Soldier facing prison for..killing taliban?

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** July 18th, 2010, 3:20 am

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/C ... 0717/?hub=OttawaHome

Can someone in Canada explain this to me. I don't know your laws and how it works but this seems..well for lack of a better word retarded. I've seen American soldiers do stuff out there that i condemn and think they should be locked up and punished for it but this? XD

Hes a soldier hes doing his job why is he being put on trial?

edit; Updated url.

Adbot · **Posted:** July 18th, 2010, 3:20 am

Mike · **Posted:** July 18th, 2010, 4:34 am

The guy he killed was unarmed and wounded. He was no longer a threat or an enemy to them.

The issue is that it wasn't his decision to help the guy die no matter how hurt he was. Sort of like how doctors aren't allowed to help put people out of their misery when they are in pain, they are there to help people like the military are supposed to be doing.

My opinion on the matter is that he didn't do anything wrong if the situation is how it's been reported by his friends that the taliban guy was going to die anyways from his wounds. Without any evidence and without the soldier testifying himself, there's not much to go on though.

Edit: Here's a better article that doesn't just tell his life story http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/C ... 0717/?hub=OttawaHome

Directxfire · Retired Informer Writer - 9/29/10

There are some cases in which death can be a kindness. I think people need to just realize that and move on.

-_+ totojimbob +_- · **Posted:** July 18th, 2010, 10:58 am

Quote:

The fate of a Canadian Forces captain charged in a battlefield murder in Afghanistan is now in the hands of a jury of his uniformed peers.

So true in so many situations.

Ice · Runite: 9/30/2010

Directxfire wrote:

There are some cases in which death can be a kindness. I think people need to just realize that and move on.

So true. I mean the National Army guy already said the insurgent was "98% dead." They're just wasting time and money pursuing this >_>

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

The way I see it, if a person isn't dead, they aren't dead. 98% is not 100%. I mean, in all honesty, the guy probably was going to die that day if not sooner. I personally don't believe in mercy killing as a justifiable act, yet under the circumstances, I don't know if I would have done the same thing. The fact is that when a soldier is unarmed and wounded, they are no longer an enemy at that point but a human. They are of no threat to you that you can make out and the right thing to do is to help them. Even if someone is 98% or 99% "dead," they are not 100% dead yet, which should not be ignored. Then again, at that point, there isn't much hope that the person will survive and the best thing to do might be a mercy killing to take away the pain. For me, it's a gray area because of the extent of the wounds and the situation. I can't really say it was good or bad that he did it, but that it was done given the circumstances. As such, I don't think he should be convicted or be found guilty for this.

Adbot · **Posted:** July 19th, 2010, 3:22 pm

Brad · **Posted:** July 20th, 2010, 2:53 am

Ironic that there are so many laws and guidelines that govern warfare. Even more ironic when you consider that when soldiers are in combat they have absolutely no human rights. They can't refuse to obey an order or retrospectively sue the armed forces for breaching their human rights. If the officer commanding so pleases he could march his men to their deaths, and they can make no complaint because they signed on the dotted line. But I guess this morality is what separates us from them; We have a code of honor we fight by. Really can't imagine they'll find him guilty though. I'd think if this sort of thing happened in a war zone it wouldn't really be intensively investigated. If he'd gone up to a dieing militant in a military hospital and put two bullets in him, that's another thing. But on a battlefield after a fire fight?

Reminds me of a Gurkha soldier in the British Army who was sent home for beheading a militant leader after they'd killed him in a firefight because they needed proof and had to evacuate quickly. Because Muslims believe the body needs to be whole to be buried and they bury within 24 hours of death it was considered a grave insult and he was reprimanded.

Aquw VettelS 776 · **Posted:** July 20th, 2010, 7:08 am

I don't see how there is any other justifiable course of action to take. He shot an unarmed and wounded man- it's not for the soldier to decide whether or not he would be better off dead. The soldier did what he did in good will, but if the dying man did not want to be killed, he should not have done it. Simple.

And let's suppose the soldier found the man actually asking to be shot. It would still be illegal. There's a situation in the UK at the moment where a woman is trying to get clarification on whether or not she'd be charged if she helped her husband to die, who's paralysed and unable to commit suicide himself. Frankly I think that a law preventing someone from helping someone else to commit suicide is ridiculous. But as it stands, this law does exist, and at the end of the day, breaking it will land you in trouble. It's black and white.

-_+ totojimbob +_- · **Posted:** July 20th, 2010, 7:14 am

Aquw VettelS 776 wrote:

I don't see how there is any other justifiable course of action to take. He shot an unarmed and wounded man- it's not for the soldier to decide whether or not he would be better off dead. The soldier did what he did in good will, but if the dying man did not want to be killed, he should not have done it. Simple.

And let's suppose the soldier found the man actually asking to be shot. It would still be illegal. There's a situation in the UK at the moment where a woman is trying to get clarification on whether or not she'd be charged if she helped her husband to die, who's paralysed and unable to commit suicide himself. Frankly I think that a law preventing someone from helping someone else to commit suicide is ridiculous. But as it stands, this law does exist, and at the end of the day, breaking it will land you in trouble. It's black and white.

Looking at all laws as being completely black and white can get you in a lot of trouble. Common sense is an all-too often ignored aspect of the law.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** July 20th, 2010, 7:36 am

Aquw VettelS 776 wrote:

I don't see how there is any other justifiable course of action to take. He shot an unarmed and wounded man- it's not for the soldier to decide whether or not he would be better off dead. The soldier did what he did in good will, but if the dying man did not want to be killed, he should not have done it. Simple.

And let's suppose the soldier found the man actually asking to be shot. It would still be illegal. There's a situation in the UK at the moment where a woman is trying to get clarification on whether or not she'd be charged if she helped her husband to die, who's paralysed and unable to commit suicide himself. Frankly I think that a law preventing someone from helping someone else to commit suicide is ridiculous. But as it stands, this law does exist, and at the end of the day, breaking it will land you in trouble. It's black and white.

It's a war? Hes a soldier. Hes been sent out there to kill. Specifically to kill people just like the guy he did kill. So rather than putting him through this for serving his country and making every other soldier out there question there own decisions just in case they end up in the same boat why not let them get on with the **** job.

It's not right and it is unfair and it is nasty. That's what war is. That's how it's *always* been. He should get off and this sort of rubbish shouldn't happen.

Comparing there to here is wrong. Our laws don't apply out there because if they DID we'd not be able to justify most of the things we was doing out there. In fact most of our army would be locked up.

Brad · **Posted:** July 20th, 2010, 12:05 pm

CreepyPirate wrote:

Aquw VettelS 776 wrote:

I don't see how there is any other justifiable course of action to take. He shot an unarmed and wounded man- it's not for the soldier to decide whether or not he would be better off dead. The soldier did what he did in good will, but if the dying man did not want to be killed, he should not have done it. Simple.

And let's suppose the soldier found the man actually asking to be shot. It would still be illegal. There's a situation in the UK at the moment where a woman is trying to get clarification on whether or not she'd be charged if she helped her husband to die, who's paralysed and unable to commit suicide himself. Frankly I think that a law preventing someone from helping someone else to commit suicide is ridiculous. But as it stands, this law does exist, and at the end of the day, breaking it will land you in trouble. It's black and white.

It's a war? Hes a soldier. Hes been sent out there to kill. Specifically to kill people just like the guy he did kill. So rather than putting him through this for serving his country and making every other soldier out there question there own decisions just in case they end up in the same boat why not let them get on with the **** job.

It's not right and it is unfair and it is nasty. That's what war is. That's how it's *always* been. He should get off and this sort of rubbish shouldn't happen.

Comparing there to here is wrong. Our laws don't apply out there because if they DID we'd not be able to justify most of the things we was doing out there. In fact most of our army would be locked up.

Totally agree with you, you can't treat this like it was a civilian incident because a war zone and some women wanting to euthanise her seriously disabled husband are not comparable in any sense.

There is some irony in the fact that if the militant had been killed in the fire fight nothing would have been said, but just because he'd had some bullets fired into him after it was finished the soldier gets a court marshal. I fully believe that we should retain some sense of honor and decency to how we conduct these military operations, but I don't think shooting dead a wounded enemy combatant during or immediately after a fire fight is any way wrong or dishonourable.

Infact I find the whole "If they enemy is injured and not dead we must do our best to save their lives", *******. Yes, lets nurse an insurgent back to health, hand him to the (corrupt) Afghani government, and he'll then be released and back able to kill American and British soldiers before you can say "Kabul".

Aquw VettelS 776 · **Posted:** July 20th, 2010, 1:07 pm

-_+ totojimbob +_- wrote:

Aquw VettelS 776 wrote:

I don't see how there is any other justifiable course of action to take. He shot an unarmed and wounded man- it's not for the soldier to decide whether or not he would be better off dead. The soldier did what he did in good will, but if the dying man did not want to be killed, he should not have done it. Simple.

And let's suppose the soldier found the man actually asking to be shot. It would still be illegal. There's a situation in the UK at the moment where a woman is trying to get clarification on whether or not she'd be charged if she helped her husband to die, who's paralysed and unable to commit suicide himself. Frankly I think that a law preventing someone from helping someone else to commit suicide is ridiculous. But as it stands, this law does exist, and at the end of the day, breaking it will land you in trouble. It's black and white.

Looking at all laws as being completely black and white can get you in a lot of trouble. Common sense is an all-too often ignored aspect of the law.

If laws were written and enforced properly, it would be black and white. The law should be there to tell us what we can and cannot do- not saying "oh, sometimes this is okay, in certain circumstances". There should be no 'grey areas'. And I agree that common sense often seems to be missing, and if I had it my way, half the laws of this country would be re-written. But I can't do that, so we're all going to have to go along with the laws we have; whether or not we agree them is irrelevant. It's not a free world, and we can't all go around doing exactly what we want, so when you break a law, don't act surprised when you get into trouble.

-----

CreepyPirate wrote:

Aquw VettelS 776 wrote:

I don't see how there is any other justifiable course of action to take. He shot an unarmed and wounded man- it's not for the soldier to decide whether or not he would be better off dead. The soldier did what he did in good will, but if the dying man did not want to be killed, he should not have done it. Simple.

And let's suppose the soldier found the man actually asking to be shot. It would still be illegal. There's a situation in the UK at the moment where a woman is trying to get clarification on whether or not she'd be charged if she helped her husband to die, who's paralysed and unable to commit suicide himself. Frankly I think that a law preventing someone from helping someone else to commit suicide is ridiculous. But as it stands, this law does exist, and at the end of the day, breaking it will land you in trouble. It's black and white.

It's a war? Hes a soldier. Hes been sent out there to kill. Specifically to kill people just like the guy he did kill. So rather than putting him through this for serving his country and making every other soldier out there question there own decisions just in case they end up in the same boat why not let them get on with the **** job.

It's not right and it is unfair and it is nasty. That's what war is. That's how it's *always* been. He should get off and this sort of rubbish shouldn't happen.

Comparing there to here is wrong. Our laws don't apply out there because if they DID we'd not be able to justify most of the things we was doing out there. In fact most of our army would be locked up.

It is a war, and I'm sure he's a very good soldier, but there are still laws surrounding what you can and cannot do- both internationally and specific to individual countries. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of such areas, but if the soldier was court-martialled, it must have been illegal.

I agree, he should be released without charge- no good will come from doing otherwise, but it needs to be made clear for the future that this is not allowed. Whether or not I agree with what he did is irrelevant- the fact is, it's illegal, therefore you shouldn't do it. I don't agree with a lot of laws, and I'm sure many other people don't either, but if we only abided by the laws we agree with, what's the point?

-----

Brad wrote:

CreepyPirate wrote:

Aquw VettelS 776 wrote:

I don't see how there is any other justifiable course of action to take. He shot an unarmed and wounded man- it's not for the soldier to decide whether or not he would be better off dead. The soldier did what he did in good will, but if the dying man did not want to be killed, he should not have done it. Simple.

And let's suppose the soldier found the man actually asking to be shot. It would still be illegal. There's a situation in the UK at the moment where a woman is trying to get clarification on whether or not she'd be charged if she helped her husband to die, who's paralysed and unable to commit suicide himself. Frankly I think that a law preventing someone from helping someone else to commit suicide is ridiculous. But as it stands, this law does exist, and at the end of the day, breaking it will land you in trouble. It's black and white.

It's a war? Hes a soldier. Hes been sent out there to kill. Specifically to kill people just like the guy he did kill. So rather than putting him through this for serving his country and making every other soldier out there question there own decisions just in case they end up in the same boat why not let them get on with the **** job.

It's not right and it is unfair and it is nasty. That's what war is. That's how it's *always* been. He should get off and this sort of rubbish shouldn't happen.

Comparing there to here is wrong. Our laws don't apply out there because if they DID we'd not be able to justify most of the things we was doing out there. In fact most of our army would be locked up.

Totally agree with you, you can't treat this like it was a civilian incident because a war zone and some women wanting to euthanise her seriously disabled husband are not comparable in any sense.

There is some irony in the fact that if the militant had been killed in the fire fight nothing would have been said, but just because he'd had some bullets fired into him after it was finished the soldier gets a court marshal. I fully believe that we should retain some sense of honor and decency to how we conduct these military operations, but I don't think shooting dead a wounded enemy combatant during or immediately after a fire fight is any way wrong or dishonourable.

Infact I find the whole "If they enemy is injured and not dead we must do our best to save their lives", *******. Yes, lets nurse an insurgent back to health, hand him to the (corrupt) Afghani government, and he'll then be released and back able to kill American and British soldiers before you can say "Kabul".

Firstly, I'm not treating this as a civilian incident. Secondly, I'm not comparing the two events in themselves- I'm pointing out a similarity between the people concerned in that both disagree with the moral position the law takes.

The fire fight was necessary. If there weren't a load of armed militia, what need would there be for the fighting? An unarmed and wounded man did not pose a threat, therefore killing him was not necessary.

I'm not a pacifist and I don't oppose war per se, but I also don't agree with unnecessary killing. "If the enemy is injured and not dead we must do our best to save their lives" is not always practical, but when it is, it should be fulfilled. Such a stance in the WW1 trenches would be ridiculous, but a single wounded man in the 21st century should be afforded the right to live that any US soldier would be given.

Anubis · **Posted:** July 24th, 2010, 12:09 am

The definition of murder in English Law states that a killing is only unlawful if it is committed under the King/Queen's Peace. Since this was in a war zone, the killing cannot be considered unlawful. Whether this is morally right or not, I can't see how under current English Law this can be considered an illegal act. The fact the man was unarmed is irrelevant. He was an enemy of the opposition.

dafin0 · **Posted:** July 24th, 2010, 2:35 am

if the guy didnt have any weapons on him

Anubis wrote:

The definition of murder in English Law states that a killing is only unlawful if it is committed under the King/Queen's Peace. Since this was in a war zone, the killing cannot be considered unlawful. Whether this is morally right or not, I can't see how under current English Law this can be considered an illegal act. The fact the man was unarmed is irrelevant. He was an enemy of the opposition.

It's an illegal act. It's like having a group of marines telling a iranian to put their hands up. If the person can say they are a bystander and comply, then they are no longer a threat to anyone, therefore no longer a insurgent. The key word in the article is "wounded". The insurgent was in no way, shape or form, in a physical state to do any harm. He was on his last steps. At most, they could have tried to get information out of him. And the Strafing helicopter fire did the job. Why couldn't he just walk away without beheading.

This captian was so afraid of someone with a gaping hole in their abdomen and a severed leg would be a threat.....puhhhhhleeeeaaassse [-X

Cheers, dafin0 :lol:

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** July 24th, 2010, 2:44 am

dafin0 wrote:

if the guy didnt have any weapons on him

Anubis wrote:

The definition of murder in English Law states that a killing is only unlawful if it is committed under the King/Queen's Peace. Since this was in a war zone, the killing cannot be considered unlawful. Whether this is morally right or not, I can't see how under current English Law this can be considered an illegal act. The fact the man was unarmed is irrelevant. He was an enemy of the opposition.

It's an illegal act. It's like having a group of marines telling a iranian to put their hands up. If the person can say they are a bystander and comply, then they are no longer a threat to anyone, therefore no longer a insurgent. The key word in the article is "wounded". The insurgent was in no way, shape or form, in a physical state to do any harm. He was on his last steps. At most, they could have tried to get information out of him. And the Strafing helicopter fire did the job. Why couldn't he just walk away without beheading.

This captian was so afraid of someone with a gaping hole in their abdomen and a severed leg would be a threat.....puhhhhhleeeeaaassse [-X

Cheers, dafin0 :lol:

That isn't at all the reason for him killing the man.

It was a mercy kill. Not that it matters either way hes the enemy. An hour ago or whatever he was shooting bullets at them hes lucky he got that. If someone had been shooting and trying to kill me I can't say in all honesty I'd be as nice about it.