Defending your country is not murder.

[Tez3]

The Supreme Court here is to hear the case of a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan, the gist of the case is whether the military has a 'right to life' in a war zone. If its ruled that they do under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights it's going to change a lot of things.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rule-on-a-soldiers-right-to-life-8301316.html

 

[Makalakumu]

No you are wrong again. The Royal Marines were doing what their country required of them, defending themselves in a time of war, just because you define that war as illegal, just because you decide that defence is wrong doesn't make it so. This country decides what it does, not you, this country decides how it utilises it's troops, not you. The country has the loyalty of it's troops who believe in their country, albeit in their own disrespectful way, you have an agenda to push that doesn't and shouldn't involve Her Majesty's troops.
I'm not as perhaps some think being acrimonious about this, I'm just very tired of being patronised by you and with having you preach on something that is very little to do with this thread. The premise is simple, the country uses it's troops it should look after them, that's it, no arguments, no who's right, who's wrong. You use the troops you owe it to them to look after them and if they are killed in action their families, it really is as simple as that. the covenant isn't political, it's practical, it's about looking after the troops. The issue of whether they should be used in such wars is the subject of other discussions, other movements and certainly has nothing to do with the practical care of our troops. Our government used the Royal Marines in a war therefore they should treat them correctly not use them to score political points, again it really is as simple as that. The point of whether they should be there or not is a different discussion.
If you want to start a thread about defence, imperialism etc be my guest but don't keep derailing this one to harrass and badger me. I understand your point of view, I even respect it but again your points aren't the point of this thread. The fact is there is a war, the troops are fighting in it and therefore the government has to treat the troops properly. It really is as simple as that.

I understand this point of view and agree. If a country must have it's soldiers to fight, it has to take care of them the best it can. I don't see this happening here as well and I think it's wrong. Here's the problem, as I see it, and it deals with the core issues I've been hammering at this entire thread. When a government sends in it's soldiers for imperialistic reasons, taking care of the soldiers becomes a question of money. Everything that happens becomes a question of how much can we afford, how much can we cut, what's more important. Often, keeping the people settled and happy is more important than caring for it's soldiers because a minority is trying to maintain it's power and keep reaping the benefits of promoting empire. This is why soldiers get cast away and this is why the "guns and butter" always flows from imperial impulses in government. The politicians will say that they care for the troops, but they care about power more and they care about money more and they care about the empire more. The politicians will act like scoundrels wondering what they can get away with.

In a real defensive situation, a country is going to do what it takes to win. With real defense, there is no such thing as a limited war for political reasons. All attackers are fair game and no one is going to get thrown in prison for killing them. If the people of the country can take care of people afterward, I'm sure they will, but that isn't a priority at the time. Defending against the attack is the priority. Depending on the severity of the threat, it might be THE ONLY priority. Here, politicians will act like leaders who will do whatever it takes to keep their people safe. So, there is a huge difference in the political realities when it comes to offensive and defensive war.

That said, the title of this thread is spot on. The idea that we can order our soldiers to attack a country and call it anything other than murder is a good starting point to begin to address the political realities I've mentioned above. It is entirely relevant to the subject of this thread. I think we would be missing an enormous piece of this discussion if we didn't talk about the political realities of the word "defend".

 

[arnisador]

The point of the thread is simple, you have repeated wandered off topic. It's not about whether the military or governments are good or bad but the covenant between the country and the military.

But they're getting a fair trial--how is that not keeping the agreement? Surely the actions of soldiers will at times be judged by their superiors? I don't understand your complaint--a trial is exactly our (Western) system for sorting these things out.

 

[arnisador]

That said, the title of this thread is misleading. The idea that we can order our soldiers to attack a country and call it anything other than murder baffles the mind. That's why I questioned the word "defend" from the very beginning.

Should we have fought Al Qaeda here in the U.S. instead after 9/11? Sometimes you have to take out the enemy's base to defend against future attacks.

 

[arnisador]

The Supreme Court here is to hear the case of a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan, the gist of the case is whether the military has a 'right to life' in a war zone. If its ruled that they do under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights it's going to change a lot of things.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rule-on-a-soldiers-right-to-life-8301316.html

Fascinating--that really could change a lot of things.

