Australian soldiers mutilated corpses of Afghan insurgents.

[A1Kaid]

Australian soldiers accused of mutilating corpses of Afghan insurgents

Deshakalyan Chowdhury / AFP - Getty Images, file
An Australian soldier of Omlet-c company takes position during a NATO/ISAF joint task force patrol in Afghanistan's Uruzgan province in 2010.


By Rob Taylor, Reuters

Australia's military is investigating a unit of special forces soldiers accused of mutilating the corpses of one or more insurgents killed during operations in Afghanistan, Australian state television reported on Friday.

The incident, in which the hands were allegedly cut from the body of at least one of four militants killed, took place during an operation involving Afghan forces and elite Australian Defence Force (ADF) soldiers in the southeastern province of Zabul on April 28.

The hands were taken back to the main Australian base at Tirin Kot, in nearby Uruzgan province, for identification and fingerprinting, the ABC said.

An investigator from the Australian military had previously lectured a group of special forces soldiers and told them it did not matter how fingerprints were taken, and that they could cut off the hands of the dead for fingerprinting, the ABC said.

Australia's military declined to confirm details of the incident, but said in a statement sent to Reuters that an investigation was underway into "an incident of potential misconduct" involving special forces soldiers.

"Following the mission, an incident of potential misconduct was raised through the Australian Defense Force's internal command chain," the military statement said. "The ADF takes any potential occurrence of misconduct by Australian personnel very seriously."

The mutilation of insurgent corpses by members of the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan has previously triggered complaints and unrest and in the conflict-racked nation, although often news of incidents takes days to trigger protests.

Excerpt: Australian soldiers accused of mutilating corpses of Afghan insurgents - World News

 

[A1Kaid]

Australian troops committing a war crime.


Australian troops accused of mutilating dead militant - YouTube

 

[xdrive]

You need to change the title and put in "accused" It hasn't been proven and the details of the incident hasn't been released yet.

Apparently the hands were taken for identification and fingerprinting, it's not like they were doing it for "fun" like when American soldiers pee'd on a dead body. If this is the case, war crimes have not been committed.

The Taliban don't care about international law. Infact they cite it as a weaknees and exploit it. They often be-head soldiers.

 

[kaykay]

You need to change the title and put in "accused" It hasn't been proven and the details of the incident hasn't been released yet.

Apparently the hands were taken for identification and fingerprinting, it's not like they were doing it for "fun" like when American soldiers pee'd on a dead body. If this is the case, war crimes have not been committed.

The Taliban don't care about international law. Infact they cite it as a weaknees and exploit it. They often be-head soldiers.

100% agreed.

 

[kbd-raaf]

Australian troops committing a war crime.


Australian troops accused of mutilating dead militant - YouTube

It's not a war crime.

It's interesting to note that there are many Pakistanis etc who live in the West and yet are more loyal to the interests of the people/country they left behind.

 

[Kompromat]

It's not a war crime.

Ignorance is a bliss they say.


''The prohibition of mutilating dead bodies in international armed conflicts is covered by the war crime of “committing outrages upon personal dignity” under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which according to the Elements of Crimes also applies to dead persons (see commentary to Rule 90).[8]

Many military manuals prohibit the mutilation or other maltreatment of the dead.[9] Mutilation of the dead is an offence under the legislation of many States.[10] In several trials after the Second World War, the accused were convicted on charges of mutilation of dead bodies and cannibalism.[11] The prohibition on mutilating the dead is further supported by official statements and other practice.[12]''

Geneva convention.

Customary IHL - Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead

 

[kbd-raaf]

Ignorance is a bliss they say.


''The prohibition of mutilating dead bodies in international armed conflicts is covered by the war crime of “committing outrages upon personal dignity” under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which according to the Elements of Crimes also applies to dead persons (see commentary to Rule 90).[8]

Many military manuals prohibit the mutilation or other maltreatment of the dead.[9] Mutilation of the dead is an offence under the legislation of many States.[10] In several trials after the Second World War, the accused were convicted on charges of mutilation of dead bodies and cannibalism.[11] The prohibition on mutilating the dead is further supported by official statements and other practice.[12]''

Geneva convention.

Customary IHL - Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead

Nuh uh.

I know that mutilation of the dead is considered a war crime. I am certainly not ignorant of that fact.

However it's up to an Australian court to judge if severing of the hands for identification purposes constitutes as mutilation or if it was an operational necessity.

And in my opinion it was an operational necessity and not a war crime. I believe that is how the courts will see it too.

 

[Kompromat]

Nuh uh.

I know that mutilation of the dead is considered a war crime. I am certainly not ignorant of that fact.

However it's up to an Australian court to judge if severing of the hands for identification purposes constitutes as mutilation or if it was an operational necessity.

And in my opinion it was an operational necessity and not a war crime. I believe that is how the courts will see it too.

Your opinion is not the basis of international law. World doesn't function on your moral level.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Nuh uh.

I know that mutilation of the dead is considered a war crime. I am certainly not ignorant of that fact.

However it's up to an Australian court to judge if severing of the hands for identification purposes constitutes as mutilation or if it was an operational necessity.

And in my opinion it was an operational necessity and not a war crime. I believe that is how the courts will see it too.

Is there a list of excuses given in the Geneva convention along with each war crime?

 

[kbd-raaf]

Your opinion is not the basis of international law. World doesn't function on your moral level.

Of course not, and neither does A1Kaid's opinion have any basis in the verdict that is given to these soldiers. So I will not retract my statement that this was certainly not a warcrime. Shrill cries aside.

I also noted that his opinion was in line with other people from his region and not that of other Americans or Westerners. If the situation was reversed, I have no doubt that his stance would also reverse.

Is there a list of excuses given in the Geneva convention along with each war crime?


Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/afghan...-corpses-afghan-insurgents.html#ixzz2deASqkkh

As can be noted from the original post; an ADF investigation will tell which crime was committed (unlikely to be of the war variety) or if it was even a crime.

Let me assure you that Australia is a signatory of the Geneva Convention treaties and all three additional protocols.

I am not sure if either of you guys are aware, that not all breaches of the Geneva conventions are classified as a war crime. If you would peruse the third and fourth Conventions you will see the acts which are considered to be grave breaches of the Conventions and thus defined as war crimes.

 

[xdrive]

Your opinion is not the basis of international law. World doesn't function on your moral level.

What he said is a view held by some experts.

They aren't mistreating the bodies ie inflicting unnecessary damage to them which is what is illegal under the Geneva convention. They cut off the hands for a valid reason.

The Taliban cut off peoples heads for fun and couldn't care less about the rule of law let alone international law.

 

[livingdead]

What he said is a view held by some experts.

They aren't mistreating the bodies ie inflicting unnecessary damage to them which is what is illegal under the Geneva convention. They cut off the hands for a valid reason.

The Taliban cut off peoples heads for fun and couldn't care less about the rule of law let alone international law.

are you sure cutting off hand for identification is allowed in international law?

 

[SwAggeR]

It seems someone got favour returned and wrong title as they say someone is not guilty until proven.

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

You need to change the title and put in "accused" It hasn't been proven and the details of the incident hasn't been released yet.

Apparently the hands were taken for identification and fingerprinting, it's not like they were doing it for "fun" like when American soldiers pee'd on a dead body. If this is the case, war crimes have not been committed.

The Taliban don't care about international law. Infact they cite it as a weaknees and exploit it. They often be-head soldiers.

So you are justifying their act? What difference is there between ur army and Taliban then?
Retard WEST and its ******* standards. Bringing war to a country in the name of freedom.

 

[A.Rafay]

Its totally a war crime! Cutting hands after they are dead is sick!