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.

[L98Fiero]

"First. don't assume this video exists and is true IE"

I have a sneaky feeling that if there were video, it would be all over the MSM by now. Why are they writing about it instead of showing it?

[brothers4thID]

"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"."

Tell that to World Trade Center employees and those who died in the Pentagon.

[US_MilitaryRules]

Thank You soldiers.

[Brilliant]

THIS IS DEEPLY OFFENSIVE TO ME:

[Spruce]

Of course, the crew from SBS Dateline didn't manage to catch this non-compliance with the Geneva Conventions, did they?


USMC did.

[lugsoul]

This sounds like one of those speeches by the Lord Humongous.

[doubled]

Probably the smoke :-)

[brazzaville]

Good morning.

One can only hope that smiling jack in the photo has since taken a .308 round between the eyes.

Khalid Mohammed, AP, is deserving of special treatment too.

Michael Frazier

[Wiseghy]

You may kill enemies, but do not offend them.

[MARKUSPRIME]

Do these islamic terrorist have name, rank, and serial number?
If not then the geneva convention doesnt apply.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Terrorists don't enjoy any signed agreements we have with the Geneva Convention.

And this was probably done as a tactic to hurt the morale of the terrorists. Even if it makes them come out and fight more, that sounds like exactly what we want them to do so we can kill more of them. What's wrong with that? Kill more and solve the problem quicker.

If you want a real crime how about TREASON by the left media as they constantly assault us on a 15 minute news cycle with their negative politically biased "news reporting."...?

Now that is heinous!

[JamesP81]

For instance, LOAC rules state that an opposing force must wear a distinct and recognizable military uniform. This is a big deal. If any military soldier, airman, or seaman is caught behind enemy lines not wearing his uniform, he is treated as a spy, and there are no POW, Geneva Convention, or International laws to protect him or her.

Why do lefties ignore this? They cite the GC and they aren't even aware that it doesn't apply to our present enemies. Anyone in a combat zone with a weapon and without a uniform is considered a spy or an illegal combatant under the GC. Spies have no rights or priveliges under the GC. Basically, if our men capture illegal combatants/spies, then the CO on the scene can do with them as he pleases (within the context of orders he may have from superior officers). He could let them go. He could have them put in a prison camp. He could turn them over to local authorities to be dealt with. Or, he could have them bound, gagged, lined up in a row and have them shot in the back of the head one at a time. All of which is totally legal under the GC.

The fact that Americans are a basically good people is why we don't do such things.

This story, however, is probably BS. But even if it weren't, it would be pretty good PsyOps. General Pershing used such tactics against islamic rebels in the Phillipines at the turn of the century with great effect.

More people might be aware of that fact if they actually taught history in school these days...

[InsensitiveConservative]

Nope... no cowardly dogs there.

[namsman]

Ping

[GrandEagle]

I have no idea if it is true or not. I am quite familiar with PSYOP operations. They can be QUITE effective! Even if the "film" were true, and Afghanistan did sign the treaty; I believe (it had been quite a while), that since these guys are not official military members it wouldn't apply. Then again, even if everything applies, there are times when things are done that shouldn't be done. You have to be covert enough not to get caught though. Sometimes "questionable" actions are necessary, but for the sake of order, if they become public action must be taken.

Cordially,
GE

P.S. I tend to agree with you though, I doubt seriously if these things actually happened.

P.S.#2 : I really could care l less about "war crimes". Only that the civilian authority over our military is not allowed to lapse. The Constitution is all that matters. :)

[houeto]

Note to extremly hysteric Leftist world wide. Taliban are ILLEGAL combatants. Under the Geneva conventions they have NO protection. If you are going to make arugments at least have the intellectual decency to FIND OUT THE FACTS before publishing your extremely stupid articles.

Beared repeating. Thanks.

[Frank_Discussion]

My understanding is that the GC is applied to those who fight as soldiers, wear indentifiable insignia, and general comport themselves as troops. The Taliban does not qualify.

I do agree that GC rules do exist, and we do generally abide by them. When our enemies disregard them, they reap what they sow.

[CedarDave]

First of all...why is FreeRepublic so slow today.

It takes about 20 seconds for my browser (Mazilla) to put up the page. Every other site loads instantly on my computer...and YES...I AM LOGGED IN! ;^)

Yes, it is very slow here too with DSL. Pinging JohnRob who may be able to shed some light on the problem.

[MarMema]

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.

There was a thread last year in which it was revealed that this kind of taunting was part of the plan to make them come out from their holes in the ground. Said something about our soldiers in tanks with loudspeakers taunting terrorists about their masculinity. The thread was a commentary on the "prisoner abuse" media rants and was moved to the Smoky Backroom rather quickly because of language.

It sure seems like Australia has not learned much about the terrorism we are fighting.

[CaptRon]

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

We burned bodies at Abu Ghraib?

Nobody told me.