Soar Fox Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 Should he have been named? http://news.sky.com/story/1178119/marine-who-murdered-afghan-fighter-is-named
GingerrrFox Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 What has happened to this guy is a ****ing disgrace. Easy enough for people to criticise him but they have never been in a war situation, where their friends have been killed, some have been physically maimed and had their body parts hung from trees as trophies. To know constantly day in day out that people want to shoot you or blow you up makes you more alert to danger and guarantees that you want pay back and some form of retribution. They trained him and sent him out to war and then crucify him for doing what he was programmed to do? No shit Sherlock, he's a trained killer.
Zingari Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 They've only named him because he's A Blackman.
MooseBreath Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 Shouldn't have been named, shouldn't have been a public trial. He was a man trained to kill sent to a warzone to kill the enemy. Clearly not everyday circumstances. If he was unable to perform the job correctly then he shouldn't have been there. The accountability for his actions rests with those who sent him there in the first place. Using law to punish a man who was sent to kill other men is a bit twisted imo. It shouldn't have come to this.
Webbo Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 If we accuse others of war crimes then we have to respect the same laws ourselves. I feel sorry for this guy and I don't know and never want to find out myself how I'd react under the same circumstances but the law has to be applied equally to all, friend and foe. That said I hope the sentence isn't too severe.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 What has happened to this guy is a ****ing disgrace. Easy enough for people to criticise him but they have never been in a war situation, where their friends have been killed, some have been physically maimed and had their body parts hung from trees as trophies. To know constantly day in day out that people want to shoot you or blow you up makes you more alert to danger and guarantees that you want pay back and some form of retribution. They trained him and sent him out to war and then crucify him for doing what he was programmed to do? No shit Sherlock, he's a trained killer. Two wrongs don't make a right and we have to be better than them, or we lose all credibility and there no point in being there (not sure there is anyway.) If we accuse others of war crimes then we have to respect the same laws ourselves. I feel sorry for this guy and I don't know and never want to find out myself how I'd react under the same circumstances but the law has to be applied equally to all, friend and foe. That said I hope the sentence isn't too severe. Exactly.
Soar Fox Posted 6 December 2013 Author Posted 6 December 2013 I don't know much about this kind of stuff, but what were they supposed to do with the wounded man? Leave him out there wounded or give him first aid and take him with them?
marko Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 I don't know much about this kind of stuff, but what were they supposed to do with the wounded man? Leave him out there wounded or give him first aid and take him with them? They were supposed to, under the Geneva Convention, give the injured man first aid and take him with them as he's classed as hors combat.
Babylon Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 Knew it would be A. Blackman anyway. It always is.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 What has happened to this guy is a ****ing disgrace. Easy enough for people to criticise him but they have never been in a war situation, where their friends have been killed, some have been physically maimed and had their body parts hung from trees as trophies. To know constantly day in day out that people want to shoot you or blow you up makes you more alert to danger and guarantees that you want pay back and some form of retribution. They trained him and sent him out to war and then crucify him for doing what he was programmed to do? No shit Sherlock, he's a trained killer. Disagree. Every soldier knows the rules of engagement. Even I could tell you them and i never toured anywhere. Sure the people who found him guilty did so in the comfort of a courtroom not a battlefield, but we're not talking about a situation such as the Mark Duggan thing where police thought he was about to pull out a weapon. the terrorist was probably mortally wounded, certainly unable to be a threat to the marines. I don't think he shouldve been named though its perfectly feasible that al qaeda over here could target his innocent family
Jon the Hat Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 Murder is murder. Naming him seems a little foolish though.
GingerrrFox Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 Disagree. Every soldier knows the rules of engagement. Even I could tell you them and i never toured anywhere. Sure the people who found him guilty did so in the comfort of a courtroom not a battlefield, but we're not talking about a situation such as the Mark Duggan thing where police thought he was about to pull out a weapon. the terrorist was probably mortally wounded, certainly unable to be a threat to the marines. I don't think he shouldve been named though its perfectly feasible that al qaeda over here could target his innocent family The copper who shot Duggan got off Scot Free because they said he carried a gun with **** all evidence and he didn't have one on him at the time. This Afghan could easily have been strapped with a bomb and blew himself up when the Marines got close to him. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Police get off but let's hang the Marine out to dry.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 The copper who shot Duggan got off Scot Free because they said he carried a gun with **** all evidence and he didn't have one on him at the time. This Afghan could easily have been strapped with a bomb and blew himself up when the Marines got close to him. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Police get off but let's hang the Marine out to dry. Troops are trained for those eventualities and wouldnt have gone near him if they thought that was the case. Theyve physically dragged him to a more secluded spot before killing him so they clearly were sure he didnt have a bomb with him.
ADK Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 I have some sympathy actually. But it is still a crime.
MooseBreath Posted 6 December 2013 Posted 6 December 2013 I have some sympathy actually. But it is still a crime. And yet if they hadn't have properly disarmed the enemy, and say he had produced a hidden knife, it would have been perfectly legal to kill him and no-one would have ever known. Very fine lines between doing your job and ten years in prison in that profession, it would seem. Plus, the application of the law argument - who makes the laws? The same people that released our armed forces to kill people in Afghanistan and previously in Iraq under completely false pretenses? It's all a bit wishy washy if you ask me. I can tell you to kill people for no reason whatsoever and I've broken no laws. You kill someone in an undesirable manner in the heat of a warzone and you're going to jail for ten years. Legal or not, morally this does not stack up for me at all.
Babylon Posted 7 December 2013 Posted 7 December 2013 Put it this way... Is one of our soldiers was lying injured and the Taliban walked up to them and put a bullet through their head. People would say they were butchers and they would want that person stringing up. I can't imagine what soldiers go through, so it's very difficult to get your head around. But if the shoe was on the other foot, nobody would be happy.
Vacamion Posted 7 December 2013 Posted 7 December 2013 Put it this way... Is one of our soldiers was lying injured and the Taliban walked up to them and put a bullet through their head. People would say they were butchers and they would want that person stringing up. I can't imagine what soldiers go through, so it's very difficult to get your head around. But if the shoe was on the other foot, nobody would be happy. One of the main differences between us and them is that we give this a second thought. The Taliban would kill our guy no questions asked, no review, no court case, no hand-wringing and no debate about the rights and wrongs. I like our way of doing it - regrettable though a court case and prison sentence arising from this is, it is the price we pay for upholding the right principle.
Babylon Posted 7 December 2013 Posted 7 December 2013 One of the main differences between us and them is that we give this a second thought. The Taliban would kill our guy no questions asked, no review, no court case, no hand-wringing and no debate about the rights and wrongs. I like our way of doing it - regrettable though a court case and prison sentence arising from this is, it is the price we pay for upholding the right principle. Indeed, it would be a dangerous route to go down to let people walk without away any action against them. Effectively giving soldiers carte blanche to be judge jury and executioner. Engagement rules etc exist for a reason.
Itsthejoeker Posted 7 December 2013 Posted 7 December 2013 The guy was right to be punished for his actions, we're there to help bring law and order. If we start playing by the Taliban's rules, are we not just as bad as them? For him to be named though, was a little foolish, he and his family are now a target.
Benji Posted 8 December 2013 Posted 8 December 2013 Isn't one of the advantages of a court martial over a public trial that fellow military personnel sit on the board as the jury equivalent (i.e. it's not Joe Bloggs off the street making a decision totally in hindsight, without context and from the saddle of his high horse)? Personally I think if he's guilty then sure he should be named, but the other two shouldn't.
Parafox Posted 9 December 2013 Posted 9 December 2013 Shouldn't have been named, shouldn't have been a public trial. He was a man trained to kill sent to a warzone to kill the enemy. Clearly not everyday circumstances. If he was unable to perform the job correctly then he shouldn't have been there. The accountability for his actions rests with those who sent him there in the first place. Using law to punish a man who was sent to kill other men is a bit twisted imo. It shouldn't have come to this. I kind of find myself agreeing with Moosebreath!!! Yes, it's a crime and shouldn't go unpunished but a Miltary Court would surely have been more appropriate.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.