 

[arnisador]

This country decides what it does, not you, this country decides how it utilises it's troops, not you.

What other countries do with their militaries does affect other countries. Everyone has a right to an opinion about that. The U.K. has been a great ally for us in what has happened since 9/11 and I'm appreciatiev of that. But looking more broadly beyond just the U.K., to say it's a country's military so no one else should say anything doesn't wash. How often do we criticize a country--take Iraq before the invasion--for using its military against its own civilians? Your statement is much too broad.

The premise is simple, the country uses it's troops it should look after them, that's it, no arguments, no who's right, who's wrong.

But you seem to think that means they can't be put on trial for anything that goes on in a war zone--that anything goes. That's how it seems to me and that I don't agree with.

 

[Makalakumu]

The Supreme Court here is to hear the case of a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan, the gist of the case is whether the military has a 'right to life' in a war zone. If its ruled that they do under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights it's going to change a lot of things.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rule-on-a-soldiers-right-to-life-8301316.html

This article only bolsters the point I made in my last post.

Then defence secretary Liam Fox described it as a victory for common sense, adding: “It is right that orders given in the heat of battle should not be questioned by lawyers at a later date. It would have been absurd to try to apply the same legal considerations on the battlefield that exist in non-combat situations.”


But John Wadham, General Counsel for the Equality and Human Rights Commission explained that Article 2 does not offer absolute protection but simply places a responsibility on the state to protect life in the context of the situation.


“Extending human rights protection is not about individual decisions in the heat of battle but ensuring that when we send soldiers off to war they are properly prepared, kitted out correctly and with equipment fit for combat. If they get killed by the enemy obviously there is no breach of Article 2 if the army has done its best to protect them,” he said.

This debate is an example of the political realities surrounding an imperial soldier's life. The country is sending it's soldiers into offensive wars to nation build and do all of the things that empires do. What people are really arguing about is "workers rights" for soldiers not "human rights". The job of sending people to ATTACK others is dangerous and the citizens would like the people who perform this job to be well prepared with the proper training and equipment. This is exactly akin to working other dangerous jobs where people can easily get killed or maimed. Maybe the soldiers should unionize and go on strike! LOL.

Again, it all goes back to the nature of the conflict. If it's offensive for imperialistic reasons, the troops are going to be just another special interest group vying for "rights". If it really is defensive, that **** doesn't matter. Troops fight back however they possibly can.

 

[Makalakumu]

Should we have fought Al Qaeda here in the U.S. instead after 9/11? Sometimes you have to take out the enemy's base to defend against future attacks.

I support the use of force against a group like AQ, but this issue is for more complicated than this. The current war in Afghanistan, and many of the other actions being taken around the world have little to do with groups like AQ.

Constantly boiling it down to 9/11 and AQ and excusing everything that followed is fallacious reasoning.

 

[Tez3]

But they're getting a fair trial--how is that not keeping the agreement? Surely the actions of soldiers will at times be judged by their superiors? I don't understand your complaint--a trial is exactly our (Western) system for sorting these things out.

They aren't getting a fair trial where you are believed innocent until proved guilty, they are facing court martial where it's done on the balance of probablity. The judge is civilian not military. We are also having to raise money for their defence, otherwise they don't get a barrister to represent them. It would be a military officer othrwise with little or no legal experience. The prosecution doesn't have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt only that on the balance of probability the Marines are guilty. It's generally accepted here that a court martial is to decide punishment not to prove or disprove innocent or guilt because the facts of the case have already been examined. In 40 years I've never known a court martial to go any other way than decide punsihment which admittedly could be very lenient if they decide the Marines deserve it. So fair? No.

 

[Tez3]

I support the use of force against a group like AQ, but this issue is for more complicated than this. The current war in Afghanistan, and many of the other actions being taken around the world have little to do with groups like AQ.

Constantly boiling it down to 9/11 and AQ and excusing everything that followed is fallacious reasoning.

This and your previous post
:-offtopic

Please start another thread if you wish to discuss the legalities or otherwise of the Afghan war and any other wars you have a mind too. This has nothing to do with this thread, please respect that and continue your discussion of this in another thread.

 

[Makalakumu]

This and your previous post
:-offtopic

Please start another thread if you wish to discuss the legalities or otherwise of the Afghan war and any other wars you have a mind too. This has nothing to do with this thread, please respect that and continue your discussion of this in another thread.

This has everything to do with the topic at hand.

I understand this point of view and agree. If a country must have it's soldiers to fight, it has to take care of them the best it can. I don't see this happening here as well and I think it's wrong. Here's the problem, as I see it, and it deals with the core issues I've been hammering at this entire thread. When a government sends in it's soldiers for imperialistic reasons, taking care of the soldiers becomes a question of money. Everything that happens becomes a question of how much can we afford, how much can we cut, what's more important. Often, keeping the people settled and happy is more important than caring for it's soldiers because a minority is trying to maintain it's power and keep reaping the benefits of promoting empire. This is why soldiers get cast away and this is why the "guns and butter" always flows from imperial impulses in government. The politicians will say that they care for the troops, but they care about power more and they care about money more and they care about the empire more. The politicians will act like scoundrels wondering what they can get away with.

In a real defensive situation, a country is going to do what it takes to win. With real defense, there is no such thing as a limited war for political reasons. All attackers are fair game and no one is going to get thrown in prison for killing them. If the people of the country can take care of people afterward, I'm sure they will, but that isn't a priority at the time. Defending against the attack is the priority. Depending on the severity of the threat, it might be THE ONLY priority. Here, politicians will act like leaders who will do whatever it takes to keep their people safe. So, there is a huge difference in the political realities when it comes to offensive and defensive war.

That said, the title of this thread is spot on. The idea that we can order our soldiers to attack a country and call it anything other than murder is a good starting point to begin to address the political realities I've mentioned above. It is entirely relevant to the subject of this thread. I think we would be missing an enormous piece of this discussion if we didn't talk about the political realities of the word "defend".

 

[Tez3]

This has everything to do with the topic at hand.

No it doesn't. I know what this thread is about because it's my thread not yours, please start another thread for your political hectoring. This isn't about the point of war, the reasons for war or the excuses for war, it's about the covenant between the British people and it's Armed Forces. You are off topic.

 

[Makalakumu]

No it doesn't. I know what this thread is about because it's my thread not yours, please start another thread for your political hectoring. This isn't about the point of war, the reasons for war or the excuses for war, it's about the covenant between the British people and it's Armed Forces. You are off topic.

The covenant is political and my last post exposes the nature of the covenant. If you don't want to talk about this, fine, but it's related to this topic. People should discuss the reason why troops are used as a political football.

 

[Tez3]

I'm not sure if you have the balance of probablity thing ( I expect your military has trials on par with the civilian system) and whether I explained it properly. At the risk of telling you what you already know I'll explain it like this. If I, when on a patrol, come across you standing over a dead body the civilian system would have you questioned etc and if there was sufficient compelling evidence that you had murdered that person you would be charged and sent for trial. The balance of probability way is to charge on the basis that if you are found standing over the body and there's no one else around you, the balance of probablity is that you murdered them and you will be charged. The onus then is on you to prove you're innocent. Sorry if you already knew this.

 

[Tez3]

The covenant is political and my last post exposes the nature of the covenant. If you don't want to talk about this, fine, but it's related to this topic. People should discuss the reason why troops are used as a political football.

I agree that it should be discussed but not here. The Covenant isn't political it's moral. Please start your own thread to discuss your political theories.

 

[arnisador]

They aren't getting a fair trial where you are believed innocent until proved guilty, they are facing court martial where it's done on the balance of probablity. The judge is civilian not military. We are also having to raise money for their defence, otherwise they don't get a barrister to represent them. It would be a military officer othrwise with little or no legal experience. The prosecution doesn't have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt only that on the balance of probability the Marines are guilty. It's generally accepted here that a court martial is to decide punishment not to prove or disprove innocent or guilt because the facts of the case have already been examined. In 40 years I've never known a court martial to go any other way than decide punsihment which admittedly could be very lenient if they decide the Marines deserve it. So fair? No.

So are you against the whole British military law system--whatever the equivalent of the UCMJ is here--or just in this case? Is that how it usually goes in a court martial there--civilian judge, get your own lawyer? Here it's usually military judge, with a military lawyer provided if desired.

 

[Tez3]

So are you against the whole British military law system--whatever the equivalent of the UCMJ is here--or just in this case? Is that how it usually goes in a court martial there--civilian judge, get your own lawyer? Here it's usually military judge, with a military lawyer provided if desired.

It's all cases, in some things such as allowing gays to serve we are in the 21st century, others like courts martial in the 18th. The civilian judge doesn't decide on the verdict, the majority ( officers and just recently warrant officers now and again) in the court does, the judge is for the sentencing not the verdict. You can have a barrister if you pay for one, hugely expensive though. We don't have military lawyers, the defendants can have an officer to assist if they wish though. In the UK the charges in the courts martial are all against military law. Under the UK's civil law its unlikely the Marines would have been charged unless it could be proved the enemy soldier was actually killed in cold blood when there wasn't a fire fight going on.
I've been to several courts martial as a witness and frankly they are archaic, in the Navy they actually have a sword on the table in front of the trying officers, if you are guilty it's turned one way, innocent the other. Military law contains a greta many 'offences' that aren't in civvy street. You can still be sentenced to ten years inprisonment for failing to escape from the enemy and you can get two years for failing to send a captured ship or aircrafts papers to the Prize Court. If you allow fuel to overflow when refuelling a vehicle you can be court martialed and dismissed the service, yep really. It's misuse of public or military property.

 

[arnisador]

Sounds like a system in need of modernization. Ours isn't perfect, but you are offered a JAG (military lawyer). But then the covenant you speak of has not been fully and legally in place for some while, no?

 

[Tez3]

Sounds like a system in need of modernization. Ours isn't perfect, but you are offered a JAG (military lawyer). But then the covenant you speak of has not been fully and legally in place for some while, no?

There's still a lot of things that need updating badly. 'Tradition' is a word used a lot, it's been like that for centuries and 'if it was good enough for my 6 time grandfather it ought to be good enough now'! The RAF luckily doesn't have that problem being so young!
I think there's a groundswell of support for the Forces among the public, the Afghan war is very high profile here, the media is very on top of it, the stumbling block is that as always the government doesn't want to spend money, nothing new. The Duke of Marlborough had the same problems trying to get support for ex soldiers in the 17th century, Wellington too after the Napoleonic Wars. Henry the Eight was petitioned many times for help for old soldiers, you would have thought we'd have sorted by now but the same old excuses come up. The public raises millions for service charities but really it must be the government's responsibility in that disabled housing, the best prosthetics, medical care both physical and mental etc are made available. The cry after the First World War was 'a world fit for heroes', the heroes are still waiting.

The need is for support for the troops both ex and serving, it's not just about the Afghan war. One of our dog handlers has PTSD, he was in the Pioneer Corps one of who's jobs was to bury the fallen Argentinian soldiers in the Falklands ( yes they were treated with great respect) then his unit went to the Balkans where their job was to dig up the bodies of those massacred. the bodies had to be identified by survivors then reburied. We have people who went though very bad times in Northern Ireland. They need understanding and support. It has taken this country a very long time to relaise that PTSD isn't just another word for skiving off.
When soldiers especially, not so much the RAF or Navy as they have trades, leave the military they are literally just told goodbye, they get a few days job hunting days and a few courses but they after 22 years have little idea how to manage in civvy street. Many have been divorced because mailitary life doesn't go well with family life and back to back tours are hard. People can say well they know what to expect when they join up but thats not fair, they know about the danger but the rest they find out the hard way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...Ex-Servicemen-Please-read-carefully--all.html
http://www.combatstress.org.uk/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/11/charities-troops-need-more-support if you note the last paragraph in this where where Cameron is being urged to not cut the Forces pensions. the government has actually been to court to have the compensation cut of a seriously wounded soldier, things like this are what need sorting.

Right, I will come back to this but I need to watch the television, it's the Royal British Legion (saints) Festival of Remembrance ahead of Remembrance Sunday tomorrow.

 

[K-man]

On top of the first case we now have ...

The wife of an SAS soldier has accused Army chiefs of 'betrayal' after he was jailed for illegally possessing a pistol given to him for his work in Iraq.
Sally Nightingale spoke out as her husband Danny, a special forces sniper, began an 18-month sentence in military detention.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Iraqis-outstanding-service.html#ixzz2Bx3KeurE