Discussion
snowy said:
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
snowy said:
Not knowing any of the facts about this case, but a two second google results in things like this....
"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
Erm, no. That statement simply isn't true. It is commonly accepted that "Combatant" refers to "Persons taking a direct part in hostilities". Further, under Rule 47 of IHL, "Practice recognizes that the duty to give quarter is to the benefit of every person taking a direct part in hostilities, whether entitled to prisoner-of-war status or not. This means that mercenaries, spies and saboteurs also have the right to receive quarter and cannot be summarily executed when captured""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
The fact that the statement you've quoted seems to state that because a human is classified as X rather than Z means that they can be murdered is simply outrageous. Murder is murder.
Further to this, don't forget that British Forces overseas are still subject to UK Domestic Law - Which would have also classed his actions as murder, meaning that the enemy's status under the Geneva Conventions doesn't matter.
Edited by MikeGTi on Friday 24th October 08:47
Personally I feel guilt on my own behalf and that of our country.
I know the details of the case seem clear cut but I don't personally see it that way. The indoctrinated armed forces posting their views are as I'd expect.
My simplistic personal opinion is that wounded enemy was finished off. I genuinely do not care. Would the world be a better place if that event had taken a different course? No, not in my opinion.
I feel for the individual prosecuted but I mostly feel guilt for not being able to stop our elected politicians from putting our armed forces into this whole conflict to start with. I feel further embarrassment that Tony Blair et al are not considered for criminal prosecution.
The world is not black and white. The situation was not black and white.
I know the details of the case seem clear cut but I don't personally see it that way. The indoctrinated armed forces posting their views are as I'd expect.
My simplistic personal opinion is that wounded enemy was finished off. I genuinely do not care. Would the world be a better place if that event had taken a different course? No, not in my opinion.
I feel for the individual prosecuted but I mostly feel guilt for not being able to stop our elected politicians from putting our armed forces into this whole conflict to start with. I feel further embarrassment that Tony Blair et al are not considered for criminal prosecution.
The world is not black and white. The situation was not black and white.
snowy said:
Not knowing any of the facts about this case, but a two second google results in things like this....
"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
What a complete and utter load of rubbish. Typical internet urban myth."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
Terrorist are covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention, article 3. Plain and simple fact!!!
Also please remember that UK forces come under UK legislation and law at all times. Additionally the are also subject to the Armed Forces Act 2006.
Now a terrorist is either a combatant or a non combatant and you cannot go around shooting either when they are wounded!
"(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."
Just trying to understand why those that are signing are not making any comment, the question asked was
"Those not signing are generally giving their reason why not, those signing are generally just saying 'signed' no reason why."
I don't know why they are signing, but just using google throws up some answers as to why people might be signing, if he has been convicted of Murder based on UK law that's fine with me
"Those not signing are generally giving their reason why not, those signing are generally just saying 'signed' no reason why."
I don't know why they are signing, but just using google throws up some answers as to why people might be signing, if he has been convicted of Murder based on UK law that's fine with me
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.
So if the situation was reversed you would be happy for Taliban to shoot one of our wounded soldiers? After all its a service removing one more worthless infidel from the Crusader army, right?John145 said:
Personally I feel guilt on my own behalf and that of our country.
I know the details of the case seem clear cut but I don't personally see it that way. The indoctrinated armed forces posting their views are as I'd expect.
My simplistic personal opinion is that wounded enemy was finished off. I genuinely do not care. Would the world be a better place if that event had taken a different course? No, not in my opinion.
I feel for the individual prosecuted but I mostly feel guilt for not being able to stop our elected politicians from putting our armed forces into this whole conflict to start with. I feel further embarrassment that Tony Blair et al are not considered for criminal prosecution.
The world is not black and white. The situation was not black and white.
Indoctrinated? Or otherwise known as people that know what is aloud to happen in battle.I know the details of the case seem clear cut but I don't personally see it that way. The indoctrinated armed forces posting their views are as I'd expect.
My simplistic personal opinion is that wounded enemy was finished off. I genuinely do not care. Would the world be a better place if that event had taken a different course? No, not in my opinion.
I feel for the individual prosecuted but I mostly feel guilt for not being able to stop our elected politicians from putting our armed forces into this whole conflict to start with. I feel further embarrassment that Tony Blair et al are not considered for criminal prosecution.
The world is not black and white. The situation was not black and white.
Would you prefer that any of our wounded were just finished off by the enemy too?
I think this quote, from another site, hits the nail on the head:
HectortheInspector said:
I'm becoming slightly fascinated by the car crash arguments being trotted out on this issue. I can sort of understand it from people who have never sat through a LOAC lecture, but there seems to be some serious rewriting of the MATTS required, because the message ain't getting through.
By ANY measure, walking up to a helpless man, and shooting him in front of witnesses, on camera, while announcing that what you are doing is illegal, is going to be as clear a case of murder as you can get, without walking back to base with the victims' head on stick and singing "I'm a happy murderer," while wearing your Harold Shipman Fan Club T-shirt.
So, why, in the face of all that evidence, do people insist it wasn't murder?
The desperate straining to 'prove' Blackman was stressed or mentally disturbed and not responsible for his actions is clearly pointless. He is, and clearly was, very much in control of his faculties.
His previous service record is irrelevant. If anything, it proves he should have known better.
Ultimately, any defence of his actions hinges on the 'victim', the unknown Taliban.
The Taliban may be a primitive, vicious, bigoted, xenophobic, treacherous mob, and completely alien to our culture, but they are still people. We can see plenty of those behaviours in our own cities, and we don't habitually shoot Millwall supporters, the Tottenham Man Dem crew, BNP members or anyone who has appeared on Geordie Shore. They aren't nice, but we still recognise them as sufficiently human to class killing them as murder.
All the pro-Blackman arguments come back to one point -to prove it wasn't murder, and excuse Blackman, you have to deny the victim his status as a man who CAN be murdered, and reduce him to some kind of non-human who can be killed, but because he is some kind of not-really-human, it doesn't count as murder. At it's base, the message is- "He was only a wog. He doesn't count."
Now, that's a really, really dangerous road to go down, because at heart, many, many people feel that is emotionally right. Under the skin, we are as tribal as they are, and we hate and fear the OTHER ONES. It's comfortable to view yourself as the only 'true people' and all them bloody Foreigners as something alien, and less than we are.
If, as a civilisation, we should have learned anything from the 20th century, it should be that once you start viewing one sort of people as subhuman untermensch with no rights (and implicity, that you yourself are some sort of superior being with human rights), you might as well just start prepping the gas ovens now.
By ANY measure, walking up to a helpless man, and shooting him in front of witnesses, on camera, while announcing that what you are doing is illegal, is going to be as clear a case of murder as you can get, without walking back to base with the victims' head on stick and singing "I'm a happy murderer," while wearing your Harold Shipman Fan Club T-shirt.
So, why, in the face of all that evidence, do people insist it wasn't murder?
The desperate straining to 'prove' Blackman was stressed or mentally disturbed and not responsible for his actions is clearly pointless. He is, and clearly was, very much in control of his faculties.
His previous service record is irrelevant. If anything, it proves he should have known better.
Ultimately, any defence of his actions hinges on the 'victim', the unknown Taliban.
The Taliban may be a primitive, vicious, bigoted, xenophobic, treacherous mob, and completely alien to our culture, but they are still people. We can see plenty of those behaviours in our own cities, and we don't habitually shoot Millwall supporters, the Tottenham Man Dem crew, BNP members or anyone who has appeared on Geordie Shore. They aren't nice, but we still recognise them as sufficiently human to class killing them as murder.
All the pro-Blackman arguments come back to one point -to prove it wasn't murder, and excuse Blackman, you have to deny the victim his status as a man who CAN be murdered, and reduce him to some kind of non-human who can be killed, but because he is some kind of not-really-human, it doesn't count as murder. At it's base, the message is- "He was only a wog. He doesn't count."
Now, that's a really, really dangerous road to go down, because at heart, many, many people feel that is emotionally right. Under the skin, we are as tribal as they are, and we hate and fear the OTHER ONES. It's comfortable to view yourself as the only 'true people' and all them bloody Foreigners as something alien, and less than we are.
If, as a civilisation, we should have learned anything from the 20th century, it should be that once you start viewing one sort of people as subhuman untermensch with no rights (and implicity, that you yourself are some sort of superior being with human rights), you might as well just start prepping the gas ovens now.
John145 said:
Personally I feel guilt on my own behalf and that of our country.
I know the details of the case seem clear cut but I don't personally see it that way. The indoctrinated armed forces posting their views are as I'd expect.
My simplistic personal opinion is that wounded enemy was finished off. I genuinely do not care. Would the world be a better place if that event had taken a different course? No, not in my opinion.
I feel for the individual prosecuted but I mostly feel guilt for not being able to stop our elected politicians from putting our armed forces into this whole conflict to start with. I feel further embarrassment that Tony Blair et al are not considered for criminal prosecution.
The world is not black and white. The situation was not black and white.
I am not and was never indoctrinated. I was instructed and educated on the rules of battle!I know the details of the case seem clear cut but I don't personally see it that way. The indoctrinated armed forces posting their views are as I'd expect.
My simplistic personal opinion is that wounded enemy was finished off. I genuinely do not care. Would the world be a better place if that event had taken a different course? No, not in my opinion.
I feel for the individual prosecuted but I mostly feel guilt for not being able to stop our elected politicians from putting our armed forces into this whole conflict to start with. I feel further embarrassment that Tony Blair et al are not considered for criminal prosecution.
The world is not black and white. The situation was not black and white.
You dont care if a "wounded enemy was finished off"? Wow! Ever considered moving to Germany and going back 70 years?
Grumfutock said:
I am not and was never indoctrinated. I was instructed and educated on the rules of battle!
You dont care if a "wounded enemy was finished off"? Wow! Ever considered moving to Germany and going back 70 years?
To be indoctrinated is to be taught without critical consideration. So it is an accurate description.You dont care if a "wounded enemy was finished off"? Wow! Ever considered moving to Germany and going back 70 years?
We do not know the severity of the injury, how long medivac would have taken or whether the soldier believed the person would survive.
I know it was against the rules, but my mindset is that of assessing each situation on its own conditions. I trust the soldier had a reason for finishing him off. Maybe he believed that evacuation was impossible and he was going to die slowly and thought it a mercy.
John145 said:
I know it was against the rules, but my mindset is that of assessing each situation on its own conditions. I trust the soldier had a reason for finishing him off. Maybe he believed that evacuation was impossible and he was going to die slowly and thought it a mercy.
This might hold water if it weren't for his words to his squad, caught on camera, about breaking the Geneva Convention. Had he said 'this poor sod's not going to make it, I know it's against the rules but he's better off dead' then maybe there'd be a case.John145 said:
To be indoctrinated is to be taught without critical consideration. So it is an accurate description.
That is utter cac! If you believe that the Armed Forces are taught things 'without critical consideration' then you are either 1. Ill informed, or 2. An idiot.John145 said:
I know it was against the rules, but my mindset is that of assessing each situation on its own conditions.
Are you a qualified Doctor? No? Then you don't have the right to make that decision.John145 said:
I trust the soldier had a reason for finishing him off. Maybe he believed that evacuation was impossible and he was going to die slowly and thought it a mercy.
Have you actually listened to the helmet cam recording? Sgt Blackman knew exactly what he was doing and knew exactly that it was illegal. He stated so on camera FFS!John145 said:
Grumfutock said:
I am not and was never indoctrinated. I was instructed and educated on the rules of battle!
You dont care if a "wounded enemy was finished off"? Wow! Ever considered moving to Germany and going back 70 years?
To be indoctrinated is to be taught without critical consideration. So it is an accurate description.You dont care if a "wounded enemy was finished off"? Wow! Ever considered moving to Germany and going back 70 years?
We do not know the severity of the injury, how long medivac would have taken or whether the soldier believed the person would survive.
I know it was against the rules, but my mindset is that of assessing each situation on its own conditions. I trust the soldier had a reason for finishing him off. Maybe he believed that evacuation was impossible and he was going to die slowly and thought it a mercy.
It all becomes clear! Let us pardon him, award the Red Cross medal for compassion and make him man of the year!
Silly person!
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
John145 said:
To be indoctrinated is to be taught without critical consideration. So it is an accurate description.
That is utter cac! If you believe that the Armed Forces are taught things 'without critical consideration' then you are either 1. Ill informed, or 2. An idiot.I have huge respect for our armed forces. Every time we've done joint exercises with them, they've been prepared, organised, disciplined and very effective.
I remember doing a military plane crash exercise in the snow. Unsurprisingly we (the non-military police), had arranged no food or refreshments. The RAF (on this occasion) managed to work something on the spot and make enough food for all their personal and ours.
The reason Marine A stands out so much as being an extreme shocking event, it because it's so far from the behaviour of our armed forces in general, who manage to remain within the laws in the most horrendous of circumstances.
I remember doing a military plane crash exercise in the snow. Unsurprisingly we (the non-military police), had arranged no food or refreshments. The RAF (on this occasion) managed to work something on the spot and make enough food for all their personal and ours.
The reason Marine A stands out so much as being an extreme shocking event, it because it's so far from the behaviour of our armed forces in general, who manage to remain within the laws in the most horrendous of circumstances.
John145 said:
To be indoctrinated is to be taught without critical consideration. So it is an accurate description.
Being critical, you have no basis in which to conclude those who disagree with you aren't being critical. It's mentally lazy and poor to dismiss all the serving / ex-forces people on here who feel the soldier murdered someone because you see the outcome differently. Rather than consider their point of view, you conveniently group them into being "indoctrinated" so you can place yourself as right and them wrong. John145 said:
We do not know the severity of the injury, how long medivac would have taken or whether the soldier believed the person would survive.
All red herrings. John145 said:
but my mindset is that of assessing each situation on its own conditions.
Which is what a court does by applying the law to each situation it has to deal with and make judgements upon. Or do you think it does something else? I'd have been tempted to sign if he hadn't have said "I'm about to commit a war crime", because he did say those words then to me, that means he wasn't overcome with rage and pure emotion with the circumstances he was in, but had his wits about him and knew exactly what he was doing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff