It crosses into murder around the point when other service personnel were giving the man first aid, but Sgt Blackman stopped them and shot him. The man was not a threat when they were giving him first aid.
Being under immense pressure is not a defence against murder. If he was feeling in such a way that he couldn't carry out his duties in accordance with the law, he should have asked to go home or to another area.
It's four years since the Helmand incident. In that time, Alexander Blackman has had his trial, sentence, and the sentence reviewed (minimum 8 years). He will now be appealing the sentence.
Shaker Aamer didn't get the same trial or appeal. He didn't even get charged. The Western legal system failed Mr Aamer, and if it starts to set its agenda by "what the Taliban/ISIS would do", then it fails all of us.
I feel Blackman was a man under pressure in a kind of unreal situation. What worries me is that he had the presence of mind to say immediately something like 'this goes no further'. There was a degree of awareness there.
"why some people are keen to defend the actions of a convicted murderer whose actions fell so very short of those expected of brave and courageous service men and women; and who has unwittingly made the work of those brave and courageous service men and women so much harder and more dangerous. It's a terrible shame that sometimes they are let down by the illegal and immoral actions of one of their colleagues."
I'd like to see you repeat that to his fellow Marines, or even my father (RIP) who served with them.
'Not all that very' was because you said 'very predictable'. Read the thread back.
I always read and analyse threads and individual posts before formulating a response, unfortunately others often don't do the same when replying to my posts! Yes, your "not all that very" jibe was in response to my "very predictable" comment, and you would have been entirely correct if I had really only got 1 out of 3 correct. But that wasn't the case, and that is what I'm annoyed about, because I only ever made 2 guesses.
And you don't think my mentioning the interview, and your response which were questions not guesses was not a dig at me for reporting what she said? Your questions didn't respond to what she said but an attempt to undermine her content by digging out the context.
Yes, but I only asked 2 questions didn't I. So you can't possibly score me 1 out of 3 can you?
"why some people are keen to defend the actions of a convicted murderer whose actions fell so very short of those expected of brave and courageous service men and women; and who has unwittingly made the work of those brave and courageous service men and women so much harder and more dangerous. It's a terrible shame that sometimes they are let down by the illegal and immoral actions of one of their colleagues."
I'd like to see you repeat that to his fellow Marines, or even my father (RIP) who served with them.
The vast vast majority of soldiers that fought bravely in all conflicts serving this country behaved with honour and would be ashamed and appalled by the actions of Blackman.
'Not all that very' was because you said 'very predictable'. Read the thread back.
I always read and analyse threads and individual posts before formulating a response, unfortunately others often don't do the same when replying to my posts! Yes, your "not all that very" jibe was in response to my "very predictable" comment, and you would have been entirely correct if I had really only got 1 out of 3 correct. But that wasn't the case, and that is what I'm annoyed about, because I only ever made 2 guesses.
And you don't think my mentioning the interview, and your response which were questions not guesses was not a dig at me for reporting what she said? Your questions didn't respond to what she said but an attempt to undermine her content by digging out the context.
Yes, but I only asked 2 questions didn't I. So you can't possibly score me 1 out of 3 can you?
I can score you one for working out abloke listening to the wireless in London would have a good chance of it being the BBC. Your questions were initially answered politely with additional remembered information, but you didn't graciously leave it at that.
I didn't serve myself, but know a lot of people who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq. You do them a great disservice to suggest that what Mr Blackman did was 'normal'.
"why some people are keen to defend the actions of a convicted murderer whose actions fell so very short of those expected of brave and courageous service men and women; and who has unwittingly made the work of those brave and courageous service men and women so much harder and more dangerous. It's a terrible shame that sometimes they are let down by the illegal and immoral actions of one of their colleagues."
I'd like to see you repeat that to his fellow Marines, or even my father (RIP) who served with them.
What good would that do, other than to determine which group each of them was in: the group that agreed with me; or the group that was wrong?
'Not all that very' was because you said 'very predictable'. Read the thread back.
I always read and analyse threads and individual posts before formulating a response, unfortunately others often don't do the same when replying to my posts! Yes, your "not all that very" jibe was in response to my "very predictable" comment, and you would have been entirely correct if I had really only got 1 out of 3 correct. But that wasn't the case, and that is what I'm annoyed about, because I only ever made 2 guesses.
