Domino 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. Strange comments you being an ex squaddie. I can only assume you were never at the very sharp end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 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. names dates times witnesses actual video footage having come across redactions and spin by the authorites in the past..... can't help the feeling he is some kind of patsy or stooge or vicsim, why trot out the big guns of the bbc and david cameron for some unknown squaddie and taliban? wait for his "suicide" in jail in a couple of years lots of innocents get killed by dronestrikes but nobody answers for that. why pick on marine A so close to 4000 redundancies? if i was a squaddie i would be swearing like a trooper. The story reeks - as if the British military haven't been murdering people for 100s of years - that is their fucking job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 At the very sharp end and managed to conduct myself within the confinds of the rules of engagment of theatre. This is the point, if you do not adhere to the law, you will be charged for murder. Making judgment calls on the front line is difficult in most cases but this one didnt seem so difficult with hindsight, he made the wrong choice and has to be held accountable for his actions. The majority of servicemen put in his position would have acted differently and this is what happens on a weekly basis (you dont get to see this in the media as its not really news). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 All very strange. What kind of half-wit would commit any kind of 'crime' with a camera on his head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted November 10, 2013 Author Share Posted November 10, 2013 I know it's a crime, and that it's not right, but presumably moments before this marine and his mates were firing at the same insurgent, from a distance, and calling up helicopter strikes or whatever. Had those actions finished him off they may have been praised for their bravery rather than put on trial. This is how it is completely different from a civilian murder in the high-street. It seems to me that that this guy is going to get a long prison sentence for 'breaking the rules of the game', not for killing another human. And if media reports are to be believed, which unless you think the decapitation videos are somehow make-believe they should be, the other side routinely flount the rules of the game. Have any Taliban commanders put their men on trial for disregarding the Geneva convention? I'm not in any way defending his actions - I do think they're understandable though, and through mitigation I don't think he should serve a long sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 The Taliban haven't signed the Geneva Convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted November 10, 2013 Author Share Posted November 10, 2013 The Taliban haven't signed the Geneva Convention. So it's OK then for them not to play by the rules, but our side have to follow them? A bit like one football team not signing up to the rules and being allowed to pick the ball up and run with it, while the other gets a penalty against them for doing likewise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 The Taliban haven't signed the Geneva Convention. So it's OK then for them not to play by the rules, but our side have to follow them? A bit like one football team not signing up to the rules and being allowed to pick the ball up and run with it, while the other gets a penalty against them for doing likewise. er...they're terrorists. There are no rules if you are a terrorist...that's kinda the point. Terrorists can shoot penalty takers, no questions asked in their ranks. Anyhoo...let's get to the chase. Why isn't Tony Blair in the dock with him too over Iraq? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 It seems to me that that this guy is going to get a long prison sentence for 'breaking the rules of the game', not for killing another human. And if media reports are to be believed, which unless you think the decapitation videos are somehow make-believe they should be, the other side routinely flount the rules of the game. Have any Taliban commanders put their men on trial for disregarding the Geneva convention? That's just whataboutery though. The hypothetical actions of 'the other side' had things been different have and should have no baring on the rightness or wrongness of his actions or its sentencing, for the simple fact that He broke the law that he is knowingly and willingly subject to; and If it's to be fair, the application of the law cannot be governed by hypotheticals, even likely ones. The last point is worth emphasising. Whilst you could make an argument in his defence that he acted under pressure and was simply acting in a manner little different to how the other side would act, someone else could just as easily argue that he saw an opportunity to kill another human being who, at that point, posed him no threat, rationalized it as being justified, and carried the act out simply because he thought he could get away with it. The point of maintaining 'the cold light of day' when examining such events is that neither (speculative) argument can be allowed to carry too much weight. Besides which, the "that's what they would have done" is a pretty poor justification on its own, not least because it can readily be extended to other situations. If I run someone over and speed off in a panic, am I justified in doing so because I'm convinced that's probably what the other person would do if it happened to me? Or, if I got into a scrap with some rough lad on the prom, would I be justified in spending a good five minutes playing football with his head after I'd subdued him, because that's probably what he'd do in my position? For that matter, were the G.I.s in Vietnam justified in some of the terrible things they did to the civilian population because they genuinely believed that there was no such thing as a civilian in that war, that 'orientals' didn't place as much value on life as Western folk do, and because they believed they'd be on the receiving end of similar or worse treatment were roles reversed? Of course not. The rule of law is there for a reason, and it's even more important that it's upheld in the theatre of war for the simple fact that it's a lot easier for things to go terribly, horribly wrong there than anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 