Discussion
Sorry, but citing the Geneva Convention in this context is meaningless waffle.
When the RAF deliberately bombed civilian workers in Dresden, was that in compliance with the Geneva Convention? If it was, the convention is meaningless. If it wasn't, the convention was ignored. As it often is when compliance would be inconvenient. Had the Germans won the war, would they have prosecuted Air Marshal Harris for war crimes? Quite possibly.
What the marine did was not in the highest traditions of the Corps, was poor discipline, and his mate is a knob for filming it, but it has happened before, it will happen again, it happens in every war, and his punishment is out of line.
When the RAF deliberately bombed civilian workers in Dresden, was that in compliance with the Geneva Convention? If it was, the convention is meaningless. If it wasn't, the convention was ignored. As it often is when compliance would be inconvenient. Had the Germans won the war, would they have prosecuted Air Marshal Harris for war crimes? Quite possibly.
What the marine did was not in the highest traditions of the Corps, was poor discipline, and his mate is a knob for filming it, but it has happened before, it will happen again, it happens in every war, and his punishment is out of line.
Ayahuasca said:
Sorry, but citing the Geneva Convention in this context is meaningless waffle.
When the RAF deliberately bombed civilian workers in Dresden, was that in compliance with the Geneva Convention? If it was, the convention is meaningless. If it wasn't, the convention was ignored.
I think you need to go and read up on the various Geneva Conventions and the Protocols thereto.When the RAF deliberately bombed civilian workers in Dresden, was that in compliance with the Geneva Convention? If it was, the convention is meaningless. If it wasn't, the convention was ignored.
Fistly the Third Convention of 1949 (which ratifies and amends the earlier Convention of 1929) deals with prisoners of War so it certainly does apply in this case.
Secondly your comment about Dresden is an argument of false equivalence since the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 does not apply to Civilians nor was it in place in February 1945 when Dresden was bombed.
In fact there was no Geneva Convention protecting Civilians at that time - you might recall that Germany was just as complicit in targeting Civilian poulations.
The Convention you are looking for (and which came about as a direct result of WW2) is the Fourth Geneva Convention which was ratified in August 1949. Again, this wasn't in place when Dresden was bombed.
The case of Marine A seems to me to have many similarities to this case, so one wonders what the outcome will eventually be:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Hebron-shooter-ve...
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Hebron-shooter-ve...
Ayahuasca said:
What the marine did was not in the highest traditions of the Corps, was poor discipline, and his mate is a knob for filming it, but it has happened before, it will happen again, it happens in every war, and his punishment is out of line.
So what you're saying is that this behaviour is fine? Why don't we go full hog and recommend it as a rule of engagement?The behaviour is punishable, the bit that needs to be explored is whether there are any extenuating circumstances such as PTSD
BigLion said:
Ayahuasca said:
What the marine did was not in the highest traditions of the Corps, was poor discipline, and his mate is a knob for filming it, but it has happened before, it will happen again, it happens in every war, and his punishment is out of line.
So what you're saying is that this behaviour is fine? Why don't we go full hog and recommend it as a rule of engagement?The behaviour is punishable, the bit that needs to be explored is whether there are any extenuating circumstances such as PTSD
Your debating skills need some polishing.
Ayahuasca said:
BigLion said:
Ayahuasca said:
What the marine did was not in the highest traditions of the Corps, was poor discipline, and his mate is a knob for filming it, but it has happened before, it will happen again, it happens in every war, and his punishment is out of line.
So what you're saying is that this behaviour is fine? Why don't we go full hog and recommend it as a rule of engagement?The behaviour is punishable, the bit that needs to be explored is whether there are any extenuating circumstances such as PTSD
Your debating skills need some polishing.
BigLion said:
Ayahuasca said:
BigLion said:
Ayahuasca said:
What the marine did was not in the highest traditions of the Corps, was poor discipline, and his mate is a knob for filming it, but it has happened before, it will happen again, it happens in every war, and his punishment is out of line.
So what you're saying is that this behaviour is fine? Why don't we go full hog and recommend it as a rule of engagement?The behaviour is punishable, the bit that needs to be explored is whether there are any extenuating circumstances such as PTSD
Your debating skills need some polishing.
Ayahuasca said:
BigLion said:
Ayahuasca said:
BigLion said:
Ayahuasca said:
What the marine did was not in the highest traditions of the Corps, was poor discipline, and his mate is a knob for filming it, but it has happened before, it will happen again, it happens in every war, and his punishment is out of line.
So what you're saying is that this behaviour is fine? Why don't we go full hog and recommend it as a rule of engagement?The behaviour is punishable, the bit that needs to be explored is whether there are any extenuating circumstances such as PTSD
Your debating skills need some polishing.
BigLion said:
Ayahuasca said:
BigLion said:
Ayahuasca said:
BigLion said:
Ayahuasca said:
What the marine did was not in the highest traditions of the Corps, was poor discipline, and his mate is a knob for filming it, but it has happened before, it will happen again, it happens in every war, and his punishment is out of line.
So what you're saying is that this behaviour is fine? Why don't we go full hog and recommend it as a rule of engagement?The behaviour is punishable, the bit that needs to be explored is whether there are any extenuating circumstances such as PTSD
Your debating skills need some polishing.
I hope your job doesn't involve too much logical thinking!
Ayahuasca said:
BigLion said:
Ayahuasca said:
BigLion said:
Ayahuasca said:
BigLion said:
Ayahuasca said:
What the marine did was not in the highest traditions of the Corps, was poor discipline, and his mate is a knob for filming it, but it has happened before, it will happen again, it happens in every war, and his punishment is out of line.
So what you're saying is that this behaviour is fine? Why don't we go full hog and recommend it as a rule of engagement?The behaviour is punishable, the bit that needs to be explored is whether there are any extenuating circumstances such as PTSD
Your debating skills need some polishing.
I hope your job doesn't involve too much logical thinking!
Looking back over the thread, my viewpoint towards his conviction has softened somewhat.
The stresses and strains of operating in a such a hostile environment against a fanatical and often unseen enemy can have a massive impact on the decision making cycle of even the most reasoned of people.
The area in which Marine A was operating in bordered the AO in which I was serving, and could only be described as hell on earth. The Taliban summer offensive was in full swing and it was us on the ground along with the ansf taking the brunt of it.
What he did was wrong, I don't dispute that but I think his current appeal defence of PTSD/diminished responsibility must have some serious weight to it.
Lots of people on here have strong opinions on this matter but I'd wager that VERY few have any real on the ground experience of similar scenarios. All roles in the forces have their own place and importance, but the veiwpoint and experience of someone in a dismounted close combat role will significantly differ from a VM in camp Bastion, or a pilot flying overhead.
I think he now has served his debt and should be released asap.
The stresses and strains of operating in a such a hostile environment against a fanatical and often unseen enemy can have a massive impact on the decision making cycle of even the most reasoned of people.
The area in which Marine A was operating in bordered the AO in which I was serving, and could only be described as hell on earth. The Taliban summer offensive was in full swing and it was us on the ground along with the ansf taking the brunt of it.
What he did was wrong, I don't dispute that but I think his current appeal defence of PTSD/diminished responsibility must have some serious weight to it.
Lots of people on here have strong opinions on this matter but I'd wager that VERY few have any real on the ground experience of similar scenarios. All roles in the forces have their own place and importance, but the veiwpoint and experience of someone in a dismounted close combat role will significantly differ from a VM in camp Bastion, or a pilot flying overhead.
I think he now has served his debt and should be released asap.
Baryonyx said:
Interesting thought process, but where has the moral high ground got us? The population there are still making efforts to direct terror attacks on our home soil. The troops have been in the desert for over a decade, hamstrung by these ROE that make them look like scared boyscouts in front of an enemy that considers them an invader.
