• Marchers show support for 5 Royal Marines charged with murder
    207 replies, posted
[t]http://imgkk.com/i/sxfn.jpg[/t] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20113853[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]Events are taking place across the UK in support of five Royal Marines charged with murder over an incident in Afghanistan last year.[/B] The unnamed five have been released from custody back to their unit, with restrictions on their movements. The "show support" events are being held in cities including Edinburgh, Plymouth, Swansea, Norwich and London. The Ministry of Defence says it would be inappropriate to comment further on the ongoing investigation. The incident happened when Plymouth-based 3 Commando Brigade were in Helmand, on their fourth tour of duty in Afghanistan. The events also coincided with the 348th anniversary of the formation of the Royal Marines. Several former marines were among those who took part in a march in Plymouth. One told the BBC: "We're just showing the guys that nobody has forgotten about them. "There are people in the country who are behind them." Green lapel ribbons - some bearing the words "Free the 5" - were being worn at the events by supporters, who say the charges are unjust. The ribbons are also being sold to raise money to pay for any costs to their families. Meanwhile, more than 63,000 people have "liked" a Facebook page in support of the marines. All five marines - who have been granted anonymity - are charged with the murder of an unknown Afghan national. The marines were arrested by the Royal Military Police after suspicious video footage was found on a laptop by civilian police in the UK. A plea hearing is due to take place in December. It is believed to be the first time UK servicemen have been arrested and charged with such an offence during the Afghanistan conflict.[/quote] It's hard to find news sites giving a description of the actual incident. Here's [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217537/Royal-Marines-charged-5-custody-charged-murder-tour-Afghanistan.html]the good old Daily Mail's account[/url], and here's what [url=https://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-The-5-Royal-Marines-Charged-with-Murdering-A-Taliban-Terrorist/100380296790540]the FB support page[/url] says [img]http://puu.sh/1jNYO[/img] The FB page is pretty much what I expected: [img]http://puu.sh/1jOgg[/img]
So what was the incident? I'm confused about this "suspicious video footage"
"As this is the case can all the bleeding heart Liberals kindly not post rude an offensive comments on this site." the irony, it buuuurns.
Wait, what happened?
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;38224409]Wait, what happened?[/QUOTE] Apparently they failed to give medical aid to a wounded combatant and he bled out.
To think that no one's going to get, "murdered," during a war is ridiculous. Its not like Western forces are on a raid and pillage policy in Afghanistan, it was an armed insurgent.
[QUOTE=ScoutKing;38224439]Apparently they failed to give medical aid to a wounded combatant and he bled out.[/QUOTE] after getting shot at by said combatant...i know i wouldn't give him aid
[QUOTE=krakadict;38224469]after getting shot at by said combatant...i know i wouldn't give him aid[/QUOTE] Except medics are bound by the Geneva Convention to treat all wounded combatants, regardless of allegiance.
[QUOTE=ScoutKing;38224439]Apparently they failed to give medical aid to a wounded combatant and he bled out.[/QUOTE] I'm fairly certain it's not a regular grunt's duty or obligation to provide medical aid to anybody except his own buddies. Not aiding an enemy, especially one who was shooting at you 2 minutes earlier, seems only logical to me.
Too bad "failure to act" is characterized as a crime in a lot of cases. If they were obligated to act and provide medical aid as per any agreement when they enlisted and they failed to do so, they're guilty. Sorry, but them's the breaks. [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;38224484]Except medics are bound by the Geneva Convention to treat all wounded combatants, regardless of allegiance.[/QUOTE] And there it is.
-snip didn't read op-
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;38224485]I'm fairly certain it's not a regular grunt's duty or obligation to provide medical aid to anybody except his own buddies. Not aiding an enemy, especially one who was shooting at you 2 minutes earlier, seems only logical to me.[/QUOTE] Geneva convention. If they're unarmed, on the ground bleeding out, you have to give them aid. Grunts know how to do basic first aid. Putting a tourniquet on and applying pressure isn't too much to ask while you wait for a medic to come by and handle it or ship him out. You can pull the whole "if they shot at you, you wouldn't give them aid either". We're suppose to be the "good" guys and follow the "rules". What these guys did dont send out a good message to the rest of the world.
mess with the geneva, and you get the convention
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;38224499]Too bad "failure to act" is characterized as a crime in a lot of cases. If they were obligated to act and provide medical aid as per any agreement when they enlisted and they failed to do so, they're guilty. [/QUOTE] That's fair, what makes ignoring that obligation constitute as murder though?
[QUOTE=Malos;38224538]This wasn't murder, this was self-defense. These marines obviously didn't want to kill that insurgent, and murder is defined as killing with malice aforethought. It's also understandable why they wouldn't give him aid. [B]There's nothing stopping the insurgent from killing another person after he's received aid and I doubt a trained soldier would take that risk.[/B][/QUOTE] Fucking what? You're telling me this recently wounded and unarmed insurgent is going to fight his way out of any medical facility they're holding him in to go kill again. Fucking really? We're not saying they should patch him up and send him on his merry way, but if they're bound by law or contract to provide aid and they failed to do so, they're fucking guilty. EDIT: Actually, fuck it, wouldn't leaving him there make the possibility of him killing again higher? If you're giving him aid, you've basically disarmed and captured him. If you leave him there to bleed out, what if somebody else comes along and provides the aid you failed to provide? Then the man is free to go out and kill again because you decided not to take him in and just assumed he would die. [QUOTE=RobbL;38224559]That's fair, what makes ignoring that obligation constitute as murder though?[/QUOTE] Hard to say if that charge will stick. Could be argued that standing there and making the decision while the guy bleeds out in front of them counts as planned and deliberate.
