Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Sentencing has been deferred pending the outcome of a separate EU investigation into the legality of whole life tariffs.
If only the UK could say mind your own business.
Woolwich serious incident
- Thread starter Maccapacca
- Start date
If only the UK could say mind your own business.
[TW]Fox;25516286 said:
Marine A killed a POW (or otherwise not a soldier at arms). These guys (well, one of them - the other didn't provide any evidence) argue they did not. Their entire defense was based on this very point.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
[TW]Fox;25516286 said:
But generally speaking if you are "legitimately" a soldier then should you kill an enemy combatant in combat you are not guilty of murder. It was a defence that was never going to work here - they are not recognised as being at war and they were never likely to be recognised as soldiers irrespective of whatever claims they put forward.
If you kill an enemy combatant while they're not a threat and you're not in a theatre of war then as you say you can be found guilty for your actions.
If Cameron had the balls to tell them to keep their nose out and get stuffed, I reckon that would gain a decent amount of support and make re-election with a majority much more likely. He missed a trick there.
These men are a danger to the public and should never be released.
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Not if he isn't a threat, as Marine A discovered.
[TW]Fox;25517541 said:
Marine A is an entirely different case. He knowingly broke the law - even spelling it out on video whilst committing the act. He actually said the words "don't tell anyone about this, we just violated the Geneva convention". He did not "discover" anything.
These two, however, were attempting to challenge the law and defend their actions as acts of war. They admitted killing Lee Rigby but claim it was not murder. They also claimed that as a soldier he was a threat. Don't bother pointing out he was just walking back from the shops. They claimed any soldier of "the West" is a threat to their "home lands". These two have attempted to challenge what defines "a threat". They also threw in some tit-for-tat about Lee and his colleagues having killed people who were just walking back from the shops in Afghanistan and the like as well.
Obviously if wasn't a very convincing claim.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
[TW]Fox;25517541 said:
Did Marine A kill the enemy combatant in combat or did he choose to execute someone after they ceased to be a realistic threat with the knowledge that he was breaking the law?
There's probably another reason why the defendants in this case chose to argue the defence as they did despite being almost certain that it must fail - it gives their cause, no matter how misguided or abhorrent, further publicity in a way that holding ones hands up and saying "it's a fair cop guv" would never do.
We are, there is a bill through parliament to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights (this is what is stopping whole life tariffs) and we expect to have left the EU all together by 2017.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills...humanrightsandremovalofallegedterrorists.html Although as it's only just gone through it's first reading it's still being printed ready for the 2nd reading.
Oh and by the way, more people are serving whole life tariffs than we know of they've just not been officially said as whole life tariffs.
Last edited:
Yeah of course I understand the purpose of a trail, but to be fair, we all know what way it was going to go, you can't honestly tell me there were going to be balances in the trail in favor of their side?
I guess your right on the second part, this way they can be treated just the same as any other terrorist, but murder it still is.
Yeah, until the British army turned up and then they got all like, "Hey, you can't do that, we're civilians!".
If what you were saying is they were always going to be found guilty, you're right. There's so much evidence against them, but by law we're required to give them a fair trial otherwise they could overturn the decision
Totaly not needed at all and hope it fails, and we better not leave EU, it would be the worst choice ever. Its people failing to understand the law.
Not being able to give life sentences in no way means that people cant spend the rest of their lives in jail. It just means after 20 or so years, there has to be a framework in place to review the person. It doesnt mean they have to be released.
Nothing more than public opion vote wrangling, against a public that dont understand it. Public should be educated not pandered to.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 319
Leaving the eu would be the best thing this dire country could do.
Sooner the better. The whole eu thing is a pile of kak
Aye, but "Military Forces" are to adhere to geneva rules, law of armed conflict and rules of engagement. Marine A contravened those rules, particularly LOAC. If these killers were to be classed as actual military units then they would have similarly contravened those laws.
Instead though, they are just low life murderers, and nothing more.
Too much of a step I think, but we do need to change something and stop bending over backwards to accommodate people who obviously hate us.
MI5 already knew about one guy trying to join a terrorist group, but because we are cursed with such a lot of pussy liberals and hand wringing do gooders in this country (and the traitorous lawyers to back them all up), we couldn't just boot him out back into some *** Removed *** - Will Gill where he would be much happier.
Instead we have to wait until he inevitably butchers somebody and then give the **** an international platform to preach from. I don't know why we keep repeating the same mistakes all the time.
I think in a case like this they should be given life and they should have no hope of possible release in future. having a review in 20 years would give them hope that if they behave they might go free.
No need for a costly review process, just make a life sentence just that.
I agree.
And again someone not knowing the law, someone on a life tariff can appeal against it after serving some of their sentence and some do get a successful decision.
Are you really that special?
Lee Rigby was unarmed. Unarmoured. Walking down the street in an area that is not an active combat zone. Oh and they ran him over beforehand causing significant injury.
Tell me how exactly that makes him active and not debilitated.
Newspaper headline whilst I was heating up my lunch:
How could 2 boys from decent Christian families become Islamic extremists?
Well, given their propensity for religious beliefs, they were certainly more at risk of becoming religious extremists than say an atheist would be.
But no, the story is definitely going with the 'Christianity is good and should be the benchmark, Islam is the opposite' angle. It was the Daily Mail of course.
How could 2 boys from decent Christian families become Islamic extremists?
Well, given their propensity for religious beliefs, they were certainly more at risk of becoming religious extremists than say an atheist would be.
But no, the story is definitely going with the 'Christianity is good and should be the benchmark, Islam is the opposite' angle. It was the Daily Mail of course.