Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Common Sense At Last
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Baldric. 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.
-- answer removed --
Reading the details of this case, it appears that the entire episode has been appallingly badly handled by all the authorities involved, and that this man has been seriously let down by the people who are supposed to support him.
I wish him every success in his appeal, and I hope he is entitled to compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
I wish him every success in his appeal, and I hope he is entitled to compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
I am sympathetic to an appeal to the severity of his sentence, but not the guilty verdict itself.
There is no evidence whatsoever that he didn't kill the prisoner of war and commit an act against the Convention.
He admitted such himself, live on the video.
But I am quite content for his case to come to appeal, although for an appeal hearing to be allowed and to be successful, it is common for new evidence to be submitted.
There is no evidence whatsoever that he didn't kill the prisoner of war and commit an act against the Convention.
He admitted such himself, live on the video.
But I am quite content for his case to come to appeal, although for an appeal hearing to be allowed and to be successful, it is common for new evidence to be submitted.
No mikey. I don't think he will be compensated for defying the Geneva Convention, I think he will be compensated for being jailed for an act committed while under an adverse mental condition caused by the stress of combat in general, and his own personal experiences in particular.
The letter of the military law was followed - but it was followed during World War I when shell-shocked soldiers who would be treated for psychological damage today, were shot as cowards.
Adherence to the letter of the military law without allowing for all evidence and testimony to be heard and considered is a flawed system, and leads to injustice, and that certainly appears to be the case here.
The letter of the military law was followed - but it was followed during World War I when shell-shocked soldiers who would be treated for psychological damage today, were shot as cowards.
Adherence to the letter of the military law without allowing for all evidence and testimony to be heard and considered is a flawed system, and leads to injustice, and that certainly appears to be the case here.
YMB...he broke the Convention and admitted as much.....
How is he "defending the country" especially considering that he committed his crime in Afghanistan ?
If you are hoping that "he didn't break the Geneva Convention" is going to be any help in his Appeal, than he is very lucky he doesn't have you on his defence team !
I repeat ......that I am quite content with the severity of his sentence being looked at again, but his crime was never in doubt. He is no Timothy Evans.
How is he "defending the country" especially considering that he committed his crime in Afghanistan ?
If you are hoping that "he didn't break the Geneva Convention" is going to be any help in his Appeal, than he is very lucky he doesn't have you on his defence team !
I repeat ......that I am quite content with the severity of his sentence being looked at again, but his crime was never in doubt. He is no Timothy Evans.
mikey - //YMB...he broke the Convention and admitted as much.....
How is he "defending the country" especially considering that he committed his crime in Afghanistan ?
If you are hoping that "he didn't break the Geneva Convention" is going to be any help in his Appeal, than he is very lucky he doesn't have you on his defence team !
I repeat ......that I am quite content with the severity of his sentence being looked at again, but his crime was never in doubt. He is no Timothy Evans. //
I think the comparison with Timothy Evans is a serious stretch in every circumstance.
But that aside - the issue of MS Blackman's contravention of the Geneva Convention is not in dispute by anyone, and I am sure that includes YMB.
The issue is that mitigating factors have neither been heard or considered correctly - and that is why the review is essential.
If, when that evidence is heard, the court would have reached a different decision, then part of all of the imprisonment will be seen as unjust , and compensation will be his entitlement.
How is he "defending the country" especially considering that he committed his crime in Afghanistan ?
If you are hoping that "he didn't break the Geneva Convention" is going to be any help in his Appeal, than he is very lucky he doesn't have you on his defence team !
I repeat ......that I am quite content with the severity of his sentence being looked at again, but his crime was never in doubt. He is no Timothy Evans. //
I think the comparison with Timothy Evans is a serious stretch in every circumstance.
But that aside - the issue of MS Blackman's contravention of the Geneva Convention is not in dispute by anyone, and I am sure that includes YMB.
The issue is that mitigating factors have neither been heard or considered correctly - and that is why the review is essential.
If, when that evidence is heard, the court would have reached a different decision, then part of all of the imprisonment will be seen as unjust , and compensation will be his entitlement.
Andy...if what you say is true, and more importantly, found and proved to be true by the Appeal Court, then I am more than happy to side with the outcome of the Court.
But what you have said is what not most others have said on this thread.
They seem to think that because the dead man was a Taliban fighter,, and was executed after his capture, then its OK for Blackman to kill him as he did.
That is the beginning of a very slippery slope.
But what you have said is what not most others have said on this thread.
They seem to think that because the dead man was a Taliban fighter,, and was executed after his capture, then its OK for Blackman to kill him as he did.
That is the beginning of a very slippery slope.