And you don't think my mentioning the interview, and your response which were questions not guesses was not a dig at me for reporting what she said? Your questions didn't respond to what she said but an attempt to undermine her content by digging out the context.
Yes, but I only asked 2 questions didn't I. So you can't possibly score me 1 out of 3 can you?
I can score you one for working out abloke listening to the wireless in London would have a good chance of it being the BBC. Your questions were initially answered politely with additional remembered information, but you didn't graciously leave it at that.
There's only one person being ungracious here and that's you for failing to admit that you are wrong, and mocking me for only getting 1 out of 3 correct, when you know that I never asked you 3 questions, the 3rd question (where did she come from) which you marked me zero for, I never asked you, and you know it, it's in black and white on this thread. As for you listening to the radio in London (so was obviously the BBC) how the hell am I supposed to know where you are? There are people on this forum living and working all over the globe. If you're not man enough to admit you are wrong, that's fine. I don't want to waste any more time on what is a trivial matter.
Had been interesting to follow this thread and observe the mostly well thought out and discussed different points of view.
From my point of view the two cases mentioned are totally separate and should not be compared.
What is clear is that one had been tried in a lawful and process driven manner and the other not. The issue of whether the sentence passed down to Alexander Blackman is appropriate is up for further discussion.
In the case of Shaker Aamer he was held without trial or for nearly 14 years. The treatment he received whilst incarcerated had left him with huge physical and mental scars.
Do not break this down to petty arguments about people being lefties or failing to support our servicemen. This is about whether justice has been done through due, thorough and fair process and it clearly hasn't.
I didn't serve myself, but know a lot of people who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq. You do them a great disservice to suggest that what Mr Blackman did was 'normal'.
Oh god, here we go again. Who said it was "normal" or right or correct? Who? I suggested that there were mitigating circumstances and that he previously had an unblemished 17 year record. Daggs said: "You can be assured that if the Taliban had found a wounded Marine they would have killed him, probably in a slower and more tortuous way. It's a war zone! Kill or be killed." Which I wholeheartedly agree with. But where did anyone say that what he did was normal?
"what happened was in a war zone. The Taliban were the enemy. Blackman killed an enemy."
This is language used to normalise what Mr Blackman did.
"Beats me why some on here are so keen to knock our brave and courageous service men, women and security forces who put their lives on the line for us"
This suggests that any other service men or women would have done what Mr Blackman did
Had been interesting to follow this thread and observe the mostly well thought out and discussed different points of view.
From my point of view the two cases mentioned are totally separate and should not be compared.
What is clear is that one had been tried in a lawful and process driven manner and the other not. The issue of whether the sentence passed down to Alexander Blackman is appropriate is up for further discussion.
In the case of Shaker Aamer he was held without trial or for nearly 14 years. The treatment he received whilst incarcerated had left him with huge physical and mental scars.
Do not break this down to petty arguments about people being lefties or failing to support our servicemen. This is about whether justice has been done through due, thorough and fair process and it clearly hasn't.
Sorry, but I think you underestimate the importance of peoples political beliefs in such issues.
Had been interesting to follow this thread and observe the mostly well thought out and discussed different points of view.
From my point of view the two cases mentioned are totally separate and should not be compared.
What is clear is that one had been tried in a lawful and process driven manner and the other not. The issue of whether the sentence passed down to Alexander Blackman is appropriate is up for further discussion.
In the case of Shaker Aamer he was held without trial or for nearly 14 years. The treatment he received whilst incarcerated had left him with huge physical and mental scars.
Do not break this down to petty arguments about people being lefties or failing to support our servicemen. This is about whether justice has been done through due, thorough and fair process and it clearly hasn't.
Sorry, but I think you underestimate the importance of peoples political beliefs in such issues.
How?
What about people's belief in a fair and transparent justice system?
'Not all that very' was because you said 'very predictable'. Read the thread back.
I always read and analyse threads and individual posts before formulating a response, unfortunately others often don't do the same when replying to my posts! Yes, your "not all that very" jibe was in response to my "very predictable" comment, and you would have been entirely correct if I had really only got 1 out of 3 correct. But that wasn't the case, and that is what I'm annoyed about, because I only ever made 2 guesses.
