Soldier rally for jailed marine?
minigundiplomat
I suggest you read 'Quartered safe out here ' by George MacDonald Fraser, the author of the Flashman books.
It describes his time as an 18year old squaddie in Burma in 44/45 and what he thought of the killing of Japanese POWs and also what he thought of the 'fluffy bunny' types 50 years later who described the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan as a war crime.
Although a different campaign I believe his thoughts are still relevant.
It describes his time as an 18year old squaddie in Burma in 44/45 and what he thought of the killing of Japanese POWs and also what he thought of the 'fluffy bunny' types 50 years later who described the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan as a war crime.
Although a different campaign I believe his thoughts are still relevant.
I've forgotten the name of the Para Lee ???? who was jailed for shooting somebody in Northern Ireland. IIRC, the case hinged on whether the car into which he fired had passed the soldiers and was, therefore, not placing him and his comrades in mortal danger.
It is worth noting a few things here. During Confrontation with Indonesia 1963-66, no British Commonwealth serviceman, known to have been taken alive by the Indons, was ever seen alive again. Second, we do seem to cling to the moral high ground when we know that if a British serviceman were to be captured by ISIL, it is unlikely that they would be treated as POWs.
O-D
It is worth noting a few things here. During Confrontation with Indonesia 1963-66, no British Commonwealth serviceman, known to have been taken alive by the Indons, was ever seen alive again. Second, we do seem to cling to the moral high ground when we know that if a British serviceman were to be captured by ISIL, it is unlikely that they would be treated as POWs.
O-D
I've forgotten the name of the Para Lee ????
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double standards & the quick buck
The Sgt Blackman should not have shot the guy however the situation that Sgt Blackman and his unit found them selfs in was such that murder is not an appropriate charge, to put it simply you can't impose the same rules for a battlefield as you can for the streets of London.
Those who try to impose the same standards are usually the lawyers who stand to make huge amounts of money from the leagal aid system, some of these lawyers have known for years that the cases they pursued were based on very poor evidence and had little chance of success but persue than they did at great cost to the public purse.
However to me the the pursue of these cases in the face the lack of evidence is a crime on two counts, first those who found them selfs wrongly accused had the case hanging over them day in day out for years while they should have been getting on with their lives and forgetting the horrors of war and secondly a lawyer who continues a case that he knows is far from sound is stealing from the leagal aid budget.
I understand that the govenment is looking into some of these cases to see if they can recover some of the leagal aid money that was taken, the govenment should also look at taking leagal action against some of these lawyers for the mental anguish that they imposed for years on servicemen who innocence lawyers had become fully aware of but continued the case dispite the evidence ( or lack of ).
Those who try to impose the same standards are usually the lawyers who stand to make huge amounts of money from the leagal aid system, some of these lawyers have known for years that the cases they pursued were based on very poor evidence and had little chance of success but persue than they did at great cost to the public purse.
However to me the the pursue of these cases in the face the lack of evidence is a crime on two counts, first those who found them selfs wrongly accused had the case hanging over them day in day out for years while they should have been getting on with their lives and forgetting the horrors of war and secondly a lawyer who continues a case that he knows is far from sound is stealing from the leagal aid budget.
I understand that the govenment is looking into some of these cases to see if they can recover some of the leagal aid money that was taken, the govenment should also look at taking leagal action against some of these lawyers for the mental anguish that they imposed for years on servicemen who innocence lawyers had become fully aware of but continued the case dispite the evidence ( or lack of ).
Tourist
I think that perhaps you should visit those responsible for delivering military training in order that you can obtain refresher training with regard to the Geneva Convention and the LOAC. We receive this training every year, as does every one. Perhaps you were unavailable?
The fact that you sneer at MGD for being Lower Deck suggests to me that you either are or were Commissioned.
I would expect much more from you as a leader of men. How you you decide what laws to break and which standards to maintain. The sheer fact that you are completely ignorant of this suggests that you are unable to command or, more importantly, lead your subordinates.
If you can't maintain standards or uphold the law, how do you expect those who are under your command to do so?
I despair.
I think that perhaps you should visit those responsible for delivering military training in order that you can obtain refresher training with regard to the Geneva Convention and the LOAC. We receive this training every year, as does every one. Perhaps you were unavailable?
The fact that you sneer at MGD for being Lower Deck suggests to me that you either are or were Commissioned.
I would expect much more from you as a leader of men. How you you decide what laws to break and which standards to maintain. The sheer fact that you are completely ignorant of this suggests that you are unable to command or, more importantly, lead your subordinates.
