 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Is the murder of the insurgent in Afghanistan the same as a murder in civvy street and should it be treated just the same by the court?
Well there is bad murder, and then there is good murder...
Wrong forum ?
This is in the bike forum, was the murder weapon a bike ?
Bit of a tricky one IMHO. I do think matey boy deserved to get shot but not in an execution like what occurred here. But I think there is more to it. These guys are bound to be in a place mentally, that most of us will never be able to comprehend.
I do think matey boy deserved to get shot
Which matey boy are we talking about - matey boy the "enemy insurgent" or matey boy the member of an invading and occupying military force?
I only came here to flog a road bike, but no, think this is disgusting, only the Brits would prosecute one of their own for killing the enemy. The Army is a blunt instrument, don't use it, if you haven't got the stomach for what it does, if you prosecute the troops then prosecute the Politiicians that sent us in there to do their bidding, we've no place being there in the first place, the whole thing is wrong.
Okay, so they're "the enemy". In which case we're their enemy, right?
So it'd be okay for one of the Afghan insurgents to find an injured British soldier and execute him?
In the normal course of events, no. But this one wasn't normal.
It's messy though, I mean, obviously these guys are under stresses I'll never know, facing people who'd happily kill them if they got the chance. They're highly trained which should help but it's still very different from a civvy murder.
bencooper - Member
Okay, so they're "the enemy". In which case we're their enemy, right?So it'd be okay for one of the Afghan insurgents to find an injured British soldier and execute him?
Sorry? Isn't that what happens in war? Except they won't be prosecuting their fighters.
Only military personnel can judge the actions of a member of the forces in a combat situation - completely different scenario to what the average jury member can understand.
That said, think the average jury member may well have found the Marine not guilty for killing the Taliban in any situation 🙄
As a former soldier i have some sympathies with the marine that did the shooting, however from the audio it's pretty clear that he knew what he had done was wrong.
And to look at it another way, say the insurgent had been given first aid and survived to be interrogated he could have perhaps provided infomation that could have lead to the discovery of IED's that may have saved some of his colleagues lives.
Only military personnel can judge the actions of a member of the forces in a combat situation - completely different scenario to what the average jury member can understand.
That said, think the average jury member may well have found the Marine not guilty for killing the Taliban in any situation
Got to say I don't agree at all. Most of us don't work or experience life as police officers - should the police judge itself? Ditto, medical professionals, political leaders etc...
I only came here to flog a road bike, but no, think this is disgusting, only the Brits would prosecute one of their own for killing the enemy. The Army is a blunt instrument, don't use it, if you haven't got the stomach for what it does, if you prosecute the troops then prosecute the Politiicians that sent us in there to do their bidding, we've no place being there in the first place, the whole thing is wrong.
We do it for military discipline. What do you think would have happened to British POW's during WW2 if we started shooting German POW's on sight on a large scale? We don't go ignoring and permanently undermining international law for the taliban when in 20 years time a conventional war might be the main threat we face.
Wasn't this a military court martial anyway, not a civilian court?
In fact it WAS a Court Martial at the Military Court Centre in Bulford, Wiltshire, and he was tried by a panel of army personnel.
In WW2 people were Court Martialed for similar offences and if there is an apparently clear case of murder of an enemy prisioner it is difficult to say they should not be tried by the military against the rules they are expected to follow.
Having found him guilty, the situation he may have been in should be taken into account in the sentance.
The military should be in military courts. What happens under service should be treated as such. No justification for the marines actions and they should be dealt with rightly and accordingly. Doing that in public has brought more bad publicity than the actions themselves.
The military is doing a job that the politicians asked them to do. We voted the politicians in to power. If we don't like it change the politicians.
My two nephews have just returned from Afgan. They didn't want to be there, the Afgans didn't want them there. The whole thing is a farce with the soldiers trying to survive and the Afgans trying to kill them. They have both said if we were the invaded then we would be doing the same to the invaders.
bigblackshed - Member
The military should be in military courts. What happens under service should be treated as such. No justification for the marines actions and they should be dealt with rightly and accordingly. Doing that in public has brought more bad publicity than the actions themselves.The military is doing a job that the politicians asked them to do. We voted the politicians in to power. If we don't like it change the politicians.
My two nephews have just returned from Afgan. They didn't want to be there, the Afgans didn't want them there. The whole thing is a farce with the soldiers trying to survive and the Afgans trying to kill them. They have both said if we were the invaded then we would be doing the same to the invaders.
Thoroughly agree, except there appears not to be a set of politician to vote for that don't use military action as a vanity project.
No, this was a military matter and was tried correctly in a military court
only the Brits would prosecute one of their own for killing the enemy.
I think you are unclear as to how many countries have signed the Geneva convention and are somewhat ignorant of international law
The main problem is the soldier new exactly what he was doing and he does not seem to have lost his cool and reacted. He deliberately decides to kill someone in breach of the law and openly acknowledges this on the tape. Its not even the "heat of battle".
Junkyard - lazarus
only the Brits would prosecute one of their own for killing the enemy.I think you are unclear as to how many countries have signed the Geneva convention and are somewhat ignorant of international law
The main problem is the soldier new exactly what he was doing and he does not seem to have lost his cool and reacted. He deliberately decides to kill someone in breach of the law and openly acknowledges this on the tape. Its not even the "heat of battle".
Certain irony there accusing me of ignorance, Someone who can't spell knew.
I'm perfectly aware of the Geneva convention thank you, it's just a shame it's only our side who enjoy enforcing it against their own, show me some examples of the Taliban enforcing it.
Have they signed it and are they are a country?
So you want our troops to act like the Taliban then?
Should they shoot schoolgirls for getting educated then?
Weak argument as two wrongs dont make a right
"Is it fair to try military offences in civilian courts ?"
No and we don't.
" only the Brits would prosecute one of their own for killing the enemy." And the Americans French and Germans even the Israelis (though given the opportunities they have had not often). The Russians haven't that I know of nor the Chinese. Basically you average good guys are opposed to killing prisoners (cf not accepting prisoners) your average baddies do kill prisoners . Who would you rather be the goodies or the baddies?
Hadn't the they hung body parts of dead marines outside the base just before this happened?
Seems like a reasonable reaction in the circumstances. So whilst it shouldn't be the policy you can understand it.
We can understand it, but we can't allow it.
They'd been trying to kill him a few minutes earlier, all above board and legal. It doesn't compare to a civilian murder.
There's this thing called the Geneva convention. ..
There's this thing called the Geneva convention. ..
Which, unfortunately, has this to say about the treatment of captured irregular forces
According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not do meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution.
Court Martial at the Military Court Centre in Bulford, Wiltshire, and he was tried by a panel of army personnel
I seem to recall on the news it stated that the jury was junior officers from the Marines and Navy. It could be argued that the jury should be of their peers ie NCOs and marines and sailors and not officers also I'm not sure how the jury can be totaly independent and free thinking.
Before they deploy and right though their training they are made aware of the law of armed conflict, what is and isn't allowed. It's in MATT's so it's done every year as well. We were told that every shooting would be investigated and we would be expected to justify what we did.
We have to be seen to be whiter than white or the Taliban will use things like this against us.
Which, unfortunately, has this to say about the treatment of captured irregular forces
It's not that simple, otherwise the Marine would have got off the charges.
Combatants who do not qualify for prisoner of war status[edit]
If the combatant is engaged in "armed conflict not of an international character" then under the Article 3 of the general provisions of the Geneva Conventions they should be "treated humanely", and if tried "sentences must ... be pronounced by a regularly constituted court"[15]
and for some context (Nuremberg trials), here is why this is the case.