Is it really a question of guilt or innocence

[JBR]

Murder? Killing an enemy combatant is not murder..................................unless you happen to be a serving soldier.

Funny you should say that. I was reading the DM early this morning (online, so I don't have to pay for the paper) and saw an article about an SAS sniper having killed five terrorists with three bullets.

I thought I should post a comment and, having said I thought he'd done an excellent job, added that I'd be surprised if the poor chap wasn't sent to jail by our wonderful generals.

 

[^woody^]

That's the principles of law.

Maybe not perfect, but it is generally regarded as one of the better systems. There is some flexibility

 

[^woody^]

I thought I should post a comment and, having said I thought he'd done an excellent job, added that I'd be surprised if the poor chap wasn't sent to jail by our wonderful generals.

The rules of engagement can be a difficult concept to understand. In the Balkans, it forced us and UN soldiers to stand by while genocide was committed. But whether they are good or bad probably depends on which side you're on.

I don't think I've ever come across any of our opponents in any conflict having to keep to their rules, as we do. But whether it's right to have rules or not is another argument. IIRC, the yanks exempt themselves from any international prosecutions.

I'd heard of that story previously. It was just good shooting. There is no rule for one bullet per person.

 

[ajrtd]

Maybe not perfect, but it is generally regarded as one of the better systems. There is some flexibility

Yes, Our family courts enjoy great flexibility. And Lord Chief Justice Goddard used it to good effect when trying Derek Bentley.

But I take your point, it's not perfect.

So why risk making prisoners of men that are likely to use the imperfections in our legal systems against us?

 

[JBR]

I thought I should post a comment and, having said I thought he'd done an excellent job, added that I'd be surprised if the poor chap wasn't sent to jail by our wonderful generals.

The rules of engagement can be a difficult concept to understand. In the Balkans, it forced us and UN soldiers to stand by while genocide was committed. But whether they are good or bad probably depends on which side you're on.

I don't think I've ever come across any of our opponents in any conflict having to keep to their rules, as we do. But whether it's right to have rules or not is another argument. IIRC, the yanks exempt themselves from any international prosecutions.

I'd heard of that story previously. It was just good shooting. There is no rule for one bullet per person.

Yes, it's just that it sometimes seems to me that our government and other authorities award more 'rights' to our enemies than to our own servicemen.
Disgusting, I call it.

 

[^woody^]

So why risk making prisoners of men that are likely to use the imperfections in our legal systems against us?

I know. It's blood boiling when we see that happen. That low life murderer who is suing for having his teeth knocked out comes to mind.

The problem is whether we really want the alternative. Execution to save on prison costs or to prevent appeals and other claims? Or should everyone have the same protection and rights under the law?

Execution would certainly go against travesties as in the case of Sergeant Blackman, who was imprisoned for murder - murder of an enemy who a few minutes earlier he could have killed without any hint of prosecution.

 

[nauseous]

So why risk making prisoners of men that are likely to use the imperfections in our legal systems against us?

I know. It's blood boiling when we see that happen. That low life murderer who is suing for having his teeth knocked out comes to mind.

The problem is whether we really want the alternative. Execution to save on prison costs or to prevent appeals and other claims? Or should everyone have the same protection and rights under the law?

Execution would certainly go against travesties as in the case of Sergeant Blackman, who was imprisoned for murder - murder of an enemy who a few minutes earlier he could have killed without any hint of prosecution.

Maybe the Romans had it right afterall. Hopefully in years to come, proven evil murderers and certain heinous pedophiles will entertain us in their demise. I can see it happening sometime in the future the way the worlds heading.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

Good post woody.
And that's why they should have shot the **** first chance they had. No need then to argue their reasons were justified or not.

That is murder.

Murder? Killing an enemy combatant is not murder..................................unless you happen to be a serving soldier.
[
snip]

That's the principles of law.

He was not an enemy combatant, he was a civilian with his family working for a charity.

What you propose is a fascist state. If you think someone looks guilty, you kill them. Who needs to test the evidence? They do that in Saudi Arabia. And some of the other not very nice Middle Eastern regimes. They also did that in the southern states in America, when blacks 'got out of control', they hung them from trees to enforce 'order'.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

So why risk making prisoners of men that are likely to use the imperfections in our legal systems against us?

I know. It's blood boiling when we see that happen. That low life murderer who is suing for having his teeth knocked out comes to mind.

The problem is whether we really want the alternative. Execution to save on prison costs or to prevent appeals and other claims? Or should everyone have the same protection and rights under the law?

Execution would certainly go against travesties as in the case of Sergeant Blackman, who was imprisoned for murder - murder of an enemy who a few minutes earlier he could have killed without any hint of prosecution.

It does sound dreadful, a British soldier who risked his life for his country. But, the British forces are clearly taught the rules of engagement. They know they cannot execute prisoners. Whilst the sentence was perhaps too long, it was just. What makes the difference between us and the Taliban/IS, is that they are savages with no respect for life, and the rule of law.

If he was not sentenced, it would have given the go ahead for execution of prisoners. As I have said, he knew full well the penalties.

 

[Brigadier]

Murder? Killing an enemy combatant is not murder..................................unless you happen to be a serving soldier.

Funny you should say that. I was reading the DM early this morning (online, so I don't have to pay for the paper) and saw an article about an SAS sniper having killed five terrorists with three bullets.

I know - austerity is a killer.

 

[jockscott]

He was not an enemy combatant, he was a civilian with his family working for a charity.

Do charities really pay their workers a great wage when they're working abroad? Thought he'd gone there to make a better life for his family? (there again £6.60 an hour is probably better than benefits ,,,,, or is it??)

 

[JohnD]

The most important thing in any charity supporters life is money, you mean?

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

That's the dreadful thing about some Muslims, they help others out of a sense of duty rather than financial gain. Some Christians are just as bad.

 

[Gasman28]

It does sound dreadful, a British soldier who risked his life for his country

At least you have that part right. Our brave men and women have to go into a conflict with these so called ROP. Have you ever been in that situation? If we are at war with these *******s, they should be brave enough to wear a uniform and not hide behind women and children.

 

[jockscott]

The most important thing in any charity supporters life is money, you mean?

Are you saying he dragged his family halfway around the world, to war torn Afghanistan, to make life better for them, at his own expense? (just because he was doing his bit for "charity") Yeah right,, whatever.