Marine A secures new hearing.
Discussion
Hosenbugler said:
p1stonhead said:
VolvoT5 said:
I don't know about the specifics of this particular case but I do know I wouldn't join the forces or police for love nor money these days. These men and women are put in extreme circumstances (sometimes with inadequate training/equipment/backup) that most of us could barely imagine and when they f
k up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice.
Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
Shooting in a direction and accidently hitting someone you are not supposed to is a fk up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice. Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
k up.Deliberately murdering someone point blank isnt a f
k up. Its no different to any other murder. Possibly worse because they are professional killers who should know explicitly what they are capable of and who they shouldnt be killing.If you've served in the armed forces of this country, you may have a valid opinion. I have.
If you haven't, then anything you think you know about this case is quite frankly b
ks. Pebbles167 said:
castroses said:
Galley? Only if he was a cook.
Galley is where lunch is cooked. It's eaten in the mess.
Jokers.
Learn something new every day. Apparently it's not a good idea to call a Marine Captain a Bosun either?Galley is where lunch is cooked. It's eaten in the mess.
Jokers.
Hosenbugler said:
p1stonhead said:
Shooting in a direction and accidently hitting someone you are not supposed to is a fk up.
Deliberately murdering someone point blank isnt a fk up. Its no different to any other murder. Possibly worse because they are professional killers who should know explicitly what they are capable of and who they shouldnt be killing.
You'd know of course, from your time as a frontline combat soldier. k up.Deliberately murdering someone point blank isnt a f
k up. Its no different to any other murder. Possibly worse because they are professional killers who should know explicitly what they are capable of and who they shouldnt be killing.I agree with what p1stonhead wrote. YMMV.
RizzoTheRat said:
Removing an enemy combatant from the field was not his job, his job was defined within very specific rules of engagement, which he broke.
Are they?castroses said:
Instead he's been barrack room tried by people who have never been in his position. The whole thing stinks.
He had a military court martial, presumably run by people who at least had a reasonable understanding of his position, and pretty much all the ex-military people here and elsewhere are saying they made the right decision. It's the people who have never been in his position who are defending him and saying the sentence is too harsh.I'm ex serving and im fully aware of the GC and the white cards we carried. I'm not disputing he was guilty.
I think everyone's hands are tied in this case, the real travesty is the filming of the incident.
All this claptrap about "we are better than them" etc is just noise. The law is unfortunately black and white but the world is full colour. We are better than the Taliban on a whole bunch of levels that we don't need to be locking up our soldiers who shoot the enemy after or during a fire fight. Yep, point blank, injured combatant, GC, I hear you. But don't give me any more crap about it effecting our professional image or using it to excuse rape and torture. If the guy had just walked into a nunnery and started shooting up the place while fully naked wearing a sock I might be judging it differently.
Next time, don't film it. Let's hope the sentence is reduced.
Loyly said:
Sadly, the Geneva Convention is to blame. It ties the hands of good men who should be free to obliterate the enemy by any means.
Hopefully this appeal will see him released, even if they do not overturn the conviction, they could at least release him for time served.
Yay! Bring back Mustard Gas, Flamethrowers, Clusterbombs, Anti-Personnel Mines and all manner of other good things designed to maim and terrify. After all, we'd be the ones making them. What's the worst that could happen?Hopefully this appeal will see him released, even if they do not overturn the conviction, they could at least release him for time served.
Oh. Yes. That's right. Somehow we'd find some dumb-ass way of selling them to our (potential) enemies, and soon enough we'd be facing them in combat again.
Good men should NOT be "free to obliterate the enemy by any means". The various articles and treaties of the Geneva Convention serve to try to limit the damage we inflict on our enemies and their infrastructure to that which is absolutely necessary to achieve the aims of a just war. By signing, and placing those limitations on ourselves, we look to encourage those who would be our enemies to behave in a similar manner to that which we demonstrate. This is supposed to make the battlefield a slightly more civilised place than it otherwise might be. One where our captured and injured soldiers might find some dignity in the manner of their treatment, a dignity which we purchase by treating their disarmed combatants just the same way. You cannot have your cake AND eat it. Besides which, once captured, enemy soldiers become a whole lot less scary, and professional soldiers share a lot of respect for those who they are set to fight against. The same cannot be said for insurgents/terrorists/Taliban/ISIS, because terror is a weapon they are happy to embrace and deploy, even against those they call "their own people". Good men must stand up for a better way of living, and not indiscriminately maim and kill beyond that which is necessary to achieve their objective.
Sometimes this appears to be "fighting on one leg with both hands tied behind your back", but we cannot descend to the level of those who we have been told are "wrong". To do so would make us just as "wrong" as they are. If we're going to go deploying forces around the world to behave in a wholly uncivilised manner, then we'd be better off building container ships than aircraft carriers and staying home to trade, keeping well out of international politics.
yellowjack said:
Loyly said:
Sadly, the Geneva Convention is to blame. It ties the hands of good men who should be free to obliterate the enemy by any means.
