***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
=============================================================
Anybody else think, "So what, I could well have done the same?"
You've seen mates killed and maimed, the enemy would probably have done exactly the same or worse to you and whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict, you're the guy at the sharp end facing death on a daily basis. I bet it's something that happens regularly in every war zone and this guy was just unlucky that it was recorded.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10436149/Royal-Marine-faces-life-in-jail-for-captive-execution.html
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 18 Oct 16 at 10:39
|
I understand it.
I don't think I would have done it.
I don't see that there was any alternative to prosecution.
To be honest, to me it was the words that he was quoted as saying which seemed to make this more an intentional act rather than a pressured reaction.
|
>> To be honest, to me it was the words that he was quoted as saying
>> which seemed to make this more an intentional act rather than a pressured reaction.
>>
It was deliberate and legally you couldn't argue with a murder conviction. But it must be next to impossible to endure a conflict like that and not build up a seething hatred of your enemy. I can understand in this case something said that in other circumstances would appear a callous disregard for human life.
|
It is murder. Was it a one off or would he have done it again in another situation (there are some evil people about)?
It gives the enemy propaganda against us and may act as an aide to recruitment. It gives the enemy an excuse to do it to our lads. I know the current enemy are not regulars in the sense of regulars in the second world war but if it got out then that we were killing enemy troops then the same would have happened to ours.
When Franz Von Werra escaped the UK and got back to Germany in the second world war his reports on how POWs were treated in the UK, improvements were made to the conditions of UK POWs in Germany. The Germans killed some of our troops and revenge was meted out in the closing stages of the war.
|
What makes me think is the fact it was done with a camera and sound record present. I understand it came to light when a laptop belonging to one of the Marines was seized/examined in connection with an unrelated disciplinary inquiry
Now either they were very stupid indeed or the recording was preserved deliberately and probably shared within the unit.
If that was the case then questions are raised about how many other instances there are of same thing and extent to which more senior men and/or officers were complicit.
I also note that those found NG of murder are discharged back to their unit. I'm surprised they were not subject to an alternative charge of being an accessory or similar. Do they carry on or are they likely to be subject to further, non-criminal, sanction?
The JAG has adjourned for pre-sentence reports after which, presumably, his sentencing remarks will be published.
In the meantime there's a ruling on anonymity published yesterday:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2013/r-v-marines-abc-081113
|
|
Murder end of. Type of stuff that has gone on in every conflict and does not make to public domain. Everything seems to be recorded now for all and sundry to make judgements. He was caught. Very odd choice of words that "Shuffle off your mortal coil" hardly the machismo type of language that comes to mind when soldiers "do" stuff.
|
|
A one-off action by a stressed individual is understandable. It's the suspicion of a culture-thing that is disturbing.
|
|
The vile woman who contributed to the death of Baby P is out already, having served 4 years of a 5 year minimum sentence, and a bomb spent on giving her a new identity. I suggest a face transplant!
|
I am sure that the shooting of the Taliban insurgent was no different from many similar shootings, by all sides of every complexion, in every conflict that has taken place since time began.
Why, why, why did they record it?
Then keep the recording?
|
>> I am sure that the shooting of the Taliban insurgent was no different from many
>> similar shootings, by all sides of every complexion, in every conflict that has taken place
>> since time began.
>>
>> Why, why, why did they record it?
>>
>> Then keep the recording?
>>
Helmet cams are the norm now. Used for debriefings and to aid in lessons learnt they are issued before Op tour. Same reason people keep anything really, he thought no one would ever find it.
|
>> I am sure that the shooting of the Taliban insurgent was no different from many
>> similar shootings, by all sides of every complexion, in every conflict that has taken place
>> since time began.
>>
>> Why, why, why did they record it?
>>
>> Then keep the recording?
>>
Because like a lot of Squaddies they are thick. I do fully support the armed forces before anyone gets on my case.
Whilst out at 09.00 this morning in our local metropolis I came across 4 members of the Army in the High street together with a sand coloured armoured vehicle of some description. Clearly they were there to promote Remembrance day, but they stood in an inward facing huddle, slurping take-away coffee and having the 'crack' amongst themselves.
Discipline?
|
>>
>> Discipline?
>>
Clearly a naffi break.
|
>>
>> I also note that those found NG of murder are discharged back to their unit.
>> I'm surprised they were not subject to an alternative charge of being an accessory or
>> similar. Do they carry on or are they likely to be subject to further, non-criminal,
>> sanction?
All depends on the attitude of the CoC. They could be further military charges, I've seen it before not guilty in a criminal cases. Then put them on a military charge usually by the CO that way a higher set of punishments can be handed down. Reduction in rank isn't an option here, so high fines or MCTF is a likely punishment.
|
|
I am pretty sure that a court martial can order a reduction of rank as part of a sentence; they certainly could in the "Olden Days". Perhaps I have misunderstood your comment sooty?
Last edited by: Meldrew on Sat 9 Nov 13 at 13:24
|
>> I am pretty sure that a court martial can order a reduction of rank as
>> part of a sentence; they certainly could in the "Olden Days"
As they were not guilty the JAG would have no power to sentence. The guilty one will get the same mandatory life sentence as a civilian court would hand out for a street murder. The only question Jeff Blackett has left open is the minimum term.
|
Reduction in rank is still an option, however I understand* they were Marine xyz and the lowest rank anyway.
*Might be wrong I've not had time to look at it properly.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 9 Nov 13 at 13:35
|
I was in one of the services, many years ago, in a counter terrorist situation.
We had unofficial orders not to take a certain leader alive. He was a national of a different country to that in which we were engaged, which would have caused international ructions had he been captured and held to account for his actions by the UK
He was never caught, though!
Rough questioning of suspects was the norm, too.
The British are no angels in these matters.
Last edited by: Roger on Sat 9 Nov 13 at 16:15
|
In Malaya hunting CTs Roger? Cyprus and Aden are two other possibilities I can think of.
National service would have made a man of me but I didn't have to do it (although perfectly willing to... even took the intelligence test for the Navy, a simple multiple choice thing very like the 11-plus).
I knew a Muslim warrior once (not an Islamist though, a nationalist guerilla) who told me he had been on the point of shooting an enemy soldier on the ground in front of him when he suddenly saw the guy for what he was: a terrified 'urchin' of about 18 doing his national service. My warrior friend didn't press the trigger, and thanked God piously for having stayed his finger and saved him from being a murderer (of course he had killed in battle a number of times, and got some bad wounds too). He added that prisoners were generally regarded as a bit of a nuisance requiring food, transport and constant supervision, all in short supply in very remote country.
He's dead now. He was a type of person virtually unknown these days in our society, simple, honest, dead hard, very humane and incredibly funny.
|
|
I get the impression that the Ghurkas tended to deal with tricky cases of the angels dancing on a pin variety in relation to Geneva. Saved making a noise in the jungle, and ammunition.
|
I was in the Bootnecks and I can see no reason to free him.
He was a pillock and no credit to the Corps, who do not like stupid Marines.
(Why he was a pillock, tho')
|
|
He deserves to go down for being stupid.. for not realising that if it came out, he makes his mates jobs 100 times harder, and puts their lives in greater jeopardy.
|
Let's not forget that the SAS went into the Iranian Embassy with no intention of bringing any terrorists out alive, the only reason one survived was because they only realised he wasn't a hostage when he was in public view. And three IRA members were shot dead by members of the same regiment in Gibraltar while posing no immediate threat.
The difference being that in both the latter cases the killings were almost certainly pre-approved at some level of government, probably at or very near the top. No danger of any trials there.
|
|
But that wasn't a comparable senario, the Iranian Embassy was effectively combat "in the heat of the moment". This latest incident seems to have had some amount of pre-meditated intent, no matter how short. As Zero says, it has done immense damage to an otherwise elite outfit. How on earth it was filmed and subsequently kept on disk is beyond me. The whole thing is very unfortunate but the law's been correctly applied IMO.
|
As Zero says, it has done immense damage to an otherwise
>> elite outfit. How on earth it was filmed and subsequently kept on disk is beyond
>> me. The whole thing is very unfortunate but the law's been correctly applied IMO.
>>
Headcams are issued to learn lessons after and during a tour.
On the point of damage I'm not sure it has done that much. Although it depends on who you are talking about, in this country some people will be surprised and shocked. This isn't an excuse however it's unlikely to be the first in that theatre by UK personnel nor uncommon in war. Amongst the enemy in afghan, I'd say little. Certainly not out of the ordinary from my experience on Herrick in relation to what happens over there. By that I don't mean this is common merely that the price of life is low. The enemy would be more disgusted by the use of airpower, killing someone at point blank range is far more acceptable even in these circumstances.
|
I see no moral offence by the individual soldier from carrying out an authorised killing, however much I disapprove of the person who gave the order or of the act itself.
That is quite different from an autonomous and conscious decision to pop off a wounded bloke lying at your feet.
Equally there is only one reason that terrorists should not be killed - it is inefficient, ineffectual and potentially counter-productive. Other than that, providing it is appropriately sanctioned, who gives a stuff.
|
|
Never heard of the name Bootneck for a Marine.First time for everything.You come across as to friendly to be a Marine Roger.Never underestimate anybody.>:)
|
Bootnecks = Royal Marines.
Leathernecks= USMC - for whom all H.M. Jollies have the utmost respect!
|
|
The one thing which did suprise me in all of this was a marine quoting Shakespeare on a battlefield. Quite surreal really.
Last edited by: Biggles on Sun 10 Nov 13 at 17:50
|
|
He may have been stupid, bit he is not illiterate!
|
>> he is not illiterate!
I'm sure he isn't, but he may not even have been aware that he was quoting Shakespeare. That phrase like many others from Shakespeare has become a cliché, often used in journalism and slapdash writing.
I don't want to run squaddies down, far from it. But that one has set himself up to be made an example of. Every toerag his own paparazzo... not a good idea.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 10 Nov 13 at 23:03
|
Interesting article.
In particular I think this bit is pertinent..
"we sentence him by the same standards we would back home."
Convicting him or murder is one thing, and correct IMO. But the sentence and result of that conviction should address the environment he was existing in, if it was relevant; (which I should think it was).
Assuming, that is, you believe that sentencing should address rehabilitation.
|
>> Interesting article.
>>
>> In particular I think this bit is pertinent..
>>
>> "we sentence him by the same standards we would back home."
>>
>> Convicting him or murder is one thing, and correct IMO. But the sentence and result
>> of that conviction should address the environment he was existing in, if it was relevant;
>> (which I should think it was).
>>
>> Assuming, that is, you believe that sentencing should address rehabilitation.
As the conviction is murder the judge has no option but to sentence for life. He will however set a minimum term after which the prisoner can be considered for parole/licence. That term can reflect the environment in which the killing took place.
Case is presently adjourned for Judge Blackett* to consider that point and presumably he has called for reports to inform the process.
*Judge Blackett also does, as a sideline to his role as JAG, the disciplinary hearings or Rugby Union. For a while I worked in same building. It took a while to realise why there sometimes TV cameras outside.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 11 Nov 13 at 12:38
|
>> *Judge Blackett also does, as a sideline to his role as JAG, the disciplinary hearings
>> or Rugby Union. For a while I worked in same building. It took a while
>> to realise why there sometimes TV cameras outside.
>>
Plenty of rugby players have been up before Judge Jeff - some hearings, while on tour being much less formal than some others.
If you were sent off, you normally had to appear at The East India Club - quite a pleasant experience!
|
It's no great secret that in 1944/45 plenty (unquantifiable) of Germans surrendered on the Western Front and whilst being led behind the lines to be taken as a PoW were shot by their captor as it was quicker and easier. After all, whilst you're treating your prisoner nicely, you're not there to defend your mates.
Of course, as the Russians hadn't signed the Geneva Convention, Hitler felt he was correct in ignoring it when taking (or not) or looking after (or not) Russian prisoners. The Taliban (as I understand it) have not signed it either.
And this isn't to excuse it, or justify it. But it seems wrong to judge the killing of a dying man in the same way as the killing of a granny in order to take her purse. I'm just glad that I don't have to apply this law; it seems doubtful that there can be any joy in so doing.
|
It would be interesting to see how much views on this would change had the boot been on the other foot.
The enemy would have been hung drawn and quartered by now.
Pat
|
Sorry Pat. What do you mean?
Had the boot been on the other foot i.e. a Taliban 'soldier' dispatching a wounded British casualty then they would all be dancing in joy - end of, no retributions.
A well penned article I might add.
|
“History is written by the victors.”
― Winston Churchill
|
Exactly that Fullchat, I listened to a chat on the radio today about it and as on this forum, most want leniency for this soldier.
Had the same thing happened to him would we all be calling for leniency for the Taliban?
Would we have been excusing his actions and words?
Pat
|
|
The numpty got caught. Once caught he has to bear the consequences, in law, of his actions.
|
>> Exactly that Fullchat, I listened to a chat on the radio today about it and
>> as on this forum, most want leniency for this soldier.
>>
>> Had the same thing happened to him would we all be calling for leniency for
>> the Taliban?
