Free the Marine!

by D.J. Webb

After reading unpleasant news today, I have to say the first thing I would do if I were in power is to release the Marine framed for a “crime” in Afghanistan and sentenced to life imprisonment today . I have clarified repeatedly that libertarianism has nothing to do with the idea there should be no nations and no borders. There need to be borders so we can defend our nation and its culture. Freedom can only be realised as part of a free society, not a ragbag of individuals, and so that society needs to be defended. There are going to be foreign opponents of the UK that our soldiers confront in battle – it is irrelevant for my purposes that the stated objective of bringing democracy, sweetness and light to Afghanistan was unachievable from the outset and had no connection to our national interests.

Furthermore, especially elsewhere in the world, where cultural and civilisational standards are so much lower than in the European world, soldiers will find themselves confronting backward peasant militias influenced by extremist religious ideas, and it is hard to feel any genuine and unforced respect for such people.

Who in the UK is genuinely heartbroken that a member of the Taliban was finished off by a British soldier? My heart just did not bleed. Funny that. We always insist on operating by different rules to our opponents. Isn’t it time the Marine and those like him were given medals, and soldiers who **failed** to finish off their opponents got the reprimands?

There are plenty of unpleasant aspects to the story. Apparently, soldiers are micromanaged in the field by surveillance balloons and radios, and required to constantly report back by wireless on the health of the people shooting at them. I’m starting to wonder if there is too much electronic equipment in warfare if soldiers can be second-guessed in this way.

In warfare, there are bound to be occasions where someone – who had it coming to him – is finished off. If we can’t stomach that reality, we should consider halting our participation in foreign wars. Soldiers are selected from among the physically brave and gung-ho members of the English population, precisely because they are the type of individual who wouldn’t lose sleep over the death of a member of the Taliban.

I fail to see how a soldier can justifiably be accused of “murdering” an opponent who has just been shooting at him. It seems civilians who do not understand what war is are driving this agenda – and have managed to effect a miscarriage of justice against this Marine.

39 responses to “Free the Marine!

  1. No, no no. The Geneva Convention exists for a good reason, and if you break it you are committing a war crime. Every soldier knows that. I have a fond memory of, many years ago, a former squaddie friend (whose politics were very right wing) explaining very forcefully over beer why no decent soldier would do something like this and indeed that every soldier is told to disobey an order to do so.

    There are various practical reasons for adhering to the GC. An obvious one is to ensure that when you offer your enemies a chance to surrender, they can do so in the confident knowledge that they will not then be executed. If they don’t know that, they won’t surrender when that might be the best outcome, and that ends up costing lives on your own side fighting unnecessarily to the death.

    There does not seem to be any evidence that this soldier was framed, and if he committed the crime as the court martial decided, then the sentence is appropriate.

  2. OK, I should say he was not framed as such – but the crime is absurd. Any real power in the world would authorise sargeants to overlook the occasional thing like this – which I do not regard as a crime at all. War crimes? That sounds suspiciously like signing up to the concept of international law.

  3. This seems to have been the execution of a prisoner and that is NOT acceptable by any standard and it does not matter if he shot one or more of your mates before he gave up. You have prob shot some of his mates. The “life” sentence is mostly a show –he is unlikely to do more than a few years.

    As a point of interest–see this blog in which Will Grigg documents American cop outrages–many of which are far worse than this military incident and for which the bluebottles suffer no punishment other than a few days on paid leave while their “get out of jail free–by never even being charged” card is played.

  4. On the one hand, it is unacceptable for an English Soldier to deliberately shoot dead a wounded enemy combatant who was at his mercy. If the Geneva Convention were not to exist, I even think that such an act would be regarded quite coldly and frigidly by this man’s officers and sergeants: he “might find himself unwelcome in the ORs’ mess (let alone the sergeants’ one on “guest nights”), which would be a worse sentence than going to a British “civilian” prison, imho.

