U.S. soldier kills up to 16 Afghan civilians

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Did the plane ticket to Iraq from Afghanistan cost much?

We are discussing Afghanistan, which is full of foreign national unlawful combatants, and domestic combatants.

Also ratified in 1956

And lets not forget your selective cropping of the full sentence, from the Fourth Convention, Part 1, General Provisions, Article 4, last sentence...

But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.

Cropping that, is just further proof of your intellectual dishonesty.

How is the last part of that sentence in any way pertinent?

Can you point out where Colpy or I mentioned torture?

Never said you did...my argument all along has been that the "enemy combatant" designation was devised to allow the US to torture without being in contravention of GC...

Interment, under Article 42, is legal, for protected persons, as I have already proven.

Internment under Article 5 is legal for all persons, as I've proven...oh, and just so we're clear, the trial to determine the status of a combatant is to be held by a neutral party...not by the parties to the conflict...

You can keep shuffling the goalposts, but all you're doing is looking stupid.

Although I bet bet you'll soon be claiming to just be troll baiting eh?

You got it for being dishonest and stupid.

You can keep up the ad hominem bull****, but it's just weakening your argument, which I've tried to conduct as reasoning adults should...apparently, that's not within your scope...
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Also ratified in 1956
Miss the point much?

How is the last part of that sentence in any way pertinent?
Here, I'll highlight the pertinent parts...

But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.

Never said you did...
Then why ask me to prove it's allowed?

my argument all along has been that the "enemy combatant" designation was devised to allow the US to torture without being in contravention of GC...
No it hasn't. Here, refresh your memory...

You know as well as anyone that it was the Bush administration that devised the "enemy combatant" designation to contravene due process and the Geneva Convention's rules on treatment of prisoners of war...

Internment under Article 5 is legal for all persons, as I've proven...
Actually i proved it, but thanks for admitting it's legal.

oh, and just so we're clear, the trial to determine the status of a combatant is to be held by a neutral party...not by the parties to the conflict...
Fail. You already posted the Fourth convention, Part 1, General Provisions, article 5, which clearly states, "trial By competent tribunal".

You can keep up the ad hominem bull****, but it's just weakening your argument, which I've tried to conduct as reasoning adults should...apparently, that's not within your scope...
You blew the ability to claim the high ground with...

Still not seeing the part where if a combant is not in uniform you can disregard the Conventions, quite the opposite actually, and still haven't seen any evidence that reciprocity is a condition of adherence to the Conventions.

So please quote the specific Articles that specify that, and tell me what you think they mean.

So please step down off the cross.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Colpy;1560224 Do not mistake this as full approval of the US protocol on prisoners. I do NOT approve of "enhanced interogation techniques" such as water-boarding. They are CLEARLY torture said:
Actually it means there is no such thing as a great democratic nation, it is a lie today and it always was, like you said a long time ago, the Magna Caerta only covers business owners, consumers can be treated like the pile of **** they have always been treated as. You version of the great US is from a time when company towns were everywhere and it was meant to stay that way and it has except for the post war boom era when things had to be replaced, notice how fast the benefits are being taken back. lol

Perhaps they should do more than read the document, they should then execute themselves, just like what would happen in a real trial. So you apply that to and US person found plotting thing in a foreign nation, Jews would be even more numerous, you sure that wouldn't upset you?
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Except....the guy has a right to a fair trial.....by military tribunal.

Depends on the treaty between the countries. In Korea, any crimes committed by USA troops are handled by military court even if they are not committed in military areas as per treaty. I forgot to check but this will likely be in a military court as well.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Sorry Colpy, missed this I guess...

Ok. Let's make one thing perfectly clear. The 9-11 attacks were an act of war that killed more people than Pearl Harbour.
This has nothing to do with how combatants are to be treated under international law.

Have you read the Conventions?

No.

Actually, I have...

If you had, you would know they are reciprocal. In other words, if one side is not bound by them, neither is the other.

