Legal experts are discussing the legal and moral issues
behind the infamous verdict against an unnamed British marine who was convicted
for murdering a Taliban fighter in Helmand in September 2011. This is the first
UK case involving a serviceman convicted of murder in action.
Experts said that the convict was wrongly placed given that
it did not happen in a civil situation, such as a homicide or anywhere a violent
conflict cannot rise at any moment. They also said government-sanctioned
killing covered the person killed by the marine because the Taliban is
identified as the enemy.
Legal experts against the decision said that it was unfair
to give such a verdict to the British marine given that everyone can react in
the same manner as he did. Exhilaration and other psychological factors will
affect the decision of any man in the battlefield, even if battle-hardened or
not.
The British marine had an injured Jihadi along with two
other soldiers. With cameras fixed on observation balloons, the three men
pretend to give medical care to the Jihadi, then executed the man with a shot
to the chest. The marine was aware of what he has done breaking the Geneva Convention to spare soldiers unable to fight, but it is highly possible that
the shot to the chest was an act of mercy
Because of the “right to life” law, which also covers
military action, the marine is given the sentence of murder. The right to life
law discusses the importance of treating combatants with equal respect.
Experts said that with all the legalities coming into the
British military, it is highly possible that legal paranoia and paralysis will
make it less sufficient.
No comments:
Post a Comment