Discussion
Ayahuasca said:
Before the Talib was shot with the pistol the marines' discussion suggests that they thought he was already dead. Firing a bullet into a dead body is not murder. Was an autopsy performed? Was it proven that the Talib was killed, not by the 139 30mm rounds fired by the Apache, but by one 9mm round fired by Marine A? If not, it is not murder. Even if the marines really believed the man was alive, unless an autopsy can prove the single 9mm bullet killed him, it is not murder.
Hes still in the wrong as the Geneva convention protects the body and possessions of dead enemy combatants. It's not like they burst into the compound, saw him holding his Ak47 and immediately put some extra rounds into him which under certain circumstances and ROE could have been legal.
dai1983 said:
Ayahuasca said:
Before the Talib was shot with the pistol the marines' discussion suggests that they thought he was already dead. Firing a bullet into a dead body is not murder. Was an autopsy performed? Was it proven that the Talib was killed, not by the 139 30mm rounds fired by the Apache, but by one 9mm round fired by Marine A? If not, it is not murder. Even if the marines really believed the man was alive, unless an autopsy can prove the single 9mm bullet killed him, it is not murder.
Hes still in the wrong as the Geneva convention protects the body and possessions of dead enemy combatants. It's not like they burst into the compound, saw him holding his Ak47 and immediately put some extra rounds into him which under certain circumstances and ROE could have been legal.
Ayahuasca said:
davepoth said:
Ayahuasca said:
Did wrong, yes. Murderer, no.
How does that work? Which bit of murder didn't he do?dai1983 said:
Hes still in the wrong as the Geneva convention protects the body and possessions of dead enemy combatants.
It's not like they burst into the compound, saw him holding his Ak47 and immediately put some extra rounds into him which under certain circumstances and ROE could have been legal.
Whilst not condoning what he did, the Geneva conventions only apply to uniformed members of a state's forces. They do not apply to militia, partisans or whatever other badge you may want to give to timmy and his mates.It's not like they burst into the compound, saw him holding his Ak47 and immediately put some extra rounds into him which under certain circumstances and ROE could have been legal.
From what I heard from the new appeal legal team they are not disputing the killing rather that in context of the stress the Sgt was under etc that the charge should have been manslaughter in the first place. I can see where they're coming from.
Ayahuasca said:
davepoth said:
Ayahuasca said:
Did wrong, yes. Murderer, no.
How does that work? Which bit of murder didn't he do?The Court Martial Appeal Court re-adjusted the sentence, taking into consideration the greater stress of the circumstances.
They apparently also missed it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt...
ellroy said:
dai1983 said:
Hes still in the wrong as the Geneva convention protects the body and possessions of dead enemy combatants.
It's not like they burst into the compound, saw him holding his Ak47 and immediately put some extra rounds into him which under certain circumstances and ROE could have been legal.
Whilst not condoning what he did, the Geneva conventions only apply to uniformed members of a state's forces. They do not apply to militia, partisans or whatever other badge you may want to give to timmy and his mates.It's not like they burst into the compound, saw him holding his Ak47 and immediately put some extra rounds into him which under certain circumstances and ROE could have been legal.
From what I heard from the new appeal legal team they are not disputing the killing rather that in context of the stress the Sgt was under etc that the charge should have been manslaughter in the first place. I can see where they're coming from.
Following article from 2009 regarding medical assistance also mentions Geneva:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/23/military...
TBH I get a mandatory brief every year about the law of armed conflict and the section about irregular forces being covered or not confuses most of us. It's more black and white when ROE/SOP etc gets dictated in theatre as every mission etc is different.
A good guide is your own moral compass and I remember we were told by our CO "Don't do things that you will regret when you get home". Im also a firm believer in patching the enemy up and extracting information that leads to the destruction of their friends.
In this case I believe it was murder and I'm surprised that it took an unrelated police investigation for him to get found out.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/23/military...
TBH I get a mandatory brief every year about the law of armed conflict and the section about irregular forces being covered or not confuses most of us. It's more black and white when ROE/SOP etc gets dictated in theatre as every mission etc is different.
A good guide is your own moral compass and I remember we were told by our CO "Don't do things that you will regret when you get home". Im also a firm believer in patching the enemy up and extracting information that leads to the destruction of their friends.
In this case I believe it was murder and I'm surprised that it took an unrelated police investigation for him to get found out.
ellroy said:
the stress the Sgt was under etc that the charge should have been manslaughter in the first place. I can see where they're coming from.
They're entirely coming from a position of trying to get him off the hook for a premeditated murder. The manslaughter/PTSD-made-me-do-it defence appeals more to the public's prejudices than the actual evidence.La Liga said:
here only needs to be a casual link between the act and a death, and it only needs to hasten the death to amount to the act.
The Court Martial Appeal Court re-adjusted the sentence, taking into consideration the greater stress of the circumstances.
They apparently also missed it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt...
Causal?The Court Martial Appeal Court re-adjusted the sentence, taking into consideration the greater stress of the circumstances.
They apparently also missed it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt...
As far as I understand, he's trying to reduce his murder conviction by reducing it to manslaughter through diminished responsibility i.e. claiming he has had / has serious mental health issues.
Why would you grant bail to someone who is relying on the fact he wasn't / isn't mentally capable of being wholly accountable for an unlawful killing?
If his conviction is quashed and his is re-tried and convicted of manslaughter, then this time inside will count towards whatever sentence he receives for that offence in any event.
Why would you grant bail to someone who is relying on the fact he wasn't / isn't mentally capable of being wholly accountable for an unlawful killing?
If his conviction is quashed and his is re-tried and convicted of manslaughter, then this time inside will count towards whatever sentence he receives for that offence in any event.
Elroy Blue said:
I certainly don't condone what he did, but is he any threat to the Public. I think we can safely say a resounding no.
On that basis I don't see why he can't be treated like many other prisoners who have committed 'violent' crime and be released.
Agree with his 100%, a dose of humanitarianism would go a long way to restoring faith in the justice system with the general public.On that basis I don't see why he can't be treated like many other prisoners who have committed 'violent' crime and be released.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff