Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Murderer should be shown leniency says a posh bloke that's never met him.


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#61 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,658 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 06:06 PM

Your post is a gross distortion and mis-representation of the position.

 

This once great nation has become even greater . It has become civilised.  



#62 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,096 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 06:09 PM

Your post is a gross distortion and mis-representation of the position.

 

This once great nation has become even greater . It has become civilised.  

In your view,maybe,try talking to friends and family of troops that have died at the the hands of these people,that may alter your view.I doubt it very much though.


Once you have tasted excellence,you cannot go back to mediocrity.

#63 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,658 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 06:21 PM

Stick to the point. Here we have a guy who with malice aforethought  killed someone and admitted that he broke the Geneva convention. He's been tried and convicted in accordance with due process. 



#64 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,096 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 06:26 PM

Stick to the point. Here we have a guy who with malice aforethought  killed someone and admitted that he broke the Geneva convention. He's been tried and convicted in accordance with due process. 

yes he has.And please don't patronise me.Am I not allowed to express my views on this?


Once you have tasted excellence,you cannot go back to mediocrity.

#65 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 06:41 PM

yes he has.And please don't patronise me.Am I not allowed to express my views on this?


I welcome your views. I'm not sure that the point that you are making is relevant though. These men and women have chosen to fight when required for a living, and that doesn't exclude them from following appropriate rules.

#66 Wiltshire Rhino

Wiltshire Rhino
  • Coach
  • 2,289 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 08:39 PM

He was wrong but, as I have never experienced a war zone, I will not criticise him.



#67 ehbandit

ehbandit
  • Coach
  • 590 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 12:31 PM

will this ruling make other soldier hesitate before killing someone. they may think they could get done for murder! I personally do not care that a Taliban soldier was killed. if he had died from the helicopter attack it would be ok, but because a soldier had to finish the job it was wrong.

#68 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 12:35 PM

will this ruling make other soldier hesitate before killing someone. they may think they could get done for murder! I personally do not care that a Taliban soldier was killed. if he had died from the helicopter attack it would be ok, but because a soldier had to finish the job it was wrong.

 

Do you think it was wrong?



#69 ehbandit

ehbandit
  • Coach
  • 590 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 12:44 PM

do I think killing the Taliban soldier was wrong? no

#70 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,589 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 03:55 PM

I think I'm getting sick to the back teeth of the deification of soldiers in difficult situations and the calls for us to "understand" this murderer.  He's a convicted murderer.  No hand-wringing about how difficult he must have had it changes a single bit of that.

 

Soldiers these days are the most looked after, well equipped, highly trained professionals that the UK has ever fielded in a combat situation.  This crime of murder is a one in an army crime that does nothing but bring disgrace to the armed forces, lowering the outstanding reputation of the British Army worldwide.  I think back to the first gulf war when Iraqi soldiers would go out of their way to surrender to British troops rather than US troops because our reputation for fairness was unimpeachable unlike that of the Americans.  I remember seeing one US senior officer joking with a British one about how he hoped the Brits had enough food to feed the entire Iraqi army that seemed to be lining up to surrender to them.  We hold an enviable moral ascendancy (phrase blatantly stolen from Gen Houghton's position on this case) over our enemies and, if anything, should treat anything that threatens that moral ascendancy more harshly than normal, not more leniently.

 

There's a very good reason why the armed forces are under a far stricter set of legal restrictions than civilians, they must not only be held to the highest standards, they must be seen to be held to the highest standards.  This is why those subject to military law if convicted of a civilian crime are the only people under British law who can be convicted twice of the same crime, once for the offence and once more for bringing the armed forces into disrepute.

 

Those who don't want to meet those high standards always have the option of walking away.  If they feel they're getting ill because of stress then the current army psychiatric care is better than it ever has been and is whole worlds of difference apart from even the 1980s.  If they simply feel like a modern day Rambo out for vengeance then can I suggest they leave the army and join one of the mercenary groups that are always advertising.

 

For those who think there's no difference between this crime and a sniper firing at someone from half a mile away, there is.  The former was an incapacitated enemy combatant covered under many, many treaties, laws and conventions, the latter is an accepted and legal tactic of war.  It's the same as a forward observer calling in an airstrike or artillery strike on an armed position, if it's a standard camp full of soldiers then that's fine but put a red cross or red crescent on that exact same camp it and it's instantly a war crime.  It's one of these things that's counter-intuitive on first view but the international community drew a line in the sand over conduct and that's one that we should abide by.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#71 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,879 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:06 PM

I've lost good friends in Afghanistan.At the hands of Taliban disguised as policemen,I don't recall people on here calling for them to be given life sentences.So good for you,you survived,my friends didn't.Maybe now you can understand why i think this is utter garbage. 

 

 

My son was blown up in Afghanistan and lost part of his foot, he still suffers from the mental trauma. This marine let my son, his colleagues and the general population down.

 

If the taliban are ignorant barbarians does that mean that British troops have to act in the same way?

 

There is a reason the Geneva convention was drafted, it was to deal with these exact situations.


Edited by Phil, 11 November 2013 - 04:06 PM.

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#72 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,947 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:10 PM

My son was blown up in Afghanistan and lost part of his foot, he still suffers from the mental trauma. This marine let my son, his colleagues and the general population down.
 
If the taliban are ignorant barbarians does that mean that British troops have to act in the same way?
 
There is a reason the Geneva convention was drafted, it was to deal with these exact situations.


No, it wasn't. It was written to minimise the consequences of wars between nations where both sides wear uniforms and follow the code. In this war, one side follows the code and punishes lapses and the other side has no interest in the code.

Arguably the code doesn't even apply to NATO forces as it is intended to apply when there are wars between countries that have both signed up, not where one side has signed up and the other has not.

I don't think it is right to have shot the Taliban but International law is more grey than you are suggesting.

#73 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,879 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:18 PM

 The articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) extensively defined the basic, wartime rights of prisoners (civil and military); established protections for the wounded; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone.  

 

I believe this situation was covered by the above?


"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#74 ehbandit

ehbandit
  • Coach
  • 590 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:22 PM

No, it wasn't. It was written to minimise the consequences of wars between nations where both sides wear uniforms and follow the code. In this war, one side follows the code and punishes lapses and the other side has no interest in the code.Arguably the code doesn't even apply to NATO forces as it is intended to apply when there are wars between countries that have both signed up, not where one side has signed up and the other has not.I don't think it is right to have shot the Taliban but International law is more grey than you are suggesting.

I think it still applies if one of the sides has signed up, however, if the Taliban fighter is classed as a terrorist or guerrilla fighter then the privelages of being a POW do not have to be observed. did he have a uniform on? did he belong to a particular unit?

Edited by ehbandit, 11 November 2013 - 04:29 PM.


#75 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,589 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:27 PM

No, it wasn't. It was written to minimise the consequences of wars between nations where both sides wear uniforms and follow the code. In this war, one side follows the code and punishes lapses and the other side has no interest in the code.

Arguably the code doesn't even apply to NATO forces as it is intended to apply when there are wars between countries that have both signed up, not where one side has signed up and the other has not.

I don't think it is right to have shot the Taliban but International law is more grey than you are suggesting.

Just because one side doesn't sign up to a treaty doesn't mean that the other won't be prosecuted for crimes against those conventions or even against far more vague "customs".  The one that jumps immediately to mind is the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, one of the indictments against him was for breaching the Geneva Conventions, another was for breaching the customs of war and the last was for crimes against humanity.  There doesn't even need to be a formal legal treaty for the international community to act against either states or individuals.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#76 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,947 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:28 PM

I think it still applies if one of the sides has signed up


It applies to
a/ wars where both sides have signed up
b/ conflicts where there has been no official declaration of war but both sides have signed up
c/ a war or conflict where one side has signed up and the other sides applies and enforces the code even if they have not signed up

It does not apply to a situation like Afghanistan. We may choose to follow it anyway but this is not an obligation. The marine could shoot the Taliban without it being a war crime according to the Geneva Convention but it is treated as such by the UK government.

#77 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,947 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:30 PM

Just because one side doesn't sign up to a treaty doesn't mean that the other won't be prosecuted for crimes against those conventions or even against far more vague "customs".  The one that jumps immediately to mind is the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, one of the indictments against him was for breaching the Geneva Conventions, another was for breaching the customs of war and the last was for crimes against humanity.  There doesn't even need to be a formal legal treaty for the international community to act against either states or individuals.


Milosevic was bound because Tito signed up to the convention. If you read the treaty, there is a "civil war" bit that applies in cases where a government is dealing with a rebellion. Look up Article 3 for "non-international conflict contained within the boundaries of one state" (applied to Kosovo or possibly Croatia / Bosnia if their independence was not recognised).

Edited by Northern Sol, 11 November 2013 - 04:33 PM.


#78 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,947 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:31 PM

 The articles of the [/size]Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) extensively defined the basic, wartime rights of prisoners (civil and military); established protections for the wounded; and established protections for the [/size]civilians in and around a war-zone. [/size] 
 
I believe this situation was covered by the above?


There is another section of the convention that discusses who is bound by the convention. You have to be bound by it before any of the rest of the document applies to you.

#79 ehbandit

ehbandit
  • Coach
  • 590 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:36 PM

the Taliban guerrilla. needed to have a distinctive symbol on him, be carrying arms openly, be subordinate to a higher command and follow the protocol of war, if he does not have all these then he is not protected I think

#80 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,947 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:44 PM

the Taliban guerrilla. needed to have a distinctive symbol on him, be carrying arms openly, be subordinate to a higher command and follow the protocol of war, if he does not have all these then he is not protected I think


All of the above plus he must be part of an organisation that has signed the convention or applies it anyway.

The Geneva Convention was not intended to protect "irregulars", they were considered vermin to be shot out of hand during WW2.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users