The indictment accuses Green and others of raping the 14-year-old girl and burning her body to conceal their crimes. It also alleges that Green and four others stationed at a nearby checkpoint killed the girl's father, mother and 6-year-old sister.

Barker has given investigators vivid accounts of the assault. An investigator testified during a hearing in August that Barker had said the soldiers drank whiskey and played cards while plotting the assault, that Barker, Cortez and Green took turns raping the girl, and that Green shot her and her family.

Now tell me - how over the line was the above? Would it make a difference if the above had happened somewhere in the United States?

A 14 year-old was raped repeatedly, murdered, and then her body burned. Her family, including her 6 year-old sister were then killed.

Remember this? Liberators. We're going to show raqis the face of democracy.

As for this stupid comment:

And as for "crossing the line of the Geneva Convention" remember that the other side isn't exactly playing by the same rules. Not that this is a justification but it does make the situation less black and white.

That's not the point. This isn't a f**king game like checkers or dominoes. We were taught in basic training about the Geneva Convention. It is about US being honorable, treating those captured humanely so it may be reciprocated when our own are captured.

First let me say that I'm a fan.  I've been lurking for about a year now.  I can't sign up for an account because of something to do with my IP address.

I am a soldier serving in Afghanistan.  While I have opinions regarding the ICC, (I'm not a fan, because I work with European military personnel every day, and I read, or have read to me, European newspapers) I'll leave that aside for now.

I offer no excuse or justification for the horrific crime perpetrated by my brothers against this girl and her family.  I can only tell you all that events like this are why the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, and all of the rest of the Laws of Land Warfare are most assuredly NOT "quaint."

They exist for the primary reason to separate us, soldiers who kill on behalf of the state, from gangsters and thugs.  They are the primary and sometimes only, normative force for young people spending their days in a hellish situation.  The knowledge that there are standards to which I and my men must hold ourselves, and the certainty that we will be held accountable for our actions is one of the tools that I and other military leaders use to maintain discipline.

This court martial, therefore, serves many more purposes than a civilian trial does.  One, it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and holds them responsible for their actions, just like the civilian system.  Two, it serves as a reminder to all of us in uniform that we are held to a special standard, regardless of the actions or habits of the enemy.  Three, because it deals with a situation that has analogs to our own experiences, it becomes a tool for the normative function that any military force needs to maintain the discipline that I wrote of earlier.  Lastly, it allows us to get on with the mission, having (as much as is possible) restored our collective honor, without which we are nothing but a mob of similarly dressed thugs, more like a street gang than an army.

We have already treaded dangerously close to the edge of the limits of the Geneva Convention, if not already falling over it, in torturing people for information.

If a factually verifiable prosecution of soldiers for unjustified homicide and a never justifiable rape is not pursued, then we are the bad guys, too.

The plain and simple fact is that the US has long since crossed the line at the limits of the Geneva Convention.  There's no real dispute over that - had there been one, the whole Torture Act Bushie rammed through a couple months ago would have been unnecessary.  

Yes, it's easier to bash the USA for these offenses and it is certainly justifiable. It would be more justifiable if we weren't doing anything about it. However, some people can't support the ICC or the UN or other internation agrements and treaties with great exuberance because they look great on paper but are rarely good in practice. (I understand there are notable exceptions).

Yeah, Rumsfeld is a war criminal. Yeah, Gonzalez loves torture. And we feel good about ourselves for pointing this out. Who cares about the millions dying while we feel good about ourselves?

And as for "crossing the line of the Geneva Convention" remember that the other side isn't exactly playing by the same rules. Not that this is a justification but it does make the situation less black and white.

It sounds very much like an attempt at justification to me.  The other side not playing by the rules is no reason to scrap the rules.

The soldier who pleaded yesterday, was sentenced today to a life term, with possibility of parole and the maximum time he'll serve has been capped at 90 years.