PDA

View Full Version : Royal Marine Commando



Kevin Milkins
09-Nov-13, 08:30
What are the opinions of fellow orgers on the possible life sentence that could be handed out to a Royal Marine Commando for killing a wounded insurgent?

I was reading this rant that I have copied and pasted from Facebook and cant make my own mind up what his sentence should be.

(Quote)I don't normally use social media to vent my spleen but I feel the need to have my say about the guilty verdict handed down to a Royal Marine Sergeant today.

Why is it when a submarine commander throws a couple of £1m tomahawk missiles into Baghdad, Belgrade or Tripoli killing innocent men women and children, not combatants, not enemy soldiers but unarmed civilians, no charges are brought even though when the order to fire is given everyone in the command chain knows innocents will be killed? He just sails home in the comfort of his metal box to pick up his OBE. Or when the pilot uses his laser guided missile to take out a van full of wedding guests, or even if they turn out to be insurgents, militants combatants or whatever, how can the pilot know that these people pose a real threat to life or property, where are the rules of engagement here? And what about the targeted killing of a Taliban leader as he sits in his car with a few of his muckers? Am I missing something here, what is the difference? A soldier on the ground where the fighting is real, commits a stupid act of combat induced madness and now faces a life sentence! The pilot flies home for tea and medals and in a bunker somewhere in the USA a guy at a keyboard flies his drone back to base to cheers from his fellow gamers!

The rank hypocrisy of the whole thing stinks. I hope the soldier's legal team launch a vigorous appeal, citing PTSD or whatever it takes to get this travesty overturned. Meanwhile no doubt the British government will be desperately trying to locate the family of this 'victim' so they can hand them a big wad of taxpayers cash or offer them a new life here in the UK

Rant over!(Unquote)

mi16
09-Nov-13, 08:50
The marine should absolutely face justice for murdering this insurgant.
He states in the audio transcript that the has contrvened the Geneva convention, he knew exactly what he was doing.
The injured insurgant should have been given first aid by the troops not a round in the chest.
They are Royal Marines of Great Britian and are supposed to act within the law.
Its little wonder we have suicide bombers looking to take revenge on us when we are acting like this, and I am not stupid enough to think that this is an isolated incident.

RagnarRocks
09-Nov-13, 09:22
Firstly the Marine in question should face a stiff sentence for murder and his actions are not those expected of a modern day soldier.But in that particular country it is not uncommon for the one Taliban to surrender only to have his mates open fire when you go to arrest the insurgent. the acts of barbarism carried out on a daily basis by insurgents are an awful lot for the troops on the ground to deal with.Combat is a dirty business the Geneva Convention is in place for a good reason but the Taliban are no respecters of it occasionally in any combat situation troops can go over the top and loose perspective or be seized by the red mist although neither seem to apply in this situation, I do agree with the marines when they say in the recordings he wouldn't of treated them any better.I think its about time civilians started to back our troops and give them more support rather than use these ooccasional incidents to grind political axes on them.

M16 should remember the Taliban where bombing,shooting, raping, beheading, torturing, and a whole of litany of skinnings amputations and various other things we don't need to describe here long before the Royal Marines ever set foot in Afghanistan. They are a group of political and religious zealots with a handful of sociopaths and psychopaths thrown In for good measure I can assure M16 his life expectancy if he came face to face with them may be longer than he expected dependant on how they wanted to kill him.
I hope with this weekend being rememberance weekend we can use this as an example of how hard combat is on troops and how good men can make bad decisions,but on top of everything this is not used as an excuse to slam our troops stationed all over the world serving their country.

mi16
09-Nov-13, 09:30
I totally agree with your statement on the Taliban and their extremes and thet if she be on the other foot the marines would have been treated much worse.
However it does not make it right and he should face the full force of the law, we are better than this and havign such things in the public eye does nothing to help our cause.
My point was that if anything it will go to further radicalise more from this Country.
I do back out lads 100% but they must obey the rules of war.

RagnarRocks
09-Nov-13, 09:35
And that is why he is on trial and has been found guilty,when the authorities hear about these rare incidents they react to them and the perpetrators are brought to justice.The events in Afghanistan aren't an excuse to radicalise in this country anyone who goes down that route have a desire in them already its just an excuse.

mi16
09-Nov-13, 11:03
And that is why he is on trial and has been found guilty,when the authorities hear about these rare incidents they react to them and the perpetrators are brought to justice.The events in Afghanistan aren't an excuse to radicalise in this country anyone who goes down that route have a desire in them already its just an excuse.

