantly complain that we do not secure our borders with Mexico, that we are too soft on those who cross these borders illegally. But illegal border crossings do not compare with war crimes. And desecration of bodies is a war crime. The penalty for illegal border crossing is deportation. The penalty for desecration of the dead is time in prison. Funny, it’s it. I get accused of being a bleeding heart liberal for recognizing these distinctions. You would wrap yourself in a flag and say you are only being patriotic. Jefferson most certainly would agree with me. There is absolutely nothing patriotic about seeking to justify war crimes.
TruthSeeker posted at 12:47 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.
Too bad McCain's behavior as a senator has tarnished his heroism heydays. He totally ignores his constituents and is negligent in serving them. He's busy building up his bank account though for his retirement while voting to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. SELF-interest and SELF-serving. John comes first. He's no hero.
truth posted at 3:42 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.
John McCain lost all respect with his connection with Lincoln Savings and Loan. When he and his wife were partners with Keating when they committed fraud against the American people.
JMJ posted at 9:48 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.
I never thought I'd agree with you on anything, Leon, but I do agree with you on this. Poor choices, obviously, on the part of these Marines, but I am certain they have seen things day in and day out which none of us would ever be able to endure. Advocating such behavior isn't "PC", certainly, but I don't know if I'd be ready to run them out of the corps for this. Whoever posted the video is an idiot.
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:14 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.
I too respect John McCain for the fact that he did serve his country, and was a prisoner of war. When it comes to McCain's service as in the political arena, I find him wanting.
Instead of repeating why my reasoning on why the actions of those Marines should not receive too much in the way of punishment, I just give a link to my previous statements in another article.
http://eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_a6960a08-4123-11e1-a29a-0019bb2963f4.html
As for "MOST AMERICANS", some of you should check the polls. Here's a link to one. Last I checked, 83% weren't surprised (ie not to concerned). Combined, those that are concerned is 17%. One of Sherman's quotes: "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it." Another well known one: "I tell you, War is (censored)."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-user-polls/post/should-these-marines-be-punished/2012/01/12/gIQA65CctP_blog.html
By the way, Patton urinated in the Rhine. A retired soldier that served under Patton told me why. He told his men that if they built the bridge by a certain time, he'd "relieve" himself on the middle of it whether the bridge was under fire or not. The guy even showed me one of the ORIGINAL pictures! Interesting way to movtivate men, they kept up their end of the deal. So did Patton....
Dale Whiting posted at 7:58 am on Thu, Jan 19, 2012.
Masterrogue,
Your http refers to the recent opinion piece by Mike McCellan. In your comments to Mike's piece you challenge me in several areas.
From the NCIS web site we read:
“The NCIS mission is to investigate and defeat criminal, foreign, and terrorist intelligence threats to the United States Navy and Marine Corps, wherever they operate: ashore, afloat, or in cyberspace.” [You quote this verbatum]
The NCIS mission is to investigate and defeat activities which threaten the operation of the United State Navy and the Marine Corps wherever these threats may operate in the following listed areas:
1) Criminal activity [war crimes are criminal activity and NCIS is investigating the four Marines for criminal activity
2) Foreign threats
3) Terrorist intelligence threats
From Wikipedia we read:
“The United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) is the primary security, counter-intelligence, counter-terrorism, and law enforcement agency of the United States Department of the Navy.”
“Current missions for NCIS include criminal investigations, force protection, cross-border drug enforcement, anti-terrorism, counter-terrorism, major procurement fraud, computer crime and counter-intelligence.”
The author(s) of this Wikipedia article repeat the following:
NCIS “is the primary . . . law enforcement agency of the United States Department of the Navy.” “Current missions include criminal investigations . . . “
Why do some on this site refuse to believe news reports that NCIS is now investigation those four Marines preliminary to bringing charges for committing war crimes which appear to be founded in the Geneva and Hague Conventions?
And understand I referred to uniforms only because another commenter hinted that these Taliban were not wearing uniforms, uniforms of any type. If, as we are given to believe, these three dead Taliban snipers were firing at the four Marine Snipers, and the Marines shot and killed them, then the Marines had undisputable facts to know that these three men were enemy combatants and that the law of war applied. NCIS probably is investigation not only these four Marines, but also other Marines in the command structure.
Masterrogue666 posted at 1:32 pm on Thu, Jan 19, 2012.
