- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The order makes no mention of transporting souvenirs across international boundaries. It clearly uses the word "acquire," which means they shouldn't be having them, period.
Also, SSgt. Gibbs is being charged with possession of mutilated body parts taken from his kills, which clearly wouldn't be possible unless it was a criminal offense.
In addition, Federal Law governs military law (in other words, the UCMJ is part of the US Code). It is a federal offense to be in possession of human remains, and this also applies to military personnel.
And it's still just an article from ****ing Rolling Stone. Do they cite any sources? 'Cuz, if not, it nothing more than an op-ed.
Actually, the order refers specifically to transporting trophies home, most specifically it pertains to weapons and ordinance.
It doesn't say anything about possessing war trophies, in theater. Do you even know what, "in theater", means? It doesn't mean a picture show.
Care to keep trying?
Absent such express authorization, no weapon, munitions, or military article of equipment obtained or acquired by any means other than official issue may be retained for personal use or shipped out of the USCENTCOM AOR for personal retention.
No I don't, but you asked me to show you why I said what I did... I gave you two sources and you're not happy... I am not spouting off a bunch of crap. So far, you're the only spouting off a bunch of bull****, saying I hate the troops, and now you're sending me a chase. If you have a point to make then make it... prove me wrong. You think you know so much more than I.
You're claiming you can take photos of war casualties and trade them inside the military, then back your bull**** up because I am done sending you links. You were in the military, and you claim superior knowledge, then go ahead and prove yourself.
My mistake you are correct.
Military personnel are sources... they are the ones making the claims, not rolling stone
DEROS stands for, Date Elligible to Return from Overseas".
You never provided any links that prove me wrong and I can't prove a negative, so you have no other option but to admit that you're totally full of dooty.
What military personel? Got any names to attach to those sources? Or, are they, "anonymous"?
Weak argument... I won't admit I am wrong until you prove I am wrong. You're claiming that the photos the kill team took were legal.. so prove it.
There are several people quoted and it's in the article...
Ok, so you're just going to insist that I prove a negative and only then, will you admit your failure?
Their resumes are also linked to the article, or are we just supposed to take RS's word for it?
LOL.. you're pathetic and you couldn't even be respectful... Ok, go ahead and show me a source that says it's legal to take photos of dead bodies in the military and trade them. Go ahead and tell me why the photos the kill team took were legal.
I am giving you the floor now.... You don't like my sources, then find some better ones and prove yourself right. I already know my source, and it said it was illegal...
:roll:
I am sure they have a longer military resume than you... In fact, you should link yours so that I know you're a reputable source of info... you could just be spouting off some more bull**** and claiming you were in the military for all I know
Ok, let me get this straight: after insisting, multiple times, that it's a violation of military regs to photograph dead bodies, then failing to provide docs to prove yourself right, you're still right because I can't prove a negative?
That's a ****in' hoot! :lamo
I believe you mean this Serenity. Unfortunately, though, this same argument has been used as an excuse to just bash the US and everything we do.complete nonsense. only an idiot would suggest that the actions of those few represent the entire U.S. military.
turn a blind eye and remain silent if that's what floats your boat. i always thought that patriotism has never been blind allegiance to people or policy. it's loyalty to an ideal - to principle. if you feel that an injustice has been committed, or ideals or principles have been betrayed, you should speak out in defense of them and speak out to preserve what you feel is great and speak out because of what you love about the country.
hating America is remaining silent. hating America is defending and excusing such actions.
But, I bet you can't prove that they do. Hell, you can't prove a goddamn thing else to support your argument.
I tried to prove it, but you judged my sources without reading them... I am not going to go further down this path with you and this petty bullcrap. If you want to show me that I am wrong, then do so like a mature adult.
Stillballin tried to prove it, too and I pointed out where he was wrong. He even admitted it. Now, you're still saying I'm am wrong?
If you're all about acting like an adult, you can link me to the source that says it's illegal to take body parts as war trophies in the DOD regulations. Hell, you can use the Coast Guard regulations, for all I care.
Stillballin tried to prove it, too and I pointed out where he was wrong. He even admitted it. Now, you're still saying I'm am wrong?
If you're all about acting like an adult, you can link me to the source that says it's illegal to take body parts as war trophies in the DOD regulations. Hell, you can use the Coast Guard regulations, for all I care.
Absent such express authorization, no weapon, munitions, or military article of equipment obtained or acquired by any means other than official issue may be retained for personal use or shipped out of the USCENTCOM AOR for personal retention.
On reading it again, I wonder how you would respond to this:
There is this particular quote. I don't think it only applies to souvenirs being sent home:
The phrase "may be retained for personal use" tells me that the order is clearly referring to trophies acquired in-theater, otherwise the fallowing phrase "shipped out of the USCENTCOM AOR" would not be necessary.
I'm not sure if I'm right or your wrong, apdst I'm just wondering what u think about this.
And if it is legal to possess and trade those photos, then why would the military confiscate them from the soldiers and tell them to stop trading them before they knew the victims were murdered???
Is there a regulation in the DOD that explains that?
I dunno...because it was a friggin' murder investigation?
From personal experience, that's not enforced. I mailed home an Iraqi army helmet and it now adorns the bar back of a little joint in Hammond, Louisiana. All without permission from the CENTCOM commander.
I'm sure that our members that are Iraq and Afghanistan vets can attest to that.
That's what I think about that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?