Im not saying it is an excuse for radicalisation of Muslims in the UK but I do think it could go some way to tipping an individual off the fence onto the side of the extremists.
Even if not it will certainly not have done the UK's image any good.
However as you say the Marine A has been found guilty of murder and will no doubt be sentanced accordingly, which is about as much as we can do in this case.
What I dont get is how Marines B & C were aquitted, they were asked if they wanted to aid the man and they decined then C offered to shoot him in the head, surely they are also obliged to report Marine A for murdering the insurgant?

RagnarRocks
09-Nov-13, 11:28
Ok M16 there you are stood by an injured Taliban who has just been chewed up by an apache he is injured you may well have been in a protracted firefight with this man and his buddies. A bit of dark humour between servicemen is quite normal and something civilians do not understand, also feeling like shooting him isn't the same as doing it. So lay off the high horse civvy morals the other two did not discharge weapons and do you suggest that they argue with a man who has a loaded weapon and has just shot someone. You are a man who obviously has never experienced the stress of those situations so hasn't a clue how to react. If you read the reports one of them did give first aid although it was limited. Reality is if one of them hadn't been tool enough to wear a head cam they would never have been caught as no body has been recovered .

mi16
09-Nov-13, 11:34
do you suggest that they argue with a man who has a loaded weapon and has just shot someone. .

No i do not suggest that, but what stopped them from reporting it afterwards?


Reality is if one of them hadn't been tool enough to wear a head cam they would never have been caught as no body has been recovered .

Which is the part I find most concerning!

RagnarRocks
09-Nov-13, 11:41
Well I suspect they didn't have a lot of empathy for a man who a few minutes before had been firing at them call me hard and nasty but I'd of walked off and left him there to bleed out.Well I shouldn't be overly concerned as its quite apparent you're never likely to be in a situation like that better of leaving it the men who can and do,do the job whilst you sleep in your comfy bed and worry about what's going on.

mi16
09-Nov-13, 11:50
The fact you are ex forces and so nonchalant about this murder is equally worrying.
What is the "by the book" procedure these guys should have followed on coming across a seriously injured enemy?

golach
09-Nov-13, 11:57
The fact you are ex forces and so nonchalant about this murder is equally worrying.
What is the "by the book" procedure these guys should have followed on coming across a seriously injured enemy?

Strange that you are showing more sympathy to a Taliban terrorist, then the killing of a pet pig

RagnarRocks
09-Nov-13, 12:03
Strange that you are showing more sympathy to a Taliban terrorist, then the killing of a pet pigI think M16 should go to Arbroath for an evening and spout off in one of the bars his pro Taliban sympathies .... Quite sickening this country has spawned creatures like him !

RagnarRocks
09-Nov-13, 12:20
There you go M16 read for yourself http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/

mi16
09-Nov-13, 12:25
I think M16 should go to Arbroath for an evening and spout off in one of the bars his pro Taliban sympathies .... Quite sickening this country has spawned creatures like him !
Please point out where I have spouted anything pro Taliban.

mi16
09-Nov-13, 12:31
Strange that you are showing more sympathy to a Taliban terrorist, then the killing of a pet pig

Euthanasia of an animal is legal, execution of a human being is not.
FWIW I have no sympathy whatsoever for the insurgant (it is highly likely he would have died regardless) however I do have condemnation for all involved in his illegal execution.

RagnarRocks
09-Nov-13, 13:12
Alas M16 all you want to be is a keyboard hero and you're not very good at that.....

mi16
09-Nov-13, 13:19
Alas M16 all you want to be is a keyboard hero and you're not very good at that.....

keyboard hero??
is that like guitar hero for the piano?

RagnarRocks
09-Nov-13, 13:20
It means you're a spineless wimp who hides behind a keyboard

mi16
09-Nov-13, 13:23
It means you're a spineless wimp who hides behind a keyboard

Are you not using a keyboard to post here?
I am not posting threats or indeed posting anything contreversial, just condeming the murder of a person.
My goodness you are an agressive man.

jacko
09-Nov-13, 13:35
I have my own private thought s on this killing, (or execution of a dying terrorist) i think lot s of happening s over there were swept under the carpet , as i think this one should have been. call it a mercy killing of a terrorist.this episode should never have left Afghanistan .personally i would have liked the Yanks to nuke the whole f@@@@@g place and leave nothing but a big hole . then no brave sodliers would have needed to die . Or better still we kept the hell outta the place and let them kill murder rape and brutilise themselves. So lets hear ya all gang up on me now. lol

Alrock
09-Nov-13, 13:51
I do wonder how much sympathy there would be for the "Insugant" if the roles were reversed & he had put a bullet into an injured British soldier?