This marine was placed in a difficult situation, knowing that the injured man, if saved, would probably continue to wage war against him. I agree that there is no place for rule breakers. It appears what is really needed is a change to ROE/Geneva Convention or whatever it will take to allow for the disposal of injured and incapacitated combatants - that would level the playing field, as if you're captured by the enemy out there you can be certain you won't be coming back. I suppose it gives the Taliban some comfort, to know we must play by the rules and they can do what they like.
ETA: I think any serving military personnel would do well not to sign that petition, imagine if it got back to your boss that your name was on the list of supporters? I imagine punishment for not toeing the party line would swiftly follow.
I know this is an ancient post in a thread which has just been resurrected, but I really worry that one day, thinking like this might actually be given credence by people who matter, in which case, I suspect we'd be well and truly fThis marine was placed in a difficult situation, knowing that the injured man, if saved, would probably continue to wage war against him. I agree that there is no place for rule breakers. It appears what is really needed is a change to ROE/Geneva Convention or whatever it will take to allow for the disposal of injured and incapacitated combatants - that would level the playing field, as if you're captured by the enemy out there you can be certain you won't be coming back. I suppose it gives the Taliban some comfort, to know we must play by the rules and they can do what they like.
ETA: I think any serving military personnel would do well not to sign that petition, imagine if it got back to your boss that your name was on the list of supporters? I imagine punishment for not toeing the party line would swiftly follow.
ked!Yes, of course our forces could carry out the "disposal of injured and incapacitated combatants", as you so tastefully phrase it, and yes, that would result in one enemy who couldn't come back and try to kill you again.
Now... Given how effective the Islamist nutters have been at recruiting the gullible to fight for them whilst our forces have been playing by the rules, just how much do you think they'll be able to accelerate their recruitment campaign when we've created a whole bunch of new martyrs for them?
I'd imprison him for 4-5 years but not for life - the issue I have is that he knew what he was doing by quoting the geneva convention (murdering the POW).
Like it or not, if we permit this type of behaviour through a lack of appropriate consequences we are no better than the terrorists we are fighting.
If the Argies took some of our boys in the Falklands / Malvinas and did this, I'm sure we would want some kind of material punishment to be handed out.
Like it or not, if we permit this type of behaviour through a lack of appropriate consequences we are no better than the terrorists we are fighting.
If the Argies took some of our boys in the Falklands / Malvinas and did this, I'm sure we would want some kind of material punishment to be handed out.
BigLion said:
If the Argies took some of our boys in the Falklands / Malvinas and did this, I'm sure we would want some kind of material punishment to be handed out.
There are accounts that they sort of did - and we sort of did the same to them. Waving a white flag and pretending to surrender, then shooting at the British paras who broke cover to collect them. Pretty sure that is against the GC too.
Here is a fail link to a Falklands story -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109429/A-...
If it is true then much worse happened there then in Afghanistan!
Also, iirc we used white phosphorus grenades against infantry positions, which I have a feeling is frowned on too.
Incidentally there is a current campaign to award a posthumous VC to a Falklands paratrooper. Cpl McLaughlin would have been awarded his VC at the same time as the other Falklands VCs, but his reputation was tarnished when they disentangled the blood-soaked webbing from the bits of his corpse, and found his ammo pouches contained chopped-off Argentine ears.
So, whole British units use a munition (WP) banned by the Geneva Convention and nothing is said, one paratrooper mutilated corpses (against the GC) and lost a postumous medal, and Sgt Blackman administered a coup de grace to a dying or dead enemy (against the GC) and gets jailed for 8 years.
Lots of moral ambiguity there, war is crap and makes people do crap things, but what stands out is Blackman's disproportionate punishment.
Edited by Ayahuasca on Friday 6th January 14:35
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff