Film rolls as troops burn dead

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | October 19, 2005 | Tom Allard

[Rebelbase]

US soldiers in Afghanistan burnt the bodies of dead Taliban and taunted their opponents about the corpses, in an act deeply offensive to Muslims and in breach of the Geneva conventions.

An investigation by SBS's Dateline program, to be aired tonight, filmed the burning of the bodies.

It also filmed a US Army psychological operations unit broadcasting a message boasting of the burnt corpses into a village believed to be harbouring Taliban.

According to an SBS translation of the message, delivered in the local language, the soldiers accused Taliban fighters near Kandahar of being "cowardly dogs". "You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burnt. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be," the message reportedly said.

"You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Taliban but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion, and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are."

The burning of a body is a deep insult to Muslims. Islam requires burial within 24 hours.

Under the Geneva conventions the burial of war dead "should be honourable, and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged".

US soldiers said they burnt the bodies for hygiene reasons but two reporters, Stephen Dupont and John Martinkus, said the explanation was unbelievable, given they were in an isolated area.

SBS said Australian special forces in Afghanistan were operating from the same base as the US soldiers involved in the incident, although no Australians took part in the action.

The incident is reminiscent of the psychological techniques used in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

[GrandEagle]

committed a crime against humanity as defined by the UN
I am an American citizen. As such, the Untied Nations has no authority over me or any of my fellow citizens. We the people have not authorized the Congress or anyone else to place under their "jurisdiction". Any authority that they "enforce" is taken through brute force, and while effective, it is illegitimate.
Any definition of war crimes that has been adopted by out nation through lawful congressional action, would be enforceable under US law. I could care less what the UN thinks about anything.

I would be willing to go to war to free any of our military members abducted on the illegitimate "authority" of the UN. If they have violated our laws, then they can stand trial in accordance with US law.

War crimes or crimes against a religion can't be allowed, in an insurgency the people are the Strategic terrain and offenses against societal norms fall outside the band of behavior that even the tacit enemy supporters understand and you drive them further into the enemy camp.

I agree. Even things that do not violate our laws are not smart to do some times. The mission is to be accomplished, focus must be maintained on the mission.

Cordially,
GE

[Fatuncle]

The moral obligation of our troops is to protect and defend our own population. Not the enemy threatening it.

[WIladyconservative]

"You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Taliban but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion, and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are."

I like this - it makes sense and it's better than saying they were buried or burned with pig testicles in their teeth . . . .

[PureTrouble]

Actually, the Tali-ban did sign the Geneva conventions when they were in charge of Afghanistan.

So, the question is does the Geneva conventions protect soldiers of a war that resulted in the replacement of a government and now the new national government exists? Is the Tali-ban still protected under the Geneva convention?

Al-Queda fighters are Illegal combatants, I am not sure of the status for the Tali-ban.

[Starman417]

Any combatant that is not in a recognizable uniform is a illegal combatant.

[fanfan]

I love the smell of freshly burnt Taliban,in the morning.

Yeah. Smells like pork.

[GrandEagle]

So, the question is does the Geneva conventions protect soldiers of a war that resulted in the replacement of a government and now the new national government exists?
It would seem that it would have to since virtually all wars have this as their objective.

Cordially,
GE

[mosquitobite]

Is this supposed to be "We support the troops, but oppose the war" BS? Because it sure as hell sounds like they don't even support the troops!

[PureTrouble]

I agree, the Tali-ban are acting like Illegal combatants. And they do not wear any uniform and probably would be more likely to cut an American soldiers head off then to take him prisoner.

I was just pointing out that the Tali-ban when they controlled Afghanistan did sign the Geneva conventions and when the Afghan war was over, the Tali-ban that were POW's were released to the Afghan government.

[LouD]

I have no idea is Afghanistan is a signatory to the Geneva convention or not.

Your argument is spurious. In addition to all the other reasons why the GC does not apply to these thugs: Taliban fighters (not soldiers) are fighting against the democratically elected government of Afghanistan - therefore, whether or not Afghanistan is a signatory of the GC is irrelevant.

[jb6]

You attack and run away like women

Ohhhhh they did it now. The Feminazies will be piiiissssed off.

Under the Geneva conventions the burial of war dead "should be honourable, and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged".

Oh and how do you bury the jihaders? Don't they just burn up in their suicide mobiles?

Actually folks, if you ever have the time and want a fun read, read the Laws of Land Warfare....obviously written by lawyers who never once had a bullet fly over their gelled hair or broke a manicured nail.

[GrandEagle]

Your argument is spurious.

No my FRiend, it is not. Afghanistan is a classic war. Those in power were defeated by a superior power and the people were allowed to vote and elect one of the people that were acceptable to the victors (US). In an effort to promote the virtues of a democratically elected government we allowed many to run who were perhaps not as desirable as others, but we did control the pool of those to pick from. You may notice that not a single Talaban ran for office. The Taliban who we are still fighting are representing the former government in an ongoing civil war. The Al-Queda terrorists are a different animal altogether. they, without a doubt, do not fall under the GC. GC or not, the issue to me is that the civilian authorities control the military in our Nation. Wise or not, if they have decided to participate in the GC, then it is the law of the land.

[Theo]

The incident is reminiscent of the psychological techniques used in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison

The journalist is just looking for his 15 minutes of fame. What a jerk.

[FreedomCalls]

I thought everyone agreed that the Taliban were not covered by the Geneva Conventions? Even those who were outraged by the Abu Ghraib incident said that it was different from Guantanamo because whereas Taliban were not covered by the GC, the Iraqis taken to Abu Ghraib were.

I'm confused.

[jjmcgo]

Exactly. Are these dead uniformed soldiers of a political entity/government?
If not, no Geneva Convention application.
Carry on, men.

[FreedomCalls]

If so, Constitutionally we are bound to abide by it. A ratified treaty is the law of the land and those military members not abiding by it are in violation of the law and their oath to uphold the Constitution. The LAST thing you want is the military making up their own rules as they go.

But we would be adhering to the GC if we did not apply its provisions to those who are not abiding by its rules. For it clearly states when they should be applied and when not. In this case, abiding by the GC means not granting certain privileges to the Taliban who according to the GC itself have not earned it.

[jjmcgo]

The Taliban is not the Army of Afghanistan. That army is fighting alongside our troops, against the non-governmental Taliban crime and terror group.

[When do we get liberated?]

Really is that so....the Taliban was in charge of Afganistan on September 26th 1957? That was the last time they signed.....

[lOKKI]

We're supposed to bury them in the manner that their religion calls for?

OK.....

But where are we supposed to get a car bomb in the middle of Afghanistan?

[Prime Choice]

We dispose of their dead in a sanitary way and we call them names.

Yeah...that ranks right up there with slicing a man's head off, doesn't it?

Frickin' anti-American, slackjawed, idiot Leftists. (I know...I'm repeating myself.)