Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Execution Of Prisoners
93 Answers
http://
Court marshals have the same sentencing powers as civillian courts but are they under the same mandatary rules?
If these Royal Marines are found guilty of this murder will we see the same life sentences that a civillian would have to hand down?
Or will we see more suspended sentences like Danny Nightingale?
Will they be named if found guilty?
Court marshals have the same sentencing powers as civillian courts but are they under the same mandatary rules?
If these Royal Marines are found guilty of this murder will we see the same life sentences that a civillian would have to hand down?
Or will we see more suspended sentences like Danny Nightingale?
Will they be named if found guilty?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. 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.
whilst that is true, or appears to be, this man was unarmed, seriously injured, our soldiers are supposed to laws be above this, why did they just not leave him be, if he was that bad he could hardly pick up a weapon and fire at the soldiers. This wasn't a heat of the moment panic, if we don't obey these rules then it makes us as bad as them.
Don't follow the reasoning that the enemy treats prisoners with barbarity so, logically, we should do the same to their prisoners, to even things up a bit. The Japanese were not above treating prisoners with barbarity, but we did not see fit to treat Japanese prisoners the same way. We treat them fairly because that is morally right and, you may think, it only hands the enemy a propaganda coup if we abandon our principles.
Even the Nazis had some principles (though you may correctly feel that these were sometimes forgotten). There was one reported incident of German soldier urinating on a French war memorial. He was promptly shot dead by an officer. That was for showing lack of respect for dead soldiers, though they had died fighting the Germans in the previous World War. Not exactly the British way, but principled. That the Germans once strung up a farmer, in front of his family, because he was heard making a disparaging remark as the Germans retreated, does not alter that.
Even the Nazis had some principles (though you may correctly feel that these were sometimes forgotten). There was one reported incident of German soldier urinating on a French war memorial. He was promptly shot dead by an officer. That was for showing lack of respect for dead soldiers, though they had died fighting the Germans in the previous World War. Not exactly the British way, but principled. That the Germans once strung up a farmer, in front of his family, because he was heard making a disparaging remark as the Germans retreated, does not alter that.
I am all for principals and morals fred but they wear very thin when not reciprocated and the conditions which our troops are under are with non-principalled and immoral foe - how long are you expected to turn the other cheek - and ignore the atrocities being carried out on you fellow men before you crack. I abhor the murder of prisoners on both sides and just hope and pray that there will be a solution one day soon.
Were the situations reversed and it was the marine lying injured I have no doubts that the insurgent would not have hesitated to kill the marine. I was reading in one of today's newspapers that the Taliban would gather up body parts of our troops and hang them on trees for their comrades to see when they were out on patrol. Little wonder then that this chap and even possibly others have acted in ways that are contrary to the observed rules of war or whatever it is called these days. I am by no means excusing what was done or even condoning it but I truly feel that there is some room for leniency on the part of the court for this marine, we all do things out of character when we are under severe stress
I first became aware of this "Rules of War" thing watching a performance of Henry V - after the French attacked the English baggage train and killed all the boys I think it was Llewellyn who said that if was strictly against the rules of war to make such an attack (can't remember the exact quote) I was only really aware of the Geneva Conventions but I doubt very much whether the Taliban or any terrorist organisation would pay any heed to that
Nungate - interesting point - using Shakey for a historical precedent is a bit well Shakey. You note it is Llewlellyn making the claim and at that time the Welsh were famous for well welshing. So it could have been an ironic reference. . . (SHakespeare was meant to have served in an army at some time )
Grotius 1625 started it all with: De jure belli ac pacis (English: On the Law of War and Peace) is a 1625 book in Latin, written by Hugo Grotius and published in Paris, on the legal status of war.[1] It is now regarded as a foundational work in international law.[2] (wiki).
There was no time when people behaved better in war than we do (or try to. ) AS for taking Japanese prisoners and treating them well - I didnt think we took very many. The japanese certainly have the view the British consistently ran away until the Imphal and Kohima (1944)
The Germans had more of a dichotomy in that they treated the British and French POWs according to the Geneva convention and treated non signatories like the Russians much worse. As for shooting a soldier for urinating on a French War memorial - definitely an aberration - must have been during the fall of France 1940.
Grotius 1625 started it all with: De jure belli ac pacis (English: On the Law of War and Peace) is a 1625 book in Latin, written by Hugo Grotius and published in Paris, on the legal status of war.[1] It is now regarded as a foundational work in international law.[2] (wiki).
There was no time when people behaved better in war than we do (or try to. ) AS for taking Japanese prisoners and treating them well - I didnt think we took very many. The japanese certainly have the view the British consistently ran away until the Imphal and Kohima (1944)
The Germans had more of a dichotomy in that they treated the British and French POWs according to the Geneva convention and treated non signatories like the Russians much worse. As for shooting a soldier for urinating on a French War memorial - definitely an aberration - must have been during the fall of France 1940.
