wrighty Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24877081 Clearly I'm wrong where the law is concerned, but am I the only one to be uncomfortable with this soldier being convicted of murder? If circumstances had been reversed, and 3 Taliban had come across a wounded marine, they'd probably have tortured the guy before decapitating him. I just feel that in the 'theatre of war', you can't use the cold light of day of a court martial to judge his actions. He clearly did wrong, and should be thrown out of the marines in disgrace, but 5-10 years inside? Who benefits from that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 or alternatively, 3 Taliban may have come across a wounded marine they probably could have offered 1st aid and left him in a place where he could be found by his pals. Just as he could have probably offered 1st aid. You have been programed by the media that British army = good, Taliban = bad and have slurped up the bowl of mash that is propaganda. The 1st casualty in any war is the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forestboy Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 or alternatively, 3 Taliban may have come across a wounded marine they probably could have offered 1st aid and left him in a place where he could be found by his pals. Just as he could have probably offered 1st aid. You have been programed by the media that British army = good, Taliban = bad and have slurped up the bowl of mash that is propaganda. The 1st casualty in any war is the truth. CRAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24877081 Clearly I'm wrong where the law is concerned, but am I the only one to be uncomfortable with this soldier being convicted of murder? If circumstances had been reversed, and 3 Taliban had come across a wounded marine, they'd probably have tortured the guy before decapitating him. I just feel that in the 'theatre of war', you can't use the cold light of day of a court martial to judge his actions. He clearly did wrong, and should be thrown out of the marines in disgrace, but 5-10 years inside? Who benefits from that? The marine knowingly broke the Geneva Convention, but pleaded not guilty. Cost an expensive trial, was found guilty, so got what he deserves i.e. no reduced tarif for early guilty plea. You're right Mr Wright (no pun intended) he did clearly do wrong. Disgraced his regiment, family and himself. TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeW Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24877081 Clearly I'm wrong where the law is concerned, but am I the only one to be uncomfortable with this soldier being convicted of murder? If circumstances had been reversed, and 3 Taliban had come across a wounded marine, they'd probably have tortured the guy before decapitating him. I just feel that in the 'theatre of war', you can't use the cold light of day of a court martial to judge his actions. He clearly did wrong, and should be thrown out of the marines in disgrace, but 5-10 years inside? Who benefits from that? Why can't one use the cold light of reason and analysis to judge his actions? The opposing forces wounded man wasn't a threat and he was incapacitated and the execution was carried out in our name by a professional soldier who shot him in the chest -- not the head and admitted breaking the geneva convention saying, "Obviously this don’t go anywhere fellas. I’ve just broken the Geneva Convention" - source: The Telegraph The evidence only came to light from a third party computer repair shop working on a civilian owned laptop. I'm sure given the heat of the moment, the hatred on both sides, that this sort of behaviour goes on all the time. However it is important to maintain international law and our culture by upholding the Geneva convention and punishing the soldier for his crime. In the spirit of the convention, we should hold a higher moral standard that does not involve battlefield executions of unarmed or incapacitated prisoners of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 the story is incomplete and largely uncheckable. If I were a cynical conspiracy theorist type I may suspect someone was trying to undermine the public's confidence in British Armed Forces. Surely if a soldier killing an enemy in a warzone is murder then the responsibilty lies with whoever sent him there - the queen or PM or whoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeW Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 the story is incomplete and largely uncheckable. I'd say it's largely verifiable, there are reported facts out there. The only thing missing from the story is the actual video evidence. If I were a cynical conspiracy theorist type I may suspect someone was trying to undermine the public's confidence in British Armed Forces. If there was a cynical conspiracy theory that someone was attempting to damage the reputation of the British Armed Forces, then surely leaking the video of the execution via LiveLeaks/WikiLeaks would be a more effective (and anonymous) way of doing so? I think the evidence shows that this isn't the case. Surely if a soldier killing an enemy in a warzone is murder then the responsibilty lies with whoever sent him there - the queen or PM or whoever. A soldier killing an enemy combatant in a warzone isn't murder. A soldier killing an enemy non-combatant is, whether that be an enemy medic or first responder, an incapacitated enemy soldier, a prisoner or an unknown (or civilian!). Beyond the law, soldiers also carry the reputation of their regiment with them. It is really bad form to be murdering non-combatants and is not something the PM or Queen could possibly be held responsible for. I think it is very hard to argue this point even just ethically and morally. By this logic, if a soldier went on a killing spree and murdered 16 innocent civilians (as happened by a US soldier here last year: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/23/justice/robert-bales-afghan-killings/) then he or she could not possibly be responsible and the responsibility for their actions should be with the Queen or the PM? It is a horrific place to be, I'm sure. But if other the other professional soldiers can keep their actions in check, so should this guy have done. edit: ..badly written, cannot be arsed to correct the grammar.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24877081 Clearly I'm wrong where the law is concerned, but am I the only one to be uncomfortable with this soldier being convicted of murder? If circumstances had been reversed, and 3 Taliban had come across a wounded marine, they'd probably have tortured the guy before decapitating him. I just feel that in the 'theatre of war', you can't use the cold light of day of a court martial to judge his actions. He clearly did wrong, and should be thrown out of the marines in disgrace, but 5-10 years inside? Who benefits from that? I'd have given him a medal. He did nothing wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 or alternatively, 3 Taliban may have come across a wounded marine they probably could have offered 1st aid and left him in a place where he could be found by his pals. What planet do you live on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macmannin Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Respect to the "insurgent" for fighting against the soldiers who invaded his country 11 years ago.The British army should gets its ass out of Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 If I were a cynical conspiracy theorist type Hahaha! That made me laugh. You are a cynical conspiracy theorist!! The Western forces are supposedly the "goodies" bringing freedom to a country that has been dominated by the "evil" Taleban. Therefore we cannot have soldiers breaking the Geneva convention so openly and then do nothing about it. The voice recording from the video footage is very damming on it's own. They openly discuss what they are going to do and then decide to turn off the helmet camera. They even say that they are turning it off. They knew what they were going to do was illegal and continued to do so. They broke the law, which they clearly knew, and must be held responsible for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2thumbs Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 I fear that for a minority in our armed forces Afganistan and Iraq present the opportunity to play Call of Duty in 3D. The law exists because the sad truth is, war can bring out the worst in human nature, time and time again atrocities have occured in the name of Queen and country. We seem to believe as invaders we hold the moral high ground, how I do not know, and expect the local population to remain subservient whilst we parade around at will. We make great of the few hundred who have fallen on our side whilst conveniently forgetting the tens of thousands who have died at our hands. It is important no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel to remind those in our armed forces that there still remains a moral obligation on their part as human beings when it comes to their actions. The reality is these events rarely present themselves as they are conveniently lost in the fog of war, it would be naive of anyone to believe differently. I would hope that such a verdict sends the message that, what was done, was done so not in my name and should never be condoned, we are supposedly a more civilised society are we not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquarius Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Is it ever permissible to coldly blow someone away who is injured and unarmed? Two wrongs don't make a " Wrighty ". You assume that role reversal would of lead to torture and decapitation but you don't know that. All is fair in love and war? But is it? Where was the compassion and respect? Murder was committed and the law must be carried out otherwise random soldiers will see it as permission to personally decide who they execute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Its like robbing a post office and filming it to show your mates what you got away with. There are rules of engagement and the fact that what he told his chain of command happened on that day was completely different to what he actually did and the dullard kept the video was ultimately his demise. I am quite happy he got found out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverAgain Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Whilst he did murder someone it wasn't down his local high street on a Saturday night, it was in a war torn country, he came across an Afghan prisoner, who he put out of his misery rather than give him first aid, bad judgement call perhaps but its not worth 5-10 years in prison for. How many times have people turned a blind eye to whats happened previously? this time it was caught on camera, the only lesson learnt here is next time there will be no cameras, because no camera = no evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.