"Civil" Laws In A War?

Lost Cause

It's a wrap!
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Posts
30,949
The face of war isn't pretty to those that send soldiers to kill for them. Application of "civilized laws" in the brutal arena of war is hard to define. This is an example of a waste of money, time, and endangering soldiers to conduct an investigation that should not have even been considered in the first place. Next they'll require you to see a weapon before you can shoot during a firefight. Comments? (Especially from Vets)


A Canadian sniper up for the Bronze Star medal for his combat role in Afghanistan has been cleared of allegations he desecrated the body of a dead al-Qaeda fighter, the Defence Department said yesterday.

Military investigators lacked evidence for charges against Master Corporal Arron Perry and another Canadian, following allegations soldiers cut the finger off an enemy combatant and staged a "trophy" photo of the body.

The investigation also examined claims a soldier defecated on a second body. Master Cpl. Perry had been suspended pending the outcome of the probe, but was returned to duty yesterday in Edmonton.

"After a thorough investigation by the National Investigation Service, the evidence wasn't sufficient to support charges in that case," said Captain Mark Giles, a Department of National Defence public affairs officer.

Master Cpl. Perry, a member of Edmonton's 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, said he was relieved the investigation had concluded.

"I'm glad finally it's done," he said.

The sniper was part of a small group of Canadian soldiers who directly engaged the Taliban and al-Qaeda during a tour in Afghanistan. He has been credited with helping save soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division pinned down by enemy fire in Shah-i-Kot Valley.

The Canadians' sharp-shooting on al-Qaeda machine-gun nests and mortar positions were chronicled in Soldier of Fortune magazine. U.S. commanders have since recommended the snipers for Bronze Stars recognizing heroic or meritorious service.

But a few weeks after that triumph, Master Cpl. Perry was sent home under a cloud of suspicion. Allegations surfaced in mid-March that he had interfered with a body and there were reports of a photograph showing a dead enemy fighter with a cigarette in his mouth and a small sign on his chest reading "f--k terrorism."

But the investigation centred on claims a soldier had taken a finger from the body.

"The photos, while being perhaps inappropriate, that was not the main focus of the investigation. The main focus was the allegations of interfering with the dead body," Cpt. Giles said. "It's as much moral as it is legal. We always want dead bodies, whether they be enemy or friendly, to be treated with dignity."

Military investigators dug up the corpse and searched tents at the Canadian military base, seizing a knife. DNA tests were conducted to see if the knife could be tied to the body, but no link was established.

Cpt. Giles said the investigators faced significant hurdles, including having only two hours to examine the body because it was in an operational area, and the fact that about 100 U.S. and Canadian troops had access to the corpse. Investigators were not able to exhume the second body to probe claims a soldier had defecated on it, he said.

He could not explain the condition of the body, saying it had been shot and "there was also B-52 bombing all over the place on that hill; there were also mortars. Anything could have happened to that body."

He said he was not troubled by the photograph, which was published in the March edition of Soldier of Fortune. "I think it's good. I think all Canadians should see it and see what they think.

"There was a cigarette and a note put on the body. I still support it 100%. I don't agree with terrorism and I think whoever put it there, I would have no problem knowing who put it there and I wouldn't say anything."

While his colleagues were awarded medals for their service in Afghanistan, Master Cpl. Perry is still awaiting his.

www.canada.com
 
"Civil war" is an oxymoron, and the application of civil laws to warfare seem likewise oxymoronic.

"It is well that war is so awful, else we would grow too fond of it."
Robert E. Lee
 
I suppose scalping is out of the question...

Don't the Canadians have anything better to do other than copy America and debase the military and it's personnel actually doing the nasty job it is directed to do?
 
Calling cards and such...

The use of messages left behind for the enemy to induce fear has been used for centuries. The Amazons were feared because they castrated the men, the Celts pissed their vanquished, the Indians mutilated the settlers/soldiers so they could not go whole to the netherworld, and to spook anyone else coming. The AIRCAV and MACVSOG in Vietnam left calling cards on every NVA/Charlie body, and a few took body parts for war trophies. And so it goes.......
 
When people live with horror, one of the few things we have to deal with it is black humor. It is healing. When you deny them humor in healing you leave them with fewer tools to deal with what they are going through.

I have no issue with black humor.
 
I would like to think they would have more respect for the dead. But I'm also sitting very safe and comfortable in my living room.

War is war. Is it ever pretty?
 
There is a difference between rules of combat engagement and cutting off the fingers of deceased enemy combatants. I don't think saying that we will not willingly desecrate the bodies of dead enemy combatants means that this is a slippery slope to requiring our soldiers to see a weapon in the hands of a possible enemy before allowing them to fire their own weapons.

To me, there is a line that is pretty clearly crossed when you conduct such acts. We, the Western world, claim to be humane and civilized - which is why we have rules of conduct for our soldiers, and rules of engagement for combat.

This is just one of the differences between us and terrorists - or at least this is what we claim, and what I would like to believe is true. If on the other hand we indeed say that the end justifies the means, and we conduct ourselves no differently from the terrorists or our enemies, then it is no longer clear that we are any different, only stronger - and it may then be true that we should reap what we sow.
 
Back
Top