RugbyRebels

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 53571.html

3.5 years only.

He told him: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil, you cunt. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."

He then turned to comrades and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."

A lot of people are going to be very angry with him, but there is too a reasonable case for having a sentence of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, and the latter should really be taken up quite strongly with the MoD and the government for the lack of care and investment.

3 and a half years is about right.

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 53571.html

3.5 years only.

He told him: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil, you cunt. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."

He then turned to comrades and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."

Hey Trigger, there's already a thread about this
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... =17&t=1678

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 53571.html

3.5 years only.

He told him: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil, you cunt. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."

He then turned to comrades and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."

Covered most of this in the other thread. What he did was murder, but if his defence team have been able to show diminished responsibility then its manslaughter with a lower sentencing tariff. The same defences in law apply to military personnel as well as civilians.

Some talking head suggesting his discharge should now be altered. That seems a step too far.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 53571.html

3.5 years only.

He told him: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil, you cunt. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."

He then turned to comrades and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."

Covered most of this in the other thread. What he did was murder, but if his defence team have been able to show diminished responsibility then its manslaughter with a lower sentencing tariff. The same defences in law apply to military personnel as well as civilians.

I just don't think it's an impartial process, in many aspects.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 53571.html

3.5 years only.

He told him: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil, you cunt. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."

He then turned to comrades and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."

Covered most of this in the other thread. What he did was murder, but if his defence team have been able to show diminished responsibility then its manslaughter with a lower sentencing tariff. The same defences in law apply to military personnel as well as civilians.

I just don't think it's an impartial process, in many aspects.

Which part, the original court martial or the appeal process? If you point is about some of the media focus, then I'd agree that a lot of bollocks has been written. Hopefully that hasn't had an impact.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Covered most of this in the other thread. What he did was murder, but if his defence team have been able to show diminished responsibility then its manslaughter with a lower sentencing tariff. The same defences in law apply to military personnel as well as civilians.

I just don't think it's an impartial process, in many aspects.

Which part, the original court martial or the appeal process? If you point is about some of the media focus, then I'd agree that a lot of bollocks has been written. Hopefully that hasn't had an impact.

Let's start with two factors that have influenced this case heavily in my opinion.

a) The press heavily influencing opinion, mostly by emotional propaganda
b) The limitations that the Service Prosecuting Authority has - e.g. the effect of cuts to its budget - compare its financial restraints per case compared to a massively funded case like Blackman's.

LLF

OptimisticJock wrote:LLF

Go hide in your foxhole.

Zhivago wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:LLF

Go hide in your foxhole.

Only if you come and keep me warm xx

What is Britain doing back in Afghanistan anyway? It just amounts to the resumption of the Great Game, which culminated in WWI and the worst carnage the world had ever seen. 16 years NATO has been messing about in that country - and achieved NOTHING. The US claims to have murdered Osama bin Laden in Pakistan 5 years ago (but conveniently disposed of his body without photographic evidence and in such a way they could never proved it), but still the troops remain, and the civilian carnage continues. There is no way that America could not have defeated the Taliban by now if that had really been its intention. What we really have is a classic example of Neo-Colonialism, and the troops remain solely to defend the pipeline from the Caspian to the Indian Ocean. That project was on the table long before 9/11, and guess who proposed it:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/01/10/ ... e-taliban/

Dreadful decision all round imo.

Zhivago wrote:
I just don't think it's an impartial process, in many aspects.

Really,...?. A court martial..?.
No shit.

As in most things in life I am ignorant about this , but, why is this not a war crime? What actually constitutes a war crime? I really can't imagine what it was like to be put in a situation like that and hope I never am but at the end of the day even though with the celebrations of family and friends he still killed someone unlawfully

caldeyrfc wrote:As in most things in life I am ignorant about this , but, why is this not a war crime? What actually constitutes a war crime? I really can't imagine what it was like to be put in a situation like that and hope I never am but at the end of the day even though with the celebrations of family and friends he still killed someone unlawfully

Well its been revealed that US-led strikes have killed close to 300 civilians in Mosul since February. When Russia does it, its a war crime, when we do it we launch a very very VERY serious investigation and "make sure these unfortunate events don't happen again".

I guess the same applies here. If its an Arab in a turban there is no hope, he is an evil, morally-lacking brutal war criminal. If its one of our guys, despite telling the victim to "shuffle off this mortal coil you cunt" and telling his fellow soldiers to keep it quiet, obviously its a case of high stress, its the struggles of war, he only deserves a couple of years and we will launch a very very VERY serious investigation and "make sure these unfortunate events don't happen again".

