Replies

The conduct would be covered by the The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, as follows:

6.2.6 War Crimes under International Law

The following acts, if committed intentionally, are examples of acts that could be considered war crimes, but would not be considered grave breaches of the [Geneva] Conventions:

2. Mutilation or other mistreatment of the dead

The only question would be if this provision includes the mistreatment of non-uniformed dead combatants (such as Taliban fighters).

I am all in favor of killing the enemy. Once the enemy is dead, however, I am not in favor of desecrating the body. This view is not unique to me. This is the traditional view of civilized societies, including the United States, and it has, as far as I know, always been a part of our military code.

I expect our guys to act better than the enemy.

Of course I am much more repelled by the abominable, murderous, brutal conduct of the muzzies than I am by a few of our guys pissing on those bodies. A reprimand or some other mild form of discipline might be in order, though. What they did, while understandable emotionally to some extent, should not be condoned or excused.

The conduct would be covered by the The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, as follows:
6.2.6 War Crimes under International Law

I don't know what treaty we signed to include this drivel in the Law on Naval Operations (I hope to hell the reason it's included is because of a treaty). But this then brings up a problem in general.

These are essentially civilians with little or no formal military training. If you buy into this international law garbage then why is not our presence in Afghanistan adjudicated in international court in the first place? Because the whole thing in Afghanistan can be considered one big violation of international law.

But essentially we have reached the point in the military where our soldiers are thrown under the bus so we may worship at the altar of political correctness.