Crosswords0 min ago
Should There Be A Lenient Sentance For Marine A
129 Answers
http://
47% want a lenient sentence and 35 per cent believe the marine should receive a full life sentence for his crime.
/// Support for a more lenient sentence was highest among the over 55s, with more than half of those aged 55-64 saying that the law should make an exception for a serving soldier. Among the over 65s, some 55 per cent would support leniency. ///
It would be interesting to see a vote taken of amongst those who have actually served in Afghanistan, it is only those who know what pressures are involved when you fight those who do not wear any uniform of recognition.
47% want a lenient sentence and 35 per cent believe the marine should receive a full life sentence for his crime.
/// Support for a more lenient sentence was highest among the over 55s, with more than half of those aged 55-64 saying that the law should make an exception for a serving soldier. Among the over 65s, some 55 per cent would support leniency. ///
It would be interesting to see a vote taken of amongst those who have actually served in Afghanistan, it is only those who know what pressures are involved when you fight those who do not wear any uniform of recognition.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I accept the argument that we, as civilians, do not understand the pressures under which soliders must make decisions.
We do, however, know the laws and standards that have been put in place by people who do have a much closer understanding of it. Among those standards is a fair treatment of prisoners. I find it a little strange that those ABers who pride themselves on their patriotism are having to be convinced about this idea.
On a wider point, I also think that this thread has shown a good deal of blindsight toward the truth about soliders. They are not by default knights in shining armour who must have every single action they do championed. They are human beings just like anyone else - they're capable of doing both extraordinary good and extraordinary evil, just like we all are. Stop treating them like cartoon characters.
We do, however, know the laws and standards that have been put in place by people who do have a much closer understanding of it. Among those standards is a fair treatment of prisoners. I find it a little strange that those ABers who pride themselves on their patriotism are having to be convinced about this idea.
On a wider point, I also think that this thread has shown a good deal of blindsight toward the truth about soliders. They are not by default knights in shining armour who must have every single action they do championed. They are human beings just like anyone else - they're capable of doing both extraordinary good and extraordinary evil, just like we all are. Stop treating them like cartoon characters.
Kromovaracun - "They are not by default knights in shining armour who must have every single action they do championed. They are human beings just like anyone else - they're capable of doing both extraordinary good and extraordinary evil, just like we all are. Stop treating them like cartoon characters."
A valuable addition to the debate.
Maybe if some sections of society stopped referring to all soldiers as 'heroes', or 'our brave boys and girls' and accepted them for what they are - adults doing a job they have chosen, and often doing it well, but by no means always.
That would be a more realistic assessment of what is going on here.
A valuable addition to the debate.
Maybe if some sections of society stopped referring to all soldiers as 'heroes', or 'our brave boys and girls' and accepted them for what they are - adults doing a job they have chosen, and often doing it well, but by no means always.
That would be a more realistic assessment of what is going on here.
rightly or wrongly, UK soldiers on active duty are representing the UK and so in a way have a higher standard to uphold. This soldier clearly knew what he was doing was wrong, so it can't really be put down to the heat of the situation. Even if it could, i can't really see how that's a valid excuse to murder someone. Personally, i think that he should receive the appropriate sentence he would have got in a civvie court. It's only a short step from thinking this is ok, to using "heat of conflict" excuse for torture such as that in abu ghraib prison (in my opinion)
FredPuli43
/// AOG, your last sentence is true. May we expect you never to cite any opinion poll, the results of which support your opinion? ///
Not sure from those words what you actually mean.
But if it is what I think it means, then the answer is "NO" because no matter what the result of any opinion poll is, whether I agree with the result or not, I should still be free to voice my own particular opinion and not to made to feel like 'someone strange' if my opinion happens to oppose some other's opinions, which are not necessarily the majority's opinion, even if they happen to be so on AnswerrBank.
/// AOG, your last sentence is true. May we expect you never to cite any opinion poll, the results of which support your opinion? ///
Not sure from those words what you actually mean.
But if it is what I think it means, then the answer is "NO" because no matter what the result of any opinion poll is, whether I agree with the result or not, I should still be free to voice my own particular opinion and not to made to feel like 'someone strange' if my opinion happens to oppose some other's opinions, which are not necessarily the majority's opinion, even if they happen to be so on AnswerrBank.
Gromit
/// Now you are just being silly. The poster who said ///
// Should be giving him a medal for taking out a terrost killer. //
/// clearly meant for the murder and not for long service etc. ///
It is yourself who is being silly, wasn't it you who first associated a hero with a medal?
I was just pointing out that one does not need to be a hero to receive a medal.
/// Now you are just being silly. The poster who said ///
// Should be giving him a medal for taking out a terrost killer. //
/// clearly meant for the murder and not for long service etc. ///
It is yourself who is being silly, wasn't it you who first associated a hero with a medal?
I was just pointing out that one does not need to be a hero to receive a medal.
-- answer removed --
Quite right too, AOG.
And it is not necessary to use a particular word to name or describe something, for it can be done without using it. Hero was not used, I and everyone else accepts that. It is not 'playing with words' to point out the reasonable inference that hero was being described in the responses, because the writers think that all soldiers are "heroes" or some other reason peculiar to this individual. If you don't think that is a reasonable inference then so be it, but playing with words it is not.
And it is not necessary to use a particular word to name or describe something, for it can be done without using it. Hero was not used, I and everyone else accepts that. It is not 'playing with words' to point out the reasonable inference that hero was being described in the responses, because the writers think that all soldiers are "heroes" or some other reason peculiar to this individual. If you don't think that is a reasonable inference then so be it, but playing with words it is not.
bednobs
/// rightly or wrongly, UK soldiers on active duty are representing the UK and so in a way have a higher standard to uphold. ///
Higher standards of the UK to uphold????????????????
You mean those who 'murder innocent women and children, those who took part in the slave trade, those who conquered half the world, those who plundered raped and pillaged, and their police who murder innocent civilians???????????
These are all accusations about the British that I have read from some AB posters on this site, and not mine I hasten to add.
If they are to be believed, what are these 'High Standards' that you refer to?
/// rightly or wrongly, UK soldiers on active duty are representing the UK and so in a way have a higher standard to uphold. ///
Higher standards of the UK to uphold????????????????
You mean those who 'murder innocent women and children, those who took part in the slave trade, those who conquered half the world, those who plundered raped and pillaged, and their police who murder innocent civilians???????????
These are all accusations about the British that I have read from some AB posters on this site, and not mine I hasten to add.
If they are to be believed, what are these 'High Standards' that you refer to?
FredPuli43
/// It is not 'playing with words' to point out the reasonable inference that hero was being described in the responses, because the writers think that all soldiers are "heroes" or some other reason peculiar to this individual. If you don't think that is a reasonable inference then so be it, but playing with words it is not. ///
Once again, you are assuming that your opinion is the correct one, may I be free to use my opinion to state that you are wrong.
/// It is not 'playing with words' to point out the reasonable inference that hero was being described in the responses, because the writers think that all soldiers are "heroes" or some other reason peculiar to this individual. If you don't think that is a reasonable inference then so be it, but playing with words it is not. ///
Once again, you are assuming that your opinion is the correct one, may I be free to use my opinion to state that you are wrong.
What do you think baz meant? The context is clear:
"He shouldn't have been in court in the first place.
Should be giving him a medal for taking out a terrost [sic] killer.
shame on the people that decided to put this in the public domain ..."
So we should never have tried this marine, let alone found him guilty, and instead should have given him a medal. Hero or not, it's clear that baz was keen on honouring rather than condemning the Marine. What about you, AOG? Should we honour him, or condemn him?
"He shouldn't have been in court in the first place.
Should be giving him a medal for taking out a terrost [sic] killer.
shame on the people that decided to put this in the public domain ..."
So we should never have tried this marine, let alone found him guilty, and instead should have given him a medal. Hero or not, it's clear that baz was keen on honouring rather than condemning the Marine. What about you, AOG? Should we honour him, or condemn him?
in the nicest possible way, i was hoping this thread might turn into an interesting debate. I was wrong. Clearly everyone is more interested in point scoring and having the same old ingrained arguements about semantics, what they really meant, picking apart what the other one meant and so on. it's really tedious, and really doesn't behove the posters on this site.
/i was hoping this thread might turn into an interesting debate. I was wrong./
No. I think it did.
There was a perfectly satisfactory exchange of views earlier which probably should have stopped then but there tends to be a 'tail' to it
Often, they do reveal underlying agendas and assumptions for some that are themselves interesting
No. I think it did.
There was a perfectly satisfactory exchange of views earlier which probably should have stopped then but there tends to be a 'tail' to it
Often, they do reveal underlying agendas and assumptions for some that are themselves interesting
i would never condone his actions, he could have left the man where he was, if he was that severely injured he could well have died from his injuries. and of course none of us know, unless one has served in the armed forces how one would react, but this seemed to be the shooting dead of a seriously injured man who was not armed. I don't know how long the sentence should be but he said on the tape that he had broken the Geneva convention, let them set the time and see how long he does.
The one thing it seems clear on over all these years that the terorists show little mercy on their captives, or on the innocent people in the surrounding areas, in whatever country they operate in, be it Afghanistan, Pakistan, and indeed the last one in the shopping mall in Nairobi? killed because they were not Muslims, or couldn't quote the Qu'ran, who can fight against that mentality. I hope our soldiers get the hell out of these places sooner than later, whatever their mission it has not been worth all these lives.
The one thing it seems clear on over all these years that the terorists show little mercy on their captives, or on the innocent people in the surrounding areas, in whatever country they operate in, be it Afghanistan, Pakistan, and indeed the last one in the shopping mall in Nairobi? killed because they were not Muslims, or couldn't quote the Qu'ran, who can fight against that mentality. I hope our soldiers get the hell out of these places sooner than later, whatever their mission it has not been worth all these lives.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.