    If we all accept, as every human over the age of six does, the TalibanNazism is wrong, evil, wicked, reactionary, uses hate-speech, kills people including innocents and civilians, and degrades the Rights of Women, then we must accept that the poor fella who was “executed in the field” (if indeed he truly was not already dead, and which might be debated by expensive lawyers later on – his body could still have convulsed neurologically for the oxygen and all the biochemicals for this were still fully present) did have a choice.

    He did not need to choose actively to go and “serve” whatever force of brigands wielding guns and knives and false-police-uniforms and-IEDs and stuff was “doing the running” in that place. He did not need to go. I am not aware of “deeply respected scholars” in Afghanistan _forcing all these young men_ to watse their lives facing soldiers of a First-World-Military-power, together with all the stuff we have, such as “helmet-camerae”.

    We are talking “real” war here: as a recipe for death and personal disaster, I would have recommended that “the Taliban fellow” got caught in a 30-mm cannon-spread from a helicopter at a fairly low altitude, and IN THE OPEN (fool!), which it seems is what he did. (When he heard the heli, WHY didn’t he RUN… (and hide…or dive into the nearest shit-heap and go right under – submergence in shit beats being dead any day)?)

    Given the prevailing GramscoFabiaNazi-media-directed-focus on all the criminal doings of all the Anglosphere-Nations’ military forces today, all the time and everywhere, it is impossible to even suggest that this man should not have been publicly tried in a Court-Martial, but should simply have been hidden away until “it all blew over”. By contrast, it is interesting how the same people that would criticise him either know nothing or care nothing about exactly the same crimes, writ much larger, by (let us say) the USSR’s soldiers in WW2 against Poles and Germans and Ukrainians and so on, and maybe even simply anybody that mildly dipleased them at that time of day.

    It also raises the question of what the UK is doing in Afghanistan anyway. Sean Gabb indeed raised this on day one. I was for a time against him, thinking that it was a proper war to actually be in, but I changed my mind later. The knowledge that you’re fighting (actually) in a war that appears pointless and stupid, has nothing to do with your country’s interests, in an uncomfortable place, and against people that hate you so much that the dress up as policemens to te into your base abd kill you, cannot be really what your average Marine-Squadie with four GCSEs really relishes. It makes him angry and fractious, a bad state for all soldiers to be in if faced with defenceless dying enemy.

    If the GramscoFabiaNazi policitalenemyClass created people like this Marine deliberately and on purpose so that it could indulge itself in little imperialist local wars like this, then it has itself to blame (but it won’t.)

    It indeed is not possible really to disagree with the Marine’s opinion of the poor TalibaNazi fella, when he is alleged to have said “shulffle off this mortal coil, you ****” and (more) words to the effect that the same fate would have been meted out to a Marine in the same predicament by TalibaNazis. After all, the TalibaNazis have been keeping on keeping on blowing up Marines and others with PakiFrancoRussian*** IEDs, and clearly without conscience. That’s not to say it was a right strategic decision for us to go there as I have said, but….

    (***Radio-controlled IEDs are difficult and expensive weapons to make. Does anyone suggest that the TalibaNazis make them themselves?)

    I think that the LA needs a proper “Director of Strategically-Focussed Foreign Coercional Affairs”, which will be to ensure that Britain does not go into any wars whatsoever if it can be at all avoided. We also then might be able to avoid some of this unpleasantness, embarrassment, BBC-triumphalism( let me guess, it’s come already) and a further boot down into the cesspit from which our own civilisation – which is after all what we are trying to preserve – is trying to recover, if it can.

  5. Charles Pooter

    Doesn’t sit right with me Webb. This is basic intuitive right and wrong stuff. A six year old could tell you it isn’t right to kick a man when he’s down.

  6. It’s wrong I suppose if you follow the letter of the law, but very understandable. I think of the Taliban executing women on football pitches and shooting 14 year old girls in the head.

    If that Taliban had survived he would almost certainly commit unspeakable crimes after his lot have kicked out Karsai and gone on a blood-drunk rampage of slaughter.

    Anyway, what is the status of a Taliban? He wears no uniform, or when he does he wears the uniform of his enemy, he hides amongst civilians, executes his prisoners after torturing them in the vilest possible way, are vermin like this protected by the GC?

    Those Germans that wore American uniforms at Bastogne were shot out of hand and nobody even today thinks that was wrong. Similarly partisans were treated that way.

    We are losing wars today because we are far too soft. Not the men at the sharp end, but the officers who forget that war is the end of politics, and think their men should behave like civilian police.

  7. I think if we want to go to war we have to realise what happens, This man has been under fire and maybe lost friends. I really believe in war the rules are different he should be freed, We can not be soft if the Taliban wanted to live he should not have been there

  8. “the first thing I would do if I were in power is to release the Marine framed for a “crime” ”

    In that case you would also have to pardon all the German and Japanese military personnel who were punished for mistreating or killing prisoners during ww2.

    You can’t have it both ways.

  9. I blame the education system for the difficulty in having an intelligent discussion. Think along the lines of PhD viva voce where you have to use cogent arguments for each point.

    “In that case you would also have to pardon all the German and Japanese military personnel who were punished for mistreating or killing prisoners during ww2”

    Mr Viva Voce examiner says: you haven’t distinguished between treatment of civilians and combatants, and haven’t distinguished between treatment of combatants arrested and detained in a PoW camp and treatment of a combatant on the battlefield who has not been properly detained (killing of whom is still part of the exchange of shots on the battlefield), and you haven’t distinguished between the killing of pro-terrorist insurgent and the killing of a member of an official army representing a democratic state. Viva voce – failed – and no PhD.

    Look. You would need to compare the killing of this Taliban with the killing by a member of a regular Western army of a member of a pro-Nazi partisan unit on the actual battlefield at a moment when he could have been taken and detained in a PoW camp.

  10. The job of a soldier is to achieve objectives defined by his commanders. That may involve killing people, but killing people is not the objective of being a soldier. This soldier disobeyed a fundamental rule laid down by his commanders, and knowingly did so. He has paid the price for that. There really isn’t anything else to be said on the matter.

    The last thing any commander wants is a psychopathic loose canon wandering around killing people for fun. Allowing such people to act without punishment is going to lead to a complete breakdown of military discipline. The basic point is that this soldier didn’t kill this prisoner because he needed to as part of a military plan, but because he wanted to. It’s fundamentally a different case to a combat death.

  11. I feel nobody can sit in judgement who hasn’t been in a similar situation themselves and acted differently.
    I feel nothing but sympathy for our marine, especially given the nature of the enemy he was up against, but as a nation this is not something we can condone – it is just not the British way of doing things. But then nor are the actions of the Taliban!
    I believe maybe a reprimand would be in order. In fact it would be better if it had stayed between the three marines involved and never got out.

  12. This is a difficult situation in law between freedom fighters who have no morals regarding what they do to non-muslim invaders against a soldier putting him out of his terminal misery. That individual wasn’t merely unarmed. He was almost completely gone and may not of survived anyway. If the soldiers simply walked away and he died, no offence would of been committed.

    So on balance I say this does not deserve a life sentence. The strength of the offence in this case appears purely political to aswage the burgeoning muslim populace here.

    Don’t forget who always foots the bill to make that bacon avoider fit to kill again if merely injured.

  13. Ian B and others – the Geneva Convention is not part of English Common Law!!! Who said the Crown had the right to involve us in international law? Look! Do you think the Chinese reprimand soldiers who finish of their own ethnic-minority terrorists in the west of the country? I think you’ll find they don’t. The only value of the Geneva Convention is that if you abide by it, a proper enemy is likely to treat your soldiers right too. But in the case of the Taliban where they adhere to no such guarantees, the Geneva Convention ought not to apply. In a war with Germany – which is not a terrorist outfit – it would be a good idea to adhere to the Geneva Convention, or at least not be the first to break it. I think you will find that in mediaeval England English Common Law did not consider it a crime to “give no quarter” to an enemy on battlefield abroad.

