Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
They probably would but it's not an excuse to kill someone who didn't pose a threat. There was evidence at the trial that seemed to make it clear that this was not an act of self-defence or warfare. It was a wounded combatant who was no longer a threat who was murdered. Maybe he had the misfortune to fight for a side that values laws rather than the side that doesn't but that's what he signed up for.
Members of the armed forces aren't above the law and don't get special clemency for breaking it. I imagine most murderers have had moments in their life that drove them to that point. If you looked into the past of many convicted murders then there may be similar stories but they are convicted and jailed anyway. Most of us cannot relate to a drug dealer that grows up in a culture that devalues life and for whom the lines have also become blurred. I believe such sentiments are dismissed as 'do-gooding liberal human rights' when they're expressed on here. 
The thing is the law is the same for everyone. You can have a case of diminished responsibility and a manslaughter charge as opposed to a murder charge if the court believes you weren't of a sound mind/the red mist had descended etc. However that didn't appear to be the case here. |
Aren't above the law? conviently missed the 3 cases I listed above then. An insurgent is always a threat whether injured, dead or alive. It only takes half a second to detonate an IED.
The Americans are brilliant at following laws. Dropping missiles on Pakistani civilians must be a hard task. But they're all being sentenced for murder right?