Royal Marine Found Guilty of Murder

Happyman42 · 08-11-2013 10:43PM

wazky wrote: »

Sure aren't IEDS not the "right" way to wage a war?, much better in a multi-million pound helicopter that can clip a flys wings.

Behave like a gentleman, what old boy?

mewe · 08-11-2013 10:45PM

wazky wrote: »

Sure aren't IEDS not the "right" way to wage a war?, much better in a multi-million pound helicopter that can clip a flys wings.

No drone strikes are the way lads, totally uncowardly. Who's winning? The goodies or the baddies?

tomdempsey200 · 08-11-2013 10:46PM

Mark Twain wrote: »

Its easy to quote law from the comfort of your own home. Different story when you're out in the field seeing your buddy's limbs being blown off by these cowards with IEDs.

Shooting him was a mercy. He should have left him there to die of his wounds instead.

cowards with drones?..

Fratton Fred · 08-11-2013 10:47PM

wazky wrote: »

Sure aren't IEDS not the "right" way to wage a war?, much better in a multi-million pound helicopter that can clip a flys wings.

Of course the Taliban are the good guys. Planting ieds outside a school for girls makes them freedom fighters.

Gee Bag · 08-11-2013 10:49PM

Piliger wrote: »

Totally wrong. Where in the Geneva Convention does it say this ?

Sorry to disappoint you...

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570006?OpenDocument

Geneva Convention 1949 - Protocol 1, Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

wazky · 08-11-2013 10:50PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Of course the Taliban are the good guys. Planting ieds outside a school for girls makes them freedom fighters.

Or Firing drone missiles with no disregard for where they hit, treating prisoners like wild animals etc etc etc.

Love that the instant retort is a "think of the wimmin and childer" response, it's actually pretty funny if a little sad.

Guy:Incognito · 08-11-2013 10:51PM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I think what you mean is 'let's make the rules up as we go along'.

One guy is a local with an AK47 and the other is from thousands of miles away, arrived after the local fighter was injured by a foreign death-copter, and executed him with a bullet to the chest.

Who are the terrorists again? Tell me about this alternate universe you live in...

So you can go shoot people with your AK and its cool as long as your local. ****ing foreigners can keep their noses out.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

All war is criminal imo.

So , taking WW2 as an example, at what point should countries have intervened? Or should Britain, and later America, allowed Hitler to take over the world, including their own countries?Or is it not criminal if your fighting to keep them out of your own country? "the bad man can kill all the jews he likes as long as he doesn't come for ours"?

Guy:Incognito · 08-11-2013 10:53PM

Gee Bag wrote: »

Customary law of war and the Geneva convention state that he has to be treated as prisoner of war. The marine who shot him new this. What might have happened if the tables were turned is not relevant.
.

What "might" have happened? Are their any cases of the Taliban being lenient with wounded captured soldiers?

Gee Bag wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint you...

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570006?OpenDocument

Geneva Convention 1949 - Protocol 1, Article 3

IMO the Geneva convention should only apply if both sides adhere to it.If you wont play by its rules you should be able to expect it's protection.

Gee Bag · 08-11-2013 11:19PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What "might" have happened? Are their any cases of the Taliban being lenient with wounded captured soldiers?

I doubt it, what the Taliban might/would do is not relevant to this case.

IMO the Geneva convention should only apply if both sides adhere to it.If you wont play by its rules you should be able to expect it's protection.

I'd say most people would agree with you. I for one was surprised that this chap was convicted of murder.

Guy:Incognito · 08-11-2013 11:36PM

Gee Bag wrote: »

I doubt it, what the Taliban might/would do is not relevant to this case.

.

I bet if there was a history of them sparing the lives of foreign soldiers it would be found to be relevant though.

Seachmall · 08-11-2013 11:40PM

blaze1 wrote: »

still how can the soldier who is doing his job be charged.

Well the whole point of the case is that executing wounded enemy combatants is not part of his job description.

