Marine A - Right or wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted Member 1156
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted Member 1156

Guest
Just read this article, what is the general consensus of opinion on here?

Should a soldier be charged with murder/manslaughter for shooting an injured enemy on the battlefield? Does the fact that if the Taliban fighter had done the same thing he would not have been prosecuted by his superiors make a difference?

Not taking sides, just posing the question!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38338951
 
Ain't read the article but wasn't the Taliban soldier on the floor and badly wounded?
Marine A should get everything he deserves if so, it's murder pure and simple. The fact the Taliban's superiors may have done nothing, well it means nothing IMO.
 
Yes correct he was wounded on the ground.

Devils advocate......what if the guy had survived and recovered then went on to kill British soldiers?
 
I think you have to treat the enemy as you would want to be treated. That is the point of the Geneva Convention isn't it? Just because they don't play be the rules doesn't mean we drop to their level.

The complication in this case is the psycholigical aspect. I don't know enough about the case to understand the state he was in but his wife is claiming he had ptsd and so should not have been there.

Looking at the raw facts, it looks very bad.
 
One of things our military prides itself in is following the Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention

Marine A broke both

The Taliban fighter was on the floor injured and caused no immediate threat to life - first aid should have been administered to the best of their abilities and then he should have been evacuated to further first aid and then dealt with properly by the authorities

Marine A was clearly guilty of manslaughter at the very least

Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention doesn't cover "what if he then later in life goes onto kill" - that's not a justification for what he did

The public and the red tops have jumped on the bandwagon with demands he be released etc and it's wrong - he committed a crime and should serve the punishment for that crime

Aside from that I do have a problem with certain lawyers chasing cases looking to earn big money
 
Yep, all fair comments.

So we pick up the injured extremists, treat them in hospital until better, jail them for 5 years then release them to go back into the battlefield?
 
Disgraceful treatment of a hero, should be freed immediately.
 
In cases like this the question of bail pending the appeal should be decided based on whether it's likely the original decision will change. If there is a reasonable prospect then I can see the merit. It's a legal decision at the end of the day not a moral or emotional one. If the people who decide these things think it's appropriate then I'll go with that.......if they don't I'll be happy with that too.
 
Its obviously wrong to shoot an injured person at point blank range. But I guess you need to consider what he has seen on the battlefield and what the Taliban could have done to his friends and fellow soldiers. Its easy to say its wrong and should have done xyz from behind a computer screen.

Not defending his actions in anyway as it is 100% wrong to do that, but just putting another side the argument which 99% of us will never experience.
 
drive4show said:
Yep, all fair comments.

So we pick up the injured extremists, treat them in hospital until better, jail them for 5 years then release them to go back into the battlefield?
Click to expand...

If that's what the law says, yes.
Alternatively he could go back to his wife and kids, settle down and become a pig farmer with a very bad limp.
 
drive4show said:
Yep, all fair comments.

So we pick up the injured extremists, treat them in hospital until better, jail them for 5 years then release them to go back into the battlefield?
Click to expand...

That's up to the courts to decide

The solider on the ground doesn't have the right to be judge and jury

And Paul - Heroes don't shoot unarmed injured people lying on the floor
 
pauldj42 said:
Disgraceful treatment of a hero, should be freed immediately.
Click to expand...

Sorry, No!

Liverpoolphil said:
One of things our military prides itself in is following the Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention

Marine A broke both

The Taliban fighter was on the floor injured and caused no immediate threat to life - first aid should have been administered to the best of their abilities and then he should have been evacuated to further first aid and then dealt with properly by the authorities

Marine A was clearly guilty of manslaughter at the very least

Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention doesn't cover "what if he then later in life goes onto kill" - that's not a justification for what he did

The public and the red tops have jumped on the bandwagon with demands he be released etc and it's wrong - he committed a crime and should serve the punishment for that crime

Aside from that I do have a problem with certain lawyers chasing cases looking to earn big money
Click to expand...

I'm with this!

The PTSD argument is certainly a mitigating one though!
 
I struggle with this one.

Having had to sit and go through the rules of engagement ad nauseum, I know that what he did is absolutely wrong. However, the phrase "walk a mile in his shoes" is never more apt.
 
drive4show said:
Yep, all fair comments.

So we pick up the injured extremists, treat them in hospital until better, jail them for 5 years then release them to go back into the battlefield?
Click to expand...

I don't know the rights and wrongs of it but maybe treating people decently like that can win over some hearts and minds whereas summarily executing them will only harden attitudes?

Could be wishful thinking, of course.
 
drive4show said:
Yep, all fair comments.

So we pick up the injured extremists, treat them in hospital until better, jail them for 5 years then release them to go back into the battlefield?
Click to expand...

I don't know the rights and wrongs of it but maybe treating people decently like that can win over some hearts and minds whereas summarily executing them will only harden attitudes?

Could be wishful thinking, of course.
 
Really need to get the facts correct before we make judgements, the armed taliban fighter who'd attacked the Marines had suffered catastrophic injuries and was dying, he put an end to his suffering and done the humane thing.
Sgt A had served his Country for years and had done numerous Operational Tours.
To me he is and will always be hero and this Country once again proves it wants to think the world is a sweet and decent place were bad men don't exist, we should be thanking him, not condemning him.
 
pauldj42 said:
Really need to get the facts correct before we make judgements, the armed taliban fighter who'd attacked the Marines had suffered catastrophic injuries and was dying, he put an end to his suffering and done the humane thing.
Sgt A had served his Country for years and had done numerous Operational Tours.
To me he is and will always be hero and this Country once again proves it wants to think the world is a sweet and decent place were bad men don't exist, we should be thanking him, not condemning him.
Click to expand...

The Marine doesn't have the authority to "end his suffering " - also it not humane to use the words he did when he shot him , also not humane for all three of them to be kicking him whilst he was injured on the floor. Also doesn't explain why he moved him away from the surveillance ballon that was covering them.

Just because he had served many tours doesn't give someone carte Blanche to administer the law how they sit fit

He failed to follow Rules of Engagement and also Geneva Convention as you yourself know exactly what the means

We pride ourselves in follow the rules - by acting how the "enemy" does makes us no better than them

The only mitigating possibly circumstance is PSTD
 
Liverpoolphil said:
The Marine doesn't have the authority to "end his suffering " - also it not humane to use the words he did when he shot him , also not humane for all three of them to be kicking him whilst he was injured on the floor. Also doesn't explain why he moved him away from the surveillance ballon that was covering them.

Just because he had served many tours doesn't give someone carte Blanche to administer the law how they sit fit

He failed to follow Rules of Engagement and also Geneva Convention as you yourself know exactly what the means

We pride ourselves in follow the rules - by acting how the "enemy" does makes us no better than them

The only mitigating possibly circumstance is PSTD
Click to expand...
I'm fully aware of all that and as far as I'm concerned he was let down by the Government and should not of faced a trial, hero in my book, nothing more, nothing less.
Please let's be silly enough to believe these things go on, someone has to do it and thank god for people like him.
The way the Taliban have treated their own people never mind the amount of lives they've took of ours, you can have as many rules as you like, he deserves a medal.
 
pauldj42 said:
I'm fully aware of all that and as far as I'm concerned he was let down by the Government and should not of faced a trial, hero in my book, nothing more, nothing less.
Please let's be silly enough to believe these things go on, someone has to do it and thank god for people like him.
The way the Taliban have treated their own people never mind the amount of lives they've took of ours, you can have as many rules as you like, he deserves a medal.
Click to expand...

Sorry Paul but that's wrong and makes us no better than them even more so if your well aware of his actions - how on earth can he a hero when he did what he did

He acted like a coward and he knew the rules and he broke them - there is a line and you know full well that we don't cross the line - that is what is supposed to seperate us from them.

Why should he be protected when he has broken the Geneva Convention and Rules of Engagement

No someone doesn't have to do it at all - we all have to act within our guidelines.

It's the same with the QLR and their treatment of POWs - lots of outcry that they were heroes should be protected

Any other criminal activities should soldiers be able to commit and our government protects them ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top