Rick Perry defends Marines who urinated on dead bodies
100 replies, posted
[url]http://www.wtkr.com/news/nationworld/sns-la-pn-rick-perry-marines-urinating-on-dead-bodies-not-a-criminal-act-20120115,0,3085186.story[/url]
[quote]
Texas Gov. [URL="http://www.wtkr.com/news/nationworld/sns-la-pn-rick-perry-marines-urinating-on-dead-bodies-not-a-criminal-act-20120115,0,3085186.story#"]Rick Perry[/URL], who has been campaigning furiously in South Carolina in an effort to revive his sputtering presidential campaign, said Sunday morning that the Obama administration has gone “over the top” in criticizing Marines who were videotaped urinating on Afghan corpses.
“Obviously, 18, 19-year-olds make stupid mistakes all too often,” Perry said in an appearance on [URL="http://www.wtkr.com/news/nationworld/sns-la-pn-rick-perry-marines-urinating-on-dead-bodies-not-a-criminal-act-20120115,0,3085186.story#"]CNN's[/URL] “State of the Union.” “... What's really disturbing to me is just, kind of, the over-the-top-rhetoric from this administration and their disdain for the military.”
The Marines have not been charged with any crimes, but the Geneva Conventions forbid desecration of the dead.
Defense Secretary [URL="http://www.wtkr.com/news/nationworld/sns-la-pn-rick-perry-marines-urinating-on-dead-bodies-not-a-criminal-act-20120115,0,3085186.story#"]Leon Panetta[/URL] called the incident “utterly deplorable,” and Gen. James Amos has ordered the Naval Criminal Investigative Service to “thoroughly investigate every aspect of the filmed event.”
Secretary of State [URL="http://www.wtkr.com/news/nationworld/sns-la-pn-rick-perry-marines-urinating-on-dead-bodies-not-a-criminal-act-20120115,0,3085186.story#"]Hillary Clinton[/URL] has called it “absolutely inconsistent with American values.”
Perry said the reaction was overblown, and that “[Winston] Churchill did the same thing.”
“These kids made a mistake, there's no doubt about it,” he said. “But to call it a criminal act, I think, is over the top.”
[I][/quote][/I]
I think that this is a more qualified source.
[url]http://nation.foxnews.com/rick-perry/2012/01/15/rick-perry-white-house-handling-marine-video-over-top[/url]
[quote]Perry said the reaction was overblown, and that “[Winston] Churchill did the same thing.”[/quote]
what
Wait... Churchill pissed on bodies?
I can see where he's trying to go...but pissing on the dead's still kind of unexcusable
[QUOTE=Sottalytober;34234591]I can see where he's trying to go...but pissing on the dead's still kind of unexcusable[/QUOTE]
It says right in the article that it's against the Geneva Convention.
[quote=Rick Perry]“Obviously, 18, 19-year-olds make stupid mistakes all too often”[/quote]
You mean like all those 18 and 19-year-olds you executed in Texas, Governor Perry?
[QUOTE=Nikota;34234576]I think that this is a more qualified source.
[url]http://nation.foxnews.com/rick-perry/2012/01/15/rick-perry-white-house-handling-marine-video-over-top[/url][/QUOTE]
Either way it's the same story from the LA Times.
[QUOTE]“But to call it a criminal act, I think, is over the top.[/QUOTE]
Does this mean we can piss on Rick Perry's dead body?
[QUOTE=Nikota;34234576]I think that this is a more qualified source.
[url]http://nation.foxnews.com/rick-perry/2012/01/15/rick-perry-white-house-handling-marine-video-over-top[/url][/QUOTE]
"The nation says this post is:
[b]Inspiring[/b]"
Yep, fox news.
Sad thing is he's right to a degree...
some of the rhetoric is over the top, however none that article cites is.
I seriously want to make some stickers of the "The nations says this post is:" images. They would be so appropriate when I see a dumb bumper sticker.
Geneva conventions do not apply if the other party fails to follow them.
The second article of the Geneva conventions exists solely to explain that you don't have to follow shit if the other side doesn't.
