>> Exactly that Fullchat, I listened to a chat on the radio today about it and
>> as on this forum, most want leniency for this soldier.
>>
>> Had the same thing happened to him would we all be calling for leniency for
>> the Taliban?
>>
>> Would we have been excusing his actions and words?
>>
>> Pat
Now I'm even more confused. I assume the article FC is complimenting is the Huff Post one which is broadly accepting of what happened in the field, and therefore in favour of leniency. It's a clever piece.
No we wouldn't be calling for leniency for the Taliban, so we shouldn't call for it when our own do it, especially as all armed forces personnel are well aware of the Geneva conventions.
I don't like to pontificate about this because I haven't had to go through what those Marines have. I understand why it happens. But what is the point of subscribing to the conventions and then sweeping it under the carpet?
Principles aside, we presumably hope that if our forces do what is right with PoWs, then when the shoe is on the other foot they might be treated decently, even if we think that the Taliban specifically won't be influenced by that.
The Taliban might well of course be influenced for the worse by what has happened, and wavering adherents might be more inclined to support them.
The only 'benefits' I can see in the killing of PoWs is that the troops aren't tied up looking after them and the prisoners won't ever be rejoining the fight. But if that is the view we take, we need to change the orders.
Too easy for me to say. But I'm sure it's right.
|