And you don't think my mentioning the interview, and your response which were questions not guesses was not a dig at me for reporting what she said? Your questions didn't respond to what she said but an attempt to undermine her content by digging out the context.
Yes, but I only asked 2 questions didn't I. So you can't possibly score me 1 out of 3 can you?
I can score you one for working out abloke listening to the wireless in London would have a good chance of it being the BBC. Your questions were initially answered politely with additional remembered information, but you didn't graciously leave it at that.
There's only one person being ungracious here and that's you for failing to admit that you are wrong, and mocking me for only getting 1 out of 3 correct, when you know that I never asked you 3 questions, the 3rd question (where did she come from) which you marked me zero for, I never asked you, and you know it, it's in black and white on this thread. As for you listening to the radio in London (so was obviously the BBC) how the hell am I supposed to know where you are? There are people on this forum living and working all over the globe. If you're not man enough to admit you are wrong, that's fine. I don't want to waste any more time on what is a trivial matter.
Yes it is trivial to ask if it was on the BBC and was she a human rights lawyer I agree with that. I especially agree it was trivial when the thrust of the discussion was about injustice itself rather than the credibility of the motives of who or what is saying stuff about it.
Had been interesting to follow this thread and observe the mostly well thought out and discussed different points of view.
From my point of view the two cases mentioned are totally separate and should not be compared.
What is clear is that one had been tried in a lawful and process driven manner and the other not. The issue of whether the sentence passed down to Alexander Blackman is appropriate is up for further discussion.
In the case of Shaker Aamer he was held without trial or for nearly 14 years. The treatment he received whilst incarcerated had left him with huge physical and mental scars.
Do not break this down to petty arguments about people being lefties or failing to support our servicemen. This is about whether justice has been done through due, thorough and fair process and it clearly hasn't.
Sorry, but I think you underestimate the importance of peoples political beliefs in such issues.
Not sure what political belief has to do with this. As far as I am aware, except those that support dictatorships and despots, all sides of the political spectrum support fair and open trial as the way to determine guilt.
In one of these cases that has happened, the other not.
There might have been mitigation for what Blackman did, but it was considered in court an illegal act. The mitigation would affect the punishment, but the verdict.
Aamer may or may not have carried out illegal acts, but we don't know because it hasn't been tested.
I'm sure that you would consider me a 'leftie', whatever one of those is. But from that position I believe that people who commit crime should be judged. That the punishment should be appropriate. Then after that, I believe that we should treat prisoners humanely and look to rehabilitate prisoners, if only because the evidence points to this stopping reoffending and therefore reducing crime.
"what happened was in a war zone. The Taliban were the enemy. Blackman killed an enemy."
This is language used to normalise what Mr Blackman did.
"Beats me why some on here are so keen to knock our brave and courageous service men, women and security forces who put their lives on the line for us"
This suggests that any other service men or women would have done what Mr Blackman did
Well opposing armies in a war zone do generally try to kill each other, so in that respect I suppose it's normal. But if he shot someone who wasn't a threat and injured, in cold blood, that's not normal (these days) and I don't see anyone here suggesting that it is. I don't see the link with regards to the second quote at all, except to say our forces will always have my support over the enemy any day, and someone like Blackman, would be given the benefit of doubt by myself if there was any doubt to be had. The concept of being jailed for killing the enemy in war, doesn't sit well with me and most of our soldiers who suffered so badly at the hands of the Japanese would be appalled if they were alive today at the thought that we could even consider doing such a thing to one of our own brave soldiers.
Funny old world innit? This bloke got interred without trial. A pretty bad way for the Americans to behave it's true. But he's now back 'home' and working out his compo. Marine A”. Sergeant Blackman went through the court procedure and is now serving life. His crime? In a war zone he shot a badly injured Taliban who he considered could still be a threat to him and his soldiers.
I know which one i care most about.
You're not telling the full story, based on the evidence available so far.
After they had removed the man's gun and grenades (thereby removing the threat), Sgt Blackman ordered that the man be moved to a place out of sight of operational headquarters. He ordered that those service personnel giving the man first aid stop. When the Apache helicopter was out of sight, he said "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you ****" and shot the man.
