Discussion
Galsia said:
Out of curiosity what normally happens in these situations? Is the wounded enemy combatant left to die? Is he treated by British medics and released? Is he arrested?
Under Article 3 of Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949 "The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."Taught to all persons before deploying is that wounded enemy are to be treated and cared for in the same manner as friendly forces and treated in accordance with their triage category.
MikeGTi said:
Under Article 3 of Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949 "The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."
Taught to all persons before deploying is that wounded enemy are to be treated and cared for in the same manner as friendly forces and treated in accordance with their triage category.
Ah, makes sense. What if the person is still hostile? Taught to all persons before deploying is that wounded enemy are to be treated and cared for in the same manner as friendly forces and treated in accordance with their triage category.
Galsia said:
Ah, makes sense. What if the person is still hostile?
Then they're not hors de combat and it's dependant upon the level of force they use as to the level of force you can use against them - Say, if, the enemy has been shot in the chest, but is still firing his weapon then you can use reasonable force to remove that threat. If he is using lethal force then it is reasonable to use lethal force against him.Edited by MikeGTi on Thursday 23 October 16:36
ClassicMotorNut said:
The only reason I can conceive for the marine not being freed is that he knowingly broke the law. That aside, he should be congratulated on doing a service to the world by removing one more worthless turd from the Taliban.
He commited murder....on filmHe stated that he knew his actions were illegal...on film
He told others to cover it up.....on film
A court found him guilty.
Is that enough for you?
Edited by 98elise on Thursday 23 October 18:39
BrassMan said:
I'm not surprised (high stress situation) and can't really blame him. But I've no moral authority to judge him, so couldn't sign either way.
He wasn't under any stress when he killed. It was a cold and calm situation in which he had total control.If he couldn't handle that, then he shouldn't be in uniform.
It's also worth noting that he wasn't some 19 year-old on his 1st deployment; he was a highly experienced SNCO with, IIRC, 20 years in. He should have been the level-headed one setting a good example to the boys. If, as someone has suggested, the CO was a bit 'army barmy' all the more reason why he should have been playing out the right behaviours.
98elise said:
BrassMan said:
I'm not surprised (high stress situation) and can't really blame him. But I've no moral authority to judge him, so couldn't sign either way.
He wasn't under any stress when he killed. It was a cold and calm situation in which he had total control.If he couldn't handle that, then he shouldn't be in uniform.
davepoth said:
98elise said:
BrassMan said:
I'm not surprised (high stress situation) and can't really blame him. But I've no moral authority to judge him, so couldn't sign either way.
He wasn't under any stress when he killed. It was a cold and calm situation in which he had total control.If he couldn't handle that, then he shouldn't be in uniform.
rollondeath said:
davepoth said:
98elise said:
BrassMan said:
I'm not surprised (high stress situation) and can't really blame him. But I've no moral authority to judge him, so couldn't sign either way.
He wasn't under any stress when he killed. It was a cold and calm situation in which he had total control.If he couldn't handle that, then he shouldn't be in uniform.
d. davepoth said:
rollondeath said:
davepoth said:
98elise said:
BrassMan said:
I'm not surprised (high stress situation) and can't really blame him. But I've no moral authority to judge him, so couldn't sign either way.
He wasn't under any stress when he killed. It was a cold and calm situation in which he had total control.If he couldn't handle that, then he shouldn't be in uniform.
Corpulent Tosser said:
An observation.
Those not signing are generally giving their reason why not, those signing are generally just saying 'signed' no reason why.
Not knowing any of the facts about this case, but a two second google results in things like this....Those not signing are generally giving their reason why not, those signing are generally just saying 'signed' no reason why.
"Al Blackman was never charged for breaking the Geneva convention as he did not. The simple fact is that the Taliban are classed as terrorists and not enemy combatants and therefore the Geneva convention does not apply in this case"
May be a reason why some people want to sign it
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff