So you do think it was legal to murder civilians? You have confused me with where you stand, is it yes or no?
The Hague convention is also hardly a document that would allow the shooting of civillians, not all the people murdered were prisoners. None of them were proven to be soldiers.
My view is the same as that of the Courts Martial in 1902, it was illegal to murder civilians. The Courts Martial would have found the officers guilty of a lesser crime i.e. manslaughter if they had felt there was reason to do so. The Judge Advocate indicated the Court erred to find three of the officers guilty of manslaughter. Pemberton indicated they were all guilty of murder.
The Judge Advocates gave their verdict to the Attorney General, this led to Kitchener’s decision to confirm the death sentences in two cases. You are erring by referring to decisions earlier in the process.
The problem I have always have with people who seek glory in dubious but popular cases is that they care neither for truth nor for justice.
This case has been referred to the King and the British Government Ad Nauseam and the outcome has always been the same. The men were guilty.
I suggest you research the case a bit, when you do you will also realise like Kit Denton did that Morant and Handcock received a fair trial and deserved their punishment.
These guys did not only shoot Boer civilians they also tried to kill some of their own men and succeeded in one instance.
If you accept what St Clair wrote before the Court Martial began then I don’t understand why you disagree with the final finding by the same man? The purpose of the Court Martial and the Administrative process was to get to the truth and make an appropriate finding.
By writing “The provocation theory will not hold water” Colonel Pemberton made the final legal opinion lucid to all, but you.
The finding of the Court was that the officers were guilty of crimes, for which their was no justification and deserved their punishment, it also found that Major Lenehan covered up the murder of one of his own men by Lieutenant Peter Handcock.
So you are implying that the norms were irrelevant and that 100% of executions during the Boer war were wrong, since no one was given the right to appeal?
If all the executions were wrong and you are seeking justice, then why are you only interested in a single case?
Are you aware that a Court of Appeal was not created in England until 1908?
St Clair wrote what he did during the Court of Inquiry… he was speculating about what the Courts Martial would find. The finding of the Courts Martial refer to Morant as the person who instigated the murders. So called experts would do well to get their head around the case both from a legal and historical side. James you are asking that an opinion BEFORE THE COURTS MARTIAL take precedence to the finding of the Court in Feb 1902? That seems disingenious.
Since Hunt was dead it would probably have been unlikely for him to face consequences when his conveniently alleged “orders” never actually led to a single death while he was alive.
Taylor resigned and after three months was no longer subject to Military Law, he was tried under Martial Law. Morant and Handcock refused to point him out as a source of “orders”, this set him free.
The Judge Advocates formed part of the Court and had the final legal say while Kitchener had the final administrative decision.
Arthur Davey adressed the significance of the orders in his book, perhaps you should even consider reading the book before criticising it. The book contains a letter from Barrister-at-Law Mr Morris Alexander who clearly shows that orders had to be legal. If he were alive today he too would question the “good sense and justice” of those who seek a pardon for murderers. Ironically Mr Alexanders letter was in responce to a letter titled “Concerning Jews”. Little did he know the signifigance between the Boer War and what was to follow 40 years later.
I fail to see how a pardon for a War Criminal could assist in undoing the methods/ wrongs of the same offending side?
The Judge Avocates wrote the final findings of the Courts Martial to the Attorney General, I have not made an error, you clearly don’t understand how the administration of military justice worked in 1902.
The Judge Advocate reviewed the finding of the Court Martial. You are clinging to something that was outdated by 20 Feb 1902.
The Judge Advocate wrote: “The provocation theory will not hold water.”
The right of civilians not to be maltreated and murdered has been accepted since the execution of Peter Von Hagenbach.
So you are saying we should pardon these guys despite the fact that they were guilty of not only the murders they were executed for… but they were also guilty of other murders but these should conveniently be ignored. If we ignore the fact that these guys murdered people then they are actually great guys? huh?
I would prefer the question be asked why Handcock was not charged for the murder…
Handcock withrew his confession in which he admitted to the murder.
Are you pleading for the investigation of the culprits in the murders of Heese and Van Buuren, and also willing to look at the attempts on the lives of other witnesses? How about the killing of the Natives?
I don’t fear the truth.
Since I don’t change my opinion as often as you do… I believe these guys were guilty in 1902 and a court will find the same outcome.
For what reason would various Government administrations over more than 100 years need to hide an incorrect administrative decision? Some people believe the moon is made from cheese, others tell people it is, ignorant people may believe it.
Good luck with your smear campaign against the British and the Boers.
Just remember to hide the fact that the people who complained about Morants War Crimes included Australians and that the investigating officer was also Australian.
Personally, like Rising Sun, I believe the innocence or guilt of a person is central to the question as to the outcome of a legal process. I find it strange that you seem to want to ignore the matter of who was responsible for the murders of Heese, Van Buuren, who tried to shoot their comrades, who killed natives?
The question about the status of the Hague Convention is lucid:
“One of the purposes for which the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899 was convened was “the revision of the declaration concerning the laws and customs of war elaborated in 1874 by the Conference of Brussels, and not yet ratified” (Russian circular note of 30 December 1898). The Conference of 1899 succeeded in adopting a Convention on land warfare to which Regulations are annexed. The Convention and the Regulations were revised at the Second International Peace Conference in 1907. The two versions of the Convention and the Regulations differ only slightly from each other. Seventeen of the states which ratified the 1899 Convention did not ratify the 1907 version (Argentina, Bulgaria, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Greece, Italy, Korea, Montenegro, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Serbia, Spain, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela). These states or their successor states remain formally bound by the 1899 Convention in their relations with the other parties thereto. As between the parties to the 1907 Convention, this Convention has replaced the 1899 Convention (see Article 4 of the 1907 Convention). The provisions of the two Conventions on land warfare, like most of the substantive provisions of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, are considered as embodying rules of customary international law. As such they are also binding on states which are not formally parties to them.”
It seems the facts don’t quite support your claims.
Morant also signed a document stating that he would… "be subject to the Queen’s rules and regulations, the rules and articles of war, and to all such other rules, regulations and discipline of whatever nature or kind to which Her Majesty’s Army is for the time being subject, and to all laws, rules and regulations in force within the Province of South Australia under the Defence Act 1895; and also to all rules and regulations re: general orders and for any general officer commanding Her Majesty’s forces in South Africa in which way we may severally for the time being be serving.”
Maybe Morants first language was Spanish and he did not understand what he signed?
To what extent did ‘reasonable doubt’ apply to whether or not they obeyed orders knowing that to do so was illegal and exposed them to criminal liability?
The usual position with murder is whether or not there is reasonable doubt that the accused met the elements of the charge. Obeying orders, at least in the civil criminal context, would be relevant only if a defence of duress was raised, which is close to but not entirely impossible.
If you have them, I’d be interested to see the verbatim charges against Morant etc. This might help to clarify the discussion by separating the fact of the murders they committed from the offences with which they were charged, if those offences were other than murder.
I have only the shortened version at my disposal, I am not sure whether a complete version exists, the Court Martial Transcripts have been destroyed.
Someone claiming “reasonable doubt” existed does not understand the legal process of 1902 or the discretion of the Military Commander during a time of War in the administrative process in 1902 or is less than honest… The Courts Martial had the discretion to find the officers guilty of a lesser charge (i.e. manslaughter) if any doubt existed. They did this in the first charge, although the Judge Advocate believed the Court made a mistake and should have found all four guilty of murder (see Pemberton’s opinion in an earlier post of mine). The case could hardly be any clearer.
The charges indicate that not all victims were prisoners, see charge three and four… They were found guilty on charge three. While they were found not guilty on charge four despite Handcock being placed at the scene by one witness, Van Heerden… In the 21 October 1929 letter (kept secret till 1970) Witton wrote to Major Thomas that Handcock had confessed to him about killing Heese… Witton described it as “a most cold blooded affair”.
The Court of Inquiry investigated six murder charges involving the murder of twenty two people. The Court Martials prosecuted four of these charges involving the murder of a total of thirteen people, convictions were made on three charges for the deaths of twelve people.
In shortened form, the charges were: "(i) As to Visser,
Morant, Handcock, Picton and Witton.
Each charged that they did incite instigate and command
Trooper Silke and others to kill and murder Visser, an
unarmed prisoner of war.
(ii) As to the Eight Boers
Morant, Handcock and Witton.
Each charged that they did incite instigate and command
Sergeant Major Hammett and others to kill and murder
eight men, names unknown, unarmed prisoners of war.
(iii) As to the Three Boers
Morant and Handcock.
Each charged that they did incite instigate and command
Trooper Thomson and others to kill and murder two men
and one boy, names unknown.
(iv) As to the Reverend Heese
Handcock: Charged that he did kill and murder one C.A.D.
Hesse (sic), a missionary."
The finding of the Court was:
"[i]Army Order No. 506, 28 Feb. 1902 (extract)
DISCIPLINE -
The following extracts from the proceedings of General Courts-Martial held at Pietersburg, Transvaal, between the 16th January, 1902, and 19th February, 1902, for the trial of the under mentioned prisoners are published for information:
H. H. Morant, P. J. Handcock, G. R. Witton and H. Picton, of the Bushveldt Carabiniers, were charged with -
Charge: When on active service, committing the offence of murder.
Finding: The Court find the prisoner Morant guilty of murder, but find the prisoners Handcock, Witton and Picton guilty of manslaughter.
H. H. Morant, P. J. Handcock, and G. R. Witton, of the Bushveldt Carabiniers, were charged with:
Charge: When on active service committing the offence of murder.
Finding: The Court find the prisoners guilty of the charge.
H. H. Morant and P. J. Handcock, of the Bushveldt Carabiniers, were charged with:
Charge: When on active service committing the offence of murder.
Finding: The Court find the prisoners guilty of the charge.
Sentence: The Court sentence the prisoners Morant, Handcock, and Witton to suffer death by being shot, and the prisoner Picton to be cashiered.
Confirmation: The General Commanding-in-Chief has confirmed the sentence in the case of the prisoners Morant, Handcock, and Picton, but has commuted the sentence awarded the prisoner Witton to one of penal servitude for life.
The sentences awarded the prisoners Morant and Handcock have been carried out.
Major R. W. Lenehan, Bushveldt Carabiniers, was charged with:
Charge: When on active service by culpable neglect omitting to make a report which it was his duty to make.
Finding: The Court find the prisoner guilty of the charge.
Sentence: The Court sentence the prisoner to be Reprimanded. The finding and sentence have been confirmed by the General Commanding-in-Chief.
By Order,
W. F. Kelly, Major-General, Adjutant-General[/i]"
If the Army Order accurately extracts the findings of the court-martial, then the findings, being murder, don’t agree with the charges, being to ‘incite instigate and command [others] to kill and murder’.
I do not see how a defendant can be charged with inciting, instigating and commanding others to murder, which for practical purposes amounts to an offence of incitement to murder, and then be found guilty of murder. They are entirely different charges and the elements of the offences are entirely different.
The English common law position on incitement to 2006 is stated concisely by the Crown Prosecution Service as: Incitement occurs when a person seeks to persuade another to commit a criminal offence. A person is guilty of incitement to commit an offence or offences if:
a. s/he incites another to do or cause to be done an act or acts which, if done, will involve the commission of an offence or offences by the other; and
b. s/he intends or believes that the other, if he acts as incited, shall or will do so with the fault required for the offence(s) (R v Claydon [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. 20)
It is not a defence to a charge of incitement that the other person, for whatever reason, does not commit the offence, or commits a different offence to that incited. The prosecution must show that the person accused of incitement intended or believed that the person incited would, if acted as incited to do so, do so with the mens rea appropriate to the offence.http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/inchoate_offences/#P20_588
Assuming that the law at the time of Morant’s trial was substantially similar (I don’t have access to relevant sources to determine this), to gain a conviction on incitement to murder the prosecution would have to have proved that Morant etc intended or believed the soldiers who carried out the murders had the necessary mens rea (For those readers unfamiliar with the term, mens rea is Latin for ‘guilty mind’ or, in practical terms, intent to commit a criminal act. It is a necessary element in most crimes and certainly in murder and incitement to murder.) Given what the court-martial said about Morant etc’s ignorance of the law, how could the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that Morant etc had that belief?
As the acts were carried out, if the prosecution proved the soldiers had the necessary mens rea, this means that the prosecution proved those soldiers were guilty of murder. So why weren’t they charged?
If the answer is that the soldiers were only carrying out orders, it follows that the same should have applied to Morant etc if it can be demonstrated that such orders were given, which Jim Unkles maintains is the case.
If the answer is that it wasn’t murder because the soldiers didn’t have the necessary mens rea, then there were no murders. It follows that Morant etc couldn’t be convicted of murder but only of incitement to murder as at common law there is no requirement for the act to be carried out. Yet they were convicted of murder?
If Morant etc were charged only with incitement to murder, and if the applicable law was as I have outlined it, then it was impossible for them to be properly convicted of murder unless the court-martial had power to make a finding of murder in the alternative, which would be a travesty.
From a legal perspective, it doesn’t hang together.
While I maintain my position that the killings were morally wrong, the more detail I get on the legal process the more I am inclined to the view that Morant etc were not tried and convicted according to law, which makes their executions wrong.
The complexity of the case is remarkable and it is easy to fall into a trap, we should all remember that the law in Courts Martial during a War in 1902 was different to the rights of civilians in modern day.
The “Green Book” stated that a person could be executed at a Court Martial in the field… but the decision by the members (there had to be at least three) had to be unanimous. It clearly stated that the punishment for executing a person at a Court Martial where a member disagrees would be “death by hanging”. Picton and Witton both disagreed with the execution, this may be what saved their bacon.
The troopers weren’t charged because they believed (rightly) that they would be dealt with if they did not execute the command. Some refused and they are the real heroes in my book. After you read the depositions of the British and Australian Troopers you feel strongly that justice was done. Morant and Handcock were guilty as hell.
One of the challenges was that murders were “grouped” (i.e. “8 Boers” and “3 Boers”…) in stead of individually.
The officers were guilty of both taking part in the murders by shooting people (Witton wrote about how he shot a prisoner in his book…) AND they incited others to murder…
Like I said above, the charges were shortened by someone else many years ago, I don’t know if the complete charges as they were brought against the men will be found.
Still I believe murder is wrong, shooting people and especially children is reprehensible and not something to be proud of.
By the standards of 1902 the officers received justice, they received legal counsel when it was not a right, the prosecutor was not the best legal mind and was chosen on lowest cost in stead of a barrister… Morant called the court martial in the field that he claimed to hold for Visser “less handsome” than his own…
Even in Wittons book evidence is found that the officers were offered immunity from prosecution if they told the court someone of higher rank (like Major Lenehan) gave the orders and identified them. Why did the defence not use the opportunity and point the finger at Taylor who I believe was also wrong? I believe too few were charged in this case.
Major Lenehan, Captain Robertson, and Captain Taylor all superiors of Morant and Handcock gave evidence at the trial and denied the existence of orders. Even Major Bolton and Col Hamilton, Kitcheners Staff officer appeared as witness and denied such orders existed.
No proof of orders was presented to the Court, how could the Court come do a different conclusion? Claiming a deceased officer gave you an order and that you only followed it after his death does seem like a convenient but flimsy excuse. What would you have done if you were a member of the Court?
Knowing the military it would be strange for the chain of command to be ignored and for a junior officer to receive orders from the C-in-C.
I believe Morant was simply trying to evade his punishment. He was a wrangler.
The purpose of a court martial was to achieve military justice speedily, I believe it was achieved.
At the time the death penalty was given for (what in 2011 would be viewed as extremely minor offences…).
Many Boers were executed for wearing Khaki and other petty crimes. Some where actually tried and executed for “offences”… like “train wrecking”… said “train wrecking” wasn’t even a crime since it was similar to attacking a military convoy! The practice of “train wrecking” was even suggested by the British Military Handbook at the time!
A British Trooper was executed for poisoning horses. Execution for desertion was common.
One Boer was executed after being tried in absentia on the farm next to his own, while they knew full well where he was… He was told of both his Court Martial and the outcome… 8 minutes before being shot. Later it was proved that the witnesses lied and that the man was innocent. His execution was confirmed by Kitchener after the fact.
There were many cases much more deserving of a review than that of Morant.
It is easy to be lured into believing a mixture of what is acceptable today and what was acceptable in 1902.
the war was fought in condition like Afghanistan, confusing to determine who was a civilian by day and a fighter by night, no discernable uniform and the Boers were not signatories to conventions on war fare and treatment of prisoners. The reason I have mentioned the Hague convention is because the British government has claimed the convention did apply and there fore the Boers were treated by Morant et al contrary to its provisions. I do not agree, the convention did not apply to the Boer war.
As to the St Clair document, I do not agree with all of his review, but agree with his conclusion not to take prisoners (a fact that has been denied by so many commentators for decades). The other issue is the significance of the recommendations for mercy and Kitchenre’s not to follwo them except for Witton.
Conclusion, let’s get a review done by judicial inquiry, and decide these issues. Heaven forbid!, we may find the truth at alst after decades of debate and controversy, after all what is there to be lost, if not the truth!!
You seem to be setting the moral bar extremely low for officers.:shock: It actually concerns me very much that you would consider that view for more than a minute.
If you look at charge three it shows that those 3 weren’t prisoners.:o They were civilians.:o
I find it scary that someone would firstly suggest that shooting prisoners would be correct. At least three were civilians, none were found guilty of any crime at all. All were unarmed.:shock:
It seems it was not acceptable to murder people for any reason for 515 years before Morant decided to have men and children shot. Maybe he missed the memo?
“Already in the Ordinance for the Government of the Army, published in 1386 by King Richard II of England, limits were established to the conduct of hostilities and — on pain of death — acts of violence against women and unarmed priests, the burning of houses and the desecration of churches were prohibited. Provisions of the same nature were included in the codes issued by Ferdinand of Hungary in 1526, by Emperor Maximilian II in 1570 (humanitari an rules are found in Articles 8 and 9) and by King Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden in 1621 [4 ] . Article 100 of the Articles of War decreed by Gustavus II Adolphus established that no man should “tyrannise over any Churchman, or aged people, Men or Women, Maydes or Children”.”
James Unkles, you seem to suggest it is acceptable to shoot civilians in Afghanistan.:shock:
Lining up people and shooting them because you are unsure of whether they are soldiers OR NOT seems like an extreme and indefensible practice.
The fact is that the Courts Martial found the men guilty of murder. Previously you stated support for the finding of the Court, it seems like you are making another u turn. and only selectively want to accept the view of a person but strangely his view before the Court Martial. That is just poor jurisprudence.
Australia wasn’t a signatory to the 1899 convention either, would this mean that the British could shoot Australian prisoners “legally” or morally?
I think not! Just like Morant could not use it either.
Not being a signatory to a document should not make murder of either unarmed prisoners or civilians and especially not children legal.
The list is not quite complete, by shooting the three Boers, they also killed civilians and at least two of those executed were not Boers but were Dutch teachers (by the way Holland was host to the 1899 Hague conference…) who had only recently arrived in South Africa after President Paul Kruger went on a recruitment drive for teachers in Europe.
Morant and Handcock also attempted to kill some of their own men who could testify against them, Handcock killed Trooper Van Buuren of the BVC. Van Buuren pointed out Morant and Handcock as murderers. Read the depositions of the Australians who asked for these cases to be investigated in the first letter they wrote:
The letter outlines all the murders…
"Sir, many of us are Australians who have fought nearly throughout the war while others are Africanders who have also fought from Colenso till now. We cannot return home with the stigma of these crimes attached to our names. Therefore we humbly pray that a full and exhaustive inquiry be made by impartial Imperial officers in order that the truth may be elicited and justice be done. Also we beg that all witnesses be kept in camp at Pietersburg till the inquiry is finished. So deeply do we deplore the opprobrium which must be inseperably connected with these crimes that scarcely a man once his time is up can be prevailed to re-enlist in this corps. Trusting for the credit of thinking you will grant the inquiry we seek.
We are, sir.
Your obedient servants"
The Bushveldt Carbineers were disbanded after this and the Pietersburg Light Horse was formed in its place.
Their request was granted an inquiry was held, it led to the Courts Martial and the execution of Morant. Justice was done.
The Inquiry you celebrate was a botched attempt to satisfy the provisions of the Manual of Mil law. The process was tainted and according to Witton, denied the accused any form of natural justice. The denial to contact their relatives and the Aust government was a disgrace, a process in secrecy to prevent any assistance or interference from the Aust government. Perhaps the most celebrated aspect of the inquiry was StClair’s review of the proceeding, namely his comnclusion that orders to shoot prisoners were issued by British officers including Captain Hunt and Taylor. Of course history tells us what happended, Taylor permitted to resign his commissions and not charged with multiople counts of murder as recommended by St Clair. So much for justice when Morant, Handcock and Witton were agressively prosecuted for the ‘sins’ of their superiors.
Again, I call for an inquiry to set the record straight and deliver justice after 109 years of controversy. I can understand the British government is embarassed by the St Clair review. An experienced officer and senior lawyer who did his duty and concluded that British officers issued illegal orders. Little did he realise that Lord Kitchener would not follow his recommendations and charge Taylor with muliple counts of murder. Its time the British government admitted to the errors in the trial and sentencing of these men and grant pardons that will acknowledge that the real culprits were British professional soldiers like Taylor, who devised tactics to defeat the guerilla war waged by Boers. One tactic was ‘take no prisoners’.
Military history is fuill of instabnces where senior Command and even politicians dictate military actions that are illegal. When transgressions occur of course it is the junior officers, and NCOs who carry the burden for their actions in obedience to orders. A classic example was in Iraq and the events that occurred in Abu Grahib prison where no one above sergenat was prosecuted yet we know liability for the management of the prison and the torture that were illegal and breached US military and international law rested with very senior Pentagon officers and the Defence Sec, Rumsfeild, perhaps even higher. The ‘scapegoats’ label for Morant et al aptly describes how liability and accountability for ones actions is measured by power, rank and influence to escape culpability. Its time Boers who point the finger at Morant studied what the trial was really about, appeas the German government over the shooting of Heese and create favour with the Boers with whom a peace treaty was being negotiated. The real criminals were officers like Taylor and Kitchener who were architects of war fighting tactics including concentration camps, scorched earth policy and of course take no prisoners.
I don’t celebrate the murder of innocent men and children by Morant, Handcock, Witton and Picton like you do.
In a murder case my bias is towards the victims not the perpetrators; I make no apology for that.
I do celebrate the fact that the Australians who fought with honour and dignity asked for an independent investigation into the murders of innocent civilians and children and that this call was heard. Justice was done. The stigma against Australians was lifted and James Unkles is trying to put it back at all cost. Claiming that murder is not illegal is dim-witted. If the troops knew it was wrong and protested then surely the officers being of normal intelligence would also…
James Unkles my learned colleague, by the way 1902 Law 101: The Manual of Military Law had no legal standing…
Witton was convicted of cowardly murders.
He had good reason to lie.
British law requires the evidence of a suspect to be independently coroborated, has this been done? Could it even be done without access to the missing Court Martial transcripts?
Natural justice operates on the principles that man is basically good, that a person of good intent should not be harmed, and one should treat others as one would like to be treated. How did Morant treat others…
One of the principles of natural justice is… Justice should be seen to be done. If the community is satisfied that justice has been done, they will continue to place their faith in the courts.
Justice was done in Morant and Handcock’s case.
That is an unproven allegation by a convicted criminal.
There existed no, zero, zip obligation to consult the Australian Government!
The officers had signed their rights away, they could be treated like any British soldier.
Given your claims of expert knowledge on the subject it is surprising how little you know about the case, James Unkles.
Alleging it was a disgrace is just silly. Very poor form really.
The inquiry existed to prove a prima facie case and to draw up charges if applicable… this was done.
Charges were brought against the accused. At the Courts Martial, in most cases they did not deny the murders. Heese being the exeption…
No mention of superior orders is found in the final finding of the Courts Martial, they found the buck stopped with the British officer Morant. Handcock became the first Australian to be executed.
Taylor was a witness at the trial why did Thomas or Morant not grill him?
Morant and Handcock’s lack of candor paved the way for Taylor to get off the hook.
Witton wrote that his conviction was “required” since Handcock withdrew his confession… which was still in play at the Inquiry. Connect the dots James Unkles… The confession no doubt made St Clair write what he did… since the confession no longer existed at the Courts Martial Handcock and Morant gave the sadistic Taylor his freedom.
St Clair agreed with the final opinion of Pemberton and that became the final finding of the Court, that wipes everything that existed before that including the “findings at the Inquiry”, unless St Clair stated so afterwards. He did not.
Morant et al set Taylor free, no prosecutor did.
The prosecutor wanted Taylor to be prosecuted last, no doubt he was waiting for Morant et al to incriminate Taylor as he sure as Hell was not going to do it himself, was he?
James Unkles could you show any deposition from Morant or the other officers that pointed to Taylor?
On what evidence do you suggest Taylor be found guilty? If you can’t back this up then you have yet another weak argument.
If the orders came from Kitchener as you have also suggested then surely Taylor should be free from blame too.
If you feel Taylor is guilty in your view then what makes Morant et al so special?
Does this mean that your view today is that the orders were “illegal”?
I am still trying to understand your view since you’ve indicated they are legal and illegal.
That is why I support severe punishment for following illegal orders, it will help juniors to tell dumb or criminal senior officers to p!ss off!
In my own military career I have done so, it takes a bit of courage to do the right thing.
Yet another furphy by James Unkles.:evil:
Lieutenant Colonel Steven L. Jordan was prosecuted for what happened at Abu Ghraib prison:
James Unkles you will be pleased to know that he escaped prosecution on the most serious charges using a legal technicality.
That gives conspiracy theorists like you their bread buttered on both sides. One the criminal goes free, two you can still blame the government.
The Courts Martial had the benefit of hearing the evidence and they found the buck stopped with Morant, then Handcock.
Didn’t Morant say something to the effect of “we got them and shot them under rule 303!” :shock: It hardly seems to point to Kitchener…
I think the lesson is not to follow illegal orders, especially not from dead superiors.
So you are saying the murder of 12 people including children was not a good enough reason for the Courts Martial. :shock:
James Unkles, maybe you should start investigating the case. The Brits and the Afrikaners (The ancestors of the “Boers”) understand it, you don’t. The term “Boer” is only used to pick a fight with an Afrikaner.
The involvement of the German Government is yet another James Unkles furphy! :evil:
Heese was a British subject, the Germans did not even inquire into his well being.
No peace treaty was negotiated with the Boers in Feb 1902. Another James Unkles furphy! :evil:
The Brits could have done many other things to please the Boers, like stop murdering them in concentration camps, stop burning down farms, etc.
The Brits shooting an Englishman and an Australian for no reason would not have been high on the priority list of the Boers.
If those guys admitted killing Boers then the Boers probably felt justice was done, much like the honourable Australian soldiers did too.
James Unkles, since you expect so much from the prosecution I invite you to produce actual proof that would satisfy a Court and of course your own lofty expectations to prove that Taylor and Kitchener were “the real criminals”.:lol:
Pointing to St Clair’s outdated opinion is not good enough to convict Taylor and Kitchener. For the same reason it is not enough to set the other criminals free.
Hi all, I feel we are going around in circles and I am getting tired. I am content to wait on developments and will then will post a response, too much ‘playing’ the man and not remaining focused on the topic and its many mysteries.
Suggest some of you locate a copy of the 1898 Man of Mil Law. The reference above that questions its relevance is simply wrong. The MML embodies all military law and procedure (assented to by Parliament), laws for the employment of reserves and colonial volunteers, thr Army Act etc. Enjoy your writings and the topic and I hope to provide updates very soon.
It is extremely regrettable that you have chosen to avoid answering the questions posed above about your own recent and public comments.
It is also rather ironic that you have chosen to avoid answering questions given your aggressive public demands for answers from the British and others for the actions of previous governments more than a 100 years ago.
Thanks, but this debate is becoming repetative. I am not avoiding answering questions, but it is a lot of effort to go over the same ground. I have to be economical in focusing on achieving a review process that will answer questions of fact and evidence. A process independent of bias on all sides and of government agendas. I suppose what matters is answers from the British government and (respectfully) not from contributors to blogs and web sites.