  14. I honestly don’t give a flying fuck about the Crown. If you want an army that commits atrocities, fine. But not doing so has been a standard for a very long time, and indeed “The Crown’s” war propaganda against enemies- the Germans for instance- has often declared them to be brutes for committing similar acts. Often invented ones, but that’s propaganda. And indeed, the Crown spent a specific effort after the war hunting down those Germans responsible for executing escaped British prisoners of war after the Great Escape thing. Because they broke the same rules.

    Either you have rules or you don’t. This soldier committed this act for no reason other than self-gratification, knowing he’d broken an important rule he had sworn to obey, and he’s been punishd as a consequence. He wasn’t in danger, there was no point to it, he did it for fun. He got caught. End of story.

    • Escaped allied prisoners ceased to be “soldiers”. They were classed as “outlaws”. Note the definition.

      I’d feel more gratified just leaving the killer to rot where he lay. The irony is that is lawful and legal. The bullet was an act of mercy to him, them and me, the taxpayer. Instead the clowns who do not work for me, you, the soldier or the Taliban voted to increase our tax burden, make someone suffer over many years and do nothing to remove the need to be in that crap hole.

      Points of contract law here are ridiculous. The killer as a martyr was freed to his Allah. There is no sin in that to the muslim.

      Whenever there are massive earthquakes et al. Muslims only speak of the injured. The dead are dead.

  15. I cannot lower myself to taking part in a debate with people using expletives. A civilised discussion? Yes.

  16. Andyj, the Geneva Convention should only be applied to conventional enemies. Irregular insurgents, guerrillas etc, don’t abide by any conventions. We had the same problem in Ulster of fighting by different rules…

  17. IanB is correct. Never mind how nasty the Taliban are–if our foes are scum is it meet that we should be scum also?. What this bloke did is wrong. The downed man was already finished as a threat. I don’t care if he was Jack the Ripper–there was no justification for summary execution. The “against orders” issue is another story but this soldier was a volunteer sworn to obey commands given him so he had no military let alone moral grounds to kill. Don’t care what the Taleban would have done if the situation was reversed. Should we now fight like scum?–shall we hang our enemies over a slow fire like Apaches?. To kill mano a mano when the blood is up is one thing–but this?.
    This post is a new low for you Mr Webb–I knew you weren’t a Libertarian but it seems you are not even a humanitarian.

    • If an enemy show no mercy then we ought not to either. Fair trade.
      Popping him was a mercy in this case.
      I stand by walking away from the enemy wounded in a fire fight.

  18. In any conflict we need to win and keep our humanity regardless of what the enemy does. The nasty idea that brutality = success in combat will not do. Success in combat relies on courage, resolve, logistics and strategy and spirit not on acting worse than a beast. The only thing you are “fair trading” is your soul.

  19. Mr Ecks – nonsense! Success in combat often depends on killing not the airy-fairy things you mentioned. Look at Sri Lanka – which defeated the Tamil Tigers. They’re accused of human rights abuses – but maybe they don’t want to allow the terrorists to mount a fightback and restart the civil war. They would be well advised to ignore the human-rights brigade and take whatever steps are necessarily to stamp out the remnants of the terrorists. Mr Ecks, this is the very worst of civilian pontification on military matters. Anyone in a war scenario will tend to shoot first and ask questions later – we shouldn’t second-guess soldiers like this.

  20. If you belief that bogus crap then plainly you are not just an evil man but the worst kind of evil-doer–one who masquerades as good. Are you an ex-soldier Mr Webb–have you killed many people?–you talk a good game as opposed to my civilian “pontification” but do you have the blood on your hands to back up your tough guy tripe?

    • How about letting him live without honour. Fix him and torture him for the rest of his days in gitmo?
      Which is more humane?

  21. I’m not up to speed with this case but I must add my thoughts to this one:

    Surely Counsel for the defendant, should have advised him to try convincing the court how terrified he felt at the time of the shooting. Suffering fear for his life and shaking like the proverbial leaf. Naturally, in accordance with his government approved training, his weapon was pointing toward the enemy.

