Posted on 02/08/2003 10:11:24 AM PST by Clive
A Canadian sniper up for the Bronze Star medal for his combat role in Afghanistan has been cleared of allegations he desecrated the body of a dead al-Qaeda fighter, the Defence Department said yesterday.
Military investigators lacked evidence for charges against Master Corporal Arron Perry and another Canadian, following allegations soldiers cut the finger off an enemy combatant and staged a "trophy" photo of the body.
The investigation also examined claims a soldier defecated on a second body. Master Cpl. Perry had been suspended pending the outcome of the probe, but was returned to duty yesterday in Edmonton.
"After a thorough investigation by the National Investigation Service, the evidence wasn't sufficient to support charges in that case," said Captain Mark Giles, a Department of National Defence public affairs officer.
Master Cpl. Perry, a member of Edmonton's 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, said he was relieved the investigation had concluded.
"I'm glad finally it's done," he said.
The sniper was part of a small group of Canadian soldiers who directly engaged the Taliban and al-Qaeda during a tour in Afghanistan. He has been credited with helping save soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division pinned down by enemy fire in Shah-i-Kot Valley.
The Canadians' sharp-shooting on al-Qaeda machine-gun nests and mortar positions were chronicled in Soldier of Fortune magazine. U.S. commanders have since recommended the snipers for Bronze Stars recognizing heroic or meritorious service.
But a few weeks after that triumph, Master Cpl. Perry was sent home under a cloud of suspicion. Allegations surfaced in mid-March that he had interfered with a body and there were reports of a photograph showing a dead enemy fighter with a cigarette in his mouth and a small sign on his chest reading "f--k terrorism."
But the investigation centred on claims a soldier had taken a finger from the body.
"The photos, while being perhaps inappropriate, that was not the main focus of the investigation. The main focus was the allegations of interfering with the dead body," Cpt. Giles said. "It's as much moral as it is legal. We always want dead bodies, whether they be enemy or friendly, to be treated with dignity."
Military investigators dug up the corpse and searched tents at the Canadian military base, seizing a knife. DNA tests were conducted to see if the knife could be tied to the body, but no link was established.
The Vietnam War, Pete. Remember?
Read Hackworth's book, or the book on John Paul Vann, to discover how counter-productive terrorising the population was, as a tactic.
Exactly.
Let's keep it that way.
I don't need to have been on a battlefield to know the right way to conduct myself. And I don't assume that everyone who's been on one conducted themselves properly.
The code makes no such distinction. That's why Perry got in trouble.
I was too young.
But if I had been over there, I wouldn't have been cutting fingers off the dead, I can promise you that.
It is not 'psychological warfare', Aura.
It's a proven failure, that did nothing more than help VC recruitment drives. I can understand why Pete was a bit too close to the action, and is therefore in denial, but anyone who hasn't learnt from that failure by now shouldn't be on active service. It's not just bringing shame on their unit like Perry did, but it goes to helping the enemy. Take a look at yours, Vab's, and Pete's comments. They could go into any Al-Qaeda propaganda, without modification.
Is it really? The possibility of Islamic terrorists wreaking havoc on you and your family is that far-fetched is it? I'd have agreed with you 10 or 15 years ago. Not anymore. You know, of course, where the world's largest Muslim nation is located don't you? Right across the Torres Straits. 200 million of them. They're not all terrorists, to be sure. But after Bali, you wouldn't bet against Centrepoint or the Harbor Bridge turning into a pile of ashes, would you? Perhaps not today or tomorrow, but it's no longer unthinkable is it? Still, it's a useful literay device to summararily dismiss me.
All hypotheticals are contrived. By definition. That doesn't mean they don't convey a truism. And thanks for doing exactly what I wrote about in my previous post. Lumping people who are not 100% in agreement with you, into a category of "advocating" what Perry is alleged to have done. You forgot that word.
I don't think what Perry "did" was right. What I'm trying to do is place his alleged actions and your indignant criticism of it into context.
Where do Perry's actions fit in the spectrum of wartime "crimes"? Compared with suicide bombings, say? How about the dropping of bombs on cities of civilians? We did it twice in Japan, at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. How does cutting the finger off a dead person compare to cutting it off a living person? Does the corpse feel pain?
Traditionally, war is fought according to rules. Two armies face each other. Prisoners are taken. The dead are buried. We have the Geneva Convention. The war on terror, on the other hand, is a new entity. What are the rules for this campaign? The enemy hides among us and kills women and children.