Hopefully this appeal will see him released, even if they do not overturn the conviction, they could at least release him for time served.
Yay! Bring back Mustard Gas, Flamethrowers, Clusterbombs, Anti-Personnel Mines and all manner of other good things designed to maim and terrify. After all, we'd be the ones making them. What's the worst that could happen?Hopefully this appeal will see him released, even if they do not overturn the conviction, they could at least release him for time served.
Oh. Yes. That's right. Somehow we'd find some dumb-ass way of selling them to our (potential) enemies, and soon enough we'd be facing them in combat again.
Good men should NOT be "free to obliterate the enemy by any means". The various articles and treaties of the Geneva Convention serve to try to limit the damage we inflict on our enemies and their infrastructure to that which is absolutely necessary to achieve the aims of a just war. By signing, and placing those limitations on ourselves, we look to encourage those who would be our enemies to behave in a similar manner to that which we demonstrate. This is supposed to make the battlefield a slightly more civilised place than it otherwise might be. One where our captured and injured soldiers might find some dignity in the manner of their treatment, a dignity which we purchase by treating their disarmed combatants just the same way. You cannot have your cake AND eat it. Besides which, once captured, enemy soldiers become a whole lot less scary, and professional soldiers share a lot of respect for those who they are set to fight against. The same cannot be said for insurgents/terrorists/Taliban/ISIS, because terror is a weapon they are happy to embrace and deploy, even against those they call "their own people". Good men must stand up for a better way of living, and not indiscriminately maim and kill beyond that which is necessary to achieve their objective.
Sometimes this appears to be "fighting on one leg with both hands tied behind your back", but we cannot descend to the level of those who we have been told are "wrong". To do so would make us just as "wrong" as they are. If we're going to go deploying forces around the world to behave in a wholly uncivilised manner, then we'd be better off building container ships than aircraft carriers and staying home to trade, keeping well out of international politics.
No matter how much we stick rigourously to the rules and however many soldiers we throw in jail for shooting the enemy. The Taliban will never, ever follow the rules. So forget, "might" and "encourage" and all that other garbage. It isn't changing anything.
Leaving aside the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 to which we are signatory (and which ratified the earlier Convention of 1929), the fact is that this Marine was an SNCO. That is to say he was a Junior Subordinate Commander.
One would hope that, while knowing the rules, such an SNCO woudn't be so fking stupid as to knowingly admit to breaking the rules on camera.
The fact that he was so stupid beggars belief.
I certainly wouldn't want such an SNCO on my Sqn
One would hope that, while knowing the rules, such an SNCO woudn't be so f
king stupid as to knowingly admit to breaking the rules on camera.The fact that he was so stupid beggars belief.
I certainly wouldn't want such an SNCO on my Sqn
e8_pack said:
You started well. We all know the rules of engagement, but unfortunately the event aren't following them.
No matter how much we stick rigourously to the rules and however many soldiers we throw in jail for shooting the enemy. The Taliban will never, ever follow the rules. So forget, "might" and "encourage" and all that other garbage. It isn't changing anything.
So would you rather we played by their rules?No matter how much we stick rigourously to the rules and however many soldiers we throw in jail for shooting the enemy. The Taliban will never, ever follow the rules. So forget, "might" and "encourage" and all that other garbage. It isn't changing anything.
castroses said:
Hosenbugler said:
p1stonhead said:
VolvoT5 said:
I don't know about the specifics of this particular case but I do know I wouldn't join the forces or police for love nor money these days. These men and women are put in extreme circumstances (sometimes with inadequate training/equipment/backup) that most of us could barely imagine and when they fk up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice.
Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
Shooting in a direction and accidently hitting someone you are not supposed to is a fk up we seem to judge them by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' standard of justice. Of course there have to be rules for professionals in this line of work but there also has to be some understanding that any person could crack or lack 'moral courage' under these circumstances and sentences should be issued according to that and to risk to the public of re-offending.
k up.Deliberately murdering someone point blank isnt a f
k up. Its no different to any other murder. Possibly worse because they are professional killers who should know explicitly what they are capable of and who they shouldnt be killing.If you've served in the armed forces of this country, you may have a valid opinion. I have.
If you haven't, then anything you think you know about this case is quite frankly b
ks. t. So any judge or jury in this country can't judge on a case unless they do the job of the defendant?
Jesus people like you lot are terrifying stupid. You are unfit to serve in our armed forces in my civilian opinion which matters exactly the same as yours does.
e8_pack said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Removing an enemy combatant from the field was not his job, his job was defined within very specific rules of engagement, which he broke.