Like it or not British soldiers are held to a higher standard than the Taliban.

That's probably a good thing.

Guy:Incognito · 08-11-2013 11:42PM

Seachmall wrote: »

That's probably a good thing.

For the Taliban it is. Possibly for the peace of mind for the people back home, watching and judging on the tv and internet too.

Karl Stein · 08-11-2013 11:43PM

Piliger wrote: »

Alternative to yours. Reality.

You're watching too much Sky/Fox news. You might wanna check into reality now-and-again so you don't completely lose touch.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Of course the Taliban are the good guys. Planting ieds outside a school for girls makes them freedom fighters.

The Taliban are pre-historic scum - nobody has defended the Taliban as you suggest.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So you can go shoot people with your AK and its cool as long as your local. ****ing foreigners can keep their noses out.

We in the west are responsible or what we do. They are responsible for what they do. What exactly is it you're trying to say? That we're also responsible for what they do too?

So , taking WW2 as an example, at what point should countries have intervened? Or should Britain, and later America, allowed Hitler to take over the world, including their own countries?Or is it not criminal if your fighting to keep them out of your own country? "the bad man can kill all the jews he likes as long as he doesn't come for ours"

We could have started by not having meat grinder wars in the first place. We could have ended WWI without sewing the seeds for WWII. How far back do you want to go?

Gee Bag · 08-11-2013 11:44PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I bet if there was a history of them sparing the lives of foreign soldiers it would be found to be relevant though.

I genuinley have no idea what this means.

Guy:Incognito · 08-11-2013 11:46PM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

We could have started by not having meat grinder wars in the first place. We could have ended WWI without sewing the seeds for WWII. How far back do you want to go?

Waffly bull. Hitler decided to take over Europe and kill a **** load of Jews. Seeing as "all war is a crime" , should he have been left too it?

Piliger · 08-11-2013 11:46PM

Gee Bag wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint you...

Nonsense.

The Taliban are just a bunch of international terrorists not representing any population, and the Convention does not apply to them. They are essentially terrorists and saboteurs and mass murderers, and the Convention is not in force, despite what the politically correct lobby screams.

"A handful of individuals attacking a police station would not be considered an armed conflict subject to this article, but only subject to the laws of the country in question" ::Pictet, Jean (1958). Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: Commentary. International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 2009-07-15.

That is not to say they don't deserve some human rights. But in this case the terrorist was in the midst of a conflict and deserved what he got.

wazky · 08-11-2013 11:47PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Waffly bull. Hitler decided to take over Europe and kill a **** load of Jews. Seeing as "all war is a crime" , should he have been left too it?

He was "left too it" for a good while actually, until he started killing the "right" people.

Seachmall · 08-11-2013 11:48PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

For the Taliban it is. Possibly for the peace of mind for the people back home, watching and judging on the tv and internet too.

And for the families of those killed on Bloody Sunday.

Guy:Incognito · 08-11-2013 11:50PM

Gee Bag wrote: »

I genuinley have no idea what this means.

I've read it back a few times, still makes perfect sense. I'll try another way. What the Taliban might or might not do in the same situation isn't relevant in your eyes because it wouldn't help your point. If they were the type to spare enemy soldiers, nurse them back to health and send them home, you'd use it as more evidence of the savagery of the British soldier.

Guy:Incognito · 08-11-2013 11:53PM

wazky wrote: »

He was "left too it" for a good while actually, until he started killing the "right" people.

But sure its criminal to step in and try stop him.

Gee Bag · 08-11-2013 11:53PM

Piliger wrote: »

Nonsense.

The Taliban are just a bunch of international terrorists not representing any population, and the Convention does not apply to them. They are essentially terrorists and saboteurs and mass murderers, and the Convention is not in force, despite what the politically correct lobby screams.

"A handful of individuals attacking a police station would not be considered an armed conflict subject to this article, but only subject to the laws of the country in question" ::Pictet, Jean (1958). Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: Commentary. International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 2009-07-15.

