• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

anything not covered under article 92 is covered under the catch all article of ucmj article 134a
 
Catawba said:
Vet Voice obviously believes that failure to obey General Order !, Ban on desecration of corpses, would be enforced under Article 92.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean it will. "Failure to Obey" rarely warrants such a punishment unless the failure resulted in a death. If a separation is awarded, it's usually an other than honorable or Admin under honorable sep. What vet voice is saying is that if CAN result in a dishonorable, which is true. Since it's gotten the limelight...it may, purely for political reasons. That doesn't mean it's warranted. It's not.
 
mac said:
That doesn't mean it will. "Failure to Obey" rarely warrants such a punishment unless the failure resulted in a death. If a separation is awarded, it's usually an other than honorable or Admin under honorable sep. What vet voice is saying is that if CAN result in a dishonorable, which is true. Since it's gotten the limelight...it may, purely for political reasons. That doesn't mean it's warranted. It's not.
Click to expand...

ive been charged under article 92 for wayyy less,it simply is for failure to obey a direct or lawful order givin by any officer in your chain of command,warrant officer in a command position in your command chain,or an e-7 or higher in your chain of command.in afghanistan we had alot of people charged with article 92 for drinking in a combat zone,which is against their general order given.
 
beerftw said:
ive been charged under article 92 for wayyy less,it simply is for failure to obey a direct or lawful order givin by any officer in your chain of command,warrant officer in a command position in your command chain,or an e-7 or higher in your chain of command.in afghanistan we had alot of people charged with article 92 for drinking in a combat zone,which is against their general order given.
Click to expand...

Right, that's what I said. I've also been charged with it, and have charged others with it.
 
how many hearts and minds did we win with those photos?

how many did we set against us?


did not aid our mission an iota. hurt it immeasurably
 
mac said:
Right, that's what I said. I've also been charged with it, and have charged others with it.
Click to expand...

yes and ive seen dishonerable discharges for drinking in afghanistan,the army has gotten strict in the last 2 years.my guess is these soldiers will get serve 45/45 then get a dishonerable discharge to please the public,but no jail time.

these soldiers were stupid mainly because they took pictures which left evidence,obviously they were not the brightest of the bunch anyways.
 
mac said:
That doesn't mean it will. "Failure to Obey" rarely warrants such a punishment unless the failure resulted in a death. If a separation is awarded, it's usually an other than honorable or Admin under honorable sep. What vet voice is saying is that if CAN result in a dishonorable, which is true. Since it's gotten the limelight...it may, purely for political reasons. That doesn't mean it's warranted. It's not.
Click to expand...

What does ban on desecration of corpses mean to you Mac? Unless they make an example of these dishonorable actions, we are likely to see this kind of behavior in the future. One of those charged was a non-commissioned officer!!!

I support the penalty that Voice Vets indicated was possible, dishonorable discharge.
 
beerftw said:
yes and ive seen dishonerable discharges for drinking in afghanistan,the army has gotten strict in the last 2 years.my guess is these soldiers will get serve 45/45 then get a dishonerable discharge to please the public,but no jail time.

these soldiers were stupid mainly because they took pictures which left evidence,obviously they were not the brightest of the bunch anyways.
Click to expand...

I believe that for every picture we see and hear about, there's a thousand or more we do not see. The problem here, as always, is that one prick ex-soldier who has no honor, and sells this to the press. May karma visit that one.
 
Catawba said:
What does ban on desecration of corpses mean to you Mac? Unless they make an example of these dishonorable actions, we are likely to see this kind of behavior in the future. One of those charged was a non-commissioned officer!!!

I support the penalty that Voice Vets indicated was possible, dishonorable discharge.
Click to expand...

This crap has gone on since the dawn of time. In pictures since cameras went on the battlefield.

All that you recommend may likely happen to satisfy all the PC jackasses out there.

Otherwise, this should be not be much more than a simple minimal fine, and reduction in rank at the worst. To discharge these folks less-than-honorable is absurd. And so patheticlaly piss-ant liberal.
 
Catawba said:
What does ban on desecration of corpses mean to you Mac? Unless they make an example of these dishonorable actions, we are likely to see this kind of behavior in the future. One of those charged was a non-commissioned officer!!!

I support the penalty that Voice Vets indicated was possible, dishonorable discharge.
Click to expand...

They don't need to dishonorably discharge them to make an example. You obviously don't know what a dishonorable discharge does to someone. Further, you think such a detrimental punishment is warranted for guys that you know nothing about based on a few pictures you've seen. You know nothing about the stress they faced, the actual standing orders involved, or the details of the indicated situation. But you're ready to hang them out to dry.

I agree they deserve to be punished. I do not agree that a dishonorable discharge is warranted simply because you are offended. Had they been civilians playing with bodies at a morgue nothing as drastic as a dishonorable discharge would happen to them.

And, for the record, a standing order banning the desecration of enemy combatant corpses is no more or less significant than a ban on drinking alcohol or pissing outside the latrine in camp.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
They don't need to dishonorably discharge them to make an example. You obviously don't know what a dishonorable discharge does to someone. Further, you think such a detrimental punishment is warranted for guys that you know nothing about based on a few pictures you've seen. You know nothing about the stress they faced, the actual standing orders involved, or the details of the indicated situation. But you're ready to hang them out to dry.

