gdp's Comments

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:04:14 +0000

The Geneva Conventions do apply, actually: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti... Was a war crime committed? Possibly, although it will be adjudicated internally: http://www.smh.com.au/world/corpse-abuse-a-war-cr... "The deputy commander of US forces in Afghanistan, Lieutenant-General Curtis Scaparrotti, said in a message to troops that ''defiling, desecrating, mocking, photographing or filming for personal use insurgent dead constitutes a grave breach'' of laws governing armed conflict. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she believed the men may be guilty of a war crime. Clay Shirky, who teaches social media at New York University, said that in a digital age when videos spread across the internet within hours, an incident that may have gone almost unnoticed in earlier wars can become an international flashpoint."

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:54:49 +0000

Ok, you made me do some research. The below article stems from a Supreme Court ruling in 2006. It seems reasonable enough, but I encourage people to look for themselves. Maybe there's something more applicable and up to date elsewhere. I understand your point of frustration, though. Why should the Geneva Conventions apply to our interactions with terrorists if they don't hold them sacred themselves? Geneva Conventions or no Geneva Conventions, we'll still track down the perpetrators and bring them to justice. It's not like it absolves them of anything, right? U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions. By Charles Babington and Michael Abramowitz Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, July 12, 2006 "The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials. The Pentagon announced yesterday that it has called on military officials to adhere to the conventions in dealing with al-Qaeda detainees. The administration also has decided that even prisoners held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad must be treated in accordance with international standards, an interpretation that would prohibit prisoners from being subjected to harsh treatment in interrogations, several U.S. officials said. The developments underscored how the administration has been forced to retreat from its long-standing position that President Bush be given extensive leeway to determine how to interrogate and prosecute terrorism suspects captured in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Until recently, the White House and Defense Department have pursued such anti-terrorism policies with little interference from Congress and the courts, but that has begun to change. Since 2002, the administration has contended that the Geneva Conventions would be respected as a matter of policy but that they did not apply by law to terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or in U.S. military custody elsewhere. Administration officials have voiced concern that the conventions are too vague and could expose the military to second-guessing about appropriate treatment. But the Supreme Court rejected that view in a 5 to 3 decision last month, ruling that a Yemeni detainee at Guantanamo Bay could not be tried by a special military commission established by the Bush administration. The court held that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions."

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 05:59:44 +0000

There are actually swaths of time when we aren't at war. I served in one of those times. Nonetheless, I am a Marine veteran and prepared in the same manner that everyone else did. I was on active duty and served in the 1st Surveillance, Reconnaissance, Intelligence Group in Camp Pendleton during the 1990's. While I haven't served in the thick of war, I can imagine its horrors. Even still, we should do our best to avoid acting as animals. But know that I'm not judging them overly harshly. War does bad things to us...

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 05:43:21 +0000

We can agree to disagree on a thing or two. You're a gentleman and a scholar. Cheers.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 04:34:40 +0000

With all due respect, the world is a very different place than when you served. You're a generation older than I and it's probably been a generation since you last served. Today's world, for better or worse, dictates that we kill in a more ethical manner. Hell of war, or not. Kill them with bullets, grenades, or run them over with tanks. These are humane methods of killing the enemy. I understand that war is hell and there is a need for catharsis but find another method to deal with it. Or at least don't be idiotic enough to record it for all the world to see. Because pissing on the enemy, raping them, or slitting their throats doesn't resonate so well in their society or ours and will only put our servicemen at greater risk. You and I know the horrors, but the majority of society doesn't understand. And these events spread like wildfire now. This brave new world dictates we either do not act as utter savages or be stupid enough to be seen as them, sir.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 02:32:23 +0000

ab·surd/əbˈsərd/ Adjective: (of an idea or suggestion) Wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate: "so you think I'm a spy? How absurd!". (of a person or a person's behavior or actions) Foolish; unreasonable. Listen, she stated that urinating on corpses was absurd yet she'd do it herself. If she wishes to be personified as unreasonable, illogical, and inappropriate, that's her choice. I'm actually being marked negatively because I believe that urinating on corpses is bad and I've stated that Dana Loesch is unreasonable, illogical, and inappropriate for saying she'd do the same. I've read the comments and this is consistent with many of the objections I see. I don't know how many names I've been called for this but I've responded in good nature. Many have stated that our enemy does this and that, which gives us the right to act unethically. I disagree. So be it. I think our discussion has reached the end, mate...

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 02:12:25 +0000

I only have negative points because I think that urinating on dead bodies isn't for the best. Dana supports it fully and claims she would do it herself. Congrats, although it seems that this makes me such a heathen! ;) She clearly is an attention-seeker (attention-whore is in the common vernacular). Although I haven't called her a liar, she is insincere (or disingenuous). Please allow me to quote Dana: "It’s absurd to desecrate corpses." If she were sincere, she wouldn't state that urinating on corpses is absurd yet she would give 1 million cool points to the Marines that did and would even do it herself. I mean, that's a contradiction (her being insincere) in and of itself. Not to mention it was controversial and gathered lots of attention. But that's her job. More attention = more advertising dollars. If that upsets you or she, that's not on me. It just is what it is. Good day.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:46:04 +0000

Allow me to explain. My goal isn't to be disingenuous and piss off the other side as Dana does. I mean, I'll admit it's entertaining and it brings in the advertisers but what good does it accomplish? If you view my responses, you'll see that even in disagreement I wish to build greater understanding and not incense the other side in the process.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:28:44 +0000

I understand the conversation alright. And I never stated it was divisive for Dana to disagree with me or even vice-versa. I just said that she's a polarizing, attention-seeker. I mean, just listen to her radio show. I have, a few times... Yesterday's on-air statement that the Marines that desecrated the enemy should get 1 million cool points and that she would "drop trou and do it too" is just an another example. You said you understood it perfectly well but didn't explain how you understood it. That's why I asked and I generally agree with your assessment (given that we have a limited view of the context).

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:26:09 +0000

Be well

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:06:28 +0000

Did they or did they not create an an international incident in violation of the Geneva Convention that places our servicemen at greater risk? Sorry, but they treat drug offenders more harshly than just NJP and busting down a stripe. This is worse than that. I don't know if what they did is equivalent to a felony but it's got to be fairly close. Like I said, at least OTH but it's all speculation anyway.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:55:34 +0000

I've glanced at the MSM a little bit and I haven't seen them reporting us as babykillers, murderers, or barbarians. She's just creating a logical fallacy to deflect from her actual defense of these Marines that desecrated the insurgents with urine. Not only did she defend the disgraceful act, but she said they earned a million cool points and that she'd do it herself if given the chance. If Dana thinks she is somehow supporting the military, any inside source would tell you she isn't. It's distasteful, a black eye, and only serves to place our servicemen at risk. Sorry, but either she's stupid or she just did it to attract more attention to herself. She's not much more than an attention whore, to be honest.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:30:47 +0000

I dunno what you mean by state-run media. Corporations run the media and our government. They pay off both Republicans and Democrats alike. Doesn't much matter who we vote for as the outcomes are typically similar. Call me disenchanted.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:17:13 +0000

I agree that war is hell and thoughts such as mine did exist during WW2. It's just that media is more embedded and is distributed instantaneously. In other words, the government has less control over what's publicized. But media plays a crucial role in shaping a healthy democracy. It makes us aware of various social, political and economic activities happening around the world. Media is like a mirror, which strives to show us the bare truth and harsh realities of life. If the Afghan society doesn't speak out against the evils on their side, that's their problem. We can't control it. We can only control how we act.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:01:56 +0000

Thanks but just because one may have a nuanced perspective doesn't mean they're aiding and abetting the enemy. I'm proud to be a Marine, love my country, and have a healthy attitude toward my fellow servicemen. I just don't approve of what these four Marines did. It doesn't mean I think they should rot in hell but it doesn't mean I think they should go unpunished either. I personally don't pay much attention to the media because I think it's a bunch of crap, basically. They seem to only want to polarize so they can get more people watching and sell more advertising. Anyway, I think we're beginning to understand each other better.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:53:29 +0000

Thank you, sir.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:53:05 +0000

As a point of clarification, the Geneva Conventions do apply whether one's opponent is a signatory or not. In any case, you and I both know that they won't be put up on international charges. They'll be handled under the auspices of the UCMJ.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:48:10 +0000

Thanks for the nice response and semper fi. As stated previously, I served in between all the wars (94-98) but I know that people experience a lot of messed up crap in war and we don't know what was going on their minds. I can only imagine they did it as some kind of catharsis. But really, it never should have been recorded. That's just asinine! So what shall we call it? A prank? A severe issue? I dunno what to call it. Maybe a prank that bubbled up into a severe issue? It's on news coverage worldwide so it seems that's more likely.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:41:09 +0000

Doubtful and it doesn't matter as we have no control what they do. We can only control what we do, and that's to fight honorably.

Big Journalism : Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:39:04 +0000

It's not much different than having a felony and yet people are still able to get on with their lives although it isn't easy. There's no sugarcoating what these Marines did. I don't see them getting any less than a Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge but honestly a BCD is more likely. Anyway, it's not for us to decide. They made their bad and now they must sleep in it.