Travesty of justice

Hey, c'mon man! it was only an Irakie...

More relevant - it was only an Iraqui General that he murdered.

If he had done this to Saddam Hussein then that may have damaged his career path slightly. And there would have been an intolerable amount of paperwork to fill in afterwards.

This sort of thing annoys me:

A civilian who did that in America today would almost certainly get several years in prison.

Yes, but he's not a civilian and the person who died wasn't a civilian and it wasn't in America. Bottom line the military has is own rules and so it bloody well should!

And you wonder why the insurgent keep coming ? It simply as you said, the US military have their own rules and ignore all international ones. As long as your military have that sort of attitude, you will continue to have problems.

Raw Carrot, the point is that the General was a prisoner and subject to the Geneva Convention.

Are you seriously saying it is a good thing for US soldiers to murder prisoners?

No, no, no.

Firstly, the US military is not my military - I am British.

Secondly, I'm not saying it's a good thing for US soldiers to murder prisoners.

All I am saying is that during wars people die. After the war comes to an end, if there is still some sort of resistance going on, then people die. Doesn't matter whether they're suicide bombers, innocent civilians, soldiers, generals, peace protestors or religious types.

It just annoys me when people act all surprised and distressed to learn that someone has died as a result of war. I'm not saying the Iraqi general should have died, or that the guy who sat on him didn't murder him, but just that war (and life in the military) is never going to be the same as peace time and life in the civilian world.

If life in the military was like life in the civilian world then I doubt you'd find many people willing to risk their lives for their country (whether or not the war was legitimate).

So, I apologise if I sounded as though I was saying that it's ok to maltreat/kill/murder etc. prisoners of war - rather I was just pointing out that it is quite possible, and to be expected, that an interrogation would be brutal -- and therefore the risk of a death was higher, and to be expected.

Hope that all makes sense.

Sorry Raw Carrot, but I reckon you're missing the point. This is the "war on terror" and by implication "terror" is conducting a war on us. A bomb exploded on a London train is as much part of the war as a bomb exploded in Fallujah. A British hostage decapitated by insurgents is as much a victim as an Iraqi prisoner being suffocated by an American.

To imply that the "war zone" is a far off land where our military may commit atrocities at will, but that the "insurgents" and "terrorists" who commit atrocities against us either here or there must behave by a completely different set of rules is pure hypocrisy. We cannot hide behind constructs like a "state of war" and "the military" to claim legitimacy for things that are simply morally bankrupt, and then in the same breath condemn attacks against us such as 9/11 and the London bombings, let alone executions of individuals like Ken Bigley.

If what you're saying is "People die in war, get over it", then this applies as much to the next terrorist attack as it does in Iraq. Remember your words when it's your parent, child or friend that's dead and you might finally understand.