Personally I would say "Manslaughter with diminished responsibility"

radiohead
09-Nov-13, 15:26
Definately a sentence befitting murder in this case, all soldiers have rules in combat and in barracks, and thus should not be above the law. The argument that the other soldiers shouldn't challenge the sergeant carrying a loaded weapon is also worrying, I was taught the lesser ranks look up to their superiors because of the experience they have, not because they may get a bullet themselves if they don't.

Gronnuck
09-Nov-13, 17:51
The major mistake the marines made was in getting caught because the helmet camera was in use. Worse incidents than this happen in war. Despite all the arguements we should be careful how we judge until we have yomped through a couple of operational tours in their boots.

mi16
09-Nov-13, 18:18
The major mistake the marines made was in getting caught because the helmet camera was in use. Worse incidents than this happen in war. Despite all the arguements we should be careful how we judge until we have yomped through a couple of operational tours in their boots.

Surely commiting murder was the major mistake.

RagnarRocks
09-Nov-13, 18:30
Surely commiting murder was the major mistake.
Have you ever served in the military ?
How do you think you'd reacte if you and your comrades had been under heavy fire, infact so heavy you had to call in an apache gunship to bail you out of a very sticky position, then find the man who has been firing at you is laying there injured. All this after suffering months of daily attacks seeing your friends blown up or shot and thier bodies defiled .Could you in all honesty say that you wouldn't have more than the slightest desire to effect battlefield justice.
The reality is M16 that you haven't a clue how you'd reacte so please don't judge men who have seen more hell in a few days than hopefully you'll see in a lifetime.
No one is suggesting murder is ok but a war zone transcends normal modes of behaviour and therefor many servicemen will understand the Marines actions.
If you wish to Condemn then sign up do a few tours then come back and criticise from a position of knowledge.

mi16
09-Nov-13, 19:30
Have you ever served in the military ?.
No


How do you think you'd reacte if you and your comrades had been under heavy fire, infact so heavy you had to call in an apache gunship to bail you out of a very sticky position, then find the man who has been firing at you is laying there injured. All this after suffering months of daily attacks seeing your friends blown up or shot and thier bodies defiled .Could you in all honesty say that you wouldn't have more than the slightest desire to effect battlefield justice..

yes no doubt there would be a desire there to see the chap off


The reality is M16 that you haven't a clue how you'd reacte so please don't judge men who have seen more hell in a few days than hopefully you'll see in a lifetime.
No one is suggesting murder is ok but a war zone transcends normal modes of behaviour and therefor many servicemen will understand the Marines actions. .

You are obviously a lot more qualified than me on these matters however I have zero desire to see out my days in the goulag therefore woudl like to think that I could leave it as a desire to see him off and not turn myself into a murderer. But then again perhaps I would lose the plot as Marine A did and commit murder, if I did I would deserve the jail for it as he does


If you wish to Condemn then sign up do a few tours then come back and criticise from a position of knowledge.

I do condem them for their actions that day, I have no desire to do any tours, if I did I would have volunteered to join the forces, signed on and did my training in combat and conduct, the same as these men have done.

radiohead
09-Nov-13, 19:32
That may be the case on the battlefield, but the instititionalised bullying that saw friends of mine end their own lives after signing up confirms that there are many bullying, psycopaths hiding their mental illnesses in uniform, and on forums ;)

mi16
09-Nov-13, 19:36
some not hiding it so well

cptdodger
09-Nov-13, 21:43
I have never served in the military, or been in a war zone. I will state that first. When I first heard about this, I wondered how the powers that be differentiate between killing a member of the taliban (or whoever) in a war zone, which presumably is legal, and then killing a member of the taliban, and that turns into a murder charge. Well, that was until I heard the recording being played. Now, while I can sympathise with soldiers that have lost members of their company, which they had, I could understand it more if one of them had lost their temper and shot the guy. But what I found chilling was, they were standing around discussing what they were going to do and laughing about it. There is no diminished responsibility about this, the marine knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew beyond doubt that he was breaking the Geneva Convention by doing it. And apart from not destroying the evidence from the camera, that body to this day has not been found as far as I know. I know if it it had been the other way round the taliban would not have thought twice about doing that to one of our men, but we are supposed to be better than them.

