In the news

Rules of War went out when they stopped doing cavalry charges and sabering French Hussars, no?

A copy and pasted list of war related laws since end of WW2

1946 Judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.
1947 Nuremberg Principles formulated under UN General Assembly Resolution 177 21 November 1947.
1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
1949 Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.
1949 Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.
1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
1971 Zagreb Resolution of the Institute of International Law on Conditions of Application of Humanitarian Rules of Armed Conflict to Hostilities in which the United Nations Forces May be Engaged.
1974 United Nations Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict.
1977 United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques.
1977 Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.
1977 Geneva Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts.
1978 Red Cross Fundamental Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts.
1980 United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW).
1980 Protocol I on Non-Detectable Fragments.
1980 Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices.
1980 Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
1995 Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons.
1996 Amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices.
Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 Convention), 28 November 2003, entered into force on 12 November 2006.[32]
1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.[33]
1994 ICRC/UNGA Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict.[34]
1994 UN Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.[35]
1996 The International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.
1997 Ottawa Treaty - Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.
1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (entered into force 1 July 2002).
2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (entered into force 12 February 2002).
2005 Geneva Protocol III Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem.
2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (entered into force 1 August 2010).

The things that make it very hard for us, as an observing public, to make reasonable judgement in this case is the fine detail. We're not really offered an understanding of what has happened. Not only in the lead up to and during the killing, which itself is undisputed in the case, but in the months and years prior to that.

Marine A has made a claim of PTSD which is not an unreasonable or unlikely circumstance to have occured. That's what this whole appeal hinges on. if we are then to presume that it is true then there are things that a judge and jury should consider.

What has caused that PTSD to be manifest and how long has it been present for?
Have their been any opportunities for commanding officers to be made aware of this PTSD and intiate an intervention that takes this person out of active armed duty?
Did, during the operation in which the killing took place, Marine A exhibit behaviour and decision making that should have led his colleagues to believe that he may, under pressure, act in a manner that would breach our adopted rules of combat? If so, where there a safe opportunity to intervene?

There's other questions as well:

Did the armed forces propagate or foster a culture in which mental illness is stigmatised?
Did they foster a culture where exhibition of mental illness was glossed over and service people were compelled to continuing in service that may exacerbate it.
Having attained the rank of Sergeant, should we hold Marine A to a higher standard of behaviour than we would a lower ranking service person?

There are a lot of other questions for which we lack any reasonable evidence or detail from which we could derive an answer. For that reason, I'm very much undecided on this case. I lean slightly in favour of option B simply on the grounds that being unable to answer these questions offers reasonable doubt of option A and reasonable doubt is an important cornerstone of our judical constitution and processes.

Thems the words of a remaniac libtard!

The Taliban don't subscribe to any of those conventions and laws, which makes me suspect that even the best-trained soldiers fighting them will begin to lose their will to be quite so diligent in their obedience by the time they've been under attack for 6 months.

In this case the line between legal and illegal is technically just distance and time. If he took two quick shots to kill him at far range, the first wounding and the second fatal, that would have been legal, so it can't be black and white that shooting a wounded combatant is in itself illegal. It's the gap between the two shots that makes this a breach of the Geneva convention.

By that, do you mean that several of them were long and your leavewanker patright arms are too feeble to reach for a dictionary after all your exhuberant jingoism?

Actually no. Even at long range it would have been possible to determine that the enemy combatant was injured and thus protected under the relevant articles of the Geneva convention. Furthermore, at the greater remove he would have posed less of a threat to life and health so arguably a kill at range would have been more illegal.

foetid, cancerous misogynist philip davies proving once again he's a happy shopper donald trump.

But Marine A was one of our brave boys taking out one of the [insert racist epithet] invaders. He deserves a medal if anything.

Can you name a conflict where these rules have been followed?

Warhammer.

HMP Birmingham:

Of course not. Just pointing out that they exist

This feed is pretty funny. Reporter: "it's proper kicking off in there"

my uncle works there. i hope he's ok.

All staff accounted for apparently.

They have accessed the admin building and are burning case files...

Just clicked through. Live feed reckons people are trapped in cells struggling with breathing 'cos of fires. Horrendous.

Awkward for G4S too.

Watching the 'Marine A' story on C4 news now.

There seems to be a crowd of marines past and present queuing up to say they would have shot the wounded soldier as well.

"Shuffle off this mortal coil you cunt"
"This doesn't go anywhere lads...I've just broken the Geneva Convention"

I struggle to see how that's in any way defensible. The fact that the Mail is leading the campaign should be clear enough that it's disgusting.

This is what my father does for a living. Or did until he retired earlier this year.

I remember you mentioning that, actually. Is he fully retired, though, or does he still do a bit of work? Some of what you say still uses the present tense.

Going back to the Marine A thing.
I served in Afghan, and before that in Iraq, and the amount of training we had before we went, about the laws of armed conflict and the rules of engagement, was huge. I can honestly say that nobody in my platoon was in any doubt of what amounted to acceptable behaviour and what would have constituted a crime.
As far as I can see it, he's guilty of murder, and should be punished accordingly.
Of course, there may be extenuating circumstances, and he may have been under an immense amount of pressure at the time. BUT, the fact that he then tried to cover up the deed and suppress the helmet cam footage speaks volumes. If he had put his hand up straight away and said "I fucked up, I'm sorry, but I couldn't take it and I need help...", it would, to me at least, be a stronger case.
Maybe the culture in the Marines is different, but the Army is really well set up for reporting and monitoring PTSD now, and there really isn't any stigma about asking for help. Every company, and ideally every platoon, has at least a handful of people trained in trauma counselling.
I struggle with the idea that there is any excuse, and it makes the thousands of us who went out there and managed not to execute wounded prisoners look bad.

^ Is the most informed opinion we are likely to get on here. May as well wrap it up and move onto skid patches...

Seems like Prince Harry's gap yaaah just won't end.

Oh fuck:

'Russian ambassador Andrei Karlov wounded in gun attack in Turkey.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38369962

Now being reported as dead.

Ah, this is relevant (which I just posted on the Katie Hopkins thread)

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/12/19/katie-hopkins-and-the-judiciary-another-pointless-lie/