Marine found guilty of murder

[JFKvsNixon]

I'd not realised that the video was on the shooter's own hard drive. I'd assumed it was on the filmer's hard drive, and was inadvertently kept.

 

No you are right, I was mistake I misread one of the reports. It hsdn't been released where the video was found, apart from another RM's hard drive during a desperate investigation.

[angos]

I'd not realised that the video was on the shooter's own hard drive. I'd assumed it was on the filmer's hard drive, and was inadvertently kept.

 

It wasn't found on the laptop of any of the marines involved in the killing, it was discovered on another marine's laptop when he was investigated for an entirely different offence.

[boyfriday]

So how would you have felt if a jury had heard the same evidence but acquitted him?

I'd feel exactly the same as I do about Marines B & C who were tried alongside Marine A and acquitted (note distinct lack of 'frothing at the mouth' as you'd previously suggested)

 

 

The rules of engagement are specific to Afghanistan and are open to change.

Executing prisoners isn't.

 

War and civilised society don't really work together, war is by its very nature uncivilised, and expecting our troops to only engage the enemy after being shot at is stupid.

As I asked previously what does that have to do with executing a prisoner?

 

Not in my experience.

I suggest you broaden your experience.

 

I don't expect our troops to behave like the Taliban, I expect them to engage the enemy and kill them.

So do I..during the course of an 'engagement'.

 

Thats not the case, he was sent to afganistan and had no choice in the matter, one can't simply walk away from the job when they feel like it.

One can if one doesn't agree with the fundamental principle of not executing prisoners.

 

Wrongly in my opinion.

which you're perfectly entitled to.

 

So you would have found that more acceptable than shooting him?

The outcome for Marine A would have been completely different, it isn't about what I find acceptable.

 

I notice you didn't answer my question about whether it was right for the Germans and Japanese to execute captured allied soldiers. Do recall they were universally condemned for the practise?

 

Do you want Britain and our soldiers to be regarded the same way?

[angos]

I'd feel exactly the same as I do about Marines B & C who were tried alongside Marine A and acquitted (note distinct lack of 'frothing at the mouth' as you'd previously suggested)

 

So you would have been happy for him to be have been found not guilty.

 

 

 

Executing prisoners isn't.

 

 

 

As I asked previously what does that have to do with executing a prisoner?

 

The crazy terms of engagement that they have to operate under could well have been a contributory factor to him killing the insurgent.

 

I suggest you broaden your experience.

 

I already have a very broad base of experience.

 

 

So do I..during the course of an 'engagement'.

 

I would prefer our troops to hunt down the insurgents and rid the country of them, and not have to wait until they are attacked by them.

 

One can if one doesn't agree with the fundamental principle of not executing prisoners.

 

You've moved the goal posts as usual. Marine A had no choice when he was sent to Afghanistan.

 

 

 

The outcome for Marine A would have been completely different, it isn't about what I find acceptable.

 

But morally whats the difference? putting an animal out of its misery as got to be better morally than leaving it to suffer and die.

 

 

I notice you didn't answer my question about whether it was right for the Germans and Japanese to execute captured allied soldiers. Do recall they were universally condemned for the practise?

 

I don't find any of it acceptable, but I do understand that it is inevitable when fighting a violent war, and I wouldn't punish a soldier from either side for killing the enemy.

 

Do you want Britain and our soldiers to be regarded the same way?

 

Many already regard the British the same way.

[boyfriday]

So you would have been happy for him to be have been found not guilty.

I've said previously I would have if the evidence had supported that outcome, but it didn't.

 

The crazy terms of engagement that they have to operate under could well have been a contributory factor to him killing the insurgent.

Could you explain why?

 

I would prefer our troops to hunt down the insurgents and rid the country of them, and not have to wait until they are attacked by them.

What does that have to do with executing prisoners?

 

You've moved the goal posts as usual. Marine A had no choice when he was sent to Afghanistan.

No, these goalposts are a permanent fixture-you don't execute prisoners and if you believe you can you have no place in the military.

 

But morally whats the difference? putting an animal out of its misery as got to be better morally than leaving it to suffer and die.

Marine A was acting on selfish reasons not the humanitarian interests of the injured Afghan.

 

I don't find any of it acceptable, but I do understand that it is inevitable when fighting a violent war, and I wouldn't punish a soldier from either side for killing the enemy.

There's an admission.

 

 

Many already regard the British the same way.

..and many more will if executing prisoners is ever condoned.

[Lockjaw]

 

How stupid is this rule.

 

[snip]

 

 

Not, in any way.

 

These orders are not just made up on the spot - they are an ingrained component of British Army doctrine and make perfect sense to anyone who knows what they're talking about.

 

You too, Smithy, could become someone who knows what he's talking about if you go and have a look at post 235 in which I explained weapon control orders for everyone and then read about rules of engagement in this Army Doctrine publication.

[angos]

Not, in any way.

 

These orders are not just made up on the spot - they are an ingrained component of British Army doctrine and make perfect sense to anyone who knows what they're talking about.

 

 

Its odd then that many military personnel are against the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. Clearly it's only the non military, non experienced people that think its sensible to send soldiers into Afghanistan and restrict them to only firing their weapons once fired upon.

 

British soldiers in Afghanistan claim that new tactics are preventing them shooting at the Taliban until they have been fired at themselves – resulting in an alarming rise in the number of casualties. Which I am sure some of you are happy about.

[jonnybgood]

All he should do is time served, then given a promotion.

[Lockjaw]

Its odd then that many military personnel are against the rules of engagement in Afghanistan.

 

No it isn't. They're the ones being shot at. They're obviously going to be against life-threatening restrictions placed upon them.

 

BUT

 

You are aware, aren't you, that these and other such standing orders are in place so that not necessarily highly intelligent people can perform highly complex tasks, aren't you?

 

Clearly it's only the non military, non experienced people that think its sensible to send soldiers into Afghanistan and restrict them to only firing their weapons once fired upon.

 

And, of course, their highly experienced military superiors. And at least one former military person, i.e. me.

 

British soldiers in Afghanistan claim that new tactics are preventing them shooting at the Taliban until they have been fired at themselves

 

Then they are wrong because the tactics are not new - as I have explained on this thread.

 

resulting in an alarming rise in the number of casualties. Which I am sure some of you are happy about.

 

Ok then; tell me, preferably with none of your usual slippery nonsense, what leads you to believe this.

[boyfriday]

Its odd then that many military personnel are against the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. Clearly it's only the non military, non experienced people that think its sensible to send soldiers into Afghanistan and restrict them to only firing their weapons once fired upon.

Do you have anything to back that up?

 

British soldiers in Afghanistan claim that new tactics are preventing them shooting at the Taliban until they have been fired at themselves – resulting in an alarming rise in the number of casualties.

 

There's nothing new about this provision. The same would apply to a homeowner faced with an intruder in his home, he can't just blow him away without reason (or without facing the consequences of his actions).

 

Any instigation of assault by the Afghans results in a disproportionately heavy response mainly from strategically employed air power..do you honestly believe we're materially at a disadvantage?

 

 

 

Which I am sure some of you are happy about.

 

I think you're happier about it because it gives you something to incessantly moan about.