jacko
09-Nov-13, 22:09
our soldiers are better than them. much better. only difference is that their hands are tied by red tape whilst the taliban kill indiscriminately, any one gets in their way , just kill , maim , murder , whether its their own kinfolk in the firing range or innocent bystanders , do,snt matter they just kill whomever.

cptdodger
09-Nov-13, 22:30
our soldiers are better than them. much better. only difference is that their hands are tied by red tape whilst the taliban kill indiscriminately, any one gets in their way , just kill , maim , murder , whether its their own kinfolk in the firing range or innocent bystanders , do,snt matter they just kill whomever.

I am not disagreeing with you in regards to the taliban, as I said they would not think twice about doing that. However, that marine for whatever reason, chose to ignore that red tape, and he will have to pay the price for that.

RagnarRocks
09-Nov-13, 22:34
It should be noted that the Taliban as a terrorist group and specifically not being signatories of the geneva convention do not actually get covered by said convention.
As a civilised nation we expect our soldiers to abide by it and get punished as is the case in this instance if they don't.

Django
09-Nov-13, 23:14
The Royal Marines killed an injured insurgent ??

Oh dear. How sad.

That said, they broke the laws we have signed up to and there have to be consequences to that. I wish that wasn't so, I am all for slotting the Taliban on sight because they play by their own rules, and the only thing the Taliban would have given that Marine had the positions been reversed would have been a lingering death at the blunt end of a knife followed by his body parts hung from a tree after being gagged with his genitals (a favourite trick of the Taliban). I dont see the same outrage against Afghan policemen who turn on our servicemen and women and kill them in cold blood. On one hand we ask our troops to do an impossible job in Afghanistan, against a ruthless enemy, with their hands tied behind their back rules of engagement wise. We train troops to be agressive and then expect them to come over all Dr Kildare when someone who was trying to kill them a few seconds before is bleeding out. Its easy for people who have never held a rifle to judge from a distance when they have not the first clue how it feels to be in that situation, I am not saying what they did is right but it is perfectly understandble in my view.

Moira
09-Nov-13, 23:20
It should be noted that the Taliban as a terrorist group and specifically not being signatories of the geneva convention do not actually get covered by said convention.
As a civilised nation we expect our soldiers to abide by it and get punished as is the case in this instance if they don't.

Absolutely RagnarRocks. Much respect to you and your comrades.

There's much more to any story than meets the headlines in the press.

I'm watching the Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance right now and will always wear my Poppy with pride.

neilsermk1
11-Nov-13, 13:57
It should be noted that the Taliban as a terrorist group and specifically not being signatories of the geneva convention do not actually get covered by said convention.
As a civilised nation we expect our soldiers to abide by it and get punished as is the case in this instance if they don't.
Yep Ragnar, you hit the nail on the head. We do expect our professional Army to act in accordance with the Geneva Convention. It's what separates our forces from the scum they have to deal with.
A hellish situation for those concerned, but I have not seen any mitigation from what has been made public, and I will be surprised if any leniency is shown.

Kevin Milkins
11-Nov-13, 14:03
The debate seems to be rampant in the media and I still haven't made my mind up on what I think of the whole saga because I haven't yet seen the video tape and recording of the incident.

I was reading an article from the Huffington Post that makes me sway a bit.

Quote

Like the majority of the UK, I was disturbed by the recent conviction of a Royal Marine Commando, charged with murder. However, as much as the conviction in the eyes of the law and polite society is correct, and the law as we know must be upheld, it still leaves an extremely unpleasant taste in the mouth, for there is much more to the background of these incidents than meets the eye. It may be open and shut in the legal sense, but is not open and shut in the moral and ethical sense. The test maybe the law, but the proving ground is the battlefield. Now before you start getting all excited into thinking I am about to justify murder, wait one second and consider if you will some social mitigation.

The murder happened five months into an arduous six-month tour of Helmand province in 2011 with Marines A, B and C based at a command post. Their task was to bring stability and security to Helmand. Against this backdrop, the threat posed by so called enemy combatants determined to rid Afghanistan of ISAF forces continued as the annual fighting season began that summer. Every day patrols would come under attack.

The troops were expected to treat injured insurgents with dignity and respect. Those are the rules set out by international law, the Geneva Convention and the rules set out by the British Military, which we all as service personnel try to abide by. Those are the rules and rightly so.

