US Soldiers Pose With Dead Civilian Corpses

The military is different. In the military we have a little something called the Geneva Convention that creates a legal obligation for all commanding officers. This is not the case for the Department of Education.

The educational systems has rules it must abide by as well. Individuals who break those rules are responsible.

Slight loophole in the Geneva Conventions.

"The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version."

No, I'm not saying these soldiers don't deserve punishment..

The educational systems has rules it must abide by as well. Individuals who break those rules are responsible.

This doesnt refute the fact that the Geneva Convention makes commanding officers responsible.
But do any rules declare a teacher or other official responsible for the actions of the students?

This doesnt refute the fact that the Geneva Convention makes commanding officers responsible.
But do any rules declare a teacher or other official responsible for the actions of the students?

Stretching it a bit but....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

This doesnt refute the fact that the Geneva Convention makes commanding officers responsible.
But do any rules declare a teacher or other official responsible for the actions of the students?

Yeah but this isn't an officially declared war. Geneva Conventions only applied to officially declared wars, Mister Strict Reader.

Stretching it a bit but....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

Strenching it since that is unconstitutional.

Yeah but this isn't an officially declared war. Geneva Conventions only applied to officially declared wars, Mister Strict Reader.

If that is the case, then Obama is inviolation of the law for being in an illegal war (Started by Bush, continued by Obama).
Although I doubt your loophole will hold up.

I never said that the war was legal.

I never said that the war was legal.

I never said that you did.

I should also add that although the wars are illegal, undeclared by congress, the president has declared war. Since, iirc this has not been tried in the supreme court yet, we may have a grey area here. Although, I firmly believe that it is illegal for a president to declare or go to war without consent of congress.

I never said that you did.

I should also add that although the wars are illegal, undeclared by congress, the president has declared war. Since, iirc this has not been tried in the supreme court yet, we may have a grey area here. Although, I firmly believe that it is illegal for a president to declare or go to war without consent of congress.

I thought that bush had the consent of congress.

We never had the consent of Congress since WWII.

We never had the consent of Congress since WWII.

Hm, the war is illegal then. Oh well, Obama seems to be pulling out troops anyway.

Hm, the war is illegal then. Oh well, Obama seems to be pulling out troops anyway.

I still question whether this is true or not. There are promises and laws that declare we will get out of these wars, but I havent seen any real progress yet.

And I am quite sure that war has not legally been declared since WWII.

And in this circumstance, no 3rd party is legally responsible. In the military, this is not the case.

Please define responsible before continuing this conversation because based on your original quote you keep avoiding, you have a completely mistranslation of the word.

Different countries does make a large difference. Being in the military, and a represenative of our entire country makes a major difference too. The fact that we have an international treaty forbidding the acts also puts this on a higher level than a civil crime, whether we agree with that fact or not.

And Multiple Personality Disorder is very rare, and often includes a very harsh and stressful childhood. Out of all of the cases of war crimes, how many are commited by people with MPD?

I'm talking from a humane standpoint. I'm pretty sure your purposely misinterpreting me because I cannot fathom how you got me comparing the situations legally vs how humans act in general. People kill people because they are pineappleed up and no one knows about it. Military or not, the only difference is whos giving the ass whooping. None the less my point is no establishment can avoid this. Period.

Does this mean you have no problems with spanking a child being an act of terrorism?

What's the point of terrorism hm? Pretty much threatening with violence and such to get their way. Well the women was cussing the attendant out and throwing tomato juice. Spanking? Not so much of an issue, cursing and making a ruckus over something so pineappleing silly, yes that ignorant peach belongs in jail.

Which is probably the second reason I am enraged over this. This should not be business as usual. This should be a rare to non-existant occurance, that when occurs requires swift action, investigation (to see if a commanding officer ordered the torture or if the soldiers acted alone), and apology (although that wont do much to solve the problem, it will bring some comfort that the government acknowledges the problem).

