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."

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."

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...

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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).

Be well