    The soldier’s defence unsurprisingly proved to be his admission of guilt.

    He admitted, e claimed, to shooting a downed man only because he believed him to be dead. If he truly thought that, did he then shoot him just for the fun of it? His own words gave the court a reason to disbelieve his story. Such an obviously porous defence suggests to me that the army decided to sacrifice of one of their own – probably due to pressure from cowards who debase themselves from the safety of Whitehall.

    The resulting sentence should shock only soldiers who still actively serving the nation.

    The regiment, in which I was glorious in ingloriously serving, constantly reassured the ‘men’ that the regiment was family. We stick together through thick and thin to the bitter end – so ran the mantra. Not anymore it seems, not in the British army.

    When regular soldiers face others in anger, it’s not unknown for them to dispatch each other with little thought – some claim that to slay thus is merciful; sometimes better than being taken prisoner.

    There’ll be occasions when supplies of food, water, ammunition and perhaps troop numbers, are insufficient to support the taking of prisoners. It has been known in the past, dreadful as it is, that operational constraints prevented the taking and caring for defeated troops. The GC, at times, simply had to be set aside the way it was whilst fighting the Japanese during the WW2 Burma campaign.

    The chances of survival, let alone success, for a small expeditionary force, could well depend upon continuing a thrust forward. They could not afford to risk the release of previously captured enemy troops who might be re-arm and attack from the rear.

    War concerns itself with killing and front-line troops take the biggest hit. We all know that – with the exception of our politicians that is. It’s those dreadful people who should have been on trial for a possible needless killing. We have two dead men now; one who lost his life but is happy enough currently deflowering virgins; the other who’s lost everything including his career and freedom. Worst of all, his punishment has been inflicted not by the enemy but by those he no doubt trusted and intended, upon enlisting, to protect.

    Surely every front-line soldier who finds himself fighting for his life, will, when the fight is over, reflect upon a man’s need to kill another human. Just one reason maybe, or maybe the prime reason, why so many soldiers, sailors and airmen seldom talk about a killing.

    British troops know better than to put their lives on the line in the hope of finding compliant virgins awaiting his broken skeleton. The vast majority risk fighting for their families and friends back at home… but that doesn’t help them escape being lumbered by a conscience which is being constantly egged on by self-righteous pacifists. The court’s ruling yesterday hasn’t helped recruit the many soldiers that will needed by this country in the not too distant future.

    Recently, I read that a captive Syrian soldier had his heart cut out and eaten by terrorists. I just wonder if situations like that are covered by the Geneva Convention?

    Have the soldiers who committed that monstrous crime been placed on trial yet by their own people? When the victim’s warm blood dripped from their chins, what sort of conscience did Allah the Merciful lumber those people with?

    To defeat your enemy you must first know him. Sadly, Britain has forgotten a reliable old maxim. In truth we do know our enemy, we just pretend that we don’t. Mr Gladstone said something along the lines; ‘…while ever the Muslim religion lasts the world will never know peace…’

  22. It times past the act of absolute fear for consequences stopped the troubles re-occurring.
    There was talk bodies were buried with pig fat in one American intrusion. Stopped the rebellion flat, square dead.

    Sadly, we stop not be there as muslims should not be here.

  23. Wasn’t that the Barbary pirates? I believe an American officer shot nine of them with bullets dipped in pig fat & released the tenth to tell his buddies about the fate that awaited them. Is that covered by the GC I wonder?
    I have always felt the solution to the Islamic problem involves pigs in some way or another.

    • Yes Hugo, that sounds like it. Also read the survivor watched the burial. The pig fat on bullets was an issue for members of the Indian army because they went in the rifle better if you licked them first.