I agree they deserve to be punished. I do not agree that a dishonorable discharge is warranted simply because you are offended. Had they been civilians playing with bodies at a morgue nothing as drastic as a dishonorable discharge would happen to them.

And, for the record, a standing order banning the desecration of enemy combatant corpses is no more or less significant than a ban on drinking alcohol or pissing outside the latrine.
Click to expand...

If people are dishonorably discharged for drinking, then surely it should be nothing less for desecrating corpses. Actions have consequences. if you don't want to do the time, don't commit the crime. After a few have received a dishonorable discharge, others will think twice about taking similar actions.
 
mike2810 said:
I can somewhat agree with you about reporting the "news" The question to ask is how much editing and opinion is thrown in to the mix? I personally, look at most news reports with a grain of salt. In most cases, not all sides are presented in what you hear or see on tv/radio/paper/internet.
Click to expand...
\
I agree.

1234567890
 
Catawba said:
If people are dishonorably discharged for drinking, then surely it should be nothing less for desecrating corpses. Actions have consequences. if you don't want to do the time, don't commit the crime. After a few have received a dishonorable discharge, others will think twice about taking similar actions.
Click to expand...

I've never seen anyone dishonorably discharged for drinking against orders. I've seen people reduced in rank for having sex in a combat zone, I've seen people receive extra duty and reduction in rank for drinking...never a dishonorable. I can only attest to what I've seen, you'll have to take up the drinking with beerftw.
 
mac said:
I've never seen anyone dishonorably discharged for drinking against orders. I've seen people reduced in rank for having sex in a combat zone, I've seen people receive extra duty and reduction in rank for drinking...never a dishonorable. I can only attest to what I've seen, you'll have to take up the drinking with beerftw.
Click to expand...
none of those things was likely to gin up the opposition, to the potential detriment of our troops/nation
 
mac said:
I've never seen anyone dishonorably discharged for drinking against orders.
Click to expand...

beerftw said:
yes and ive seen dishonerable discharges for drinking in afghanistan,the army has gotten strict in the last 2 years.my guess is these soldiers will get serve 45/45 then get a dishonerable discharge to please the public,but no jail time.

these soldiers were stupid mainly because they took pictures which left evidence,obviously they were not the brightest of the bunch anyways.
Click to expand...

.....................
 
Catawba said:
.....................
Click to expand...

Like I said, take it up with him. I've seen people charged with this, many, and never a dishonorable discharge.

Further, the violation in General order 1 that is being referred to is simply the photography of the bodies, not the manner in which the bodies were handled.
 
you all need to keep in mind during my deployment the army was going through a major reduction in force.between then and now the military is looking for any reason to kick people out,and any reason to leave the highest punishment to scare those who are staying in to do the right thing and not break the rules.
 
justabubba said:
none of those things was likely to gin up the opposition, to the potential detriment of our troops/nation
Click to expand...

but more so than shooting at them "gins" them up?
 
mac said:
but more so than shooting at them "gins" them up?
Click to expand...
certainly. those that action causes to get recruited, but who were previously on the sideline

if this had been taliban in those publicized photos, featuring them beside the mutilated remnants of US GIs you would be leading the post count expressing your outrage
 
justabubba said:
certainly. those that action causes to get recruited, but who were previously on the sideline

if this had been taliban in those publicized photos, featuring them beside the mutilated remnants of US GIs you would be leading the post count expressing your outrage
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't. They do that all the time, it just doesn't get published over here. I'll tell you what does get published...them hacking the heads off live non-combatant civilians...and it goes viral.
 
justabubba said:
certainly. those that action causes to get recruited, but who were previously on the sideline

if this had been taliban in those publicized photos, featuring them beside the mutilated remnants of US GIs you would be leading the post count expressing your outrage
Click to expand...

....you do realize that that is actually a source of enemy funding?
 
I would love to pose for a picture holding the severed head of a dead Taliban myself. Some guys get to have all the fun.
 
beerftw said:
yes and ive seen dishonerable discharges for drinking in afghanistan,the army has gotten strict in the last 2 years.my guess is these soldiers will get serve 45/45 then get a dishonerable discharge to please the public,but no jail time.
Click to expand...

If they are still in. If they are IRR..... :shrug: It depends on how much of a "look at us look at us we aren't mean we promise" show the brass wants to put on.

:roll: I swear man. Mothers Of America is probably a bigger obstacle in this fight than lack of HUMINT.
 
Soldiers have been taking pics with dead enemy body parts and or whole bodies in since cameras became portable. A friend of mine has a pic he took of one dead VC giving another dead VC a blow job. Move along folks nuthin to see here.
 
mac said:
Like I said, take it up with him. I've seen people charged with this, many, and never a dishonorable discharge.
Click to expand...

Since he has served in Afghanistan recently, I take him at his word.

Further, the violation in General order 1 that is being referred to is simply the photography of the bodies, not the manner in which the bodies were handled.
Click to expand...

Your contention is that only the one who took the pictures could face court martial?

US marines identified in urination video likely to face court martial
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom