5 Royal Marines convicted of murder

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/352157/Support-grows-for-five-Royal-Marines-on-murder-charge/
“arrested for murder for an event which happened in Afghanistan 2011 where no civilians were injured and one gunman was killed who shot at them first”.

Just to show you how much people are being told to shut up over this whole business by the authorities, I received this message from a young lady a few minutes ago. I obviously will not disclose any of her details.
"Hi ... Sorry but not allowed to comment on your page.... We as military families have been instructed not too.... Freedom of speech???? Anyway we live on military base my hubby is bootneck and just wanted to say thanks for all the support but again not allowed to do it publically!!!"

The BBC and ITV showed some interest but since have told the support group that they have been warned that they are not allowed to speak to us.

The British still follow the Geneva convention rules. So according to these "rules" not rendering medical aid to a wounded enemy combatant is a crime.The problem is that the Taliban and company are Franc Tireurs or Partisans not soldiers, they do not wear uniforms or distinct insignias, they dress just like the general population, those rules need not apply to them. Legally Franc Tireurs can be shot on the spot, even with the changes made in the Geneva Protocols of 1949.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.Remember these same guys dressed in Afghanistan police uniforms recently to get close to our troops then murdered them.

A Royal Marine on another site"We've known the badman, we've seen the badman, some of us have had him a trigger squeeze from lives saved. But a man in a suit said leave him to live, the man in the suit said we weren't in danger, my oppo the new dad, my oppo the new husband, the young mam with bairn in pram, granny of to the bingo, we've seen the lives lost, the blood on the road on the wall on our kit on our hands, we've cried for them. We've picked the broken bodies off the road, off the wall and off our kit. But the man in the suit said the bad man has human rights to carry out inhuman acts. If you click from safe to rounds the suffering of innocents stops for a while at least, but the man in the suit will send you to jail, because the bad man must be assured he has human rights to carry out inhuman acts. And besides, the man in the suit doesn't see the blood, smell the burning, and you signed over your human rights to the man in the suit and anyway paper doesn't bleed."

We have organized a static demonstration to show our support for them at 11am, 10 Downing Street on the corps 348th birthday next Sunday, 28th October. All support is welcome.You can also sign this petition: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/40154If you would like to show your support without getting too involved please buy this T-shirt, £5 of the profit also goes to helping wounded Royal Marines.
http://www.golden-rivet.com/products/fight-for-the-five-t-shirt

I'm going to get flamed for saying this, but the Geneva convention does not apply to the taliban, even the uniformed/organised members. As stated above, you must abide by the rules of war in order to qualify for protection under the Geneva convention, and the taliban does not.Equally, I think we are being disadvantaged by following the rules of war. Our captured soldiers are protected by the Geneva convention, but what good is that when their captors routinely ignore it and no protecting power can get access to them? The rules of war are a good thing, but only when all sides in the conflict abide by them. When one side does not, as is the case in Afghanistan, the rules become a handicap to those that do.If our enemy does not follow the rules of war, then our only reasons for following them ourselves can be a) moral and b) to maintain protection under the Geneva convention for our captured troops. When the Geneva convention offers little to no protection for our troops, because their captors ignore it and do not allow communication with the protecting power, that reason becomes moot. So we only score a moral victory by following the rules of war.But is it a victory? The war drags on because the rules of war forbid certain actions that would bring the war to a swift and decisive end. Is that moral? Every day both combatants and non-combatants are exposed to significant risk of death or serious injury, is it right to let that continue just so we can say "we followed the rules, even though the enemy did not."I personally think we should say "Our enemy does not follow the rules of war, and the Geneva convention is powerless to protect our captured soldiers, despite our abiding by the rules of war. Let us set the rules aside, and end this war now, with the minimum possible civilian casualties."In the case outlined by the thread starter, this illustrates the problem with Britain today. Too many decisions are made by faceless bureaucrats sitting in an office miles away that have absolutely no grasp of the reality on the ground and are trying to justify their own existence. I sincerely hope common sense intervenes and these marines are cleared and released.

I have faith that we will get the right result, I think they are just going through the motions to keep the tree huggers happy but we need to keep up the pressure regardless, our armed forces need to know where they stand and have the confidence to make decisions on the ground without fear of jail.There are currently more demonstrations been organized in Wales, Scotland, Plymouth and Manchester if anybody would like to attend, and probably more too but I haven't had time to look. All of this information is on facebook Here and Here and Twitter @Royal_Marine_7

There's a lot of speculation about what happened and people are jumping to conclusions, I think we need to wait until the investigation is complete and facts are made public before going on crusade. It's fairly apparent that this will become a vehicle used to push agendas into the mainstream, comments such as

Replying to #3

and

Loonylion · #2the problem with Britain today. Too many decisions are made by faceless bureaucrats sitting in an office miles away that have absolutely no grasp of the reality on the ground and are trying to justify their own existence.

are not exactly relevant, lets stick to the case in hand.

We need a government with balls that stand by the men they send to war. Remember the SAS killing the terrorists in the Iranian embassy despite even having their hands on their head? The PM's response was and I quote, NO SAS soldier will face prosecution for his actions on that day.

Replying to #5

thatcher had balls. She might not have been a very good or popular prime minister, but she had balls. David cameron does not.

And there was a similar case in Gibraltar where the SAS shot 3 terrorists that had no weapons, no charges were brought then either.The petition has been rejected.

This e-petition has been rejected with the following reason given:E-petitions cannot be used to request action on issues that are outside the responsibility of the government. This includes: party political material
commercial endorsements including the promotion of any product, service or publication
issues that are dealt with by devolved bodies, eg The Scottish Parliament
correspondence on personal issuesE-petitions cannot be used for freedom of information requests.The following explanatory notes have been added:This e-petition contains information regarding active legal proceedings and for that reason can no longer appear on the site. Issues which are "sub judice" cannot be considered for debate in Parliament. This e-petition will continue to be visible on the site, but closed to new signatures, for 24 hours (until 12noon on 17 October 2012) at which time it will be removed.

A new petition that cannot be closed by the government has been set up: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/980/743/044/

facebook support group adminSorry for another update but have had a very quick reply to the email I sent to my mp. His response was as follows. I can deal with national issues like this but at this time I am unable to.

Remember, the Geneva conventions only cover people sticking to the rules of war, shooting a 14 year old schoolgirl for wanting to learn isn't playing by the rules: Taliban says its attack on Pakistani schoolgirl justifiedThis "victim" was an insurgent and he did have an AK47.The website is now up and running: http://supportthe7.co.uk/Just seen this:

euronewsMilitary police say it follows an engagement with an insurgent and no civilians were involved.The investigation will be conducted by the Service Justice system, the body which handles offences committed by British service personnel overseas.Authorities declined to say anymore about the case.The independent Service Prosecuting Authority says there is little chance of a conviction in this case.

Post Merge: [time]1350492793[/time]
The support for these marines is finally getting the media interest it deserves: MPs urged to debate murder arrests of Marines

http://voiceinthecrowd.org/2012/10/19/armed-forces-no-the-mod-have-turned-them-into-our-armed-farces/

The five marines have been released. http://www.bfbs.com/news/uk/murder-charge-royal-marines-released-61308.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20113853