It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

SAS Veteran Investigated over Iraqi "Mercy Killings"

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   


An SAS veteran has defended the "mercy killing" of mortally wounded Iraqi soldiers after it was reported that he faces a murder probe triggered by confessions made in a book.

After firing rockets at the enemy units, the SAS squad found two Iraqi soldiers who had been disembowelled and another who had lost three of his limbs, but they were still alive.

He said: "Our motives were entirely humane. I'll happily go to court, I'll happily go to jail, if you think I've done wrong. But people should put themselves in my position first. Walk around in my boots, then judge me."


Link

I found this today and thought it could make for a interesting discussion.

This ex SAS Sargent was operating in Iraq and his squad came across some dying Iraqi soldiers who were in their view suffering from a slow and agonising death. So one can deduce from these comments that the SAS men put a bullet in these guys heads to end their agony in a mercy killing. Such actions are against international law and now this guy could potentially face jail for doing what some would regard as the humane thing to do.

Now in my view I honestly believe that if this can be reasonably justified by all members of the squad then it is justifiable for them to put these guys out of their misery. However I also understand the opposite view that allowing troops to conduct mercy killings is open to potential abuse and had much wider ethical implications.

So I am curious what other members think about this.




posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I would hope they would... odds are incredibly high they didn't have the resources to save them, or evacuate them so that left two options... mercy kill... or leave them to slowly die.

If I was disemboweled I would pray someone came along to put one in my head.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Interesting topic!

We'll end up discussing what is the right thing to do versus what is the legal thing to do.

Many times, doing what is right and doing what is legal will differ.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I would also guess that this probably goes on a lot more than is openly admitted to publicly.

What makes it interesting is that its such a grey area



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Doctors have prescribed intentional high amounts of morphine for terminal patients to ease suffering.

Is this really any different?



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Very good point.

What is legally the right thing to do is not always the morally right thing to do.

But then again if the law is dont commit these mercy killings and the philosophy behind it is that soldiers are not judge jury and executioner when it comes to deciding if someone is injured to a point that means death is inevitable. If it where legal then there could potentially be lots of situations where soldiers kill enemy combatants in cold blood because they have a injury that they could live with like losing a limb. It would also be very open to abuse.

So i can understand why we have the law in place, yet at the same time i can understand totally why these guys committed this "crime".



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

They used a big scary gun... that makes it evil..

Seriously no nothing is different, its just idiots that have no clue about what happens on a battlefield running for their safe place.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Doctors have prescribed intentional high amounts of morphine for terminal patients to ease suffering.

Is this really any different?


Speaking as someone who has worked in palliative care (often administering morphine) I can categorically say I have never seen this happen or heard of it happening form any of my co-workers. I am not saying it goes on but its the kind of thing in the UK that a doctor and nurse would end up in prison for.

However you do again make a interesting point how is this any different from regular euthanasia.

I think the biggest difference is that in general euthanasia (in places where it is legal) is done under medical advice by qualified people who can make a reasonable judgement regarding its justification. Soldiers are simply not the people in my view to make that call.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

After firing rockets at the enemy units, the SAS squad found two Iraqi soldiers who had been disembowelled and another who had lost three of his limbs, but they were still alive.



He did the right thing.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Morons have NO IDEA what wars are like.
JUST what a book says.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
The irony is that ethics are discussed in war in the first place! Fighting to the death to solve governmental disputes hardly sounds like an ethical thing to do (IMO).



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: DBCowboy

They used a big scary gun... that makes it evil..

Seriously no nothing is different, its just idiots that have no clue about what happens on a battlefield running for their safe place.


Article 3 of the Geneva Convention states: ‘Persons taking no part in the hostilities [including battlefield casualties] shall be treated humanely. To this end, violence to life and person shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place.’

Now, i understand why he did what he did (by the way, he they did not just "come across" these casualties, he was part of the group that ambushed the 3 vehicle convoy) and i totally agree with the actions taken.

Something similar to this i think :-

A British Army sergeant was investigated after shooting dead a mortally wounded Argentinian prisoner of war during the 1982 Falkland Islands conflict.
The soldier, whose name has never been made public, killed the PoW to end his agony after he was badly burned in an explosion which happened as he and other prisoners worked to clear debris from a battlefield. A landmine or grenade exploded, starting a fire in a nearby sheep shearing shed, and the wounded Argentine soldier stumbled into the flames.

