If I remember correctly my friend (see, I didn’t call you a-hole this time…I’m learning Jim Rob) we were discussing the applicability of the Geneva Conventions when you asked the question:
But, is your point that we should not abide by the Geneva Conventions when conducting military operations in Middle Eastern countries?
My point is: we certainly should NOT abide by the Geneva Conventions in any war with an enemy that is not a signer of the Geneva Conventions and/or does not abide be the same. The war on terror is a war against an enemy that serves a “demonic cult” not an overtly supportive foreign nation signitor (sp?) to the Geneva Convention. Admittedly several arab dictatorships covertly support terrorist activities big time. However, the enemy combatants do not wear the uniform of any nation and they certainly do not abide by the Geneva Conventions…ex: the crucifixion of the civilian US contractors at Fallujah. They dress as natives of the nation they are terrorizing in order to blend in; i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. As such, they are spies, espionage agents, subversives, etc…not entitled to the protections provided by the Geneva Conventions, not entitled to POW status...entitled ONLY to be executed when captured. This has always been the case.
Only in the war on terror has their been an attempt by you overzealous lawyer types to enlarge the market for your services by extending Geneva Convention protections to islamofascist vermin hiding behind women and children and by so doing, undermining the morale of our combat troops and jeopardizing the outcome of the entire war.
As such, the JAG office which cannot see the forest for the trees performs the function of imbedded “islamofascist commissar” within our own military…a practice that needs to be crushed immediately.
My advice to you JAG…retire from the service and go into ambulance chasing, tobacco company suing, fire arms manufacturer suing or some other productive line of work.
Our Marines are under lawful orders to follow the GCs. If this Lt. didn't, then his ass is grass and it should be.
And before you go throwing REMF around, my MOS was 0313 which meant I didn't have much chance to be in the rear with the gear. Yes, I've been shot at and yes I've shot back. However, every single swinging d*** who caught one of my rounds was a combatant.
You may not like the rules our people are fighting under. Quite honestly I don't like them much either. But, they are the rules. If this guy wasted a couple of EPWs who weren't resisting or trying to escape he deserves a long prison stretch.
Frankly, ordering suspected enemy to search their own vehicle for an IED sounds major league stupid to me. This former LCPL sure as hell wouldn't want an LT who did anything that dumb being in charge of my young ass in some far off foreign land.
My last point may be lost on you, but I'll make it anyway. The American military has very stringent rules for a reason. If they aren't followed, then all we have to defend us is an armed mob. We simply cannot allow discipline to break down. It's dangerous for our servicepeople, and if you think about it it's even more dangerous for our nation.
I'm not taking one side or the other here. That's why we have trials. Lt. Pantano will have every opportunity to make his case in an open court under the UCMJ. I'm going to wait and see what happens then before I decide one way or the other.
I think you should give our system a chance to work before you go slamming another member of this forum who has voluntarily chosen to strap on a uniform, no matter what his MOS may be.
Insulting him or her as the case may be does a disservice not only to this forum and yourself, but the entire military of this country.
That's just my two cents.
L
And you're wrong Kimosabe31. I don't want him nailed; I want him to be vindicated. That's why I am recommending that he takes a polygraph. All he has to do is go down to NIS and answer the questions.
And if I remember correctly, that's when you blew a gasket before you were suspended. If these two were really walking away or towards him, then all he has to do is answer the questions and this will all go away.
But, and you misquoted me, the RTO is saying that Pantano killed them immediately after they were uncuffed. If that is true, then he manifested the intent to kill them before he uncuffed them. If they were just standing there, not doing anything like the RTO says, then he committed murder.
But, I do hope that his story is the truth. That is why if he were my client, I would send him down to take an exculpatory polygraph.
As for Judge Advocates, what do you think about criminal defense attorneys getting clients off who molest little kids, deal drugs on post, and murder other soldiers? They're defending the defenders, too. If I retired, then good order and discipline would break down.
And if you have all the answers, then why don't you sign up and fix what you perceive to be broken? Are you afraid you couldn't pass the bar exam? Perhaps, you'd have a little problem with the 3-mile run. Or, maybe you'd have a problem with the security clearance.
What do you do for a living, anyways, Kimosabe?
"we certainly should NOT abide by the Geneva Conventions in any war with an enemy that is not a signer of the Geneva Conventions and/or does not abide be the same."
Okay, then you need to talk to my boss...Go straight up Pennsylvania Avenue; it's the big house on the left. Last briefing I got, he said that we are still applying the Geneva Convention protections to all detainees in US custody.
We, in the military, follow the orders from our Commander in Chief. And since the US Constitution has vested the power to make agreements with other countries in the executive branch, I think you need to talk to him. Or, better yet, perhaps you should run for President yourself.