French Soldiers execute man.Get 2-5 years. Commander who ordered is to walk free

[Deleted]

French Soldiers in the Ivory coast executed a man without trial. The commander who ordered it is getting no prison sentence and those who obeyed the order are getting 2-5 years.
The French Government insists he was a Murderer. So instead of even giving him a trial. They "arrested" him and strangled him with a plastic bag. He was not just killed on the spot by some accident. He was already in a French Military Vehicle with handcuffs, when he was murdered.

Sources
http://www.africaeagle.com/2012/12/i...ers-admit.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20627531
http://www.newtimes.co.rw/news/index...=15199&a=61520

[obdigore]

French Soldiers in the Ivory coast executed a man without trial. The commander who ordered it is getting no prison sentence and those who obeyed the order are getting 2-5 years.
The French Government insists he was a Murderer. So instead of even giving him a trial. They "arrested" him and strangled him with a plastic bag. He was not just killed on the spot by some accident. He was already in a French Military Vehicle with handcuffs, when he was murdered.

Sources
http://www.africaeagle.com/2012/12/i...ers-admit.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20627531
http://www.newtimes.co.rw/news/index...=15199&a=61520

It being ordered is (according to the bbc article you linked, I've not read the others) debatable. An order to 'drive slowly' could also mean 'no mistakes, make sure you get him and your guys back here in one piece'. Any case against the Commander is pretty wishy-washy. I don't agree with just 2-5 years.

Is the french courts the same as US courts where the prosecution can ask for 2-5 years but the Judge can decide for a longer sentence?

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Yeah, I guess I'm just unfamiliar with the phrase 'drive slowly' 'cause I have no idea what the hell that means or how that in any way constitutes an order to execute somebody.

[Deleted]

Yeah, I guess I'm just unfamiliar with the phrase 'drive slowly' 'cause I have no idea what the hell that means or how that in any way constitutes an order to execute somebody.

He understood this to mean that it would be "best if Mahe arrived dead" and he relayed the instruction to his co-accused, Col Burgaud said.
They include Sgt-Maj Guy Raugel, who suffocated Mr Mahe with the help of Corporal Johannes Schnier.

From the BBC article.
They got a order to kill Mahe (Or atleast believed they did). It also depends on the way the order was given.

Kind of like when someones says,"It would be a shame if something happened to your new car". Without hearing the conversation we do not know if its meant as a threat or if someone really is upset about the car becoming damaged.
But given the fact that trained Soldiers believed they were told to kill him, I got my doubts about him wishing them a safe trip home.

[Deleted]

Military cannot be trusted, plain and simple. They should be made to be responsible for every single bullet they fire. Every single bullet has to be accounted for and justified, and if they fail to make a good case for that, life imprisionment.
No more of those "judgement calls".

[obdigore]

From the BBC article.
They got a order to kill Mahe (Or atleast believed they did). It also depends on the way the order was given.

Kind of like when someones says,"It would be a shame if something happened to your new car". Without hearing the conversation we do not know if its meant as a threat or if someone really is upset about the car could become damaged.
But given the fact that trained Soldiers believed they were told to kill him, I got my doubts about him wishing them a safe trip home.

But he didn't say 'it would be a shame if someone put a bag ofter his head and suffocated him'.

Col Burgaud said Gen Poncet ordering the killing with the phrase: "Drive slowly, you understand me?"

There is a reason the General isn't on trial. Because that is quite a stretch to ordering the murder of a captive. I'm not saying the General didn't, I'm not saying there might have been previous conversations that evolved that phrase. I'm saying legally, you would have a hell of a hard time proving that telling someone to 'Drive Slowly' means to kill your passenger.

I mean maybe if the guy was bleeding from a couple gunshot wounds and you were taking him somewhere to get medical help?

[Deleted]

Doesn't that violate EU law? (http://eeas.europa.eu/human_rights/adp/index_en.htm) Well, I suppose it happened outside of the Eu, but still, as EU citizens shouldn't they be reprimanded according to EU law?

