In a post down below I ventured into the dangerous and, for me, unchartered waters of the case of Marine 'A' recently found guilty of executing a Taliban fighter in cold blood. That very brief summary of what was, perhaps, in reality a much more muddled and untidy incident is just the synopsis of what I gathered from the media. I do not wish to be entangled with the particulars of that case, instead I want to discuss the broader matters of principle which arise from it. In particular, my e-pal, 'Able', raises some contradictory points - yes, I know, bloody cheek, contradicting ME! - which require a longer response than is suitable for a comments thread.
For a start, I think we have both wandered too far into the legal intricacies of the guiding spirit behind the Geneva Convention and all the other international agreements which attempt to guide civilised behavior in the very uncivilised business of making war. It is not, I think, a question of whether paragraph 6, sub-paragraph b., does or does not specify this or that particular. It is necessary for soldiers to think at a deeper level - and if they find that difficult it is for their commanders to do their thinking for them and instil the results into their soldiers' minds and discipline.
Surely the basis for thinking on moral issues must be Christianity - and I write that as confirmed agnostic who has no views either way on the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus Christ. However, it is the bedrock of western civilization as it has evolved over the past two millennia. It is, of course, a creed or a philosophy "more honoured in the breech than the observance" but that does not detract from its moral power. In fact, I would rate it highly as a guide not just for its moral power but for its acute intelligence! The undoubted fact that it is diminishing in influence is, I think, a disaster but that is another story.
The very essence of its teaching in regard to civil behavior is that human life is always and forever - precious! I am not sure, as some Christian pacifists are, that it forbids the taking of life under any circumstances, and that is certainly not what a pro-capital punishment advocate like me believes. However, I do put the emphasis on the word "precious", in other words, I do think the circumstances under which human beings will be killed requires very careful consideration.
(At this point, alas, I must pause because I am, so to speak, under starter's orders to take the 'Memsahib' out for shopping and lunch. I will return later this afternoon and try and finish this post. I leave it up in this unfinished state to give you all time to marshal your thoughts.)