The judge in the case said "This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a fire fight." Brigadier Bill Dunham said it was "a truly shocking and appalling aberration".
The event took place in September 2011. Sgt Blackman was found guilty in November 2013, and the sentence reviewed in May 2014. He will be appealing against the sentence, and the appeal will be heavily funded.
...and you're not telling the whole story, either. That is an incomplete quote that conveniently misses out the fact that he was actually shooting him as an act of mercy. Now this could be considered a misjudgement because he is now in jail, but was the more humane thing to do just to leave the man to die slowly in agony? Remember, this guy had fatal wounds - he had just been shot up by an Apache helicopter minigun, which is a devastating weapon. Amazingly, the full quotations were not mentioned in court, which is inexplicable and this is why people think that Blackman may well have been stitched up in order to 'ensure' that the UK military appeared to maintain the moral high ground. Now, I always believe in Hanlon's razor, but you can see why some people think that there has been some kind of conspiracy something. In any case, it appears that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
Oh and as for the questions about Aamer being charged by the intelligence community - when you have a number of witnesses who confirm the same story, but each would never be thought reliable enough not to have their character torn to shreds by a court of law. Remember, snitches are inherently of questionable character and their evidence is often easily painted as hearsay by a legal defence team which is why they tend to be used in court only as an act of desperation in cases that are likely to be dismissed. In any cases, they were snitches, i.e they lived in Afghan communities and sometimes even fought for the Taliban - appearing in court and giving evidence for the Crown would be a death sentence for them and they would need to have multiple witnesses in court - wholly impractical. No, of course this doesn't mean that Aamer is guilty, but it there is a lot of intelligence pointing to the fact that he wasn't a selfless charity worker, but an active Taliban member. Now if it was really that clear cut and he was some kind of saint, then the US would have realised their mistake and cut him loose, surely. Why hold onto him for so long and incur the wrath of human rights campaigners unless you thought that it was worth the chance to try and get information out of him. Ultimately, the guy resisted them though and they ended up in a no win situation - stupidly keeping onto him in the hopes that the whole thing would go away. Bad mistake. They are now reaping the consequences of these actions, and quite right too.
One reason given as to why they held on to him for so long is because of what he witnessed at Camp Bastion and Guantanamo bay.
The rest of your post is very good, the 'putting out of misery' notion is credible, I don't of course know if that is right or wrong but that didn't seem to be an influence in the courts.
The difficulty of using certain witnesses in court against Shaker Aamer is also a credible explanation of some of this awful stuff. However, there are many many examples of the authorities letting the seemingly guilty go on legal technicalities, and not usually after 14 years without charge or trial.
I agree, Seth. He will spill the beans on a lot of stuff that the Americans would rather the world didn't know about - but to just think that they could hold onto him for ever is either very naive or criminally stupid!
Had been interesting to follow this thread and observe the mostly well thought out and discussed different points of view.
From my point of view the two cases mentioned are totally separate and should not be compared.
What is clear is that one had been tried in a lawful and process driven manner and the other not. The issue of whether the sentence passed down to Alexander Blackman is appropriate is up for further discussion.
In the case of Shaker Aamer he was held without trial or for nearly 14 years. The treatment he received whilst incarcerated had left him with huge physical and mental scars.
Do not break this down to petty arguments about people being lefties or failing to support our servicemen. This is about whether justice has been done through due, thorough and fair process and it clearly hasn't.
Sorry, but I think you underestimate the importance of peoples political beliefs in such issues.
How?
What about people's belief in a fair and transparent justice system?
There is a very good indication right here on this thread. You will not find any Lefties liking my posts, or many, if any, conservatives liking Chizz's or SHG's posts. How do I know? Well, when you've been on CL as long as I have you get to know people's political leanings. Conservatives that I know (not on CL) don't give two hoot's about the welfare of suspected terrorists, where as their human rights and treatment are very important to those of the left including welfare advocates and Lawyers who are almost always of the Socialist Left or Left leaning organisations As for a fair and transparent justice system, I'd rather more time, money and energy was spent on supporting the victims of terrorism and crime and less time supporting and helping the perpetrators (I'm talking generally).
Had been interesting to follow this thread and observe the mostly well thought out and discussed different points of view.
From my point of view the two cases mentioned are totally separate and should not be compared.
What is clear is that one had been tried in a lawful and process driven manner and the other not. The issue of whether the sentence passed down to Alexander Blackman is appropriate is up for further discussion.
In the case of Shaker Aamer he was held without trial or for nearly 14 years. The treatment he received whilst incarcerated had left him with huge physical and mental scars.
Do not break this down to petty arguments about people being lefties or failing to support our servicemen. This is about whether justice has been done through due, thorough and fair process and it clearly hasn't.
Sorry, but I think you underestimate the importance of peoples political beliefs in such issues.
How?
What about people's belief in a fair and transparent justice system?
There is a very good indication right here on this thread. You will not find any Lefties liking my posts, or many, if any, conservatives liking Chizz's or SHG's posts. How do I know? Well, when you've been on CL as long as I have you get to know people's political leanings. Conservatives that I know (not on CL) don't give two hoot's about the welfare of suspected terrorists, where as their human rights and treatment are very important to those of the left including welfare advocates and Lawyers who are almost always of the Socialist Left or Left leaning organisations As for a fair and transparent justice system, I'd rather more time, money and energy was spent on supporting the victims of terrorism and crime and less time supporting and helping the perpetrators (I'm talking generally).
1. Nobody is suggesting supporting and helping perpetrators of terrorism. 2. Have a look at today's Daily Mail front page. That should disabuse you of the ridiculous notion this is a left v right issue.
Well let's remove political leanings from this then and and consider a question or two based on judicial process and human rights.
Is imprisoning a man without charge or trial for nearly 14 years right, fair or proper?
Is it comparable to the verdict of eight years imprisonment for a man. A man who murdered a fellow human being in cold blood and whose sentence was handed down following an investigation, the collection of evidence and witness statements and a transparent and fair trial?
Are the nationalities and in one man's case his religious beliefs clouding the judgement of certain people?
Funny old world innit? This bloke got interred without trial. A pretty bad way for the Americans to behave it's true. But he's now back 'home' and working out his compo. Marine A”. Sergeant Blackman went through the court procedure and is now serving life. His crime? In a war zone he shot a badly injured Taliban who he considered could still be a threat to him and his soldiers.
I know which one i care most about.
You're not telling the full story, based on the evidence available so far.
After they had removed the man's gun and grenades (thereby removing the threat), Sgt Blackman ordered that the man be moved to a place out of sight of operational headquarters. He ordered that those service personnel giving the man first aid stop. When the Apache helicopter was out of sight, he said "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you ****" and shot the man.
The judge in the case said "This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a fire fight." Brigadier Bill Dunham said it was "a truly shocking and appalling aberration".
The event took place in September 2011. Sgt Blackman was found guilty in November 2013, and the sentence reviewed in May 2014. He will be appealing against the sentence, and the appeal will be heavily funded.
...and you're not telling the whole story, either. That is an incomplete quote that conveniently misses out the fact that he was actually shooting him as an act of mercy. Now this could be considered a misjudgement because he is now in jail, but was the more humane thing to do just to leave the man to die slowly in agony? Remember, this guy had fatal wounds - he had just been shot up by an Apache helicopter minigun, which is a devastating weapon. Amazingly, the full quotations were not mentioned in court, which is inexplicable and this is why people think that Blackman may well have been stitched up in order to 'ensure' that the UK military appeared to maintain the moral high ground. Now, I always believe in Hanlon's razor, but you can see why some people think that there has been some kind of conspiracy something. In any case, it appears that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
Oh and as for the questions about Aamer being charged by the intelligence community - when you have a number of witnesses who confirm the same story, but each would never be thought reliable enough not to have their character torn to shreds by a court of law. Remember, snitches are inherently of questionable character and their evidence is often easily painted as hearsay by a legal defence team which is why they tend to be used in court only as an act of desperation in cases that are likely to be dismissed. In any cases, they were snitches, i.e they lived in Afghan communities and sometimes even fought for the Taliban - appearing in court and giving evidence for the Crown would be a death sentence for them and they would need to have multiple witnesses in court - wholly impractical. No, of course this doesn't mean that Aamer is guilty, but it there is a lot of intelligence pointing to the fact that he wasn't a selfless charity worker, but an active Taliban member. Now if it was really that clear cut and he was some kind of saint, then the US would have realised their mistake and cut him loose, surely. Why hold onto him for so long and incur the wrath of human rights campaigners unless you thought that it was worth the chance to try and get information out of him. Ultimately, the guy resisted them though and they ended up in a no win situation - stupidly keeping onto him in the hopes that the whole thing would go away. Bad mistake. They are now reaping the consequences of these actions, and quite right too.
Very well said. The Yanks are far from perfect, but as I said earlier, there is rarely smoke without fire in these situations. For all their faults, I refuse to believe that they would incarcerate a totally innocent man for 14 years. They obviously must have had some information that was of great concern, but not strong enough to beat the Human Rights Lawyers in court, who seem to be so well funded and so adept at fighting and winning cases on technicalities or lack of evidence. It must also be incredibly difficult to obtain reliable evidence from a war zone, where witnesses may be either dead or scared sh*tless, as you said. This is why I said that we need to be very careful in giving suspected terrorists the benefit of doubt and the presumption of innocence. They need to be treated as special cases, because the risk to the public is simply too high. I stand by what I said, I can't say he's guilty, but I refuse to say that he is entirely innocent.
How is this anything other than a 14-year-long miscarriage of justice? Proper process simply has not been observed.
queensland_addick - how about the Birmingham Six? Shabaka Shakur? How about a list of exonerated death row inmates? They can and WOULD do this. Moreover, why has there been debate for over a century over institutional racism in the US criminal proceedings? Link for some info.
I'm a young good for nothing student type bleeding heart left wing radical anarcho-feminist environmentalist type though to you, aren't I? So please do what you seem to have been doing for the last 120 posts and discredit me based on the fact I voted Green (there, I said it).
@queensland_addick I am so grateful I don't live in the world you seem to be describing. Where the rule of law holds fast, except in "some" circumstances. Where the presumption of innocence is arbitrarily applied. Where a murderer should be exonerated because he has a lengthy service record. But a "foreigner" can be detained without trial because, you know, he's probably a terrorist after all (and if he turns out not to be, that's his bad luck). Where a safe conviction can be debated, but an uncharged man can't be assumed innocent because, you know, he shouldn't have been there in the first place.
(Have you seen the Steve Coogan character who claims he's been successful as a swimming pool attendant because year after year no-one drowns, except for the year that "some ONE" drowned? It's like your argument that a soldier should be let off a murder because for seventeen consecutive years he didn't murder anyone).
I'll prefer to stay in my old fashioned world. You know, the one where good people are left to get on with their lives. And bad people are punished when it's proven they've been bad. But we all get to assume we're good until we're shown we're not.
Why don't we agree that it's best for me to stay firmly in the current world; and for you to dream of your personal nirvana, where facts are debatable, process is ignorable and you get to decide who the bad guys are.
Funny old world innit? This bloke got interred without trial. A pretty bad way for the Americans to behave it's true. But he's now back 'home' and working out his compo. Marine A”. Sergeant Blackman went through the court procedure and is now serving life. His crime? In a war zone he shot a badly injured Taliban who he considered could still be a threat to him and his soldiers.
I know which one i care most about.
You're not telling the full story, based on the evidence available so far.
After they had removed the man's gun and grenades (thereby removing the threat), Sgt Blackman ordered that the man be moved to a place out of sight of operational headquarters. He ordered that those service personnel giving the man first aid stop. When the Apache helicopter was out of sight, he said "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you ****" and shot the man.
The judge in the case said "This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a fire fight." Brigadier Bill Dunham said it was "a truly shocking and appalling aberration".
The event took place in September 2011. Sgt Blackman was found guilty in November 2013, and the sentence reviewed in May 2014. He will be appealing against the sentence, and the appeal will be heavily funded.
That's very interesting reading (Though it's mostly argument about identification of the Marines and whether or not to release the video of the incident)
But the point remains, what happened was in a war zone. The Taliban were the enemy. Blackman killed an enemy. He could have left him to bleed to death and no one would have cared. I'm not sure how, in a war zone, if I killed someone in an exchange of fire, that would be O/K. But if I killed him after, it becomes murder.