[QUOTE=TH89;34234601]You mean like all those 18 and 19-year-olds you executed in Texas, Governor Perry?[/QUOTE]
It's fine. Winston Churchill did the same thing.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34234652]Geneva conventions do not apply if the other party fails to follow them.
The second article of the Geneva conventions exists solely to explain that you don't have to follow shit if the other side doesn't.[/QUOTE]
There is no "other side". They don't have the ability to sign anything other then a truce. They are insurgents.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34234708]There is no "other side". They don't have the ability to sign anything other then a truce. They are insurgents.[/QUOTE]
And thereby it doesn't apply.
It isn't a law. It is a treaty. They don't work for a government, so they don't have the ability to make treaties.
Churchill pissed on the Siegfried line, not onto German corpses, there's a bit of a difference there.
Pissing on bodies... ahh, yeah, that's very Christian of you, Perry.
[QUOTE=jeimizu;34234783]Churchill pissed on the Siegfried line, not onto German corpses, there's a bit of a difference there.[/QUOTE]
Can't forget Patton pissing into the Rhine.
[quote]and their disdain for the military[/quote]
go get em boys!
[quote=Rick Perry]“Obviously, 18, 19-year-olds make stupid mistakes all too often.”[/quote]
you don't have to be 35 to understand that desecrating a dead human being is wrong
you don't even have to be fucking 12 to understand that
[QUOTE=GunFox;34234755]And thereby it doesn't apply.
It isn't a law. It is a treaty. They don't work for a government, so they don't have the ability to make treaties.[/QUOTE]
Are you endorsing war crimes against the Geneva convention? I don't understand why you're pointing this out.. the United States has a duty as world police to follow the Geneva convention and so far they have been doing this.
What is your point?
[QUOTE=GunFox;34234755]And thereby it doesn't apply.
It isn't a law. It is a treaty. They don't work for a government, so they don't have the ability to make treaties.[/QUOTE]
What is it with americans and not having a shred of respect for the country they invade, the people in it, the people they're fighting, and what happens after they leave.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34234869]Are you endorsing war crimes against the Geneva convention? I don't understand why you're pointing this out.. the United States has a duty as world police to follow the Geneva convention and so far they have been doing this.
What is your point?[/QUOTE]
The article in the OP pointed out that desecration of the dead is against the convention. He is pointing out that it doesn't apply given the circumstances.
[quote=Rick Perry]“... What's really disturbing to me is just, kind of, the over-the-top-rhetoric from this administration and their disdain for the military.”[/quote]
Yeah, what's wrong with them, condemning the desecration of a dead body? Stupid military-hating Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense!
[QUOTE=GunFox;34234652]Geneva conventions do not apply if the other party fails to follow them.
The second article of the Geneva conventions exists solely to explain that you don't have to follow shit if the other side doesn't.[/QUOTE]
On moral level I don't think that's a reasonable response.
Otherwise why bother respecting the law when pursuing criminals?
[QUOTE=Crimor;34234889]What is it with americans and not having a shred of respect for the country they invade, the people in it, the people they're fighting, and what happens after they leave.[/QUOTE]
This is 3-4 people doing this. We have several thousand troops stationed in Afghanistan. You can't judge an entire country and it's forces by 3 people.
I highly doubt Gunfox is endorsing what they're doing here, or that they're not in the wrong, only that the Geneva convention technically doesn't apply to them.
[QUOTE=Crimor;34234889]What is it with americans and not having a shred of respect for the country they invade, the people in it, the people they're fighting, and what happens after they leave.[/QUOTE]
It's not all Americans, mind you.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34234652]Geneva conventions do not apply if the other party fails to follow them.
The second article of the Geneva conventions exists solely to explain that you don't have to follow shit if the other side doesn't.[/QUOTE]
So the Palestinians didn't sign it with the Israeli's, and that gives them the right to use white phosphorous?
Also, it's not respected as a treaty anymore, you're actively obliged to follow it these days, like a law.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34234869]Are you endorsing war crimes against the Geneva convention? I don't understand why you're pointing this out.. the United States has a duty as world police to follow the Geneva convention and so far they have been doing this.
What is your point?[/QUOTE]
It's not really applicable because it's not a war between states.
It only highlights that the US shouldn't be involved in what is ANA/ANP issue
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.