More on that burning issue

Thanks and hattip to Brogonzo for this update on the Afghan incident mentioned yesterday: http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/10/burning-issue-with-some-folks.html

October 19, 2005Release Number: 05-10-71 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CENTCOM CONDEMNS ALLEGATIONS OF DESECRATION

MacDill AFB, FL -- Recent media reports out of Afghanistan have alleged that U.S. forces were involved in an incident involving the desecration of the bodies of deceased enemy combatants.

Under no circumstances does U.S. Central Command condone the desecration, abuse or inappropriate treatment of enemy combatants. Such actions are contrary to U.S. policy as well as the Geneva Convention.

The Army Criminal Investigation Division has initiated an investigation into the alleged misconduct. Should that investigation uncover actions by U.S. personnel that were contrary to the Geneva Convention and U.S. policy, legal and disciplinary action will be taken in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20051071.txt

October 20, 2005 Release Number: 05-10-74

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

UPDATE: ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY U.S. FORCES

KABUL , Afghanistan – The Army Criminal Investigation Division continues its investigation into alleged misconduct by U.S. service members, including the burning of two dead enemy combatant bodies under inappropriate circumstances.

“The inflammatory nature of this allegation raises two pertinent concerns that the command is investigating,” said Army Colonel Jim Yonts, Combined Forces Command – Afghanistan , Public Affairs Officer.

“First, the command does not advocate, nor does the command tolerate, the wrongful desecration of anyone’s remains.

Second, the use of broadcast messages in conjunction with an act such as this does not represent the values and beliefs of this command therefore necessitating a procedural and policy review.”

“These are very serious allegations and if true, they are reprehensible. If the investigation reveals misconduct those responsible will be held accountable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice,” he said.

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20051074.txt

I gotta admit: this gave me a few goosebumps of pride when I read it. It sure puts the fire out on those marshmellow toasting extremists of the Rambo persuasion.

Pots and kettles

"BAGHDAD, Oct 20 (Reuters, by Claudia Parsons) - More than 300 foreign fighters have been captured in Iraq by U.S.-led [foreign] troops and Iraqi security forces since April and their nationalities include Israeli, Irish and British, a senior U.S. commander said on Thursday. Most came from other Arab states, however, Major General Rick Lynch said....

"Terrorists and foreign fighters" were responsible for some of the worst insurgent attacks, such as suicide car bombings, Lynch said. [Other foreign fighters were believed responsible for the killing of other civilians, but those figures were not discussed.] But he said U.S.-led [foreign] forces had foiled several attacks by arresting or killing many of them in recent months. He told a news briefing 376 foreign fighters had been captured this year, of whom 311 were detained since the start of April. No comparable figures for the total number of guerrilla suspects captured were available, although some 12,000 are currently held in jail, most of those Iraqis.

"The countries of origin most represented were Egypt (78), Syria (66), Sudan (41) and Saudi Arabia (32). The list included several other Middle Eastern countries and a number of European states such as France (1) and Denmark (1) as well as two Indians and an American. Lynch declined to give any further details about the one Israeli on the list, or the suspect from Ireland and two from Britain."

A burning issue with some folks

The SMH ran a story about an SBS program (for non-Aussies, that's a government owned tv station with a "world" view geared to serving the non-English speaking communities) that will air tonight showing "US soldiers in Afghanistan burnt the bodies of dead Taliban and taunted their opponents about the corpses...."

Boy has that brought the Yank Rambos out of their foxholes:
http://psychoticpatriot.blogspot.com/2005/10/psyops-burning-bodies-video-wtf.html
http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2005/10/centcom-responds-to-report-of-taliban.html
http://socalpundit.com/blog/index.php/2005/10/19/liberalism-ties-the-hands-of-soldiers-in-the-war-on-terror/
http://returnoftheconservatives.blogspot.com/2005/10/film-rolls-as-troops-burn-taliban.html

But it was not all seen that way:
http://geniusofinsanityworld.blogspot.com/2005/10/taliban-bodies-burned-by-us-soldiers.html
http://culturelifenewsbreaking.blogspot.com/2005/10/american-soldiers-burn-peasant-and.html

Update and response to comments

To my bloody amazement and amusement, after about 200 posts over the last 3 months, this particular post seems to have attracted so much attention, surpassing the most popular page title by miles. I usually spend a bit of time anticipating and then preparing a post, but this one came about almost accidentally, and completely off-handedly. I was doing my regular Technorati search of smh.com.au and kept noticing the Rambo-esq posts on that SBS/SMH story. I read the SMH daily, but missed the story in the paper, and probably wouldn’t have paid much attention had I seen it.

