Marchers show support for 5 Royal Marines charged with murder
207 replies, posted
Well this thread is going in circles. Surely we can all agree that you are [B]supposed[/B] to give aid to injured enemy combatants (regardless of your medical training, all soldiers are taught first aid) as part of the Geneva Convention. The fact that you hate them, or that they wouldn't do the same for you is totally irrelevant. There are loads of cases where Taliban fighters get lifted to Bastion for treatment.
Having established that, we know that if these marines did withhold treatment they're expected to give we can see why they are being charged with murder (we can probably debate if it should be manslaughter or murder but this is a technicality in this argument).
I am fed up with seeing fucking moronic statements such as:
"Durhhrhrr y is they being lcked up for killin turrists?"
Personally I certainly hope they're innocent. But we must be better than the enemy in this regard, otherwise what's the point?
[QUOTE=Matriax;38229174]Well this thread is going in circles. Surely we can all agree that you are [B]supposed[/B] to give aid to injured enemy combatants (regardless of your medical training, all soldiers are taught first aid) as part of the Geneva Convention. The fact that you hate them, or that they wouldn't do the same for you is totally irrelevant. There are loads of cases where Taliban fighters get lifted to Bastion for treatment.
Having established that, we know that if these marines did withhold treatment they're expected to give we can see why they are being charged with murder (we can probably debate if it should be manslaughter or murder but this is a technicality in this argument).
I am fed up with seeing fucking moronic statements such as:
"Durhhrhrr y is they being lcked up for killin turrists?"
Personally I certainly hope they're innocent. But we must be better than the enemy in this regard, otherwise what's the point?[/QUOTE]
The point is that the military is removing a threat, we don't exactly have to be fair or humane about it. War is war, the insurgent was the enemy and he died, too bad. Putting a bunch of marine up for murder because they combated a threat and failed to treat him afterwards is counter-productive and takes able bodies out of the battlefield.
People shouldn't have to worry about innocence and fair treatment in a war, save for dealing with civilians that have been absolutely proven to be safe and non-combative.
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
Not that I support the conflict, though.
If said Marines were American than most of you guys would probably be hating them.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;38229513]The point is that the military is removing a threat, we don't exactly have to be fair or humane about it. War is war, the insurgent was the enemy and he died, too bad. Putting a bunch of marine up for murder because they combated a threat and failed to treat him afterwards is counter-productive and takes able bodies out of the battlefield.[/QUOTE]
Except the fact that the majority of 'terrorist insurgence' are simply brainwashed farmers thinking their land is being taken away. A general gave percentage figures that a large proportion we're fighting aren't really terrorists. Taking time to worry about innocence and fair treatment is important when we're supposed to be there to win the hearts and minds of the people and REMOVE a terrorist threat, not create propaganda to produce more scared farmers with guns ready to mow down troops in the name of repelling an invasion.
This isn't WWII. Our end goals are supposed to be much different.
Better yet, why not just remove them from Afghanistan so they do not repeat their actions instead of prosecuting a bunch who failed to follow a set of laws that apply a double standard to how they fight in comparison to the much more ruthless enemy?
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;38229575]Except the fact that the majority of 'terrorist insurgence' are simply brainwashed farmers thinking their land is being taken away. Taking time to worry about innocence and fair treatment is important when we're supposed to be there to win the hearts and minds of the people and REMOVE a terrorist threat, not create propaganda to produce more scared farmers with guns ready to mow down troops in the name of repelling an invasion.
This isn't WWII. Our end goals are supposed to be much different.[/QUOTE]
Then remove them from combat instead of making an example of them. But I'd say that keeping friendly soldiers alive and well should come above using more orthodox tactics against an unstable populace, though that bunch were presumably safe when they did what they did.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;38229578]Then remove them from combat instead of making an example of them.[/QUOTE]
Why would you rather do that then have a trial?
[QUOTE=kaine123;38229566]If said Marines were American than most of you guys would probably be hating them.[/QUOTE]
i hate all militants regardless of their country
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;38226620]Technically, the geneva convention does not apply as the Taliban do not follow it.[/QUOTE]
False - most nations are part of multiple international agreements and conventions (the geneva being one of the broadest) which deal with relationships to foreign soldiers, noncombatants as well as nonuniformed combatants.
On top of that it's pretty much universal conventions which means you are generally required to follow them even if you are not a signatory (talking about nations here).
And even when dealing with parties who do not follow it, or are not signatories of these conventions you have to follow them or you get in trouble.
As such western militaries try to make pretty darn sure they follow them, at least as far as most people can see.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;38229578]Better yet, why not just remove them from Afghanistan so they do not repeat their actions instead of prosecuting a bunch who failed to follow a set of laws that apply a double standard to how they fight in comparison to the much more ruthless enemy?
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
Then remove them from combat instead of making an example of them. But I'd say that keeping friendly soldiers alive and well should come above using more orthodox tactics against an unstable populace, though that bunch were presumably safe when they did what they did.[/QUOTE]
Because what they did could possible constitute a criminal act under the laws that the UK army operates. A military is not a bunch of armed guys shooting the enemy and thus keeping the peace.
The military is a bunch of armed guys operating under a legal pretext and within the scope of the law to be able to shoot guys and keep the peace in a legal manner under both international laws as well as the laws under which the military operates.
Also uniform is not a requirement for POW status under the Geneva convention
[quote]
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
"# 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
# 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.[/quote]
For the record I do believe the US did not ratify this part of the convention. As such it's trying to stay exempt from it and actively attempts to stay out of it. Honestly I wouldn't really pull the geneva convention into this. As I don't think most of us can actually say if it applies in this case or not. I'd have to check case law to be able to tell with at least some certainty which I realy don't feel like doing.
But I personally believe that the UK has legislature which actually is even more stronger than the geneva convention and this is what applies in this case.
[QUOTE=David29;38224587]Except they weren't medics.[/QUOTE]
Every soldier is trained in basic medical attention, we're supposed to be peacekeepers not assholes. They let him bleed the fuck out in pain too, if it was really that urgent that they get out of the area then they could have put him out of his misery.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;38229513]The point is that the military is removing a threat, we don't exactly have to be fair or humane about it. War is war, the insurgent was the enemy and he died, too bad. Putting a bunch of marine up for murder because they combated a threat and failed to treat him afterwards is counter-productive and takes able bodies out of the battlefield.
People shouldn't have to worry about innocence and fair treatment in a war, save for dealing with civilians that have been absolutely proven to be safe and non-combative.
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
Not that I support the conflict, though.[/QUOTE]
except we DO have to be fair and humane about it. that's the burden we take as modern first world nations, having to act like it
[QUOTE=smurfy;38224265]
The FB page is pretty much what I expected:
[img]http://puu.sh/1jOgg[/img][/QUOTE]
Sorry if I'm an idiot but why is this important at all?
[QUOTE=Greenen72;38230250]Sorry if I'm an idiot but why is this important at all?[/QUOTE]
The use of the phrase 'our lads' to describe British troops is generally seen in patriotic tabloids, and it reminded me of other questionable military actions like this
[img] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/The_Sun_(Gotcha).png[/img]
I'm no expert on international law but surely this isn't a matter of UK law but the Geneva (or other) convention? I am basing this entirely on that screenshot from Facebook. Pretty sure there is something about providing aid to injured combatants if you have taken them into custody.
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tobba;38225847]The taliban dont even follow the Geneva convention anyways[/QUOTE]
And this is what separates us (ie the West / NATO / ISAF, delete as appropriate) from them. They could just say fuck it, they don't follow the convention so lets bomb their country back to the stoneage and use chemical weapons etc.
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38226176]I have no remorse or sympathy for my enemies. That ran out when they took the lives of my battle buddies. I help kill insurgents. It is my primary job. Sorry. I give fellow soldiers the benefit of the doubt.[/QUOTE]
I think that might be what the difference between Americans and Brits is..
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;38224458]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]
Who happens to be a person.
glad to see when you can completely dilute any semblance of morality by attaching "its just war..............." to it.
im pretty sure that if some guys are shooting at us and hurt some of my friends, i wouldnt feel too keen on helping them back to life
im not in the military so who knows but if i was out in the field in battle, i dont think the Geneva convention would be in my top thoughts either
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38225470]Hate to break it to you guys, but our enemies are not classified as EPW's under the conventions. You guys love to throw that thing around, but have little to no idea of what is actually contained in it. I am given extremely basic medical training to help save my buddy's life in case of emergency, called CLS (Combat Life Saving). I am under no obligation to medically aid the enemy, as I am not medical personnel. It is not within my skills to try and stabilize the insurgent after we shoot them. If there is not a medic around, that is tough. Our own soldiers take priority in any situation, then civilians, then enemy personnel. Now, we can't really judge what happened here until more details are readily available. I am speaking from a US Soldier's perspective within ISAF, so I am not sure if British protocols are different. Correct me if I get any British stuff wrong, it is not exactly within the realms of my knowledge, other than nations in ISAF generally operate similarly, with some differences in ROE and combat doctrine.[/QUOTE]
So you need to be mandated to have basic human empathy?
I am so glad people like you are in the military, Skeea, really shows you who the government gives guns to.
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;38231511] i dont think the Geneva convention would be in my top thoughts either[/QUOTE]
well it fucking should be. Every step you take in a foreign country, you should have that convention concentrating your thoughts and any action you take you should be held accountable.
If you're going to play soldier, you better be ready to be held accountable for the things you do. Plain and fucking simple.
yeah i reckon, i mean, why the heck are we always expected to hold soldiers in such high regard yet at the same time just be like 'ohhh they are only people you can't expect them to do this or that' if we're gonna consider them such paragons then they should act like it
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38231550]
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
well it fucking should be. Every step you take in a foreign country, you should have that convention concentrating your thoughts and any action you take you should be held accountable.
If you're going to play soldier, you better be ready to be held accountable for the things you do. Plain and fucking simple.[/QUOTE]
dude youre being shot at and people are trying to kill you, you probably dont care what the fucking law says
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;38231650]dude youre being shot at and people are trying to kill you, you probably dont care what the fucking law says[/QUOTE]
Then you should be held accountable for whatever you do if you don't have it on your mind.
You can't give this massive power and authority to people but skirt the edges when they dilute the law used to govern them. It's one or the other, it's up to you. If you want to voluntarily put yourself in those situations, then you better be ready to know what the hell you're doing. And if you fuck up, you should be punished accordingly.
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;38231650]dude youre being shot at and people are trying to kill you, you probably dont care what the fucking law says[/QUOTE]
if you don't care what the law says then don't be surprised if you get fucked by it?
i think this is just a big case of 'you have to be there to truly understand'
neither of us are qualified to say how and will the soldiers will act under fire.
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
i guess my main point is i dont think these soldiers should be charged with murder
- edit: missed that -
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;38231692]i think this is just a big case of 'you have to be there to truly understand'
neither of us are qualified to say how and will the soldiers will act under fire.
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
i guess my main point is i dont think these soldiers should be charged with murder[/QUOTE]
so soldiers can just get away with anything because they're in a stressful environment?
also im reading the article again and it only says they were talking together deciding on what to do
it doesnt say they were like laughing at him refusing him aid
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
i dont see anything incriminating in this whole thing
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;38231692]i think this is just a big case of 'you have to be there to truly understand'
neither of us are qualified to say how and will the soldiers will act under fire.[/quote]
That isn't my point at all. My point is I don't give a shit how they act under fire, they have rules to work by, if they will not and cannot follow them then they should not be allowed to skirt it.
[quote]i guess my main point is i dont think these soldiers should be charged with murder[/QUOTE]
I'm sure if a soldier raped a child to death, you'd defend that too "u'll nvr truly understand......"
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;38231728]also im reading the article again and it only says they were talking together deciding on what to do
it doesnt say they were like laughing at him refusing him aid
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
i dont see anything incriminating in this whole thing[/QUOTE]
Except the fact he actually died. That's KINDA incriminating.
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;38231692]i think this is just a big case of 'you have to be there to truly understand'
neither of us are qualified to say how and will the soldiers will act under fire.
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
i guess my main point is i dont think these soldiers should be charged with murder[/QUOTE]
should we use this justification for anyone that ever commits a crime?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38231757]That isn't my point at all. My point is I don't give a shit how they act under fire, they have rules to work by, if they will not and cannot follow them then they should not be allowed to skirt it.
I'm sure if a soldier raped a child to death, you'd defend that too "u'll nvr truly understand......"[/QUOTE]
wtf no? heat of the battle raping doesnt happen but ok gj being stupid
i think the situation should be taken into account, in the same way as we take stress and shit into account when determining if certain use of force is justified in self defense etc
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38231757]
Except the fact he actually died. That's KINDA incriminating.[/QUOTE]
yeah he died from a gunshot wound after attacking the soldiers
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;38231783]wtf no? heat of the battle raping doesnt happen but ok gj being stupid[/QUOTE]
heat of the battle rape has been one of the most common acts of terror in the human history of war. i guess not literally during the battle, but while it's dying down or just after or whatever
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38231757]
Except the fact he actually died. That's KINDA incriminating.[/QUOTE]
yeah from gunshot wound he got after attacking the soldiers
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
good job just throwing shit in the way outfield. stop being stupid
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.