It seems to me that that this guy is going to get a long prison sentence for 'breaking the rules of the game', not for killing another human. And if media reports are to be believed, which unless you think the decapitation videos are somehow make-believe they should be, the other side routinely flount the rules of the game. Have any Taliban commanders put their men on trial for disregarding the Geneva convention? . Why should our soldiers sink to the same levels of depravity as those of the opposition? If we are to act like the world police then we must uphold the law and that means prosecuting those in our own ranks who break the law. What sort of message would it send out otherwise? CrossRoss - Good to see a return to form with the wild conspiracy theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Making judgment calls on the front line is difficult in most cases but this one didn't seem so difficult with hindsight He wasn't sitting in his armchair at home on a nice Sunday morning judging other people 'with hindsight'. The Taliban haven't signed the Geneva Convention. Exactly, and just about everyone will admit that there everyday actions are barbaric. If you know that you will not be treated like a human being if you fall, you will be wound up more than is usual when in action. He made a decision, one that will have been made and accepted thousands of times, and acted upon it. Look at the status, rank, and unspoken yet obvious opinions of others who have been there to get a true view of what it is like in the environment and what is right and wrong. Now that all the pomp, ceremony and bullshit is out of the way, he'll be released in no time and will have the nod and wink of all his comrades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier 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. From Colonel Tim Collins ref; Entering anothers country to liberate - Iraq 2003. "We go to Iraq to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them. There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory. Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there. You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing. Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you. If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves. It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign. We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow. The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction. There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam. He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity. It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the Mark of Cain upon them. If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family. The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please. If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation. [Regarding the use by Saddam of chemical or biological weapons] It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack. As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business now is north. TBT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 So it's OK then for them not to play by the rules, but our side have to follow them? A bit like one football team not signing up to the rules and being allowed to pick the ball up and run with it, while the other gets a penalty against them for doing likewise. >So it's OK then for them not to play by the rules. Yes, if you sign up to the Geneva Convention, then you have to abide by their rules. The Taliban haven't signed, so the rules don't apply (to them). >but our side have to follow them... 'Our' side? It was the UK parliament who decided to go to the Middle East...**** all to do with the IoM. TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 lots of innocents get killed by dronestrikes but nobody answers for that. why pick on marine A so close to 4000 redundancies? if i was a squaddie i would be swearing like a trooper. The story reeks - as if the British military haven't been murdering people for 100s of years - that is their fucking job It reminds me of the aftermath of the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in which Colonel Dyer ordered the soldiers to fire on a crowd of pilgrims. He was offered up by the authorities as a sacrificial lamb, everything was blamed on him and the episode was treated as totally out of sync with British Army conduct. Winston Churchill called it: "an episode which appears to me to be without precedent or parallel in the modern history of the British Empire." This of course was total bollocks. The massacre was totally in keeping with British Army conduct. Dyer himself received his military training in Ireland where terrorism against civilians was included in their training manuals. And you only had to go back to the aftermath of the so-called Mutiny of 1857 for widespread terrorism against the civilian population. The real reason he was turned into a scapegoat was not to persuade the colonial subjects about how wonderful the British Army was -- they knew better -- but to convince the British people who were becoming increasingly opposed to empire-building abroad. If anything, failure to scapegoat this man would be a setback for public relations next time they want to launch us into another trumped up war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 >Exactly, and just about everyone will admit that there everyday actions are barbaric. >If you know that you will not be treated like a human being if you fall, you will be wound up more than is usual when in action. >he'll be released in no time and will have the nod and wink of all his comrades. >Exactly, and just about everyone will admit that there everyday actions are barbaric. Harold Shipman wasn't noted for his bedside manner, but he received a fair trial and treatment. >If you know that you will not be treated like a human being if you fall, you will be wound up more than is usual when in action. As a professional soldier, I'd expect him to behave professionally...at the very least in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Ironic isn't it that the UK soldiers whinge about their treatment at the hands of the Taliban; then behave in quite the same illegal manner? Two wrongs don't make a right! >he'll be released in no time and will have the nod and wink of all his comrades. Meanwhile, alledgedly his family have to cope with death threats. What price the adulation of some of your colleagues? TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.