  24. I think we are beginning to lose sight of the issue here.

    First we must remember that the wars that these poor young guys get sucked into, all unprepared by British education and socialisation, are called into being by politicians “__A FARAWAY GROUP OF WHOM WE KNOW LITTLE__ … OF WHAT THEY CARE ABOUT”….
    As I did imply earlier, I think it’s quite unacceptable for British Soldiers to knowingly kill, by what we might choose to call “excution on the field of battle” an enemy combatant, whatever his state at the time. If there were witnesses, even from the same Regiment, then they’re certainly within their rights to “inform a senior officer” of the incident. If there weren’t any, it’s hard to see what could be done.

    In this case the Regiment would probably take some action against the fellow, and maybe not limited to “being made permanently unwelcome in his Mess and the other Messes”. This would effectively end his soldiering career. What he did afterwards is then his business alone, and also the business of explaining to prospective employers in an age of social media etc, why he “left”.

    This course of action would take account of the fact that the fella _did_ fail to strictly obey standing orders //_ about the treatment of effectively-surrendered and/or defenceless combatants_// . It’d also take account of the extreme and incomprehensible (to me a civilian) conditions on a battlefield, where real people are really trying to really kill other real people, in real time. Not ever having served in such conditions, I can’t imagine what stress I’d be under. But it would be a lot, which is why I want to be Sean’s War Secretary in his Protectorate, so as to ensure that Britain avoids entering into all wars if it can possibly be arranged.

    (This does not prelude having an astonishingly large and very, very advanced Defence Capability, probably paid for by a British State, since that’s the only option at present, and which will be habitually refusing to export any of its products whatsoever, even to “friendly” states – of which there will in thats cenario not be many at all. But we’d buy all sorts of other people’s stuff: we be able to _pay well_ …they will beat paths to our door, even the Franco-Americans, and certainly the ChI-Indo-Russians!)

    The trouble with John Warren’s suggested defence is that, having listened to the tape, I could not persuade myself that the fella is frightened enough. Unless it has been “doctored”, he sounded very cool and calm about the entire thing.

    The final trouble is that habitually the modern British political establishment does not seem to take War seriously. It’s happy-go-clappy, given the kinds of “wars” we now seem to be stuck in, about:-

    (a) sending in properly constituted armed forces to do policing-jobs,

    when what it should be doing, since there are only the exit-strategies of Victory or Defeat to come out by, is:-

    (b) sending in Police to do armed enforcing jobs.

    The modern British Police, if involved in this particular action the subject of this case, would I am sure have reracted quite differently.
    (1) No tape would have been released.
    (2) the “subject of arrest” would have been “accidentally shotin the chest while resisting battlefield arrest”.
    (3) the names of the “attending officers”, who “made the location safe”, would be unknown (I’m sure this poor fella’s name will emerge in due time)
    (4) they’d all be “put on indefinite paid leave of absence due to stress”,
    (5) we’d hear no more of the matter.

  25. “There need to be borders so we can defend our nation” – Yeah, that’s what the army is doing in Afghanistan, defending the British border.

    But wait! This campaign “had no connection to our national interests”… so how can it be defended?! That’s the whole point, no? To defend national interests and borders?

    Yet another startling contradiction. Oops, looks like you don’t get the PhD !

    “hard to feel any genuine and unforced respect for such people.” – Therefore executing prisoners is O.K. Because this is about “respect”, remember? Or was it? Confused again.

    “My heart just did not bleed. Funny that.” No wait, this is about bleeding hearts. When I consider the justice of a given act the first thing I always do is check whether or not my heart is bleeding. This leads to clear thinking, obviously.

    “We always insist on operating by different rules to our opponents.” Naturally, given that their “cultural and civilisational standards are so much lower than in the European world.” But, should we imitate these savages or not? Make up your mind!

    “If we can’t stomach that reality, we should consider halting our participation in foreign wars.” What a novel idea! If only there were some ideology out there which is consistently anti-war and anti-intervention. I’m sure there is, somewhere. Note also that the British army is “participating” in a “foreign war”! That was good for a chuckle. What he really means is that they have once again invaded a foreign country.

    I blame the education system (and probably his parents) for Mr Webb’s inability to form a coherent argument. See what I did there?

    Now, remind us all yet again of our nationhood and kinship?

