Batman Posted 28 April, 2017 Share Posted 28 April, 2017 Freed, at last! can see this one carrying on for a bit as I think his name will be cleared entirely (eventually) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 30 April, 2017 Share Posted 30 April, 2017 He was in the battlefield. It's not a tickling contest. Bloke risked his life for his country every day he was out there, and saw mates killed, and we treat him like that. Disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edprice1984 Posted 9 May, 2017 Share Posted 9 May, 2017 I have a number of mates in the armed forces and they all told me the same thing. He should have never faced a murder charge. He did do something illegal, it should have been manslaughter with an understanding that he was under severe emotional and psychological pressure at the time. I understand the arguments against any prosecution, but we have distinct and carefully thought out rules of engagement that are designed to protect our servicemen and women as well as enemy combatants and civilians. War is messy, but when someone breaks those rules they do need to face the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsdinho Posted 9 May, 2017 Share Posted 9 May, 2017 he was under severe emotional and psychological pressure at the time. . Yet he had the presence of mind to know straight away that he had broken the Geneva convention, and to tell his fellow soldiers that it doesn't go any further. Also, how can we expect enemy combatants to observe the Geneva convention, when we don't.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 May, 2017 Share Posted 9 May, 2017 Is the Geneva convention even relevant in this type of warfare when you are dealing with insurgents who are not in uniform and carry out suicide attacks posed as civilians? Marine A should have been given a slap on the wrist, told not to do it again and have kept his job IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 May, 2017 Author Share Posted 9 May, 2017 Yet he had the presence of mind to know straight away that he had broken the Geneva convention, and to tell his fellow soldiers that it doesn't go any further. Also, how can we expect enemy combatants to observe the Geneva convention, when we don't.... how can insurgents/terrorists expect us to keep a sane mind and not break the convention when they clearly do not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bath Saint Posted 9 May, 2017 Share Posted 9 May, 2017 how can insurgents/terrorists expect us to keep a sane mind and not break the convention when they clearly do not? So you're saying that our troops should behave like the insurgents and ignore the convention? If a hundred insurgents surrender, should they all be shot down in cold blood? Just checking that you think that is how our troops should behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 May, 2017 Author Share Posted 9 May, 2017 So you're saying that our troops should behave like the insurgents and ignore the convention? If a hundred insurgents surrender, should they all be shot down in cold blood? Just checking that you think that is how our troops should behave. im saying there are an incredible amount of grey areas.... In Afghanistan our troops were not fighting conventional troops, representative of government, bound by convention - One thread of logic that is not always quite as logic as some would have us believe is the mindset; "Ah yes, we're British and we abide by the rules of warfare. It's what sets us apart and makes us better". You can almost hear General Melchett saying those words whilst stood in front of a sod of turf, a 1:1 scale diorama of captured territory in the Somme. When people are killing each other on the battlefield, it's difficult to accept that anyone feels better about themselves or gains anything because, in amongst the carnage, we use a particular restrained etiquette worthy of Debrett's whilst those we fight do not. It is simply bizarre. We actually are talking about killing each other then applying rules on how it should be done. It's a bit like duelling with someone you know will turn and fire before you count out your paces and turn yourself. You'll not feel better because you were doing it "correctly", nor would it make your killer regard you in anything other than derision and disdain. Apparently this is still murder for some, despite what those in possession of the fuller facts have determined. But, on the other hand, in the same conflict it's OK to indiscriminately decimate a wedding party by using a drone 'piloted' hundreds of miles away, without recourse. How? Logic simply doesn't always come to the fore in combat as easily as it seemingly does to those elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 9 May, 2017 Share Posted 9 May, 2017 So you're saying that our troops should behave like the insurgents and ignore the convention? If a hundred insurgents surrender, should they all be shot down in cold blood? Just checking that you think that is how our troops should behave. Maybe they should be beheaded with a rusty blade and then put it on YouTube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted 9 May, 2017 Share Posted 9 May, 2017 What gets me about it is what seemed like premeditation. He did it and immediately said to his unit that it was against convention (and therefore illegal). He also seemed pretty calm and cold, not like it was 'heat of the moment'. Of course he could have been under massive stress with whatever he's been through, and that should be a mitigating factor, but it seemed wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 May, 2017 Share Posted 9 May, 2017 It's naive to think this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time out there. He only got caught because the plod stumbled across the video footage - none of his colleagues even made a complaint. It's obviously wrong but these guys shouldn't even be out there. If we send our young men and women out to these hell holes to face the worst sights imaginable we should cut them a bit of slack in situations like this. We are certainly in no position to judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 May, 2017 Author Share Posted 9 May, 2017 What gets me about it is what seemed like premeditation. He did it and immediately said to his unit that it was against convention (and therefore illegal). He also seemed pretty calm and cold, not like it was 'heat of the moment'. Of course he could have been under massive stress with whatever he's been through, and that should be a mitigating factor, but it seemed wrong. I reckon being exhausted beyond anything we would know, totally under-manned, under-equipped, under massive pressure to stay alive having seen their dismembered mates hanging from trees/lamp posts........probably shifted his moral compass at the time of kill or be killed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted 9 May, 2017 Share Posted 9 May, 2017 I wouldn't be surprised if his mind wasn't right, for all the reasons you gave. His actions might be understandable, possibly even excusable under the circumstances, but not right. We should be careful not to lower our good standards to those of the barbarians. Easy to say from afar I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 9 May, 2017 Share Posted 9 May, 2017 There are some types of manslaughter where you can only be found guilty after successfully pleading a partial defence to murder (such as diminished responsibility for instance). You can't actually be charged with that type of manslaughter, only murder. I didn't follow this case, but it might apply here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsdinho Posted 10 May, 2017 Share Posted 10 May, 2017 Just checking, in this "war or terror" ( I assume thats the excuse we are still using to being involved) - are we the goodies or the baddies? If we are the goodies, we shouldn't be killing wounded soldiers, then trying to cover it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bath Saint Posted 11 May, 2017 Share Posted 11 May, 2017 im saying there are an incredible amount of grey areas.... In Afghanistan our troops were not fighting conventional troops, representative of government, bound by convention - One thread of logic that is not always quite as logic as some would have us believe is the mindset; "Ah yes, we're British and we abide by the rules of warfare. It's what sets us apart and makes us better". You can almost hear General Melchett saying those words whilst stood in front of a sod of turf, a 1:1 scale diorama of captured territory in the Somme. When people are killing each other on the battlefield, it's difficult to accept that anyone feels better about themselves or gains anything because, in amongst the carnage, we use a particular restrained etiquette worthy of Debrett's whilst those we fight do not. It is simply bizarre. We actually are talking about killing each other then applying rules on how it should be done. It's a bit like duelling with someone you know will turn and fire before you count out your paces and turn yourself. You'll not feel better because you were doing it "correctly", nor would it make your killer regard you in anything other than derision and disdain. Apparently this is still murder for some, despite what those in possession of the fuller facts have determined. But, on the other hand, in the same conflict it's OK to indiscriminately decimate a wedding party by using a drone 'piloted' hundreds of miles away, without recourse. How? Logic simply doesn't always come to the fore in combat as easily as it seemingly does to those elsewhere. That's a well-reasoned response, thank you. Having seen the footage, as others have said, he stops, thinks about it, then shoots the man. Than he talks about it to his colleagues. Presumably, he knew he and others were carrying recording devices. So, one has to assume either he felt he had the latitude to act in that way or felt he wouldn't be caught. I just wanted to check though. Do you think, from a detached perspective, that what he did was wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 11 May, 2017 Share Posted 11 May, 2017 Flip this argument on its head and we would have a Taliban fighter ruthlessly "finishing off" a wounded British soldier. I wonder if some on here are so comfortable with that notion too? History shows us that stuff like this always happens on battlefields and I'm thinking that those of us who are fortunate enough not to be placed in this situation should be careful before criticising those who are. You should walk a mile in another man's shoes before judging him they say. But in the final analysis a war crime is a war crime - even when it involves one of our soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 11 May, 2017 Share Posted 11 May, 2017 I reckon being exhausted beyond anything we would know, totally under-manned, under-equipped, under massive pressure to stay alive having seen their dismembered mates hanging from trees/lamp posts........probably shifted his moral compass at the time of kill or be killed Yes we know that about Afghan civilians (and those various other countries being liberated), but what about Marine A? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now