>>
>> Would we have been excusing his actions and words?
>>
>> Pat
Now I'm even more confused. I assume the article FC is complimenting is the Huff Post one which is broadly accepting of what happened in the field, and therefore in favour of leniency. It's a clever piece.
No we wouldn't be calling for leniency for the Taliban, so we shouldn't call for it when our own do it, especially as all armed forces personnel are well aware of the Geneva conventions.
I don't like to pontificate about this because I haven't had to go through what those Marines have. I understand why it happens. But what is the point of subscribing to the conventions and then sweeping it under the carpet?
Principles aside, we presumably hope that if our forces do what is right with PoWs, then when the shoe is on the other foot they might be treated decently, even if we think that the Taliban specifically won't be influenced by that.
The Taliban might well of course be influenced for the worse by what has happened, and wavering adherents might be more inclined to support them.
The only 'benefits' I can see in the killing of PoWs is that the troops aren't tied up looking after them and the prisoners won't ever be rejoining the fight. But if that is the view we take, we need to change the orders.
Too easy for me to say. But I'm sure it's right.
|
The soldier convicted of murder has lost his request for continuing anonymity and has been named as Sergeant Alexander Blackman. He will be sentenced on Friday.
Interesting piece in today's Guardian by Joshua Rozenberg looking at the sentencing principles and the way the Court Martial works in applying them:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/05/marine-life-sentence-sergeant-blackman-murdering-taliban-prisoner
The MoD were told in confidence of the decision 48 hrs in advance so they could deal with any security issues following Blackman's naming. They in turn told his CO who told Blackman himself. CO came close to being in next cell for contempt.
|
>
>> The MoD were told in confidence of the decision 48 hrs in advance so they
>> could deal with any security issues following Blackman's naming. They in turn told his CO
>> who told Blackman himself. CO came close to being in next cell for contempt.
If he was the CO in charge of that company at the time HE should be in the dock as well.
|
I took CO in this context to be the Grand Formage not an operational type
|
>> I took CO in this context to be the Grand Formage not an operational type
>>
>
I assumed the one with most gold braid would have distanced himself from the whole thing and not been involved.
|
I've never been in a battle situation except as an observer at a fairly safe distance, but one can surely assume that it's pretty fraught. One often does things in the heat of the moment, especially when young, that one later regrets.
Squaddies in these situations commonly use gallows humour and simulated callousness to encourage their friends and show they can take it. Doesn't mean they aren't crying inside or that they won't be tortured by years of displaced guilt. Of course some people are more insensitive than others but real brutes are quite rare. I don't think the armed forces like them much (outside elite units).
|
|
It has happened throughout the history of warfare, recent campaigns are no exceptions. Problem is that this bloke got caught - banged to rights, he knew it was wrong as well. He can't except any mercy as he is accountable in law. Doesn't mean I don't sympathise with him though. Idiot should not have filmed it.
|
"Idiot should not have filmed it."
These days, it's a real life-skill knowing when and when not to film/record/use social media etc. The safest default is 'don't'.
|
>>The safest default is 'don't'.
How true.
I fondly remember the days when the worst that could happen was waking up in the morning fairly sure one had disgraced oneself in the pub in front of 10 or so people, most of whom were also drunk.
Having to wake up and deal with the fact that the entire internet now knows, and will always know and share, what a foolish thing you did is a frightening thought.
I am so glad I was an embarrassment to the human race [mostly] before digital cameras and the internet were invented - albeit that there are still a few shameful 'real' photographs in existence. Mostly held by my Mother and/or Sister, which is a disadvantage.
|
>> I am so glad I was an embarrassment to the human race [mostly] before digital
>> cameras and the internet were invented - albeit that there are still a few shameful
>> 'real' photographs in existence. Mostly held by my Mother and/or Sister, which is a disadvantage.
They can re-surface in an unexpected way though. An early colleague at my do last Friday had some of me c1980 assing about in the office after a good (liquid) lunch.
|
>> Idiot should not have filmed it.
Indeed, it takes a summa cum laude grade of stupidity to do so.
That or the abuse of such 'snuff movies' as barracks entertainment was so rife that it was assumed everyone was getting away with it.
|
Well I have every sympathy for the bloke. The enemy has signed no Geneva convention and is prepared to take any measure he can to kill, maim and cause havoc to the armed forces and innocent civilians wherever and by whatever means he can. The man he shot would have shown him no sympathy if the roles had been reversed. It’s like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.