You can be assured that if the Taliban had found a wounded Marine they would have killed him, probably in a slower and more tortuous way. It's a war zone! Kill or be killed.
The one thing I am glad to be corrected on was his sentence is actually 'life' with a minimum of ten years. I didn't know that. I hope his next appeal is successful and he is released. IMO he's already served long enough for his 'crime'
Mate, I get what your saying. I served 28 years in the military and served in the Middle East. Prior to deployment they all undergo training on the 'Laws of Armed Conflict' (yes, bizarrely there are laws!). They are international laws and take into account the Geneva Conventions. Whether we like it or not, what he did contravened those laws and that's why it stood up in a court of law. The bottom line is that seriously injured insurgent should have been taken prisoner and afforded medical aid! Weird I know but that's how it is.
How is this anything other than a 14-year-long miscarriage of justice? Proper process simply has not been observed.
queensland_addick - how about the Birmingham Six? Shabaka Shakur? How about a list of exonerated death row inmates? They can and WOULD do this. Moreover, why has there been debate for over a century over institutional racism in the US criminal proceedings? Link for some info.
I'm a young good for nothing student type bleeding heart left wing radical anarcho-feminist environmentalist type though to you, aren't I? So please do what you seem to have been doing for the last 120 posts and discredit me based on the fact I voted Green (there, I said it).
Yes, and there is absolutely no point in trying to reason or argue a case with people of the left. I should have known from experience that it is always a complete waste of time and effort. The confected outrage at a couple of poorly chosen words, the spinning of facts and putting words into my mouth that I never even said such as it's "normal" for soldiers to act in the way that Sgt Blackman did. The marking me 1 out of 3 when I asked two questions and got 1 correct and the other one probably correct. No apology and even a refusal to admit that he was wrong, despite it clearly being in black and white on page two of this thread. I admire your honesty in admitting that you are a Green, but it simply adds even more weight to my claim that one's thoughts on this are very likely to be driven by their political leaning. I'm pretty sure I know which way Goonheater leans politically as well and I would have done well to follow his lead, say my piece, then leave, and don't take the bait or bother engaging. On that note, I'm off to the post match thread to cheer myself up, I'll leave you all to high five each other, well done comrades.
Comments
Being under immense pressure is not a defence against murder. If he was feeling in such a way that he couldn't carry out his duties in accordance with the law, he should have asked to go home or to another area.
It's four years since the Helmand incident. In that time, Alexander Blackman has had his trial, sentence, and the sentence reviewed (minimum 8 years). He will now be appealing the sentence.
Shaker Aamer didn't get the same trial or appeal. He didn't even get charged. The Western legal system failed Mr Aamer, and if it starts to set its agenda by "what the Taliban/ISIS would do", then it fails all of us.
It's a terrible shame that sometimes they are let down by the illegal and immoral actions of one of their colleagues."
I'd like to see you repeat that to his fellow Marines, or even my father (RIP) who served with them.
If you're not man enough to admit you are wrong, that's fine. I don't want to waste any more time on what is a trivial matter.
From my point of view the two cases mentioned are totally separate and should not be compared.
What is clear is that one had been tried in a lawful and process driven manner and the other not. The issue of whether the sentence passed down to Alexander Blackman is appropriate is up for further discussion.
In the case of Shaker Aamer he was held without trial or for nearly 14 years. The treatment he received whilst incarcerated had left him with huge physical and mental scars.
Do not break this down to petty arguments about people being lefties or failing to support our servicemen. This is about whether justice has been done through due, thorough and fair process and it clearly hasn't.
I suggested that there were mitigating circumstances and that he previously had an unblemished 17 year record.
Daggs said: "You can be assured that if the Taliban had found a wounded Marine they would have killed him, probably in a slower and more tortuous way.
It's a war zone! Kill or be killed." Which I wholeheartedly agree with.
But where did anyone say that what he did was normal?
This is language used to normalise what Mr Blackman did.
"Beats me why some on here are so keen to knock our brave and courageous service men, women and security forces who put their lives on the line for us"
This suggests that any other service men or women would have done what Mr Blackman did
What about people's belief in a fair and transparent justice system?
In one of these cases that has happened, the other not.
There might have been mitigation for what Blackman did, but it was considered in court an illegal act. The mitigation would affect the punishment, but the verdict.