That is, of course, on top of being shamefully unjust for punishing the people carrying out the order and not the one who gave it. I definitely believe that all soldiers, no matter what rank they hold, have a responsibility to refuse to accept orders which they know are morally reprehensible and should they choose to carry out those orders they should be brought to justice, but the brunt of condemnation should be placed on the commanding officer, not the soldiers.

It's times like this that I wish our culture was more like that of the Turians when it comes to playing the blame-game:

"Throughout their lives, turians ascend to the higher tiers and are occasionally "demoted" to lower ones. The stigma associated with demotion lies not on the individual, but on those who promoted him when he wasn't ready for additional responsibility."

[obdigore]

Doesn't that violate EU law? (http://eeas.europa.eu/human_rights/adp/index_en.htm)

That is, of course, on top of being shamefully unjust for punishing the people carrying out the order and not the one who gave it. I definitely believe that all soldiers, no matter what rank they hold, have a responsibility to refuse to accept orders which they know are morally reprehensible and should they choose to carry out those orders they should be brought to justice, but the brunt of condemnation should be placed on the commanding officer, not the soldiers.

It's times like this that I wish are culture was more like that of the Turians when it comes to playing the blame-game:

"Throughout their lives, turians ascend to the higher tiers and are occasionally "demoted" to lower ones. The stigma associated with demotion lies not on the individual, but on those who promoted him when he wasn't ready for additional responsibility."

The French Courts aren't killing anyone. They are prosecuting those who executed a prisoner.

[Deleted]

Military cannot be trusted, plain and simple. They should be made to be responsible for every single bullet they fire. Every single bullet has to be accounted for and justified, and if they fail to make a good case for that, life imprisionment.
No more of those "judgement calls".

Here mate, you forgot your tinfoil hat.

I agree this is extremely fishy, and i suppose the french are attempting to be as transparent as possible. They are doing boundless good stuff asides in ivory training the security forces, giving aid and medical assistance.

Its why this needs to be investigated very thoroughly

[Deleted]

The French Courts aren't killing anyone. They are prosecuting those who executed a prisoner.

But, since they were working for the French government at the time, shouldn't that breach be taken into account?

[Kalyyn]

Really? A plastic bag? That's just needlessly cruel. If you're going to execute somebody, and you have a sidearm on you, then you really should just shoot them and end it quickly.

[obdigore]

But, since they were working for the French government at the time, shouldn't that breach be taken into account?

?

They are already being tried for Murder. I just glanced at your link and it looked like the EU position on the death penalty. There was no 'death penalty' by the French courts. These soldiers murdered their prisoner in cold blood, and that is what they are being tried for.

I guess I'm confused how you are getting that it was the death penalty?

[Vladinator]

So many taking this face value, just think about it, all we know is what the media tells us, and what they tell us depends on what the people involved say, maybe there was blackmailing involved, maybe he said more but didn't officially acknowledge it, e.g. Trying to interpret the article quotes to find a logical reason, may not be so easy if it's not the absolute truth to begin with, and I doubt it is.

Anyway, I don't really know the guys so can't have a strong opinion on this, just a bit unsure how well I can trust the articles. :P

[Deleted]

?

They are already being tried for Murder. I just glanced at your link and it looked like the EU position on the death penalty. There was no 'death penalty' by the French courts. These soldiers murdered their prisoner in cold blood, and that is what they are being tried for.

I guess I'm confused how you are getting that it was the death penalty?

Oh yeah. Good point. It's not a court verdict. I just thought with them being representatives of the French government, especially the CO, that their decision to execute a prisoner would be considered as going against the EU ban on the death penalty and as such might warrant a tougher sentencing (instead of none at all).

[Jackmoves]

2-5 years thats a laugh, purely political. If they can prove the commander gave the orders he should not walk free either.

[obdigore]

Oh yeah. Good point. It's not a court verdict. I just thought with them being representatives of the French government, especially the CO, that their decision to execute a prisoner would be considered as going against the EU ban on the death penalty and as such might warrant a tougher sentencing (instead of none at all).

They weren't authorized to make that decision by anyone.