If these 5 morons could find time to make a video of a man dying for their own personal pleasure rather than doing something about it, then they're pretty much in the fucking wrong.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;38224484]Except medics are bound by the Geneva Convention to treat all wounded combatants, regardless of allegiance.[/QUOTE] Except they weren't medics.
I fail to understand the reasoning why they are being charged with murder here, It is a war after all. If you where getting shot by a militant, you really wouldn't want to give him medical aid after he tried to kill you. I really see nothing wrong here. If he had wounded one of your own comrades, Your priority would be to make sure he lives another day and not the guy who just attacked you. I doubt the militant would think any differently.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;38224561]Fucking what? You're telling me this recently wounded and unarmed insurgent is going to fight his way out of any medical facility they're holding him in to go kill again. Fucking really? We're not saying they should patch him up and send him on his merry way, but if they're bound by law or contract to provide aid and they failed to do so, they're fucking guilty.[/QUOTE] Hey, easy now. I'm not looking for hostility, and I see your point. I'm still not sure how it would warrant murder if leaving a person to bleed to death would be considered negligence. Murder implies that the guy pissed you off and you shanked him, not in a war scenario where you absolutely have to shoot at the person. But again, relax. I'm not looking to start a fight. Just stating what I think about this situation. Hell, I was already proven wrong once. EDIT: [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;38224657]soldiers should be the finest a country can provide, if they're willing to sit back and watch a man die for personal amusement, then they can face justice[/QUOTE] Wait, they actually just stood there and filmed him dying? Okay, I must've skimmed past that part, because that's pretty damn cold.
[QUOTE=Malos;38224614]Hey, easy now. I'm not looking for hostility, and I see your point. I'm still not sure how it would warrant murder if leaving a person to bleed to death would be considered negligence. Murder implies that the guy pissed you off and you shanked him, not in a war scenario where you absolutely have to shoot at the person. But again, relax. I'm not looking to start a fight. Just stating what I think about this situation. Hell, I was already proven wrong once.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, but I think it's pretty clear that the guy isn't going to kill again if you take him in. I'm not trying to say that I think we need to string these men up for murder, but the law is the law. If they were bound by some sort of convention when they enlisted and they broke it, they're guilty. I want to see the law actually applied here and not just see them walk free because they're on our side and the guy was an insurgent. Once you start bending the law to fit the way you want it to, you've basically rendered the law pointless. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;38224657]If they're guilty of murder, then they get tried for murder the nationality or the victim, or where it happened is irrelevant soldiers should be the finest a country can provide, if they're willing to sit back and watch a man die for personal amusement, then they can face justice[/QUOTE] Agreed. Those people in that facebook group who think we should let them off because "They're our boys and that guy was a turrist" can fuck right off. Marines shouldn't be lowering themselves to treat the enemy as they would treat us, not if you want to argue that our side has some moral superiority (I hate using language like this, but I think I get my point across)
If they're guilty of murder, then they get tried for murder the nationality or the victim, or where it happened is irrelevant soldiers should be the finest a country can provide, if they're willing to sit back and watch a man die for personal amusement, then they can face justice
[QUOTE=Fort83;38224664]I dont understand how this is murder (I understand it's the law but still). It's war, how many people have died in the war by similar circumstances? You either shoot the hostile or they shoot you. Was the hostile unarmed when he was bleeding out or was his weapon close by?[/QUOTE] [quote]Details of the incident have not been revealed but the Ministry of Defence described it as ‘an engagement with an insurgent’ with no civilians involved. It is claimed that the injured Taliban fighter did not pose a threat to the Marines.[/quote]
So they basically made a home-video of them murdering what was probably a PoW? And people defend this?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38224698]So they basically made a home-video of them murdering what was probably a PoW? And people defend this?[/QUOTE] But they're our lads OUR LADS
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;38224485]I'm fairly certain it's not a regular grunt's duty or obligation to provide medical aid to anybody except his own buddies. Not aiding an enemy, especially one who was shooting at you 2 minutes earlier, seems only logical to me.[/QUOTE] Even grunts are given basic medical training to help save their friends, they could have helped the Taliban soldier if they wanted too. Even medivac choppers will medivac wounded taliban alongside wounded NATO troops, it's not very rare that something like that happens.
I can see how deliberately killing an enemy soldier who is no longer an active threat is murder, but whether letting them die is also murder is something I can't make my mind up about
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38224698]So they basically made a home-video of them murdering what was probably a PoW? And people defend this?[/QUOTE] Yeah, I was pretty in the wrong here. I didn't read the material before I posted. This is the importance of reading, kids! Otherwise, you might misunderstand the situation and support soldiers who shot an insurgent and filmed him bleeding out!
[QUOTE=RobbL;38224742]I can see how deliberately killing an enemy soldier who is no longer an active threat is murder, but whether letting them die is also murder is something I can't make my mind up about[/QUOTE] I would call it voluntary manslaughter
[QUOTE=smurfy;38224729]But they're our lads OUR LADS[/QUOTE] Our LADS and them [I]TERRORISTS[/I] who will rape your kids and crash your buildings
half of that facebook page is UKIP propaganda its really something else
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.