Now keep quiet and be thankful we are better than them.

jared_7 wrote:
Now keep quiet and be thankful we are better than them.

I don't think we should keep quiet about it, the behaviour of our armed forces is much better than 'them', and whilst there's room for improvement, sadly too much room, we're probably the best we've ever been on this front and there's much we should be proud about and say so in this.

It's only been a day and already the revisionism is rife

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Now keep quiet and be thankful we are better than them.

I don't think we should keep quiet about it, the behaviour of our armed forces is much better than 'them', and whilst there's room for improvement, sadly too much room, we're probably the best we've ever been on this front and there's much we should be proud about and say so in this.

You are right. But you could also say the actions of US troops in Vietnam was much better than that of the Viet Kong and it doesn't necessarily mean its because they are better people, its more a case of means and location. The underdog will always be more limited in its actions and hence what it can rule out.

The question was asked what constitutes a war crime and I was simply pointed out the difference in media treatment and official channels. I've heard nothing but calls of Russian war crimes (rightly) for their bombing in Syria, but now evidence the US has done it and all we have is some b*llshit investigation, the UN afraid to say anything too harshly and generals blaming it on the enemy for putting civilians where the bombs landed.

I looked at the photos in yesterday's paper of Blackman's family rejoicing, treating him like some kind of wronged hero. 3 years for cooly killing someone and then telling your mates to cover it up, if you want to maintain those better standards you speak of then this is not the way to go about it.

Digby's problem is that he is unable to grasp the reality of the situation - that this is a long-term occupation of another country in which NATO's primary interest is transporting gas out of the Caspian. Civilians are not being protected, as evidenced by the ongoing wholesale carnage, the Taliban and war lords haven't been reined in, the opium trade continues to flourish, and the women's rights America helped destroy by overthrowing the progressive socialist government of the 70s haven't been returned either - not even remotely. These guys aren't 'heroes.' They're no different to the troops who occupied Vietnam, India, Kenya and Egypt; no different, in fact, to the German troops which occupied Poland and France. I don't care much about this particular individual, but the case needs to be viewed in that context.

and the slim chance of any sensible debate has evaporated

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Now keep quiet and be thankful we are better than them.

I don't think we should keep quiet about it, the behaviour of our armed forces is much better than 'them', and whilst there's room for improvement, sadly too much room, we're probably the best we've ever been on this front and there's much we should be proud about and say so in this.

You are right. But you could also say the actions of US troops in Vietnam was much better than that of the Viet Kong and it doesn't necessarily mean its because they are better people, its more a case of means and location. The underdog will always be more limited in its actions and hence what it can rule out.

The question was asked what constitutes a war crime and I was simply pointed out the difference in media treatment and official channels. I've heard nothing but calls of Russian war crimes (rightly) for their bombing in Syria, but now evidence the US has done it and all we have is some b*llshit investigation, the UN afraid to say anything too harshly and generals blaming it on the enemy for putting civilians where the bombs landed.

I looked at the photos in yesterday's paper of Blackman's family rejoicing, treating him like some kind of wronged hero. 3 years for cooly killing someone and then telling your mates to cover it up, if you want to maintain those better standards you speak of then this is not the way to go about it.

I would think for many in the first instance the actions here would speak to it being a murder case with a sanction that should follow that. If however his legal team have been able to argue there are grounds for a lesser charge, and the evidence presented supports that rather than simply looking like an attempt to get out of doing time then whilst being cross about it I'd have to accept that. What I do expect to see if the reasons for reducing his sentence are valid is action by the MoD to reduce the chance of the same happening again, if we now fail in that then there should be criticism of the government, and criticism which is targeted and ongoing.

rowan wrote:Digby's problem is that he is unable to grasp the reality of the situation - that this is a long-term occupation of another country in which NATO's primary interest is transporting gas out of the Caspian. Civilians are not being protected, as evidenced by the ongoing wholesale carnage, the Taliban and war lords haven't been reined in, the opium trade continues to flourish, and the women's rights America helped destroy by overthrowing the progressive socialist government of the 70s haven't been returned either - not even remotely. These guys aren't 'heroes.' They're no different to the troops who occupied Vietnam, India, Kenya and Egypt; no different, in fact, to the German troops which occupied Poland and France. I don't care much about this particular individual, but the case needs to be viewed in that context.

I have many problems with reality. Though in this instance I'd say the case needs to be viewed within the context of the case, and where there are issues with the wider political and military actions of the UK those should be taken up with the UK government, and not with an individual marine.