The soldiers did act alone. It's in your damn article that you evidently didn't read. Unless you're throwing away its credibility? Anyway, I'm pretty sure this isn't a common occurance. Do the math and tell me what you come up with. 6 instances vs' uh how many men in iraq right now?.

WOW. That is the most rediculous statement I have seen you make thus far. Have you ever even been waterboarded? I think not. Dont talk about things you have no idea about. It is a very effective torture method. It also does do physical harm as well as mental. I have read every statement made in this thread and I believe that you are missing or misinterpreting other posts.

I read this and whole-heartidly lol'd. The only thing ridiculous is the TS coming in and saying its the administrators that have direct control over this. Implied by his statement "Nothing's changed".

As for water boarding,

Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and, if uninterrupted, death.

Notice can. Those are possibilities, but once again, nothing too major imo. Brain damage and lung damage can be easily avoided by not doing it for x amount of time. Although I don't reccomend this for every criminal, but a war criminal? pineapple it, I hope you become retarded and so do your children.

And if you really think pulling out of iraq was a realistic, ha.

Notice can. Those are possibilities, but once again, nothing too major imo. Brain damage and lung damage can be easily avoided by not doing it for x amount of time. Although I don't reccomend this for every criminal, but a war criminal? pineapple it, I hope you become retarded and so do your children.

And if you really think pulling out of iraq was a realistic, ha.

First of all, anyone who is/has been waterboarded as a form of torture will have it done to them long enough to cause the damage. Also how do we know they are "war" criminals? We are not at war legally so that means we cant use that as an excuse. Many of the people who have been detained, there has not been enough evidence to convict them and in most cases there was no evidence at all.

As for Iraq, yes it is reasonable to pull out of there. The reason we went there in the first place was to get the weapons of mass destruction. Ah, but then we learned that there were none. Hmmm....guess it was about oil then.

Please define responsible before continuing this conversation because based on your original quote you keep avoiding, you have a completely mistranslation of the word.

Use a dictionary

I'm talking from a humane standpoint. I'm pretty sure your purposely misinterpreting me because I cannot fathom how you got me comparing the situations legally vs how humans act in general. People kill people because they are pineappleed up and no one knows about it. Military or not, the only difference is whos giving the ass whooping. None the less my point is no establishment can avoid this. Period.

And yet, realistically this is more than just a Human Rights issue, and while both sorts of crimes are unacceptable, both have clear differences and different repercussions.

What's the point of terrorism hm? Pretty much threatening with violence and such to get their way. Well the women was cussing the attendant out and throwing tomato juice. Spanking? Not so much of an issue, cursing and making a ruckus over something so pineappleing silly, yes that ignorant peach belongs in jail.

You ignore the point entirely. Her act was declared Terrorism, and with the new definition of terrorism, I doubt most terrorists have any information worth interrogating or torturing them over.

The soldiers did act alone. It's in your damn article that you evidently didn't read. Unless you're throwing away its credibility? Anyway, I'm pretty sure this isn't a common occurance. Do the math and tell me what you come up with. 6 instances vs' uh how many men in iraq right now?.

Evidently, you lack the ability to read. My statement was not about this event, just these sorts of crimes in general - which should investigate to see if commanding officers are at fault (gave orders to torture, etc.) or if they are simply not fulfilling their duty to prevent such attrocities.

I read this and whole-heartidly lol'd. The only thing ridiculous is the TS coming in and saying its the administrators that have direct control over this. Implied by his statement "Nothing's changed".

We'll, what has changed? We still get into illegal wars. We still have torture and guantanamo.

Notice can. Those are possibilities, but once again, nothing too major imo. Brain damage and lung damage can be easily avoided by not doing it for x amount of time. Although I don't reccomend this for every criminal, but a war criminal? pineapple it, I hope you become retarded and so do your children.

And if you really think pulling out of iraq was a realistic, ha.

Do our soldiers take steps to avoid brain and lung damage? And how is brain and lung damage "nothing major?"

As for Iraq, yes it is reasonable to pull out of there. The reason we went there in the first place was to get the weapons of mass destruction. Ah, but then we learned that there were none. Hmmm....guess it was about oil then.