    P.S It’s unfair to compare this to German and Japanese military personnel mistreating prisoners of war because….. those prisoners were sitting in camps at the time and had been captured for longer. Also, they were “official” state employees, so mistreating them was a great evil. Not like this “insurgent” who has appointed himself defender of his nation. What a stupid, primitive idea – defending one’s nation! It’s about time the ignorant civilians just shut up and let the soldiers take care of business. Who do they think they are?

    • There is a financial interest in holding ‘ghan. The oil and gas pipes the taliban refused to have through their lands.
      Accept and we will give you a carpet of gold.
      Refuse and you will get a carpet of bombs.

      I agree. the invasion should be met with our leaders dangling from lamp posts. But… there are very, very real fears we will lose control of the oil supply due to strains on demand. Peak oil has been reached and holding down prices is kept artificially low against the demands.

  26. Serious number of statists on this site. Mr Webb is just as mixed up as the bunch of “anarchists” who were traipsing around London recently protesting against less sharp increases to government spending.

    ‘Society needs to be defended’-That’s interesting whats this society thing all about, there was me thinking it was just the sum total of voluntary interactions between individuals. Must have been wrong, no sorry quite right Mr Webb lets get a gang together start stealing peoples money, which we can put towards building bombs we can go and kill people with. That sounds about right.

    ‘There are going to be foreign opponents of the UK that our soldiers confront in battle’, another corker! What about me I think I’m a domestic opponent, I speak English, I suppose I am part of some Anglosphere in terms of nationality and my culture, but the UK? Oh is that the name of your steal peoples money to build bombs gang? Right yep gottya. Our soldiers? Are they the gangsters in the nice green suits as opposed to those horrible yellow ones that are always out on Friday night harassing people,等等.

  27. there was me thinking it was just the sum total of voluntary interactions between individuals.
    Reply – this is just anarchist theory. It is not a ‘fact’. Is your family just a voluntary interaction betwen unconnected individuals? This country is England – it is owned, by de facto possession, by English people. Even if the state has become an interest group all of its own in our society, that does not change the fact that this is England, and not just a random land occupied by random people. In certain circumstances – particularly invasion, i.e. defence – the state has a legitimate role to play. That role is also there in preventing immigration, especially of non-assimilable cultural groups, i.e. non-Europeans.

    Even the war in Afghanistan is justifiable in terms of our national interests, if it is seen as essential to a defence relationship with the US. I have become less enamoured of the US for its attitude towards the Falklands, BP and Northern Ireland – if it is true, as I think, that this relationship can’t be ‘cashed in’, then we should be less helpful to them.

    Speaking English and having ‘British nationality’ = a piece of paper from the state does not not make anyone English.

  28. ‘the state has a legitimate role to play’, cheers for coming

  29. just one more question, was it the 8th day that called called that sticky out bit England? bit random…

  30. apologies, sloppiness
    *that god called that sticky out bit England?

  31. I don’t know details, but knowing the fecklessness of politicians, I always consider the troops innocent until actually proven guilty. This has been reblogged at Ex-Army with an appropriate quibcag:

  32. It’s an immoral and unjustifiable war, and I struggle to have sympathy for ‘our’ troops who volunteer to go out there and get themselves maimed or killed. So, when it comes to blood-thirsty murders who get themselves thrown in the glasshouse, I really have no sympathy. Just a shame we can’t send Blair, and every other bastard who engineered this situation, to rot in adjacent cells.

  33. “Is your family just a voluntary interaction betwen unconnected individuals?”
    No, it’s a voluntary interaction between connected individuals. Duh.

    “This country is England – it is owned, by de facto possession, by English people.”
    Which ones? All of them? Do all of them own all of England? Or does a given Englishman instead own, you know,….what he actually owns?

    “Even the war in Afghanistan is justifiable in terms of our national interests”

    Yeah. You know, come to think of it, the war on drugs is justifiable in terms of our national interest. So is income taxation. And open borders. At the end of the day, it’s all justifiable in terms of our national interest. What a fantastic libertarian blog this is.