Soldier F

[Deleted member 15344]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47540271

A lot went wrong that day and innocent people were killed but how can it be narrowed down to one person ?

 

[williamalex1]

Scapegoat.

 

[bluewolf]

Without knowing the facts, who can say?

The only question that is currently relevant is "Should soldiers be held accountable for incidents that happen in a conflict zone?"

So, should they? Or, do we think that soldiers in a conflict zone are above the law?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Without knowing the facts, who can say?

The only question that is currently relevant is "Should soldiers be held accountable for incidents that happen in a conflict zone?"

So, should they? Or, do we think that soldiers in a conflict zone are above the law?

Soldiers should follow the Rules Of Engagement which is the law within conflict - but a lot of it comes down to judging the threat

I am in the belief that a servicemen should always ensure they can justify their actions within Geneva Convention and Rules of Engagement- they shouldn’t be above the law

If the incident is within those laws then they should be covered - ignore those laws then face the consequences

 

[bluewolf]

Soldiers should follow the Rules Of Engagement which is the law within conflict - but a lot of it comes down to judging the threat

I am in the belief that a servicemen should allow ensure they can justify their actions within Geneva Convention and Rules of Engagement- they shouldn’t be above the law

If the incident is within those laws then they should be covered - ignore those laws then face the consequences

I agree. I do think that there should be some leniency due to the obvious situational stress, but the rules of engagement should be followed.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

It begs the question why has it taken 47 years to be able to prosecute and then it comes down to one man. What evidence do they have that is so compelling that singles this soldier out over and beyond the actions of every other soldier involved.

 

[Fish]

 

[User20204]

Scapegoat.

To a degree I agree, however, 13 unarmed people were murdered that day, someone pulled the trigger and whosoever did should face the full weight of the law regardless of the time passed.

 

[Sharktooth]

Firstly, I have worked with a few ex-paras, who were all good blokes so I won’t degrade them on public media.
I think a lot of it was down to lack of leadership.
But what has been said is true, as innocent people were murdered.
I don’t think time is a factor, as ex Nazis involved in war crimes are still being hunted.
No one wins in a situation like this.

 

[Imurg]

My only issue with any "cold"case is the quality of the evidence.
Memories of a major life event like this will be strong but even the strongest ones can get clouded by time.
Not saying there isn't sufficient proof but after 47 years it must be pretty good to enable a single person to be charged.

 

[Wolf]

Rules of engagement is such a terrible American term. Its actually the joint services agreement that governs when a solider can or cannot open fire on a target, this document is split in to many varied sections on which relate to each arm of the services, different theatres of Operations, and how they should act, when to open fire and how to reduce risk of harm to innocent lives. It's agreed in accordance with the Geneva convention and any breach makes the soldier liable for their own actions.

I don't know about back in the 70s, but I know that for some time since then every member of service personnel that goes on Operations is now given a copy of this and gets refreshers on it before deployment.

As for soldier F I can't really comment as wasn't born when it all happened and only know a little about it but, whether some people are looking for a scapegoat or not, every member of services has to follow the JSA its not optional so if it is found that someone didn't they should be prosecuted for it. That may be an unpopular opinion to some but as someone that served 12 years with the Marines and in active hotspots, I like all those before and after me knew the laws and we must face consequences of our actions.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

I understand the families of those who lost their lives that day may want “justice”, but I don’t see the counter drive for those who lost family members at the hands of the provisionals
Surely once the peace process was finalised there had to be closure on all events before that moment, as wihtou that we know the tit for tat actions will only carry on.

 

[Sharktooth]

I understand the families of those who lost their lives that day may want “justice”, but I don’t see the counter drive for those who lost family members at the hands of the provisionals
Surely once the peace process was finalised there had to be closure on all events before that moment, as wihtou that we know the tit for tat actions will only carry on.

Can of worms on that one. What about the victims of the UDA, UVF and all the other idiots?

 

[Dibby]

Rules of engagement is such a terrible American term. Its actually the joint services agreement that governs when a solider can or cannot open fire on a target, this document is split in to many varied sections on which relate to each arm of the services, different theatres of Operations, and how they should act, when to open fire and how to reduce risk of harm to innocent lives. It's agreed in accordance with the Geneva convention and any breach makes the soldier liable for their own actions.

I don't know about back in the 70s, but I know that for some time since then every member of service personnel that goes on Operations is now given a copy of this and gets refreshers on it before deployment.

As for soldier F I can't really comment as wasn't born when it all happened and only know a little about it but, whether some people are looking for a scapegoat or not, every member of services has to follow the JSA its not optional so if it is found that someone didn't they should be prosecuted for it. That may be an unpopular opinion to some but as someone that served 12 years with the Marines and in active hotspots, I like all those before and after me knew the laws and we must face consequences of our actions.

Whilst this is true, surely any prosecution should be in a court-martial?

 

[Hobbit]

Whilst this is true, surely any prosecution should be in a court-martial?

How do you Court Martial someone who has left the Services?

 

[Dibby]

How do you Court Martial someone who has left the Services?

Which is why it becomes a mess. Can a civilian jury correctly come to a verdict on military law?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

The cases against these soldiers will go on for about 20 years and no one will go to prison.
Soldier F is the scapegoat for the public eye.
The officers in charge and those who trained the soldiers will never get charged.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

My biggest fear is that whatever the outcome, supporters of one side of the argument will be disgruntled and this could very easily result in more troubles. We may have just lit the blue touch paper

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The cases against these soldiers will go on for about 20 years and no one will go to prison.
Soldier F is the scapegoat for the public eye.
The officers in charge and those who trained the soldiers will never get charged.

Why should people who trained the soldiers get charged ?

 

[Dibby]

My biggest fear is that whatever the outcome, supporters of one side of the argument will be disgruntled and this could very easily result in more troubles. We may have just lit the blue touch paper

That's the crux of this, ultimately no one wins.