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 140. The Principle of Reciprocity

Practice Relating to Rule 140. The Principle of Reciprocity
Treaties
Geneva Conventions (1949)
Common Article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions requires parties to respect the provisions of the Conventions “in all circumstances”.

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 1; Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 1; Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 1; Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 1.

Geneva Conventions (1949)
Common Article 2(3) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions provides:
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 2(3); Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 2(3); Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 2(3); Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 2(3).

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Article 60(5) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states:
Paragraphs 1 to 3 [laying down the principle of reciprocity] do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such treaties.
Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 23 May 1969, Article 60(5).

Additional Protocol I
Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I requires parties to respect the provisions of the Protocol “in all circumstances”.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 1(1). Article 1 was adopted by 87 votes in favour, one against and 11 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.36, 23 May 1977, p. 41.

That link also lists many countries' military manuals regarding the rules of war and humanitartian issues...

And how are US prisoners treated by the enemy??? We don't know, they don't live long enough for any judgement to be made.

That's a separate issue, and those responsible should be apprehended and judged by ICJ...and if found guilty of war crimes then punished for such...or taken out in a fire fight...

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

Members of resistance movements must fulfil certain stated conditions before they can be regarded as prisoners of war. If members of a resistance movement who have fallen in to enemy hands do not fulfil those conditions, they must be considered to be protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention. That does not mean that they cannot be punished for their acts, but the trial and sentence must take place in accordance with the provisions of Article 64 and the Articles which follow it.

As well, the soldiers must wear the uniform of their country, or be insurgents fighting for their country to be recognized. Guys imported from Pakistan to fight in Afghanistan, or from Syria and Iran to fight in Iraq, or from the USA fighting from Yemen, are NOT covered.

They are, just not by the Third Convention, at the very least they are under the Fourth Convention entitiled to a fair treatment and trial to determine their status as combatant or not...if they are a combatant, they are treated as POW under the Third Convention, if not they are treated as protected under the Fourth Convention, which affords them less rights than POWs...

Do not mistake this as full approval of the US protocol on prisoners. I do NOT approve of "enhanced interogation techniques" such as water-boarding. They are CLEARLY torture, and there use is a shame to a great democratic nation.

I do NOT approve of the trial of Islamists by military tribunal. The US government should really read the fifth amendment to the US Constitution.

But, like Omar Khadr, foreign insurgents caught in combat should have been shot on the spot.

I am well aware of your abhorrence of torture Colpy, you and I have discussed this before...and I in no way support the insurgents and their acts of depravity...but I think that the US has set a really bad precedent in that they have chosen to ignore international laws that they have signed onto, just to get a little payback...
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Here comes more protests against western forces..

Gee, you think? I wonder why they'd try and find yet another excuse to protest against the US and the rest of us??

I mean how dare they.... they should be thankful for our "Protection" from the Taliban and the peace & stability we brought to their country and their loved ones. :munky2:

Of course there was going to be protests, this nut job just rampaged on innocent people.... it'd be no different here if someone from another country gunned down a pile of people in one of Canada's major cities..... there'd be piles of people on the streets calling for his or her head.

Our troops hand over their area to the US after years of at least "Trying" to not kill innocent people in their homes and treating them like human beings.... and they go and fk it all up just as I expected they would.

I figured eventually one of these guys they bring right over from fighting in Iraq would pull some kind of stunt like this, or a group of them would.... ie: pissing on dead enemies..... and then everything our troops worked for just goes up like a puff of smoke.

Oh, but it was just one guy and you can't brand the whole force because of one guy....

Look back at all of the reported incidences that have occurred since all this crap began over a decade ago and it's not just one guy, or two guys.... it's a crap load of them.... it's bases of soldiers that are all liabilities to everyone around them, and if you ask for the sources, I've got plenty & they're easy to find, so logically there's no point to prove beyond this more recent thread of examples, as well as across the internet and world.

