The case for the defence

[usedbustickets]

Sadly in the Royal Marines case that too was filmed, and the decision on whether to kill the man or not was discussed between the marines involved.

But I do not seek here to make a case for an application of justice that differs between cases, on one justification or another.  Simply that to be effective and respected justice needs to be balanced and applied fairly in all cases.

[Scunner]

My point is not about Marines, it is simply that people may believe that when a murder has clearly been committed and widely witnessed, and the perpetrators filmed discussing why they did it, that maybe we shouldn't have to ask them whether they feel they are guilty or not.

[teetee]

But I do not seek here to make a case for an application of justice that differs between cases, on one justification or another.  Simply that to be effective and respected justice needs to be balanced and applied fairly in all cases.

Oh you mean kill the B*****ds!!

[Colwyn]

Which ones? The jihadists or the marines?

[Highlander]

I cannot think what purpose the naming of the marines serves other than to put their family at great risk.

[Scunner]

In war I think things are different for those involved, certainly when compared to a fairly quiet street in a capital city.

[Anne]

I'm of the opinion that they don't deserve a trial or a solicitor to defend them.
The world saw them commit murder and heard their rants of hatred. 

Why should they receive anything other than the rest of their lives in solitary confinement? They did it, fair and
square.  Guilty as charged and no public trial to enable them to spout more of their vile hatred towrards us.
I'd happily put a bullet in their heads!

[Colwyn]

The jihadists or the marines?

[Anne]

Colwyn, John asked the question on the jihadists.
I therefor answered his question as I'm assuming most others did on this thread.
Perhaps we need to make it clearer in our replies   

[Colwyn]

I think UBT has highlighted a key issue very precisely. There are two cases running almost concurrently. Both involve sets of people accused of murder, in both cases the killing was recorded and published in vision and sound, in both cases an unarmed enemy combatant was deliberately - with forethought - killed, and both cases came before a court. In a country that believes in the equality of all before the law I would expect and demand nothing less. If some people want to say one set should have legal treatment because they are some of "us" whilst another lot ought to be deprived of this and found guilty and sentenced without trial because they are "them" then I condemn that absolutely and will do everything I can, legally and without violence, to oppose such notions infecting my country.