The British sergeant desperately tried to rescue the prisoner from the inferno but was forced back by the searing heat.
Rather than watch the Argentine soldier burn to death in front of him, the sergeant picked up a rifle and fired ‘three of four shots’ at the prisoner to end his agony.

He was subsequently cleared after review. Here's hoping the SAS hero will also be cleared, this wasn't murder, this was compassion for suffering fellow human beings



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

the problem in this case is that the cockwomble went " full media whore " and documented an illegal act in a book he published .



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Oh I remember my Geneva convention briefs...

I just strongly feel that anything other than cleared of any wrong doing would be a travesty.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I've been luckily enough to be trained by his guy in mock SAS training in the Brecons - he's one of the nicest people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting and after hearing he was responsible for this a couple of days back I was shocked - as he and everyone else who knows and has worked with him knows he would never do something like this unless it was the only humane option left. He's not a trigger-happy killer or takes any pride in having killed; hopefully common sense prevails and he isn't sentenced

For the record I'm an anti war pacifist who usually lauds the geneva convention as good ethiccs to put it in perspective, I and people who served/worked with him find it impossible to think he'd do such things out of malice, he's far too nice a person and treats all as equals, not the kind to pull the final trigger unless in his and his fellows vast experience all other options had been used up and it would be impossible for those wounded to recover.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

the problem in this case is that the cockwomble went " full media whore " and documented an illegal act in a book he published .


The book wasn't and isn't published, it was a manuscript that was put forward to our MOD for review prior to publication. The MOD were not happy with what was described so alerted the Police, again, the MOD is political in this respect and have to follow the letter of the law .... or the team in the MOD that reviewed the manuscript had to cover their asses ref Geneva Convention.

Surely any court of law will understand the compassion shown to human's that had, at this point, ceased to be the enemy.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I've heard of this happening here a couple of times now.

The doctor/nurse really knows the patient is right at the edge of their mortal coil and administers a shot to ease any pain knowing they won't wake up from it.

From what was described to me from the loved one of the deceased who was there and it was explained quite clearly to them, it was absolutely the right thing to do.

I guess it's one of those things you could never write guidelines for because it's ripe for abuse and you'd just have to hope the doctor is acting purely out of compassion.


a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: tinimark

The use of euthanasia in the health care setting is a different topic

All I will say about is that based on my experience of working in palliative care in the UK that the idea of the doctor or nurse putting in a bigger does of morphine to end the suffering of a dying patient is not something i have ever heard of happening. I am sure it has possibly happened in a few cases but it is rare (and highly illegal) and not something that is done as part of some unwritten rule of practice.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Original quote from people he works with detailing the situation:

' T*** are today breaking protocol and asking all patrons to please sign and share the attached petition. This comes after C M is facing murder charges following an admission by him in his book following an operation in Iraq 13 years ago.

C an integral part of our Directing staff and a good friend of mine. I can say hand on heart that you won't find a more compassionate, caring, selfless person than him. He is the Patron of many charities and is always there ready to listen to your problems even when he is struggling with his own.

C was part of a patrol sent by our government to neutralise a convoy of enemy in Iraq over 13 years ago. The story has emerged only recently after his admission in his book. It describes how (as ordered) fired on the convoy and stopping the threat. The patrol then moved on the target and found a couple of Iraqis still alive but mortally wounded. The patrol decided not to prolong their misery and killed the pair.

Even their Iraqi colleagues had agreed this was the best course of action considering the condition both were in.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the actions that took place 13 years ago where an act of compassion by C towards fellow soldiers and certainly not the act of a cold heartless killer.

JB T*** Director



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I can understand why, out of concern for denying a soldier an almost unassailable blanket defense against hatefully butchering wounded enemy soldiers, there are rules against this sort of thing.

But I've never stood where these soldiers have and my understanding is that the coup de grace, when the only alternative is a lingering and painful death, is a long standing tradition/responsibility among fighting men which is exercised towards both friend and foe.

I mean what would the alternative be? What if this soldier said that they allowed these enemy soldiers to suffer for hours, with no hope of recovery or solace, because you know, the Geneva convention and all. I for one wouldn't think very highly of them in that case.

I suppose it needs to be looked into, devil's often in the details, and I can see a legitimate reason for the law. To me though, the right and wrong of it boils down to what was in these SAS soldiers hearts and that's damn difficult to ascertain.

Without overwhelming evidence that these SAS soldiers acted with malice, I'd say let be.






edit on 16-10-2016 by imwilliam because: spellin



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join