Aamer may or may not have carried out illegal acts, but we don't know because it hasn't been tested.
I'm sure that you would consider me a 'leftie', whatever one of those is. But from that position I believe that people who commit crime should be judged. That the punishment should be appropriate. Then after that, I believe that we should treat prisoners humanely and look to rehabilitate prisoners, if only because the evidence points to this stopping reoffending and therefore reducing crime.
But if he shot someone who wasn't a threat and injured, in cold blood, that's not normal (these days) and I don't see anyone here suggesting that it is.
I don't see the link with regards to the second quote at all, except to say our forces will always have my support over the enemy any day, and someone like Blackman, would be given the benefit of doubt by myself if there was any doubt to be had. The concept of being jailed for killing the enemy in war, doesn't sit well with me and most of our soldiers who suffered so badly at the hands of the Japanese would be appalled if they were alive today at the thought that we could even consider doing such a thing to one of our own brave soldiers.
Oh and as for the questions about Aamer being charged by the intelligence community - when you have a number of witnesses who confirm the same story, but each would never be thought reliable enough not to have their character torn to shreds by a court of law. Remember, snitches are inherently of questionable character and their evidence is often easily painted as hearsay by a legal defence team which is why they tend to be used in court only as an act of desperation in cases that are likely to be dismissed. In any cases, they were snitches, i.e they lived in Afghan communities and sometimes even fought for the Taliban - appearing in court and giving evidence for the Crown would be a death sentence for them and they would need to have multiple witnesses in court - wholly impractical. No, of course this doesn't mean that Aamer is guilty, but it there is a lot of intelligence pointing to the fact that he wasn't a selfless charity worker, but an active Taliban member. Now if it was really that clear cut and he was some kind of saint, then the US would have realised their mistake and cut him loose, surely. Why hold onto him for so long and incur the wrath of human rights campaigners unless you thought that it was worth the chance to try and get information out of him. Ultimately, the guy resisted them though and they ended up in a no win situation - stupidly keeping onto him in the hopes that the whole thing would go away. Bad mistake. They are now reaping the consequences of these actions, and quite right too.
The rest of your post is very good, the 'putting out of misery' notion is credible, I don't of course know if that is right or wrong but that didn't seem to be an influence in the courts.
The difficulty of using certain witnesses in court against Shaker Aamer is also a credible explanation of some of this awful stuff. However, there are many many examples of the authorities letting the seemingly guilty go on legal technicalities, and not usually after 14 years without charge or trial.
As for a fair and transparent justice system, I'd rather more time, money and energy was spent on supporting the victims of terrorism and crime and less time supporting and helping the perpetrators (I'm talking generally).
2. Have a look at today's Daily Mail front page. That should disabuse you of the ridiculous notion this is a left v right issue.
Is imprisoning a man without charge or trial for nearly 14 years right, fair or proper?
Is it comparable to the verdict of eight years imprisonment for a man. A man who murdered a fellow human being in cold blood and whose sentence was handed down following an investigation, the collection of evidence and witness statements and a transparent and fair trial?
Are the nationalities and in one man's case his religious beliefs clouding the judgement of certain people?
queensland_addick - how about the Birmingham Six? Shabaka Shakur? How about a list of exonerated death row inmates? They can and WOULD do this. Moreover, why has there been debate for over a century over institutional racism in the US criminal proceedings? Link for some info.
I'm a young good for nothing student type bleeding heart left wing radical anarcho-feminist environmentalist type though to you, aren't I? So please do what you seem to have been doing for the last 120 posts and discredit me based on the fact I voted Green (there, I said it).
(Have you seen the Steve Coogan character who claims he's been successful as a swimming pool attendant because year after year no-one drowns, except for the year that "some ONE" drowned? It's like your argument that a soldier should be let off a murder because for seventeen consecutive years he didn't murder anyone).
I'll prefer to stay in my old fashioned world. You know, the one where good people are left to get on with their lives. And bad people are punished when it's proven they've been bad. But we all get to assume we're good until we're shown we're not.
Why don't we agree that it's best for me to stay firmly in the current world; and for you to dream of your personal nirvana, where facts are debatable, process is ignorable and you get to decide who the bad guys are.