Bliss Roots Cbd Gummies (Customer...
Food & Drink6 mins ago
Isn't It Now Time That This Total Travesty Of Justice Was Corrected, And Sergeant Alexander Blackman Released Forthwith?
34 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Let's not get carried away with the emotion surrounding this story.
I would accept that the charge of murder was inappropriate here, based on what I know of the case - but there would still be a charge of manslaughter to be addressed, and an appropriate sentence delivered if there is a guilty verdict.
I would accept that the charge of murder was inappropriate here, based on what I know of the case - but there would still be a charge of manslaughter to be addressed, and an appropriate sentence delivered if there is a guilty verdict.
TTT - "yes it's frankly ridiculous that a soldier is in prison for killing the enemy. I can just imagine the R.0P. locking up their own for killing the enemy! incredibly crass situation."
But the fundamental difference between us and IS is that we don't kill people indiscriminately without sanction.
We have laws because we are civilised, and those laws make and keep us civilised.
And those laws work because they are applied without fear or favour.
But the fundamental difference between us and IS is that we don't kill people indiscriminately without sanction.
We have laws because we are civilised, and those laws make and keep us civilised.
And those laws work because they are applied without fear or favour.
AOG - "andy-hughes
/// Let's not get carried away with the emotion surrounding this story. ///
Well it worked for a while over the migrant crisis."
I don't believe that comparison stands up.
As I mentioned, we have laws concerning taking of life, and they apply in combat - which is why this case has been prosecuted.
The fact that this soldier shot a Taliban fighter is not in dispute - the issue is the legality of his actions.
It's no use being all gung ho and trotting out ' he deserved it' or 'he'd have done the same' or 'this is war' because we can't simply shelve our legal processes because large degrees of emotional input have been brought to bear.
Legal process has been followed by people who know far more details of what has taken place than we do - so we cannot assume that this is a miscarriage of justice because the soldier in question is (and I don't doubt it) a decent man.
If an appeal is successful - through legal process - then that is a different issue, but media pressure whipping up public outrage is not a firm basis on which to build a binding legal process.
/// Let's not get carried away with the emotion surrounding this story. ///
Well it worked for a while over the migrant crisis."
I don't believe that comparison stands up.
As I mentioned, we have laws concerning taking of life, and they apply in combat - which is why this case has been prosecuted.
The fact that this soldier shot a Taliban fighter is not in dispute - the issue is the legality of his actions.
It's no use being all gung ho and trotting out ' he deserved it' or 'he'd have done the same' or 'this is war' because we can't simply shelve our legal processes because large degrees of emotional input have been brought to bear.
Legal process has been followed by people who know far more details of what has taken place than we do - so we cannot assume that this is a miscarriage of justice because the soldier in question is (and I don't doubt it) a decent man.
If an appeal is successful - through legal process - then that is a different issue, but media pressure whipping up public outrage is not a firm basis on which to build a binding legal process.
Baldric - //According to the Link he shot a shot a fatally wounded Man, a bit, in fact a lot like putting an injured Animal down, an act of kindness.//
That's one of the most barbaric things I have ever read on the AB - and I have read a lot.
I would be utterly ashamed to hold the life of another human being un such contempt that I likened shooting him to putting down an injured animal.
The soldier in question shot the Taliban soldier because he believed he still might represent a threat to life. That's unpalatable, but understandable in the circumstances, and it's still a million miles away from likening it to shooting an injured dog.
God forbid you should ever be allowed to hold a gun.
That's one of the most barbaric things I have ever read on the AB - and I have read a lot.
I would be utterly ashamed to hold the life of another human being un such contempt that I likened shooting him to putting down an injured animal.
The soldier in question shot the Taliban soldier because he believed he still might represent a threat to life. That's unpalatable, but understandable in the circumstances, and it's still a million miles away from likening it to shooting an injured dog.
God forbid you should ever be allowed to hold a gun.
Talbot - "You must be the only regular poster that doesn't know that Baldric served in the marines."
I was not aware of that - but it doesn't change my view on this issue.
I appreciate that Baldric has an opinion based on his career choice, but this is a debating site, and he as offered his view, and I have offered mine.
He is welcome to refute my opinion if he wishes, and I hope that this will not become overly personal because our views are firmly held.
I was not aware of that - but it doesn't change my view on this issue.
I appreciate that Baldric has an opinion based on his career choice, but this is a debating site, and he as offered his view, and I have offered mine.
He is welcome to refute my opinion if he wishes, and I hope that this will not become overly personal because our views are firmly held.
Baldric - "Well, I did so for nearly 20 years as a RM without any problems, they were happy enough with my performance they made me an NCO, and further to that we managed to keep our Argentinian Prisoners alive in The Falklands."
Then as an ex-marine, you must be aware that laws regarding killing under the circumstances of this situation are still applied?
Then as an ex-marine, you must be aware that laws regarding killing under the circumstances of this situation are still applied?
There is to all accounts a lot of information that was 'unavailable' at the trial, which sounds as if it has bearing upon the background of this incident, lack of communication with SO's, casualties taken both wounded and killed, and time spent under intense pressure (attack). If this is now made public I suspect that Lonnies suggestion @ 14.38 should be the way to go!
Baldric - "There is to all accounts a lot of information that was 'unavailable' at the trial, which sounds as if it has bearing upon the background of this incident, lack of communication with SO's, casualties taken both wounded and killed, and time spent under intense pressure (attack). If this is now made public I suspect that Lonnies suggestion @ 14.38 should be the way to go!"
I am inclined to agree - but this decision should be made based on evidence and legal argument and resolution, not emotions based on the personality of the solider involved.
In case anyone feels that I am trying to condemn this man for doing an impossible job under impossible circumstances, I am far from doing that. In my view he should not have been imprisoned, but - and this is where my argument began - we have laws in place to keep us civilised, and they have to follow process.
If, as appears in this case, the law has not been well served, then that is an issue to be addressed immediately, but under the same legal process which deals in evidence and facts, not media grandstanding.
I am inclined to agree - but this decision should be made based on evidence and legal argument and resolution, not emotions based on the personality of the solider involved.
In case anyone feels that I am trying to condemn this man for doing an impossible job under impossible circumstances, I am far from doing that. In my view he should not have been imprisoned, but - and this is where my argument began - we have laws in place to keep us civilised, and they have to follow process.
If, as appears in this case, the law has not been well served, then that is an issue to be addressed immediately, but under the same legal process which deals in evidence and facts, not media grandstanding.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.