Which brings me back to my example. When your own forbearance is tested by the personal experience of Islamic terror, your message of moral rectitude will receive a better reception. It requires extraordinary discipline and self-control to play by the rules when the enemy does not. That doesn't mean that it's OK to break them. It means that those who are in the frontline of this war will fall prey to their human failings.
Self-righteous condemantion, delivered from afar rings hollow.
Gee,and I didn't even know I had lost it. I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to all the VN vets out there for losing the VN war.
Read Hackworth's book, or the book on John Paul Vann, to discover how counter-productive terrorising the population was, as a tactic.
I don't need to read anything Hackworth wrote. I was in VN at the same time he was. I read John Paul Vann during the early 60's,before I went to VN. There was another famous book about VN that was almost required reading at Bragg too,but I can't remember what it was now. None of that applied to me or the operations I ran. We took the enemies warfare methods right back to them in what they thought were safe havens.
BTW,PLEASE point out to me anywhere that I stated we should be terrorizing the "population". I stated that the way to win a war against terrorism is to terrorize the terrorists. Unless YOU are now claiming that all Muslims are terrorists?
BTW-2,are you a Muslim?
He already has, even when He didn't have to, and moreson than you or I will ever be capable of fighting. Don't worry though, He isn't finished and every knee will bow to Him. it's only a question when you allow yours to bow.
Yes,you DO! You come here to pontificate about the normal way soldiers conduct themselves on a battlefield,yet you don't think any battlefield experience is neccessary?
His name is not Pete. He was SF and was a Sneaky Pete who operated with a SOG unit in the out country. They wrote the book.
It doesn't say dead bodies are Buicks either,but you can't drive one to work.
That's why Perry got in trouble.
No,it's not. He was most likely charged with something similiar to "conduct unbecoming a soldier",or some such nonsense. AND he was NOT found guilty. You might want to take note of that.
Well, not you personally. There were other people and other countries involved.
But yeah, our side lost it. We failed. The Reds had a win and Vietnam ended up suffering decades of Communist terror. The question (which I am not going to get into here, except for how it relates to this thread) is, 'why?', in terms of whether terrorising the population and throwing the infantryman's rulebook out the window is a factor. I think it is, and those books I mentioned, written by or about people with far more Vietnam experience than me (or you), agree.
How would you know what "real grunts" value? You weren't one. I was.
Lt. Calley could say exactly the same thing about My Lai, mate.
And all it does is, give a morale boost to the enemy, and a fresh issue for the antiwars back home.
Phuc Tuy Province (III Corps)saw approx. 200 KIA. As a general rule, the further north one went, the worse it got. Thua Thien Province (I Corps)saw the most GIs KIA. Almost 3000. Quang Tri (I Corps) so slightly less than that KIA. Phuc Tuy fighting mainly involved VC. Too far from NVA supply lines.
A total of 46,852 Aussies served in Vietnam. 494 KIA. Not to denigrate the sacrifice made by Aussies. Just pointing out some facts.
Yes, you do.
He's a thinking soldier, who's not afraid to ask the tough questions after something goes wrong. With all due respect for your service, you need to learn as much as you can from someone like that.
Let's see,here. The VN communists claim to have lost about 2 million people,and we lost less than 60,000. What kind of new math are you using to make that turn into a military loss?
We failed.
It was a POLITICAL failure,not a military one. We had politicians and their advisors with ZERO combat experience running the war and the battlefields,and trying to micro-manage every move made. Kinda like what happened under Bubba-1,and is happening again under Bubba-2.
The question (which I am not going to get into here, except for how it relates to this thread) is, 'why?', in terms of whether terrorising the population and throwing the infantryman's rulebook out the window is a factor.
Ok,I think I have discovered where the problem lies. You have been miseducated by the left. It was the COMMUNISTS who terrorized the civilian population,and this is the biggest reason they got so many to work for them. The US government sent soldiers,nurses,doctors,engineers,etc,etc,etc around to the villages to provide aid.
I think it is, and those books I mentioned, written by or about people with far more Vietnam experience than me (or you), agree.
Not a single one of the people you mentioned knew squat about guerilla warfare,or ever fought as unconventional soldiers. I DO have more experience at this than any of them,and this includes Hackworth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.