Marine B was under attack every single day and there had been 10 casualties in just one 24-hour period.

Marine C said the deaths of his troop commander and the serious injuries suffered by two others in the bomb blast were 'pretty devastating'. "It was a serious loss to both our command post, the troop and the company four people that we were all good friends with, absolutely devastating really," he said. Obviously the gravity of the situation had further instilled the reality - things could very easily spiral out of control.

In total, the British troops carried out thousands of patrols, deployed on 92-partnered operations with the Afghan National Security Forces, and discovered nearly 10 tonnes of explosive. They also built 40 new schools and eight new clinics.

So, what makes young men shoot wounded and dying combatants on the battlefield, and not afford them the gentlemanly conduct afforded the enemies of yesteryear? The Germans, Argentines, Italians have all felt the brunt of the might of the British Military machine, all had their vast armies dissembled by our gallant advancing troops. Did atrocities happen? Sure. Were they limited to the few? Of course. What then makes this incident different? Where is the gentlemanly conduct, the white flag of surrender, the handshake of truce, the cup of tea with the British POW camp commander as you are led to medical attention and then custody?

I will tell you where it is. It is on rose-tinted old movies portraying the good ole chaps and their advance to contact in a glamorous-romanticized-chivalrous era of crap.

In reality, war is bloody, noisy, messy, the stinking stench of cordite and burnt flesh, the noise of attack helicopters overhead and 'danger close' bombing runs, the fizz of shoulder mounted rockets and whacks of RPGs, the screams of the enemy and your own "man down" or "help me please" or "I'm bleeding to death"; the petrified voices of young soldiers trying to attract a medic to come to their aid.

Expeditionary war is a dirty, bloody, abhorrent affair that involves young men taking metal projectiles laced with fast burning metals to cause as much sharp and blunt penetrative trauma of their flesh as possible, involving occasionally a close with the enemy that involves drawing bayonets. The reader will probably be unaware that British troops have killed with the bayonet only this last year! Out of ammunition and forced into such close proximity with enemy combatants that the order to fix bayonets was given and acted upon.

The Taliban does not like surrendering. It hides behind non-combatants, and often lays down mortally injured where it fell with hidden grenades and booby traps waiting to take you with them to their paradise.

But what makes this story in Afghanistan all the more poignant is that we are not fighting a uniformed, gallant, courageous and disciplined enemy who wants to toil laboriously in combat by aligning itself with the Geneva Conventions or rules of war. They do not follow any rule or any law, save as for the one where it is acceptable to hide behind women and children, sit inside a mosque and use it as a fortification. Where an enemy that thinks nothing of executions in public of captured British and American soldiers or citizens, sawing their heads off whilst they are still alive and putting images all over the internet. Half the American and British soldiers I know do not want to be there, we are not fighting for the liberty of our sceptred isle, or for freedom. We are fighting a ridiculous insurgency with ridiculous odds, without much provenance to support the counter terrorism theory behind it all, and with cowards in Whitehall pretending to understand leadership. It is a game with us all pretending it is honorable and just. Well guess what? None of it is just, honourable or chivalrous. Get real people.

During this tour, where the murder occurred, seven marines were killed with more than 40 injured, many maiming injuries. Marines A, B and C saw the deaths of their company commander and another marine, who died together in a massive IED blast.

The Taliban hung body parts from dead and wounded Marines on trees. A mark of tribal, archaic and medieval misery not seen since Vietnam and Korea.

Marine B said he was under attack 'every single day' and there had been 10 casualties in just one 24-hour period. He said, "My friend's legs had been put in a tree; I picked my mate's brains up. I have no good memories of that tour. My way of coping with that was to put it away in a box at the back of my head and essentially as best as I could delete it from memory."

So, do we need to ask what makes men with adrenaline coursing through their bodies in the spur of the moment commit acts like this? What made this marine shoot a man at close range in the heart, euthanising him from his already presumed fatal injuries? Let's explore that for a moment.

We are raised to know that spitting at someone on the streets is assault; we are not witness to citizens dying from disease in the streets of London as our forefathers were. We live healthily and well with one of the longest life expectancies in the world. Yet every now and then, we send our brave, well adjusted, socially developed, none-spitting-at-people-in-the-street troops into combat with bayonets fixed and teeth gritted, to thrust, cut and penetrate enemies of the state. Medieval brutality occurs, a prime evil default setting comes to the fore, in stark contrast to back home. We send these troops into harms way to watch their friends cut up and hung in trees, to see their mates die by the roadside begging for their mothers. Then when one of them silences a dying fatally injured combatant with a single gunshot to his chest while blubbing a few stupid and bravado riddled words, showing off no doubt to the younger marines, we sentence him by the same standards we would back home. Murder. Life in prison.