That is not to say they don't deserve some human rights. But in this case the terrorist was in the midst of a conflict and deserved what he got.

First off, like them or not the Talliban are fighting in their own country against an occupying force. They are generally classified as an insurrgent force. Other than Pakistan I'm pretty sure they aren't fighting in any other countries.

I have no idea what that quote refers to or the context in which it was made. A link would be nice.

If British military police say it applies and a British military court says it applies then I think it is safe to assume that the Geneva Convention does apply. I'd hardly consider the British military paid up members of the PC brigade

Piliger · 08-11-2013 11:53PM

wazky wrote: »

He was "left too it" for a good while actually, until he started killing the "right" people.

Oh you mean the day he invaded Poland ? Yeah right.

Fratton Fred · 08-11-2013 11:53PM

wazky wrote: »

Or Firing drone missiles with no disregard for where they hit, treating prisoners like wild animals etc etc etc.

Love that the instant retort is a "think of the wimmin and childer" response, it's actually pretty funny if a little sad.

No, what is sad is the belief that because it's the Brits, it must be wrong.

The Taliban have killed numerous times the number of civilians ISAF have, including many many people based on fanatical religious beliefs.

Guy:Incognito · 08-11-2013 11:55PM

Gee Bag wrote: »

First off, like them or not the Talliban are fighting in their own country against an occupying force. They are generally classified as an insurrgent force.

Those bloody evil Afgani schoolkids need to be driven from the lands they are occupying.

Fratton Fred · 08-11-2013 11:56PM

Gee Bag wrote: »

First off, like them or not the Talliban are fighting in their own country against an occupying force. They are generally classified as an insurrgent force. e

ISAF is there in support of the Afghanistan government, training and supporting the Afghan army and police. The Taliban are insurgents.

Busted Flat. · 08-11-2013 11:56PM

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Brainwash kids to kill and them prosecute them for it.

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Geneva convention my hole.

All war is criminal imo.

The problem is the brits never adhered to the Geneva Convention, they regarded themselves above that. But they expect everyone else to respect it. Such is the brits regard for human rights, they have no idea what it means.

mewe · 08-11-2013 11:56PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I've read it back a few times, still makes perfect sense. I'll try another way. What the Taliban might or might not do in the same situation isn't relevant in your eyes because it wouldn't help your point. If they were the type to spare enemy soldiers, nurse them back to health and send them home, you'd use it as more evidence of the savagery of the British soldier.

Whereas you use the savagery of some of the Talibans actions to justify what this British soldier did. Two wrongs don't make a right man and it's you who's using what the Taliban have done to validate your point.

Fratton Fred · 08-11-2013 11:57PM

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The problem is the brits never adhered to the Geneva Convention, they regarded themselves above that. But they expect everyone else to respect it. Such is the brits regard for human rights, they have no idea what it means.

Coming from an IRA fanboy, that is incredibly rich.

Piliger · 08-11-2013 11:58PM

Gee Bag wrote: »

First off, like them or not the Talliban are fighting in their own country against an occupying force. They are generally classified as an insurrgent force.

Almost none of them are native Afghans. Most are foreign terrorists.

I have no idea what that quote refers to or the context in which it was made.

An international lawyers commentary on the GC.

If British military police say it applies and a British military court says it applies then I think it is safe to assume that the Geneva Convention does apply. I'd hardly consider the British military paid up members of the PC brigade

On the contrary there is every evidence that they are. If they were ever taken to the international courts there is zero chance they would ever be found guilty based on the wording of the GC. imho.

Anyway ... with respect I think we have bashed that one to a standstill. I'm happy to move on

PizzamanIRL · 08-11-2013 11:58PM

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Charged with murder for shooting a fella armed with an Ak47 who'd possibly supports the throwing of acid into the faces of school girls etc.

Bit much.

Key word - possibly.

Not that it matters.

Royal Marine Found Guilty of Murder

Comments