Originally Posted by adzii_nufc (Post 35643211)

Aren't above the law? conviently missed the 3 cases I listed above then. An insurgent is always a threat whether injured, dead or alive. It only takes half a second to detonate an IED.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35643216)

We must be clear that in this case it is proven that the insurgent did not pose a direct threat .Had Marine A not said what he did on camera and used the defence of "i thought he had an IED" he would most likely not even have faced charges .

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35643206)

They probably would but it's not an excuse to kill someone who didn't pose a threat. There was evidence at the trial that seemed to make it clear that this was not an act of self-defence or warfare. It was a wounded combatant who was no longer a threat who was murdered. Maybe he had the misfortune to fight for a side that values laws rather than the side that doesn't but that's what he signed up for.

Members of the armed forces aren't above the law and don't get special clemency for breaking it. I imagine most murderers have had moments in their life that drove them to that point. If you looked into the past of many convicted murders then there may be similar stories but they are convicted and jailed anyway. Most of us cannot relate to a drug dealer that grows up in a culture that devalues life and for whom the lines have also become blurred. I believe such sentiments are dismissed as 'do-gooding liberal human rights' when they're expressed on here. ;)

The thing is the law is the same for everyone. You can have a case of diminished responsibility and a manslaughter charge as opposed to a murder charge if the court believes you weren't of a sound mind/the red mist had descended etc. However that didn't appear to be the case here.

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc (Post 35643223)

How? Did they remove his clothing? did they rip his insides out for in body IED's?
If proven is based on him not moving and what you can actually see then no thanks.

We should have done the right thing though. Patched him up and given him his AK back to kill a handful of troops before legging it because that's the law.

Originally Posted by SMG (Post 35643220)

Gone are the days of "Playing fair", the old saying, "playing by the rules", we are doing that & getting our arses kicked. Until someone comes up with a plan, a breathing insurgent is a danger. Even dead, he is still a threat. Why?, because he doesn't play by the rules.

Marines A,B & C could have turned away, only to see a grenade roll by.

Originally Posted by SMG (Post 35643220)

Gone are the days of "Playing fair", the old saying, "playing by the rules", we are doing that & getting our arses kicked. Until someone comes up with a plan, a breathing insurgent is a danger. Even dead, he is still a threat. Why?, because he doesn't play by the rules.

Marines A,B & C could have turned away, only to see a grenade roll by.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35643234)

That i think is the discussion to be had ,it is perfectly feasible for a wounded insurgent to have explosives on him to be detonated in the hospital while we are playing fair and patching him up .I think the notion of fair play in war with Afghan insurgents is quite ridiculous because i have no doubt that should we decide to start parachuting men in they would make no bones of shooting them before they land ,so should the rules of war apply when one side doesn't recognise them .

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35643236)

Yes and had they done so people would be wondering how it happened and trying to find someone else to blame for the preventable carnage allowed to happen.

Some folks need to get real and understand that war is dirty and this sort of war even dirtier. Things like this certainly aren't nice but they are understandable. It isn't like killing someone with a knife through the heart because he's looked at someone else in an odd way, shown 'disrespect', belongs to a different gang or supports a different team. This is the most awful type of conflict in which one side is asked (and tries) to obey rules the other side not only has no intention of honouring but would be quite happy to exploit to cause more carnage. Under those circumstances I can understand how these things happen and believe the mitigating circumstances are significant. And no, that isn't the same as suggesting out troops should have carte blanche to murder anyone they like on a whim. If our troops are going to have to fight against people with no moral compass I think we need to accept that occasionally theirs might get skewed and take that into account when judging their actions.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35643247)

Excellent post.

The only thing that makes this Marine guilty of murder is the Geneva Convention,and at the moment we are playing football where the opposing team is picking the ball up and running to the net

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35643236)

And no, that isn't the same as suggesting out troops should have carte blanche to murder anyone they like on a whim. If our troops are going to have to fight against people with no moral compass I think we need to accept that occasionally theirs might get skewed and take that into account when judging their actions.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35643255)

Well what's the difference? This guy was recorded shooting the guy and it was clear that they weren't in any danger, knew they weren't in any danger and knew what he did was wrong. It was all recorded and the shooter said the words himself. If that is permissible then I really don't see how it isn't the same as have carte blanche to murder someone...

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35643269)

The difference is clear. It's not the same because quite clearly our troops don't go around routinely executing people for no reason. This was a rare event and the guy is being rightly punished. He's being judged and punished by standards which the other side don't give 2 hoots about and would not apply in the reverse direction. That's what makes our troops significantly better than them. Not perfect, not saints but better and IMHO some of the very best in the world.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35643276)

Well then what are we disagreeing about? He is being rightly punished as you said. I agree that the standards don't go both ways which is why we're fighting in the first place.