Meanwhile, in another court, two savages are allowed to strut their stuff after having deliberately run down and hacked to death an off duty soldier in a Woolwich street. I bet that they weren’t even certain that he was a soldier.
I cannot see any justice in either case.
|
>> Well I have every sympathy for the bloke. The enemy has signed no Geneva convention
>> and is prepared to take any measure he can to kill, maim and cause havoc
>> to the armed forces and innocent civilians wherever and by whatever means he can. The
>> man he shot would have shown him no sympathy if the roles had been reversed.
>> It’s like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.
Sums up my thoughts as well.
|
Being embarrassed by your own idiocy doesn't matter. Nor does it matter a damn who the enemy is or how bad he seems to be.
In a way, none of it matters because it's just the way things are, the way they slip past.
The real point is that these things happen in war and in battle. If someone films it - there was a similar kerfuffle about American guards doing stuff to Iraqis in Abu Ghraib jail, and hundreds if not thousands more such incidents from the rich and highly admirable history of Western imperialism and colonialism - then there is a possibility that the law, the Geneva Convention, stuff like that, will get cited and then, with the inevitability of Greek tragedy, some poor squaddie or junior officer gets hung out to dry. Anyone can say they asked for it, but anyone wasn't usually there. Nor does anyone usually bother to analyse the sort of conflict being waged insouciantly from on high.
Nothing new about it. 'Revolution is not a dinner party.' (Lenin). Neither is war.
|
|
Looks like he got 10 years as a minimum. Looking at the letter his boss wrote about him, about the heads up Brompt spoke of, it's not surprising. Not sure why he couldn't know since it was about him and was being sent to prison anyway.
|
No pay for him: no MOD housing for his family: no pension for their old age,
Who is paying the most?
I bet this will screw up recruiting for the forces.
|
>>I bet this will screw up recruiting for the forces.
Not really an issue consider they are downsizing.
And if being jailed for being a moron puts other morons off.... good.
|
10 years seems excessively harsh to me. Accepting that technically he is guilty of murder, there were extraordinary mitigating circumstances, that make it a case like no other. He made a mistake, that's for sure but hung out to dry for serving his country. What is the point in a prison sentence of this length in reality?
A moron? No, he's not a moron, he made an error of judgement on the battlefield - a different thing entirely.
|
>> 10 years seems excessively harsh to me. Accepting that technically he is guilty of murder,
>> there were extraordinary mitigating circumstances, that make it a case like no other. He made
>> a mistake, that's for sure but hung out to dry for serving his country. What
>> is the point in a prison sentence of this length in reality?
>> A moron? No, he's not a moron, he made an error of judgement on the
>> battlefield - a different thing entirely.
>>
Agreed.
I don't think he's a moron either.
He's out there trying to take bad guys out....and took a bad guy out....only the circumstances were such that it broke all known rules.....rules the bad guys never comply with, of course.
His mitigating circumstances were great...but...the whole thing is so high profile an example was needed to be made.
Is he the same as some punk who stabs someone to death on one of our high street's for their wallet?..No.
|
|
It was more than an error of judgement - it was a calculated act. He was in a position that made him accountable. He broke the rules that took him and his team off the moral high-ground. Worst of all he got caught.
|
>> It was more than an error of judgement - it was a calculated act. He
>> was in a position that made him accountable. He broke the rules that took him
>> and his team off the moral high-ground. Worst of all he got caught.
That looks right to me.
I don't 'buy' the argument that justifies this crime on basis that the enemy would do same to us. We're fighting for 'civilization'.
|
>> I don't 'buy' the argument that justifies this crime on basis that the enemy would
>> do same to us. We're fighting for 'civilization'.
>>
Oh, really?
|
>> It was more than an error of judgement - it was a calculated act. He
>> was in a position that made him accountable. He broke the rules that took him
>> and his team off the moral high-ground. Worst of all he got caught.
>>
Oh I agree, very much so. He should have stuck to the rules and by not doing so has given a moral victory to an enemy that has proven to be utterly barbaric. We should be above that.
However, he isn't the same as some low life piece of crap who goes around mugging /killing /raping etc...
His mitigating circumstances should have had some/ a better leeway applied to his sentence.
Some truly awful people get far less than 10 years imprisonment.
|
|
The Judge's summing up er..summed it up perfectly.
|
The Judge's summing up er..summed it up perfectly.....