The law of war applies to enemy soldiers, not spies, saboteurs, et al.
I did a quick search and found this:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mostert/041119
Dale Whiting posted at 4:43 am on Fri, Jan 20, 2012.
Masterrogue666,
So here we go again, off on one of your misguided internet misadventures. The article was written by a Mary Moste whose son was killed by terrorists. They were properly called terrorists because of the tactics they employed. However those 3 Afghani snipers killed by the four naive US Marines knew that these Afghans were not terrorists, that they did not fit Ms. Moste's definition of enemy combatants.
Try doing some reading next time. It did not take me 3 minutes to unwravel your faulty logic! Qwick searches are fine. But not reading them before you employ them is stupid!
Dale Whiting posted at 4:59 pm on Fri, Jan 20, 2012.
Oops, I committed a Rick Perry!
They [the terrorists addressed in the article you cite] were properly called terrorists because of the tactics they employed. However those 3 Afghani snipers killed by the four naive US Marines WERE KNOWN not TO BE terrorists. THEY did fit Ms. Moste's definition of enemy combatants.
Masterrogue666 posted at 6:53 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Dale: Tell me, BEFORE those 3 snipers opened fire upon our troops, how were they dressed? Did they hide the fact that they were armed until they started firing on our troops?
You and I both know they did everthing in their power not to be noticed until they starting shooting. The makes them TERRORISTS, and therefore not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Even if we disregarded thos facts, the Geneva Conventions is a set of GUIDELINES, are they not? One that both sides should observe? If one side isn't following the rules, why expect the other side to do the same. IMHO it's your "logic" that's faulty here. However, I won't stoop to your level and call you stupid.
Like for instance when you made this comment:
' “The NCIS mission is to investigate and defeat criminal, foreign, and terrorist intelligence threats to the United States Navy and Marine Corps, wherever they operate: ashore, afloat, or in cyberspace.” [You quote this verbatum].'
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you quote someone/something, shouldn't it BE DONE VERBATUM? Otherwise, it's not a quote, is it?
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:13 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Dale: Almost forgot to mention that you belittled my link. Funny thing, it CLEARLY STATES the following at that link:
"According to Article IV of the Geneva Convention,(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) prisoners of war are: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."
It also states it applies to:
"Persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
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, fulfill the following conditions:
That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
That of carrying arms openly;
That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
So, seems I got it right after all.....
Dale Whiting posted at 2:18 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Masterrogue,
I suppose that they were dressed as most other Afganis are dressed. Is it your opinion that civilians who would repel what they view as foreign envaders must find the means to dress differently, this in order to prevent their dead bodies from being desecrated by those foreign envadors?
Remember, few Afghans identify themselves as citizens of any state, let alone one named Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a tribal country. And tribes do not get that organized, nor do they recognize the formal boundaries we Westerners have set up between Afghanistan and Pakistan!
When in Rome, appreciate what the Romans are doing. Urinating on dead Roman bodies is not the way to win over the Roman masses! And where soldiers desecrate the bodies of insurgents, civilians, tribally sponsored militiamen or whatever, it's a violation of the Geneva Convention!
And remember, on the comment for another letter, we have concluded that terrorists are terrorists. Afghanis who employ terrorism [road side bombs are terrorist tactics] are terrorists. But these 3 were armed with rifles, not road side bombs. And those 4 Marines knew this!
Masterrogue666 posted at 5:14 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
Perhaps you are missing my point. The fact that they fired a rifle doesn't make them "militiamen". Tell me, did they carry their rifles in PLAIN VIEW, or CONCEAL THEM (against G.C.) before the started to fire them? I think we both know that answer.
Do you honestly believe that those "militiamen" did nothing prior to firing their rifles at our troops that could be construde as a terriorist act? Even I think you are smarter than that! You said, when in Rome. Perhaps our soldiers should automatically behead their known enemy, and drag them through the streets. Isn't that what their "militiamen" have done to NON COMBATANTS?
In the grand scheme of things, what those Marines did doesn't amount to "spit". Over 80% of those polled in the USA don't have a problem with it. If I were a "Roman", compared to what I and my fellow "Romans" have done to enemy soldiers AND NON COMBATANTS (Beheadings, et al), I'd consider it a blessing!
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:15 pm on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Ironic that I would mention beheadings:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/23/video-reportedly-shows-taliban-executing-15-kidnapped-pakistani-soldiers/