If you can't maintain standards or uphold the law, how do you expect those who are under your command to do so?
I despair.
I do feel here that many people are confused by what happened. He was not under attack, he was not at immediate risk and it was not an instantaneous 'heat of the moment' decision.
As I said on ARRSE, when I hear people state it wasn't murder, I ask why intentionally moving someone out of line of sight of the ISTAR cover so you can't be moved, then refusing to render first aid, then refusing to call for medical evacuation on the MERT, then shooting them in the chest and stating to your men that you broke the geneva convention isn't murder?
I've read the sentencing remarks, there is a great deal of fact that wasn't covered in the sensationalist tabloid coverage and paint an utterly damning indictment of his actions.
Mr Blackman (not Sgt anymore) is a convicted murderer who let the UK down with his actions. He was treated exceptionally lightly by the Courts Martial and the appeals court, and has the lightest possible sentence, which is more than he deserves in my opinion.
As I said on ARRSE, when I hear people state it wasn't murder, I ask why intentionally moving someone out of line of sight of the ISTAR cover so you can't be moved, then refusing to render first aid, then refusing to call for medical evacuation on the MERT, then shooting them in the chest and stating to your men that you broke the geneva convention isn't murder?
I've read the sentencing remarks, there is a great deal of fact that wasn't covered in the sensationalist tabloid coverage and paint an utterly damning indictment of his actions.
Mr Blackman (not Sgt anymore) is a convicted murderer who let the UK down with his actions. He was treated exceptionally lightly by the Courts Martial and the appeals court, and has the lightest possible sentence, which is more than he deserves in my opinion.
[QUOTE Those who try to impose the same standards are usually the lawyers who stand to make huge amounts of money from the leagal aid system, some of these lawyers have known for years that the cases they pursued were based on very poor evidence and had little chance of success but persue than they did at great cost to the public purse.[/QUOTE]
IIRC, he was tried and found guilty by a panel of his peers - all serving servicemen with recent combat experience in Afghanistan.
IIRC, he was tried and found guilty by a panel of his peers - all serving servicemen with recent combat experience in Afghanistan.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: LEEDS
Age: 49
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand the argument about him being under stress, things are different on the battlefield etc but would people still be keen to apply that leniency if a Taliban fighter had done this to a British soldier?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, you are right.
I don't happen to think that treating men and their behaviour in a wartime like they are in a UK street when it comes to crimes is justice though.
It must be tricky to keep your moral compass when war ruins any sense of right and wrong based on rules invented by men in ivory towers.
I don't happen to think that treating men and their behaviour in a wartime like they are in a UK street when it comes to crimes is justice though.
It must be tricky to keep your moral compass when war ruins any sense of right and wrong based on rules invented by men in ivory towers.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, if you wanted to protect men on the battlefield you would ban guns and bombs etc.
It was to reduce barbarism, not stop killing.
And no, it is not irrelevant if the other side signed up.
It might not make a legal difference, but it most assuredly makes a difference to the war fighting if each side has different constraints and rules.
It was to reduce barbarism, not stop killing.
And no, it is not irrelevant if the other side signed up.
It might not make a legal difference, but it most assuredly makes a difference to the war fighting if each side has different constraints and rules.
No, if you wanted to protect men on the battlefield you would ban guns and bombs etc.
It was to reduce barbarism, not stop killing.
And no, it is not irrelevant if the other side signed up.
It might not make a legal difference, but it most assuredly makes a difference to the war fighting if each side has different constraints and rules.
It was to reduce barbarism, not stop killing.
And no, it is not irrelevant if the other side signed up.
It might not make a legal difference, but it most assuredly makes a difference to the war fighting if each side has different constraints and rules.
Tourist, have you really worn a uniform (outside of the bedroom)? If so, you're either playing devils advocate, or just a bloody fool with no comprehension of what ROE means, entails and represents.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
To answer the original question, attending a protest march whose sole purpose is to question the Military Justice system and the applicability of the Geneva Convention under which the crime was committed, is most surely a 'political' act and the MoD are will within their rights to place a ban on that activity. If you wanted democracy and free speech you should have joined CND, not the Military.
As for the regurgitation of the whole saga again, it was done to death the first time, and will be again. MGD did make the best comment;
It's hard to be a world power when you are behaving like a sociopathic banana republic.
As for the regurgitation of the whole saga again, it was done to death the first time, and will be again. MGD did make the best comment;
That's why the British Forces are respected the world over, and aren't in a peer group with Nigeria.