Are they?castroses said:
Instead he's been barrack room tried by people who have never been in his position. The whole thing stinks.
He had a military court martial, presumably run by people who at least had a reasonable understanding of his position, and pretty much all the ex-military people here and elsewhere are saying they made the right decision. It's the people who have never been in his position who are defending him and saying the sentence is too harsh.I'm ex serving and im fully aware of the GC and the white cards we carried. I'm not disputing he was guilty.
I think everyone's hands are tied in this case, the real travesty is the filming of the incident.
All this claptrap about "we are better than them" etc is just noise. The law is unfortunately black and white but the world is full colour. We are better than the Taliban on a whole bunch of levels that we don't need to be locking up our soldiers who shoot the enemy after or during a fire fight. Yep, point blank, injured combatant, GC, I hear you. But don't give me any more crap about it effecting our professional image or using it to excuse rape and torture. If the guy had just walked into a nunnery and started shooting up the place while fully naked wearing a sock I might be judging it differently.
Next time, don't film it. Let's hope the sentence is reduced.
RizzoTheRat said:
e8_pack said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Removing an enemy combatant from the field was not his job, his job was defined within very specific rules of engagement, which he broke.
Are they?castroses said:
Instead he's been barrack room tried by people who have never been in his position. The whole thing stinks.
He had a military court martial, presumably run by people who at least had a reasonable understanding of his position, and pretty much all the ex-military people here and elsewhere are saying they made the right decision. It's the people who have never been in his position who are defending him and saying the sentence is too harsh.I'm ex serving and im fully aware of the GC and the white cards we carried. I'm not disputing he was guilty.
I think everyone's hands are tied in this case, the real travesty is the filming of the incident.
All this claptrap about "we are better than them" etc is just noise. The law is unfortunately black and white but the world is full colour. We are better than the Taliban on a whole bunch of levels that we don't need to be locking up our soldiers who shoot the enemy after or during a fire fight. Yep, point blank, injured combatant, GC, I hear you. But don't give me any more crap about it effecting our professional image or using it to excuse rape and torture. If the guy had just walked into a nunnery and started shooting up the place while fully naked wearing a sock I might be judging it differently.
Next time, don't film it. Let's hope the sentence is reduced.
Bigends said:
RizzoTheRat said:
e8_pack said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Removing an enemy combatant from the field was not his job, his job was defined within very specific rules of engagement, which he broke.
Are they?castroses said:
Instead he's been barrack room tried by people who have never been in his position. The whole thing stinks.
He had a military court martial, presumably run by people who at least had a reasonable understanding of his position, and pretty much all the ex-military people here and elsewhere are saying they made the right decision. It's the people who have never been in his position who are defending him and saying the sentence is too harsh.I'm ex serving and im fully aware of the GC and the white cards we carried. I'm not disputing he was guilty.
I think everyone's hands are tied in this case, the real travesty is the filming of the incident.
All this claptrap about "we are better than them" etc is just noise. The law is unfortunately black and white but the world is full colour. We are better than the Taliban on a whole bunch of levels that we don't need to be locking up our soldiers who shoot the enemy after or during a fire fight. Yep, point blank, injured combatant, GC, I hear you. But don't give me any more crap about it effecting our professional image or using it to excuse rape and torture. If the guy had just walked into a nunnery and started shooting up the place while fully naked wearing a sock I might be judging it differently.
Next time, don't film it. Let's hope the sentence is reduced.
kstain sticking his nose in where it didn't belong. Of course I'm sure it's the case that no plod has ever bent or broken the rules. Just another symptom of all that's wrong in this country.
RizzoTheRat said:
e8_pack said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Removing an enemy combatant from the field was not his job, his job was defined within very specific rules of engagement, which he broke.
Are they?castroses said:
Instead he's been barrack room tried by people who have never been in his position. The whole thing stinks.
He had a military court martial, presumably run by people who at least had a reasonable understanding of his position, and pretty much all the ex-military people here and elsewhere are saying they made the right decision. It's the people who have never been in his position who are defending him and saying the sentence is too harsh.I'm ex serving and im fully aware of the GC and the white cards we carried. I'm not disputing he was guilty.
I think everyone's hands are tied in this case, the real travesty is the filming of the incident.
All this claptrap about "we are better than them" etc is just noise. The law is unfortunately black and white but the world is full colour. We are better than the Taliban on a whole bunch of levels that we don't need to be locking up our soldiers who shoot the enemy after or during a fire fight. Yep, point blank, injured combatant, GC, I hear you. But don't give me any more crap about it effecting our professional image or using it to excuse rape and torture. If the guy had just walked into a nunnery and started shooting up the place while fully naked wearing a sock I might be judging it differently.
Next time, don't film it. Let's hope the sentence is reduced.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff