Alleged SAS War Crimes Report

[Caecilius]

Taking into account the events leading up to the fatal shooting and the unfortunate actions of the young Afghan, if Soldier C had a genuine belief he was dealing with a suicide bomber and that his life and that of his patrol was imminent danger then his actions would be justified under the laws of self defence even though subsequent events proved that there was no such danger.

Oh come off it. They kid isn't wearing a vest, doesn't move to seemingly initiate anything, and he wasn't shot immediately. The operator stands next to him for a while and asks three times whether he should kill him. There's no chance he had a genuine belief he was in imminent danger of being killed by an SIED.

Anyone who looks at that and pretends that it isn't a war crime either isn't being honest or doesn't understand LOAC.

 

[wetsmonkey]

Oh come off it. They kid isn't wearing a vest, doesn't move to seemingly initiate anything, and he wasn't shot immediately. The operator stands next to him for a while and asks three times whether he should kill him. There's no chance he had a genuine belief he was in imminent danger of being killed by an SIED.

Anyone who looks at that and pretends that it isn't a war crime either isn't being honest or doesn't understand LOAC.

Your last paragraph doesn’t take into account the schism in sensible thought that seems to have enveloped people over the last 10 or so years.

It’s political, it’s left v right, it’s about snowflakes and woke it’s about soldiers being untouchable heroes who cannot possibly do any wrong, even when a video pretty much states otherwise.

 

[Portree Kid]

Unless it is a fake, the video shows a murder taking place.

As I, and others have said previously, the rest of the video needs be seen, not a 2 minute window of said video.

As well as being an Internationally renowned businessman and entrepreneur, what is your current qualification, experience and legal standing to call anything a murder ?

If, as I suspect, it is the square root of SFA, I would kindly request that you shut your piehole.

It’s still a murder irrespective of whether the defence proves diminished responsibility.

Can you come back to me on that one when you understand the meaning of manslaughter and how it differs from murder.

 

[Caecilius]

As I, and others have said previously, the rest of the video needs be seen, not a 2 minute window of said video

Think you need to highlight where anyone has been excusing war crimes

It's becoming a habit...

If you think there is any possible context that means that video doesn't show a war crime, then you simply don't understand LOAC.

There may be some defence on the grounds of diminished responsibility but that won't show up on the video.

 

[Portree Kid]

It's becoming a habit...

I understand that you are a very confused individual.

So I will try and make this very easy for you.

Could you shut your piehole and perhaps come back when somebody actually gets charged, goes through a Court Case and is actually convicted.

Until such times - You are sprouting sh!te.

Whilst you are here - As you apparently still serving - Burger and fries please.

 

[hackle]

It can't be so difficult to understand that an intentional killing without lawful justification is murder, unless the prosecution accepts, or the defence convinces the jury, that the offence was committed under a sufficient degree of diminished responsibility to justify conviction for manslaughter instead of murder. We've been all over this ad nauseam.

Both murder and manslaughter are at the upper end of seriousness and either can result in a life sentence in English law (mandatory for murder but not manslaughter).

One can agree or disagree with the Brereton recommendations and the fact that they have been accepted. You can also disagree with the ADF's redaction regime in respect of the report.

However, it makes no difference to the Brereton IGADF Afghanistan Inquiry recommendations whether the reported unlawful killings turn out, in the event of any future charges and convictions, to amount to murder or manslaughter. If the word "murder" was changed to "manslaughter" or even "unlawful killing" in the report (which in fact does use the phrase "wilfully and unlawfully killed" in respect of one alleged incident), the recommendations are still rational whether one agrees with them or not.

 

[Polyester]

I understand that you are a very confused individual.

So I will try and make this very easy for you.

Could you shut your piehole and perhaps come back when somebody actually gets charged, goes through a Court Case and is actually convicted.

Until such times - You are sprouting sh!te.

Whilst you are here - As you apparently still serving - Burger and fries please.

Unnecessary.

 

[Caecilius]

I understand that you are a very confused individual.

So I will try and make this very easy for you.

Could you shut your piehole and perhaps come back when somebody actually gets charged, goes through a Court Case and is actually convicted.

Until such times - You are sprouting sh!te.

Whilst you are here - As you apparently still serving - Burger and fries please.

As a someone once said:

The insult.

The last bastion of those that do not have a reply and are stumped

 

[Graculus]

Is that correct bobthebelter ?

Sure sign that you're winning.

Manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility ring any bells in that dense head of yours ?

Which you'd have got to if you'd bothered reading the post.

 

[Señor_Chang]

I'm not sure when the SOP for suspected suicide bombers was to stand around in close proximity to them, then for close to a minute, ask others (with at least one being with no eyes on the suspected suicide bomber) whether you should eliminate the threat. Only then deciding that the suspected suicide bomber was such a threat as to warrant that threat being eliminated. Then give statements in the report that says, in some cases, the opposite what you did, or happened.

 

[combatintman]

The HQ was in Qatar remote from Afghanistan.

Not that it adds anything to the argument or changes the point being made but for accuracy's sake JTF633 HQ was actually located at Al Minhad Air Base (AMAB), in the UAE unless I got off the aircraft at the wrong place before rolling on to Afghanistan/Iraq on my three tours in the MEAO.

 

[bobthebuilder]

As I, and others have said previously, the rest of the video needs be seen, not a 2 minute window of said video.

As well as being an Internationally renowned businessman and entrepreneur, what is your current qualification, experience and legal standing to call anything a murder ?

If, as I suspect, it is the square root of SFA, I would kindly request that you shut your piehole.



Can you come back to me on that one when you understand the meaning of manslaughter and how it differs from murder.

I don’t believe you are a lawyer either, so your ad hominem attacks are uncalled for.
Instead of talking bollocks perhaps you could read the court directions on the necessary proofs for murder and the partial defence to murder

Here are the tests of intent for murder in New South Wales court directions.

Murder

www.judcom.nsw.gov.au

Now, you don’t aim a high velocity weapon at someone and pull the trigger without intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The act depicted on the film is murder.

Diminished responsibility is a partial defence to murder; here are the NSW court directions:

Substantial Impairment by Abnormality of Mind

I draw your attention to the specific conditions that the defence must prove to succeed. The burden of proof for the defence is high; in NSW the defence has rarely succeeded unless there are permanent brain injuries, schizophrenia etc and the three cases where it has succeeded are all domestic.

The above is caveated by the fact that the law is different in each state, to the extent that the specified cause of abnormality of the mind differs. To the extent that there is no partial defence of Diminished Responsibility in Western Australia. Good luck to to any soldiers brought before a court in SASR’s home state.

Do a little research before hitting the abuse.

 

[Portree Kid]

I don’t believe you are a lawyer either, so your ad hominem attacks are uncalled for.

Then stop being a ******* prat. Not just on this thread but loads of others.

I'll ask you again - Do you know the definition and distinction of both murder and manslaughter.

The PPS will, after a full investigation decide what charges ( if any ) are laid. ( Not you or any other keyboard bashers )

Until they do so - You ( and others ) squealing about murder marks you out as a panty wetting imbeciles.

You wasted your time with google foo on the rest of your comment.

It might be of some use after a complete investigation has been conducted and the PPS has laid charges.

Let me you remind you, and a few other posters that the Brereton inquiry was not an investigation.

 

[bobthebuilder]

Then stop being a ******* prat. Not just on this thread but loads of others.

I'll ask you again - Do you know the definition and distinction of both murder and manslaughter.

The PPS will, after a full investigation decide what charges ( if any ) are laid. ( Not you or any other keyboard bashers )

Until they do so - You ( and others ) squealing about murder marks you out as a panty wetting imbeciles.

You wasted your time with google foo on the rest of your comment.

It might be of some use after a complete investigation has been conducted and the PPS has laid charges.

Let me you remind you, and a few other posters that the Brereton inquiry was not an investigation.

I’m not being a prat. I have been very careful with the language I used; the video shows a Murder. I have not once suggested that the individuals shown in the video are guilty of Murder, nor that the video is enough to convict them of murder. It could be entirely fake. But it shows a Murder, not Manslaughter.

You are the one who doesn’t appear to understand the difference between the crime of Voluntary Manslaughter and the partial defence of Murder that is Diminished Responsibility. Nor to comprehend that there is no such defence in the Australian State where SASR are based.

Meanwhile, you throw ad hominem remarks around and belittle me for actually doing some research to support my position.

Now tell me, in Australia who the **** are the PPS?

 

[par avion]

But it shows a Murder

I would say that it appears to show a murder. We will know for sure if Soldier C is charged and if he is found guilty of the charge by a jury of 12 good men and women. That's how it is done in Australia isn't it?

 

[bobthebuilder]

I would say that it appears to show a murder. We will know for sure if Soldier C is charged and if he is found guilty of the charge by a jury of 12 good men and women. That's how it is done in Australia isn't it?

I think you are being pedantic. Reservoir Dogs shows a number of murders. It doesn’t make Harvey Keitel a murderer. I’ve made it quite clear that the film may be a fake.

 

[Portree Kid]

I’m not being a prat. I have been very careful with the language I used; the video shows a Murder.

Yes. you are being a total prat of Gamlinian proportions.

YOU, have no qualifications, experience and legal standing to call anything a murder.

I do not need to belittle you, you are capable of doing that yourself.

 

[bobthebuilder]

Yes. you are being a total prat of Gamlinian proportions.

YOU, have no qualifications, experience and legal standing to call anything a murder.

I do not need to belittle you, you are capable of doing that yourself.

Unlike you though, I have read the court directions that apply in Australia’s most populous state.

At what point does the verb “show” imply guilt? As I pointed out earlier, Reservoir Dogs shows lots of murders.

Definition of show | Dictionary.com

Definition of show from Dictionary.com, the world’s leading online source for English definitions, pronunciations, word origins, idioms, Word of the Day, and more.

www.dictionary.com

 

[Portree Kid]

Unlike you though, I have read the court directions that apply in Australia’s most populous state.

Unlike you though.

I understand that Court directions mean jack sh!t until a Criminal investigation has been carried out and charges have been laid against an individual.

How stupid must you be to not understand that ?

Keep wringing out your panties.

 

[bobthebuilder]

Unlike you though.

I understand that Court directions mean jack sh!t until a Criminal investigation has been carried out and charges have been laid against an individual.

How stupid must you be to not understand that ?

Keep wringing out your panties.

And another the ad hominem.

You were the one banging on about needing to see the whole film to conclude whether there was diminished responsibility. I’ve sImply drawn your attention to the absurdity of that point.

Don’t bother to reply. I’ve put you back on ignore; you’re incapable of civil debate.