To add, the Bush administration actively looked for all excuses and "evidence" no matter how flimsy or unverifiable it may be. Most evidence they provided was unverifiable, fabricated, or completely misrepresended.
Not to mention, as always dissenting opinion and facts where not allowed.

Use a dictionary


I posted the definition a page back. You're misusing the word.

And yet, realistically this is more than just a Human Rights issue, and while both sorts of crimes are unacceptable, both have clear differences and different repercussions.



You ignore the point entirely. Her act was declared Terrorism, and with the new definition of terrorism, I doubt most terrorists have any information worth interrogating or torturing them over.


Interrogate them to reveal more terrorists.

Evidently, you lack the ability to read. My statement was not about this event, just these sorts of crimes in general - which should investigate to see if commanding officers are at fault (gave orders to torture, etc.) or if they are simply not fulfilling their duty to prevent such attrocities.

Now we've descended into insults. Let's go lock this thread mods.


We'll, what has changed? We still get into illegal wars. We still have torture and guantanamo.





Do our soldiers take steps to avoid brain and lung damage? And how is brain and lung damage "nothing major?"


To add, the Bush administration actively looked for all excuses and "evidence" no matter how flimsy or unverifiable it may be. Most evidence they provided was unverifiable, fabricated, or completely misrepresended.
Not to mention, as always dissenting opinion and facts where not allowed.

Comments in bold.

The only thing worth commenting on:

Interrogate them to reveal more terrorists.

She was declared a terrorist for just acting in a generally unacceptable manner. There is no possible useful information you could get out of her that would prevent future terrorist attacks.

And

Now we've descended into insults. Let's go lock this thread mods.

Why wait for me to say something that could be considered insulting? Why not make this comment when Dustbunny began insulting others with his first post?
Besides, i dont see the problem with calling him out on misinterpreting my post.

I just arbitrarily picked you. Is that a problem? We're off topic as it is.

Well since most of you have gotten off topic, I will try to get back to the topic.

After doing a little searching, I finally found a photo that the article was refering to. It is what the article depicts it as. That said, this sort of thing also happened in other conflicts (I use that word because war does not apply). It sucks and I dont see what purpose it can possibly serve and had I been in charge of that unit they would not only not been allowed to do such a thing, but they would never even suggest it again. The people to blame are the soldiers who did it and allowed it.

These things do happen and it is one of the reasons that most countries dont like the U.S. It is ultimately going to look bad on the current president in the eyes of the world because thats just how it is. Like it or not, he is the guy in charge and the first rule in leadership is that everything is your responsibility as the leader. It does not matter if it is direct or indirect, its still his burden.

Look at it like this, if you go out and you break a law but you were not aware of the law are you still required to face the penalty for breaking said law? Yes. Why? Because it is not an excuse that can be used. Saying, "I didnt know that was illegal" does not make it ok. The law has no simpathy for ignorance. This case is much the same. I see most of you saying, "oh well he didnt know or he cant control others under his command" thats just BS.

At any rate, its still idiotic of those jerks to do that. They are the very definision of moron.

Look at it like this, if you go out and you break a law but you were not aware of the law are you still required to face the penalty for breaking said law? Yes. Why? Because it is not an excuse that can be used. Saying, "I didnt know that was illegal" does not make it ok. The law has no simpathy for ignorance. This case is much the same. I see most of you saying, "oh well he didnt know or he cant control others under his command" thats just BS.

I think what's really bullpomegranate is your misinterpretation of what everybody has been saying.

Look, if a dog poops, somebody has to clean it up. Who? Its owner. If America misconducts, somebody has to apologize and make "sure" it doesn't happen again. Who? Obama.
That is the extent of responsibility we're talking about. There is NO way you can guarantee a 0% chance of mishaps taking place. You BELIEVE and HOPE your dog won't poop on the beach, not rest assured that he won't.
This has been made CRYSTAL clear since page ONE. If we have nothing new to add to this event, I suggest we all shut the pineapple up.