PrOOne
Do sovereign states really "grant the right" (to murder) to members of their armed forces? Or do they impose an obligation on them to obey lawful commands? I think language is very important.
I am puzzled why the Treason law was never invoked against the IRA and its various clones. Political and moral cowardice, I suspect. Or it may be due to the fact that HM forces in NI were acting in aid of the civil power to suppress civil disturbance, rather than to repel an external aggressor. In this context, I wonder when the old Riot Act was repealed. It was still on the statute book when I did officer training back in the early 50s I remember being lectured on it in Air Force Law lectures and there was a small pamphlet which suggested finding a bucket of paint and a brush and painting a line in front of a hostile crowd and then shouting (once a magistrate had been found to read the Act!) "anyone who crosses that line will be shot dead, etc etc". Shooting low to wound was discouraged as a sign of irresolution.
Personally I believe the Act should have been retained and used. It used to sicken me watching young thugs hurling Molotov Cocktails at our soldiers with seeming impunity. The appropriate response should have been high velocity rounds aimed to kill. Much of what has been called "peace-keeping" seemed to be merely making targets of our soldiers - difficult targets, maybe, but an essentially passive role suited more to riot police (eg the French CRS) than to soldiers.
My monica was a free translation done for me by a local friend, recently deceased unfortunately. After a double first in Greats he spent his working life in your profession.