We allow ourselves to enter these vacuums and then seek to legitimize, criminalize and militarize the same. That surely is the one true crime.

Let those who are without sin, cast the first stone.
Unquote

Flynn
11-Nov-13, 15:08
No matter how barbaric the enemy, we have to be better than them. That includes medically treating those we were fighting only minutes before.Once we descend into their barbarism we no longer have the moral high ground to condemn them.

cptdodger
11-Nov-13, 15:17
Kevin, if you get a chance, listen to the recording of the Marines speaking. And also what you have to take into consideration is, the jury was not made up of "civvies" it was made up of Military personnel, who have been in the same situation as these Marines probably time and time again. It was them, not us or the press that found this Marine guilty as charged. No doubt it could not have been easy for them, but as neilsermk1, points out, The Geneva Convention is what separates our Armed Forces, from the rest.

RecQuery
11-Nov-13, 15:21
I actually can not believe some morons on here are arguing against the Geneva Convention. This board has now officially gone full retard. Are some of you actually suggesting war crimes are perfectly acceptable if "our boys" are committing them. Most people seem to be saying "the Taliban don't play by the Geneva convention, so we don't have to either". People are talking about what 'they' would do if the situation was reversed, because we obviously want to be just like 'them' don't we?

The guy who captured it all reached up to 'turn off' his headcam before doing it. Turns out it was already off and he switched it on instead. They specifically mention the Geneva Convention on the video.

Makes you wonder how much of this stuff goes on when they don't screw up like this and get away with it.

mi16
11-Nov-13, 15:32
I actually can not believe some morons on here are arguing against the Geneva Convention. This board has now officially gone full retard. Are some of you actually suggesting war crimes are perfectly acceptable if "our boys" are committing them. Most people seem to be saying "the Taliban don't play by the Geneva convention, so we don't have to either". People are talking about what 'they' would do if the situation was reversed, because we obviously want to be just like 'them' don't we?

The guy who captured it all reached up to 'turn off' his headcam before doing it. Turns out it was already off and he switched it on instead. They specifically mention the Geneva Convention on the video.

Makes you wonder how much of this stuff goes on when they don't screw up like this and get away with it. If does indeed, scary business, but heck if you don't agree with the murder then you must be a Taliban sympathetic also.

golach
11-Nov-13, 15:36
Kevin, if you get a chance, listen to the recording of the Marines speaking. And also what you have to take into consideration is, the jury was not made up of "civvies" it was made up of Military personnel, who have been .

There is no "jury" at a Military Court marital a panel Judges made up of senior officers.

Django
12-Nov-13, 06:48
I actually can not believe some morons on here are arguing against the Geneva Convention. This board has now officially gone full retard. Are some of you actually suggesting war crimes are perfectly acceptable if "our boys" are committing them. Most people seem to be saying "the Taliban don't play by the Geneva convention, so we don't have to either". People are talking about what 'they' would do if the situation was reversed, because we obviously want to be just like 'them' don't we?

The guy who captured it all reached up to 'turn off' his headcam before doing it. Turns out it was already off and he switched it on instead. They specifically mention the Geneva Convention on the video.

Makes you wonder how much of this stuff goes on when they don't screw up like this and get away with it.

I wouldnt call offing a wounded insurgent a "war crime", proper use of a bullet if you ask me. I was one of the "they" once and in more than one situation seriously considered "offing" an individual in Bosnia. I know what I saw and felt and not once did I get a chuffy on about taking the high ground. I cannot tell you how great taking the high ground made us feel as we watched as the Serbs lead people past us who eventually ended up in a mass grave. Give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside it does. Still we will be out of Afghanistan soon, once the Taliban are back hanging people from the swimming pool diving board in Kabul and throwing acid in the faces of people who just want an education you can lay all that on us taking the high ground and raise a glass to it. Why dont you throw a party ?? .. or perhaps maybe you will wish we had gone down to their level and won ??

Basically what I am saying, and what some just dont grasp is that sometimes you need to get your hands dirty. Not doing so is why we failed in Bosnia, its why we will fail in Afghanistan. Way I look at it that insurgent wont be RPG'ing anyone inthe future. Cant see how thats a bad thing. Better that than us patching him up and sending him back out to have another attempt at sending one of our guys home in a flag draped coffin. And make no mistake some of those have fixed up and sent on their way will have done just that.

RecQuery
12-Nov-13, 09:53
Ignoring the fact that we agreed to the Geneva Conventions. I'm pretty sure the other sides in Bosnia, Afghanistan et al have rationalised their actions in pretty much the exact same way you are trying to rationalise others. Actually I think I've read similar statements in transcripts from The Hague.

rob murray
12-Nov-13, 12:14
I wouldnt call offing a wounded insurgent a "war crime", proper use of a bullet if you ask me. I was one of the "they" once and in more than one situation seriously considered "offing" an individual in Bosnia. I know what I saw and felt and not once did I get a chuffy on about taking the high ground. I cannot tell you how great taking the high ground made us feel as we watched as the Serbs lead people past us who eventually ended up in a mass grave. Give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside it does. Still we will be out of Afghanistan soon, once the Taliban are back hanging people from the swimming pool diving board in Kabul and throwing acid in the faces of people who just want an education you can lay all that on us taking the high ground and raise a glass to it. Why dont you throw a party ?? .. or perhaps maybe you will wish we had gone down to their level and won ??

Basically what I am saying, and what some just dont grasp is that sometimes you need to get your hands dirty. Not doing so is why we failed in Bosnia, its why we will fail in Afghanistan. Way I look at it that insurgent wont be RPG'ing anyone inthe future. Cant see how thats a bad thing. Better that than us patching him up and sending him back out to have another attempt at sending one of our guys home in a flag draped coffin. And make no mistake some of those have fixed up and sent on their way will have done just that.

A difficult one, you obviously have the experience and what you are saying is based on personal experiences and in my mind right, the hypocrisy lies in the political / higher echelons of military, yes there is the geneva convention / code which "they" purport to stand by...but come on, look at the past there are scores of incidents whereby the geneva convention was, when it suited the powers to be, blind sided, why single out one soldier around one incident in a complex arena ? Do you know when the first concentration camps were found ( WW2 ) by US troops, they handed out summary justice, ie lined up camp guards and machine gunned them, until stopped by senior officers. Clear breach of geneva code but summary justice. In many occasions in war there are well documented scenarios of battle where due to logistics etc no prisoners were to be taken orders from on high. So its a complex situation whereby one soldier is being sacrificed to satisfy preferred clean hands / moral high ground.

cptdodger
12-Nov-13, 12:32
There is no "jury" at a Military Court marital a panel Judges made up of senior officers.

And if you had read in my first post, you would know I have nothing to do with the Military. However it still does not change the fact, no matter how you describe them, it was the Military that found him guilty - not civilians.

mi16
12-Nov-13, 13:02
I wouldnt call offing a wounded insurgent a "war crime", proper use of a bullet if you ask me. I was one of the "they" once and in more than one situation seriously considered "offing" an individual in Bosnia. I know what I saw and felt and not once did I get a chuffy on about taking the high ground. I cannot tell you how great taking the high ground made us feel as we watched as the Serbs lead people past us who eventually ended up in a mass grave. Give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside it does. Still we will be out of Afghanistan soon, once the Taliban are back hanging people from the swimming pool diving board in Kabul and throwing acid in the faces of people who just want an education you can lay all that on us taking the high ground and raise a glass to it. Why dont you throw a party ?? .. or perhaps maybe you will wish we had gone down to their level and won ?? Basically what I am saying, and what some just dont grasp is that sometimes you need to get your hands dirty. Not doing so is why we failed in Bosnia, its why we will fail in Afghanistan. Way I look at it that insurgent wont be RPG'ing anyone inthe future. Cant see how thats a bad thing. Better that than us patching him up and sending him back out to have another attempt at sending one of our guys home in a flag draped coffin. And make no mistake some of those have fixed up and sent on their way will have done just that.Interesting use of the word "offing" why not use the correct word "murdering"?

rob murray
12-Nov-13, 13:19
Interesting use of the word "offing" why not use the correct word "murdering"?

Murder...your greying the issue....if it can be classified as murder....then the entire history of warfare is based on murder / killing...what is the difference between the two ? A moral call, some would support the soldier doing what he did within the context, some condemn, your stance I believe is condemnation. WOuld you have arrested the concentration camp guards / officers as previously mentioned and went down the route of legal justice or have shot them there and then...summary justice ?

mi16
12-Nov-13, 13:26
Murder...your greying the issue....if it can be classified as murder....then the entire history of warfare is based on murder / killing...what is the difference between the two ? A moral call, some would support the soldier doing what he did within the context, some condemn, your stance I believe is condemnation. WOuld you have arrested the concentration camp guards / officers as previously mentioned and went down the route of legal justice or have shot them there and then...summary justice ?

The Geneva convention and Court Marshall can differentiate between the two, why cant we?
Because war crimes have been comitted in the passed and swept under that carpet and/or disguised as something else it doesnt mean that we should continue in this manner.

rob murray
12-Nov-13, 13:36
The Geneva convention and Court Marshall can differentiate between the two, why cant we?
Because war crimes have been comitted in the passed and swept under that carpet and/or disguised as something else it doesnt mean that we should continue in this manner.

Fine your entitled to your opinion, to me its a fine line, war "crimes" as you put it have always been committed, some more than others ( countries ) but I am uncomfortable with the generic use of the word crime and lack of contextual appreciation. The Taliban can be compared to the very worst. Why are we there, exposing young troops to a guerilla led situation where one side doesn't play by the rules...... well that is another story !!

RagnarRocks
12-Nov-13, 16:42
My opinion is that every serviceman who has been in a situation where fire is exchanged has become judge jury and executioner when he squeezes off each round, there is an issue of how things are defined in legal terms but the reality of it is its killing by whatever other name you wish to call it.This Marine has killed a Taliban fighter who had already exchanged in the duel for death the execution had been sanctioned from elsewhere when the apache opened fire, the fact that the Taliban fighter was critically wounded shows that a kill order had already been placed on him from elsewhere but by chance its effects had not been terminal. I have no sympathy whatsoever with the Taliban fighter he knew what he was doing the marine acted on brute instinct maybe and crossed some wavey moral line which shifts like sand with each given situation, his mistake getting caught he has acted in the theatre of war rules are drawn up by arbitrators who aren't in the situation but judged by others in the harsh stare of pure legality and with the joys of hindsight. Yes he should be punished as the rules are by the greater part for the benefit of all hence they are upheld more frequently than not by most armies of the world. But they are totally disregarded by this modern breed of terrorist who uses our rules as a weapon against us and have no rules whatsoever. So I think that his punishment should be tempered bearing in mind his long good service and rank, the circumstances of that tour and consistency of action during those 5 months I do not see that destroying this man who has given so much of his life already to the defence of those freedoms we all love and desire so much would achieve anything or really serve any purpose is this really what we call justice ?

rob murray
12-Nov-13, 17:19
My opinion is that every serviceman who has been in a situation where fire is exchanged has become judge jury and executioner when he squeezes off each round, there is an issue of how things are defined in legal terms but the reality of it is its killing by whatever other name you wish to call it.This Marine has killed a Taliban fighter who had already exchanged in the duel for death the execution had been sanctioned from elsewhere when the apache opened fire, the fact that the Taliban fighter was critically wounded shows that a kill order had already been placed on him from elsewhere but by chance its effects had not been terminal. I have no sympathy whatsoever with the Taliban fighter he knew what he was doing the marine acted on brute instinct maybe and crossed some wavey moral line which shifts like sand with each given situation, his mistake getting caught he has acted in the theatre of war rules are drawn up by arbitrators who aren't in the situation but judged by others in the harsh stare of pure legality and with the joys of hindsight. Yes he should be punished as the rules are by the greater part for the benefit of all hence they are upheld more frequently than not by most armies of the world. But they are totally disregarded by this modern breed of terrorist who uses our rules as a weapon against us and have no rules whatsoever. So I think that his punishment should be tempered bearing in mind his long good service and rank, the circumstances of that tour and consistency of action during those 5 months I do not see that destroying this man who has given so much of his life already to the defence of those freedoms we all love and desire so much would achieve anything or really serve any purpose is this really what we call justice ?

Very well put, and no there is no justice here ! At worst the guy should be discharged from the forces not jailed !

they are totally disregarded by this modern breed of terrorist who uses our rules as a weapon against us and have no rules whatsoever. So I think that his punishment should be tempered bearing in mind his long good service and rank, the circumstances of that tour and consistency of action during those 5 months I do not see that destroying this man who has given so much of his life already to the defence of those freedoms we all love and desire so much would achieve anything or really serve any purpose is this really what we call justice ?[/QUOTE]