What struck me was, first, the number of US-based references to the story; most SMH readers/followers are Australian. Next, the “Rambo” ones all seemed to run with the same idea – that the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to terrorists and therefore terrorists have no rights. Apart from the substance or relevance of that dubious legal proposition, and apart from the shear bloody-mindedness of the posts (one guy said “bring marshmallows”), I was impressed as to how uniform every one of them was and the utter rejection of any sense of concern about the behaviour of the Coalition troops. Did it differ that much from the barbaric hanging of the bodies of the US contractors on that Iraqi bridge? Yes, we can get a bit too precious about the way wars end up getting fought, but is there no sense of proportionality at all? Are no holds barred? Is it ok for us to become as deprived of civil constraint as we like?

I also want to note, and appreciate, the fairly worded comment that the film makers “had an agenda”. Of course they did. They may have been imbedded with an anti-war group, but that does not deny their report any more than the imbedded reports we rely on when watching CNN or Fox or BBC. It is the nature of imbedded reporting that the reports get tainted, but we try to look through that to the facts as best as they can be discerned notwithstanding the taint. (See, http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/10/hyperbole.html)

Apart from that, I have no comment. I was only making an observation about the commentators on the story, not about the story. I did not watch the SBS report. Crikey, I don’t even recall having read the Herald article, but if I did it wasn’t until after I compiled the post. My interest was in the invective that flowed from the reporting and how such a non-event (as I saw it sitting here) had become such a hot topic of interest and incendiary all the way acrosst the Pacific, and the hit-response to the post just underscores that.

It shows just how bitterly the terrorists have managed to divide us.

Seven bullets to the head should be enough to stop any terrorist

Even someone who is not a terrorist

John Howard's new terror laws include a free shoot-to-kill provision, we are now told. "The president of the NSW Law Society, John McIntyre, said the provision, still in a draft form, would take away an individual's "fundamental freedoms". (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/shoot-to-kill-provisions-open-to-abuse/2005/10/20/1129401348810.html)

Yep, it sure took away Jean Charles de Menezes' fundamental freedoms. "The electrician looked "relaxed and normal" on the [London] Underground platform, the family said, before armed officers fired at least seven bullets into his head and shoulders at point blank range." (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1803519,00.html) Since Howard doesn't particularly like to say "sorry", do you suppose he'd at least utter a "oops"?

Howard explained the necessity for the provision as follows, "If this doesn't get passed there will still be the common law provisions that will apply. The difficulty will be is that the police will be less certain as to what their legal position is and that is not necessarily a fair thing for the police force and it's not necessarily a just outcome for the public." (SMH, id.) Having a shoot-to-kill policy in London sure gave the police the certainty they needed to cut down Mr de Menezes.

"Instead of wide-ranging discussion the Government has sought to nobble the field in secret and to prevent debate," [former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser] said in a speech at the State Library of Victoria last night. "The laws should be opposed because they provide arbitrary power which would be dependent on trust, a trust that has not been earnt." Mr Fraser questioned whether the new powers in the draft legislation would be effective in the fight against terrorism, and said they should not be employed in a democracy.
"These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature with lack of judicial oversight should not exist in any democratic country," he said.

"Mr Fraser is also critical of the Labor Party for going along with the underlying assumptions of the new powers, which are that "we cannot fight terrorism and adhere to the basic principles of justice and democracy" and that "certain people are outside the law and do not deserve justice". (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/debate-stifled-on-undemocratic-laws-expm/2005/10/19/1129401317128.html)

Image found at http://www.scifistation.com/images/warner_images/target_practice.jpg