So you understand very well that signing this petition is wholly irrelevant and meaningless; it cannot possibly make any difference, and even if it did that would be a bad thing. So why did you sign it? I characterised signing as 'stupidity', but you seem to take exception to that. OK then, I'm sorry but what would you call it?
Sometimes we do what we can even when we know it wont make any difference. Again, as I have previously stated, what Marine A did was wrong, but I will not condemn him for doing what he did. Tomrowley has given an insight that most of us have no experience of and from listening to the recording of the small part of the incident that was published I do not think that Marine A was an out of control psychopathic killer, his mistake was to record the shooting of a seriously (quite likely mortally) wounded insurgent. To take the moral high ground and to say that this is never acceptable is to deny that life just isn't black and white and I am not prepared to do that. I signed because I can identify with Marine A, even though I have no military experience, and because I could. So yes I do take exception to calling that stupidity.
tom, right from the tactics point of view, but there can be no justification for this act at all. It wasn't a mercy killing it was murder. Marine A contravened the geneva convention, dragged his mates into it and is now paying the price. The other two showed no integrity at all by not reporting the incident. No matter how you look at it, it was wrong. At the end of the day they were/ are professional marines and should have acted as such.
There's an interesting blog on the Telegraph website arguing against leniency and making the case for the rule of law link Personally, as in the Danny Nightingale case, I'm of the opinion that wearing a uniform does not excuse you from obeying the law. As Dan Hodges puts it,
Matt, I'm not arguing against the laws of this land I'm arguing for humanity between two individuals. There is a debate on euthanasia in this country and in my eyes this follows that debate. Yes he broke the law, yes he should go to prison. His mistake is getting caught, not doing what he did. I have definitely made my point and everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. I respect your point of view but I disagree that what he did was wrong. Difficult, unpleasant and definitely not for everyone to live with but not necessarily wrong. Matt, you of all people must be able to see that what should happen on paper and what should happen in life are very different.
Is the doctor that unplugs the life support a murderer? There's no chance of recovery and the decision is made to kill that person to end their suffering
Totally irrelevant. This wasn't a doctor, wasn't to end suffering and we have no idea of the chances of recovery. And the doctor probably doesn't make a video to keep as a memento.
Life support is usually turned off with next of kin permission and after multiple doctor consultation not a spur of the moment decision. In the case of Marine A the defense was that they thought the Taliban guy was dead already so mercy didn't enter into it. If they claimed he was dead to get off with a lesser crime when really it was a mercy killing all along then that is a chance they and the defense took in using that as a tactic. A mercy killing would have sat better with the evidence from what i have seen and read. War sucks and our rules of engagment out there suck but it appears the evidence totally contradicted the events as told by the soldiers. The 2 who pleaded guilty pre trial might have made the smartest move as it turned out.
I don't want to argue this any more. Too many bad memories. You are welcome to your opinion and I'm glad we live in a country where we can share them openly and freely.
LOL......OK, Ashley, you shot your self in the foot, 'cos you said his mistake was mudering someone, but ashley he was manslaughtering him......:wink: I'll get back here, shorty.....
There always grey areas some things. In this there is not. Read the transcripts and you'll see. They knew what they did.
You seem to have lost focus on the point here. Let me clarify a few things. 1. It is possible to have a rational argument about whether soldier A is guilty of murder or not. That argument was held at the Court Martial, and the verdict was guilty. We can re-argue it all we want, but that has nothing to do with the petition. 2. There is a reasonable consideration about how severe or lenient the sentence (i.e. tariff) should be. The pros and cons will be argued in court and decided by the judge and board. As murders go, this case was not a multiple murder, it was not premeditated, it was not done for a sexual motive nor for financial gain, it was not done to conceal other crimes, and the likelihood of re-offending is minimal - these are mitigating (or at least not aggravating) factors, hence good reasons for leniency. A tariff towards the lower end of the scale would be appropriate. 3. The sentencing of those convicted in criminal trials is a legal process. It is not a popularity contest like Strictly Come Dancing, or a General Election. It is never affected, and must never be affected, by any kind of petition. 4. I have not suggested that arguing for a not guilty verdict was stupid. I have not suggested that arguing for leniency is stupid. What I have said, and still say, is that it is signing the petition, in these circumstances, which is beyond stupidity. If you wish to argue the contrary go ahead - I'm waiting for you to start.
Pete, Re 1, 2 and 3 couldn't agree more. Re 4 see #95. If it made me feel better who are you to say that it was stupid ?