Mass shooting sprees on a regular basis in the US, which are chalked up to isolated incidences & crazy people, Worse things happening in Iraq which get very little coverage outside of the US Government's approval.... but that's the problem right there:

This crap shows up pretty damn quickly and easily in Afghanistan, because many nations have their hands in this mess and many nations have plenty of news reporters and people with cell phones recording and telling everybody what's going on.... and the US Gov / Military doesn't have a monopoly on information or the covering up of said information.

This sort of thing can and most likely will, screw the entire mission and NATO's credibility.... and I bet many in Kandahar who did realize Canadian Troops were there all those years trying to build things and work with the communities..... they will now think of us and our troops as the one's who simply handed us over to the Americans to be slaughtered.... and most likely resent us for it.

And the worst part is that they're just going to see that guy swooped away, put on a show trial and won't believe he's actually dead and will just get more p*ssed off.

If there wasn't a war going on before, it's about to start very soon.

Even though they're humans just like us, trying to live their lives.... there is a different thought process going on, and they're not going to see it like some people in our countries would see it... they're going to take this personal, it's going to escalate, US troops are going to be targeted more, then those troops are going to start pushing back, then 95% of the Afghan population is going to support the Taliban and then sh*t's going to really hit the fan. The Taliban won't need to stay in Pakistan much longer if they keep this crap up.

And if they find this guy mentally fk'd and gets off, you get the same ending.

*Clap clap* Bravo.

But wait, there's more!

If the US tries, convicts and executes this soldier, many of those wing nut mass shooting spree kind of folk in the US, and those religious wing nuts with think he was the 2nd coming of Christ and think the world is going to end, so then they start shooting and blowing things up.

I'm sure someone will think of it as Jesus going on the rampage in the market and then up on the cross he went (The actual story is a bit deeper, but you get the jist)

Eventually someone gets a hold of the nukes, or someone builds a nuke, or someone smuggles in a nuke, or someone farts nukes.... "Somebody set up us the bomb", some country spooks and launches their nukes, then the other guy shows off the ballz he's got and ejaculates all his nukes onto the planet's face and boob (moon) and then every human on the planet dies.....

.... except for coal miners, deep sea divers, Mountain Folk, Labrador & Newfoundland where the Chrysalids live and Mick Jagger.

Mark my words!

I'll just be sitting here with my popcorn watching it all unfold until you guys ask for my help to fix it.

... Time to go; and when the Afghans start whining and bitching about how the world abandoned them and oh their poor people and poor children, tell them they brought this on themselves when their own people would not accept the help offered.

Really?

How dare they whine and bitch about getting carpet bombed and rolled over the a superior military force, oppressed and occupied, then their buddies come along to help occupy and oppress them with a smile for over a decade +, while telling them all "This" is how you should live your lives, whether you like it or not.... and when the majority of them who never asked for any of this in the first place don't show gratitude for having their villages blown up by Drones, Tanks, APCs, Troops and now crazy troops who treat them like beaten mutts..... rage and riot over the help we're giving them.

How dare they... let's leave, they don't want to play. Ungrateful sons o b*tches the lot of em, huh?

Keeping in mind that reports at the time showed Osama was in Pakistan by the time the US crapped all over Afghanistan and destroyed their homes, families, loved ones and way of life.

How ironic is that?

They're living their normal, everyday lives in their own little world, and suddenly their entire country is bombed and blown to absolute crap... then those people who did that bring in other countries to clean up the mess they made, as well as rebuild everything that was destroyed, only for those guys who blew everything up in the first place to blow it all up again for the hell of it.

YEEE HAAWWWWW *Pow pow* *does a little jig with the guns in thar air*

I think there's only so much anybody can take of that before they bite back.

Interesting how those US Iraq soldiers have the magical ability to bring Iraq wherever they go. Funny that.

BTW.... This was ONE man ... NOT the whole USA.

Gee we've been hearing that a lot over & throughout the years, haven't we?

Keep saying it.. maybe it'll magically come true someday.... if you close your eyes and click your heels three times.

Yeah, it's just one man..... added to the growing pile of "One Man" Men within the US..... and outside of the US now too.

Refresh my memory.... who are the Terrorists in this whole story line again?

I don't see much of a difference anymore.

Then again, I don't think I ever did.

Now thumb me any way you wish, up, down, either way is good.
 
Last edited:

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
He was a 15 year old kid whose father dragged him over there. Soldiers had just wiped out all his companions and were approaching to, for all he knew, to finish him off. He was wounded and he threw a grenade at the approaching soldier. I think that anybody in that situation would have done the same thing.

I'm sure that you, at age 15, were fully mature and had all your intellectual capacities fully function and that is why you can't understand how a 15 year old was just obeying his father.

Open your eyes Cliffy... You're making excuses for Khadr and more importantly, you negate the fact that he was there voluntarily - just like the IEDs he was photographed making. He was there, 1/2 way around the world as a Canadian to further the cause - let's not forget that he had an older brother that set an example of NOT participating in this barbarism.

You also place far too much value on the notion that he was 15 (just about 16 from what I understand) - he was not a 'child'. At 15 y/o, he would have had the degree of maturity to understand that the actions he was taking were very serious and grave.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Omar Khadr was a 15 year old child soldier. He was tortured by the Americans with Canada's approval.

CM, you apparently agree with how Khadr was treated. So if 15 years old is old enough for torturing Canadian children, then at what age would you judge is too young for torture? Should Canada also approve torturing 14 year olds? How about 12? Or 6? What about babies? Should Canada approve torturing babies?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,608
1,688
113
Why is it always US soldiers who commit such terrible crimes? I can never remember a British soldier doing something like this in Afghanistan.

Either British soldiers are better able to mentally cope with fighting in a war than American soldiers are and so are less prone to flipping, or the British Army is better at teaching its soldiers what is right and what is wrong when fighting a war.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Omar Khadr was a 15 year old child soldier. He was tortured by the Americans with Canada's approval.

CM, you apparently agree with how Khadr was treated. So if 15 years old is old enough for torturing Canadian children, then at what age would you judge is too young for torture? Should Canada also approve torturing 14 year olds? How about 12? Or 6? What about babies? Should Canada approve torturing babies?

We will have to disagree on this. Khadr was no child, nor was he a soldier.

As for his treatment, my belief is that he should have faced justice in Afghanistan - he never should have been transferred out of the nation where the event occurred.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Open your eyes Cliffy... You're making excuses for Khadr and more importantly, you negate the fact that he was there voluntarily - just like the IEDs he was photographed making. He was there, 1/2 way around the world as a Canadian to further the cause - let's not forget that he had an older brother that set an example of NOT participating in this barbarism.

You also place far too much value on the notion that he was 15 (just about 16 from what I understand) - he was not a 'child'. At 15 y/o, he would have had the degree of maturity to understand that the actions he was taking were very serious and grave.
And exactly what the hell were Canadian soldiers doing over there bombing and shooting innocent people. Why were we over there participating in this bararism. You open your eyes. We have no phuking excuse to be there. We have been there for ten years when we have no reason to be there other than impose oure will on the Afghani people. This war is not about the taliban or liberating people or any other humanitarian reasons. Were are there solely for the purpose of getting the opium trade back on track. Pull your head out of your butt.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
And exactly what the hell were Canadian soldiers doing over there bombing and shooting innocent people.

They were there at the request of the Afghan gvt to assist in dealing with the imported terrorist wannabes like Khadr.

What exactly was Khadr and his ilk doing there to cause the international community to send military personnel in the first place?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
They were there at the request of the Afghan gvt to assist in dealing with the imported terrorist wannabes like Khadr.

What exactly was Khadr and his ilk doing there to cause the international community to send military personnel in the first place?
The taliban were the government at the time of invasion. They certainly did not request NATO troops to invade their country. What planet are you on?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
The taliban were the government at the time of invasion. They certainly did not request NATO troops to invade their country. What planet are you on?


Funny.. The Afghan military has welcomed them with open arms all throughout this ordeal. It sure makes me wonder how that was possible if the government (Taliban, right?) didn't seek any help in the first place.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Michael Coren on Judeo-Christian superiority - YouTube

The taliban were the government at the time of invasion. They certainly did not request NATO troops to invade their country. What planet are you on?

Funny.. The Afghan military has welcomed them with open arms all throughout this ordeal. It sure makes me wonder how that was possible if the government (Taliban, right?) didn't seek any help in the first place.

Okay guys....at the time of the US (and Canadian) invasion, the lunatic Taliban did not control the entire nation. The somewhat less lunatic Northern Alliance controlled some of the nation........and the US and their allies (Canada) simply took the opportunity to provide the Northern Alliance with some significant air support :), some aid in weapons, and a few tens of thousands of troops.......
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
In any war, some soldiers are going to do bad things, even British ones.
British Military in Iraq: A Shocking Legacy. | Dissident Voice

No country is immune, not even Canada. That's why the highest levels must set an example for the lower ranks. Discipline must be strictly enforced (Brits have a good reputation for discipline). Any transgressions must resolved quickly and justly. No country can fight a large scale war without at least a few soldiers pushing the boundaries or crossing lines that should not be crossed. That is expected. Soldiers who gun down women and children for sport and then pissing on their corpses should get more than a slap on the wrist.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Why is it always US soldiers who commit such terrible crimes? I can never remember a British soldier doing something like this in Afghanistan.

Either British soldiers are better able to mentally cope with fighting in a war than American soldiers are and so are less prone to flipping, or the British Army is better at teaching its soldiers what is right and what is wrong when fighting a war.

Have a nice day Dingbat!

WikiLeaks war logs: British forces exposed over Afghan attacks | World news | The Guardian

We even have a clip of Iraq!

Suck on that hypocrite.

MUST WATCH Brutal British soldiers beat up iraqi kids with the devil laughing in the background - YouTube

Don't even get us started on the brits in N. Ireland.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Why is it always US soldiers who commit such terrible crimes? I can never remember a British soldier doing something like this in Afghanistan.

Either British soldiers are better able to mentally cope with fighting in a war than American soldiers are and so are less prone to flipping, or the British Army is better at teaching its soldiers what is right and what is wrong when fighting a war.

the input from Praxius describes the culture of violence that exists in the US very well. It extends into this kind of arrogant slaughter in other nations because they believe they are exempt from the laws ....or will be protected "because they are the exceptional americans" in their own minds.

Yes, UK soldiers are a whole lot better mannered , and more disciplined when it comes to the ethics in the situation. It is a true rareity that any Brit goes off half cocked the way the american does.

they still keep repeating that this is but one incident and not reflective of the US military culture and the US culture as a whole. That is how they keep excusing this conduct even though it keeps repeating itself . An image that says it all is that video of US troops drinking beer and laughing about slaughtering a whole family and raping an under age girl.

And that is only ONE such image. They are adding up and only those that defend such crimes would excuse these acts .

The culture of violence is the NORM in the US now.........and is spilling over into other areas ...... ANyone that denies that , has a problem with reality.

It is totally tragic.

In any war, some soldiers are going to do bad things, even British ones.
British Military in Iraq: A Shocking Legacy. | Dissident Voice

No country is immune, not even Canada. That's why the highest levels must set an example for the lower ranks. Discipline must be strictly enforced (Brits have a good reputation for discipline). Any transgressions must resolved quickly and justly. No country can fight a large scale war without at least a few soldiers pushing the boundaries or crossing lines that should not be crossed. That is expected. Soldiers who gun down women and children for sport and then pissing on their corpses should get more than a slap on the wrist.

Yes, it might happen..........but that does NOT MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE CONDUCT. If they are allowed to get away with such barbaric conduct.......it will only get MORE BARBARIC as they will become desensitized to the horror of their own conduct .....