Ex-SAS soldier to face trial for "unlawful killing" of Iraqi soldiers

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    During the 2003 Iraq war, members of the SAS/SBS attacked an Iraqi Army convoy with rocket launchers, destroying all vehicles but leaving 3 already mortally wounded soldiers alive (legs blown off, guts spilling out etc - horrible stuff). So one of the lads (Sgt Colin McLachlan I believe) did the right thing and put them out of their misery... why the f is this guy facing trial for doing the humane thing?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why shouldn't he be able to kill them despite their condition? We're at war, they haven't surrended, so what's the problem?
    Offline

    3
    Geneva convention. they are forced to investigate as he thought it was a good idea to publish the even.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Geneva convention. they are forced to investigate as he thought it was a good idea to publish the even.
    Especially following the conviction of Sgt Blackman for the same thing, youd think having seen that he'd have thought twice about publishing it.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by moonkatt)
    Especially following the conviction of Sgt Blackman for the same thing, youd think having seen that he'd have thought twice about publishing it.
    Reminds me of the helmet cam person. Was that Blackman? he may well be right it was a unique circumstances, but if we go round shooting people (even if more humane) then it cna be used in the opposite direction and Uk soliders can be shot under this excuse.

    There was also the recent case where the guy who had been on the Osama raid had to pay back all the money from his book (millions of $) for braching his confidentiality duties. The point being soliders who think they know ebtter and can talk about it.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37142801

    The comments from ths guy says he is quite happy to go to court. Everyone might empathise with him, but that wouldnt prevent his actions being illegal. They simply have to investigate.

    Which reminds me about the recent case involving the guy from Eggheads who was arrested because he talked about possibly killing a tramp 30 years ago?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ion-of-murder/

    Oh and the cleaner celeb as well about buring her miscarried child.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...born-baby.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What he did was illegal at the end of the day. However, I very much disagree with this law (particularly as it was for 'humane' reasons rather than blind rage). He probably shouldn't have written about it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    What he did was illegal at the end of the day. However, I very much disagree with this law (particularly as it was for 'humane' reasons rather than blind rage). He probably shouldn't have written about it.
    Indeed. I don't think soldiers are free from the law under any circumstances, but this shouldn't be punished. He did the right thing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Whatever your thoughts on 'mercy killing' on or off the battlefield, if what's being claimed actually happened then it's a clear case of murder. Bad things happen in a war. He should have known better than writing or talking about it though. I suspect he'll have a few years of peace and quiet to write his next book.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I totally understand his motives for doing what he did, but in the end he did break the law. I believe what he did was right, but the law doesn't. The answer to this predicament is to lobby for a change in the law, not to take the law into your own hands. To then write a book about it is rather foolish.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i totally agree with you on that
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    What he did was illegal at the end of the day. However, I very much disagree with this law (particularly as it was for 'humane' reasons rather than blind rage). He probably shouldn't have written about it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moonkatt)
    Especially following the conviction of Sgt Blackman for the same thing, youd think having seen that he'd have thought twice about publishing it.
    they are in the army, don't require too much from them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon_g)
    they are in the army, don't require too much from them.
    what is that supposed to mean? He's one of the best trained soldiers in the world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bejerr)
    x
    That's just not true at all. There are a lot of intelligent people in the army - like officers for example.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richardhello)
    Why shouldn't he be able to kill them despite their condition? We're at war, they haven't surrended, so what's the problem?
    Exactly
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richardhello)
    Why shouldn't he be able to kill them despite their condition? We're at war, they haven't surrended, so what's the problem?
    'The problem' is the Geneva Convention and Law of Armed Conflict. Go look it up. Once you've stopped playing COD in your bedroom.

    All British troops receive a huge amount of training about this throughout their careers, as well as before and during operations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If he'd left the guys as they were, they'd have died. But that wouldn't have been murder, despite him having caused it.

    But going in to stop them dying in agony means it is now murder.

    While I understand that that is illegal, it's a rather arbitrary point. If it is brought to trial I'm fairly confident he won't get convicted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    what is that supposed to mean? He's one of the best trained soldiers in the world.
    I have never, I repeat- never- questioned their skills.however, well, to put it mildly- vast majority of people in the army- especially soldiers (although there are also officers like that) are... well, not too bright- which is fine because the last thing you wish your soldier to do is to think too deeply about some topics.
    and yeah, committing war crimes (because finishing soldiers like that is a war crime- regardless what we both think about it) is one thing, bragging about them in book is, however, a purely idiotic thing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon_g)
    I have never, I repeat- never- questioned their skills.however, well, to put it mildly- vast majority of people in the army- especially soldiers (although there are also officers like that) are... well, not too bright- which is fine because the last thing you wish your soldier to do is to think too deeply about some topics.
    and yeah, committing war crimes (because finishing soldiers like that is a war crime- regardless what we both think about it) is one thing, bragging about them in book is, however, a purely idiotic thing.
    He's come out and said he's not said any of that stuff, it's his ghostwriter who's written it and blown it all out of proportion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The Geneva conventions exist for a very good reason and I can see why in this case you could criticise it I dont think that would be an excuse to get rid of such an important part of law.

    Also disagree that this should encourage people not to talk about questionable things that happen in war zones.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon_g)
    I have never, I repeat- never- questioned their skills.however, well, to put it mildly- vast majority of people in the army- especially soldiers (although there are also officers like that) are... well, not too bright- which is fine because the last thing you wish your soldier to do is to think too deeply about some topics.
    and yeah, committing war crimes (because finishing soldiers like that is a war crime- regardless what we both think about it) is one thing, bragging about them in book is, however, a purely idiotic thing.
    Perhaps he didn't count upon the chronic stupidity of some people.Seriously common sense has just gone out the window here.If the goverment sends you to kill soldiers,that is totally fine.But the moment you step in to definitively kill someone,then its murder.By that logic the goverment itself should be on trial for murder.The goverment sends soldiers to kill other soldiers,it can't then turn around and say 'well you didn't kill them correctly'. Its just absurdly stupid.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 24, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.