I already expressed it but, as I know you dislike going through posting history, I'll repeat it.
I disagree with a investigation 'en masse' into all the deaths, as this seems to be, it's a complete waste of time. I do however agree with an investigation into specific incidents, where there is evidence to support it. Otherwise tragedies like Bloody Sunday would have been whitewashed just like the initial 'investigation' did. Time passing is irrelevant if someone is guilty.
What's your answer to Raszack's question then? Or can I guess what it is yet?
Well first up the more I see, the more it looks like Republicans wanting to prosecute British soldiers. That's it.
I also do agree with the reasons in post 60 from the Wiki link.
There are three reasons for their existence:
A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.A defendant might have lost evidence to disprove a stale claim.A long-dormant claim has more cruelty than justice (Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition).Even with the 101 year old guy above I'm not entirely sure what's being served here. He should have been prosecuted years ago. Now he probably has little idea what's being done to him, and could be dead tomorrow. He should have served years inside. I'm even amazed he's going to prison at all. He could have done a Janner.
Note we also have to show our justice system works. To the rest of the world and to our own people. There needs to be faith in it.
We also need to show we support our soldiers and justice is blind. This is sending out the message that we will seek to prosecute our soldiers but we will let terrorists get off scot free.
Yes there was agreements. Note this now jeopardises them. Republicans might be chuffed, but loyalists will now be up in arms and you need both sides for an agreement.
Just as a note. When I was in Iraq and Afghanistan etc ROE (Rules Of Engagement) was gone into in a lot of depth. We are talking days of possible scenarios as part of training. This was a few things from that.
1. Reluctance of soldiers to open fire. There was a wide perception that the government would be unlikely to back you up, would throw you to the wolves, would see you in prison, see Lee Clegg and others (yes he was later cleared, he was still in prison for a time). Eventually there was a final feeling that it was better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6 so ultimately soldiers might open fire, but usually only if they were being fired upon, and evidence in the favour was overwhelming. It got to the point where some high up were trying to move it back the other way and actually get soldiers to return fire. A lot of soldiers really wouldn't rather do it at all. Think it's a little sad that our armed forces are reluctant to do what is, basically defending themselves, are reluctant to engage the enemy and don't trust their own government?
2. After any incident, the RMP would investigate it thoroughly. The explanation given was not that the RMP were trying to prosecute you, the reason was this. You might be out on a patrol. A guy with an RPG might pop up and aim at you. You shoot him. Ten years later, tank chasing lawyers go round looking for cases (hi Phil Shiner), and come along with a story that the guy was innocently working in the fields when British soldiers shot him. Can he and his client have compo as his poor family lost their breadwinner? Army now weighs up how much is being asked for versus how much a court case would be. Maybe even pays out anyway. Now ten years later, you're out the forces and working in civvy street. Want a dawn raid on your house for your "murder of an Iraqi civilian?" Other eye witnesses who could clear you might be dead, emigrated, whatever. Work colleagues in civvy street, say, "well there's no smoke without fire." So all in all, if the RMP has done there job thoroughly they will have a long list of witness statements, helmet cam footage, and everything else all done at the time, so hopefully they will just pull out an appropriate file, have everything they need and shouldn't actually bother you at all. Or at least that's the theory.
If British soldiers - paid for and funded by your taxes and assigned to protect you - acted illegally and murdered people in your community, wouldn't you want legal redress?
I would also add that nobody is hanging these soldiers out to dry. The case must satisfy a jury of 12 people beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
Yes I would and you still don't get the point.
Let me show you what the problem is. (Again...)
Seriously? You still haven't noticed the common theme?
Hint, it's bringing about prosecutions by republicans against British servicemen for incidents, decades ago while not also wishing the same for PIRA terrorists. At least try and pick up on it at some point. You might not agree with it but at least acknowledge that's where I am coming from.
Now let's have a look at this thread. It was Marine A. Also in the news now:
Sergeant Alexander Blackman, a solid conviction?
My posts.
"Stuff like this is used as propaganda and then every one else in theatre then has a harder time afterwards."
"Tens of thousands have been to Afghanistan. Lots of people were under stress, had it rough, had people they know die. He seems to be the only one who did what he did. The only one. According to a few marines I know he bought disgrace to the Regiment."
"Whatever. The rules are clear. If you are in a war zone you are governed by the laws of the country, the UK law as you are a UK citizen, international law, the law of armed conflict, the Geneva convention, and probably a lot more.
If you don't like it hand your kit in. There is no scope in any of that for "revenge" etc.
You can't handcuff people behind their back, you can't put a hood over people, the list goes on."
"The armed forces pledge allegiance to the crown, and serve the country. People in the armed forces need the support of the public. There’s enough on the left who would like to paint the armed forces as bad guys. Part of the reason for embedding journalists is to keep what is done in the open and show that our troops aren’t the bad guys. When someone does something like is, it provides ammunition to them. If there is a breakdown of discipline then it needs to be shown that it isn’t acceptable."
There's a lot more in that thread but try and understand it. I have no problem with people being prosecuted for breaking the law. In fact I even welcome it. When I was in Iraq before I went out on a patrol I was fully aware that the locals were seeing the same satellite news I was seeing.
Every home had bought a dish after Saddam went. If our friendly news media was showing troops abusing Iraqi's then the result for us was at best we had stones thrown at us and we lost any chance for any low level intelligence from them. At worst we'd be getting mortared again at some point.
So I never enjoyed anyone making my job an even harder job than it already was.
There is no problem with soldiers being punished. There is a problem when it is decades later to appease one side of a situation that has many sides.
Speaking on behalf of who exactly?
A lot of people in the armed forces and out of it don't believe that. People were actually prepared to be shot first. That's how convinced they were of it.
I think so, if it is anything to do with the military(or anything to do with Sir Niggley Von Farridge/Brexit) you go into hyper defensive/agressive mode and apply a completely different set of criteria, standards of evidence and ethics ?
You didn't get it either. Never mind.
And if it's anything to do with me you always take the opposite view.
Not at all, that would be ridiculous.
We just have very different world views and approaches to many political and ideological issues and on those issues we strongly disagree.
You express your political and ideological positions on these forums and rarely if ever back down, never accept when you get it wrong and won't let it drop.
I am guilty of the same things to an extent, but I do eventually back off, admit when I am clearly wrong and appologise, albeit not very often.
Hence when we disagree on a point of politics, both being bloody minded about our position it generates a conflict that often either the mods have to warn us over or I manage to gain some control over myself and step away.
It is not just you I disagree with and get into arguments with, but as a whole, most of the time myself or the other party backs off, calms down or just leaves it.
However, when you get into an argument, others have to back off or wait to be told to back off by the mods, because you won't. There are quite a few forum posters that regularly experience this type of thing with you, not just me.
I'm sure you'll pass off everything I say as simply being a nasty troll out to get at you, but this isn't isolated to just me and you. The only common denominators are you and politics.
Dig up my entire posting history, misrepresent what I say or what ever you will, it won't change the fact that although there are many members that argue with each other about politics on these forums, you tend to be at the epicentre of circular arguments and slanging matches far more than anyone else.
I am sure many posters would appreciate you even just ocassionaly steped up and be the bigger man than always having to do it themselves every single time.
(just as sure as I am that many posters would appreciate me not lecturing and taking things far too seriously)
Ok first up, rather than address the thread and the subject you make it personal against me.
Then say we generate conflicts and I will dismiss you as a nasty troll.
The irony.
Second if you read the posts you'd find that I have never made any attempt to defend "Marine A." (He's in the forces.) In fact I have major problems with him and the issues raised by him.
Cheers.
What about Rolf though? I've still not seen an answer to that one. He fits your criteria of 'shouldn't be prosecuted decades later', and Saville was even worse as he was dead at the time, still is apparently.
Should they have been investigated and found guilty?