Where could I read this RP? Can you post a link if poss. I'm sure you are right.
|
It's linked from www.judiciary.gov.uk/ which is the best starting point for judgements and sentencing remarks in well publicised cases.
The British and Irish Legal Information Institute www.bailii.org/ is a pretty comprehensive reporting system It requires a knowledge of structure of our courts etc though that may be beyond that of the man in the street.
|
I bet the Taliban are laughing their socks off at the West.
They will see all this as a weakness to be exploited not only in Afghanistan, but in the wider world.
Last edited by: Roger on Sat 7 Dec 13 at 10:28
|
>>They will see all this as a weakness to be exploited not only in Afghanistan, but in the wider world.
Yeah... get yourself mortally wounded so a jolly green marine puts you out of your misery and gets sent down for a 10 stretch.... riiiiiiiggghhhhtt.
Anyhoo, to those of you who think he wasn't a moron, look at his defence - he stood up and lied in court, under oath, that he shot a dead body.
If he'd 'fessed up from the start, especially as the defence team had all the video evidence, he'd have been serving 6-7yrs now.
The crime was murder, not manslaughter 10 years suggests some pretty heavy mitigation from the judge already.
*see also 'Danny Nightingale and stupid defences in military courts martial'
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 7 Dec 13 at 10:37
|
>> Anyhoo, to those of you who think he wasn't a moron, look at his defence
>> - he stood up and lied in court, under oath, that he shot a dead
>> body.
>>
>> If he'd 'fessed up from the start, especially as the defence team had all the
>> video evidence, he'd have been serving 6-7yrs now.
>>
>> The crime was murder, not manslaughter 10 years suggests some pretty heavy mitigation from the
>> judge already.
>>
>>
>> *see also 'Danny Nightingale and stupid defences in military courts martial'
>>
Hmm. Good point, you've won me over in that context.
My angle is though, that he's fought for his country in very difficult circumstances, he's otherwise done a good job, he's not an oik and he's killed someone who was actively trying to kill him and people like him/us, an enemy of our country.
I agree he did wrong and it was a bad wrong.
|
>> he's not an oik and he's killed someone who was actively trying to kill him and people like him/us, an enemy of our country.
The Taliban have never posed a threat to 'our country', they take up the fight to expel foreign invaders to their country - just like you would, hopefully.
|
>>
>> The Taliban have never posed a threat to 'our country', they take up the fight
>> to expel foreign invaders to their country - just like you would, hopefully.
>>
>>
I doubt the chap he finished off was in the taliban. More likely one of the many insurgent groups. The reasons they fight are many and varied.
|
>> The Taliban have never posed a threat to 'our country', they take up the fight
>> to expel foreign invaders to their country - just like you would, hopefully.
>>
They have. They harboured Al-Qaeda for a start, who killed 67 Brits in 9/11 for starters.
Radical Islam is a threat to our country ...and what is the Taliban if it isn't that?
|
>>They have. They harboured Al-Qaeda for a start, who killed 67 Brits in 9/11 for starters.
What, all the Pashtun tribesman, who make up the vast majority of the Taliban, were responsible for that were they, and does that include all the women and children in Afghanistan that we've killed in the past 12 years.
>>Radical Islam is a threat to our country ...and what is the Taliban if it isn't that?
History tells me that the way we have treated the Middle East over the decades, led to the problems we have today with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda etc. As long as we go on killing them, they will do their utmost to repay the favour.
|
>>
>> *see also 'Danny Nightingale and stupid defences in military courts martial'
>>
In fairness his defence couldn't have been all that stupid, he didn't end up in prison.
|
|
@ Roger - So you passively or actively support war-crimes ?
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 7 Dec 13 at 10:38
|
>> So you passively or actively support war-crimes ?
The only way to avoid that is to be a full-blown pacifist. If you accept that any war or armed conflict can be justified, you passively or actively 'support' the high probability - the virtual certainty - of war crimes.
On the thread subject, I note that the wife of the convicted murderer will be entitled to army pension payments when he passes retirement age, but is to be evicted from military housing and will have to work/get rehoused/claim benefits to look after their children in the meantime, since he has been dismissed from the army and isn't being paid.
The argument around the stress and trauma suffered by the sergeant in Helmand looks set to continue, and could lead to a reduced sentence/early release. I wouldn't see anything wrong with that.
|
>> His mitigating circumstances should have had some/ a better leeway applied to his sentence.
>>
The starting point for murder with a firearm is 30yrs. The panel agreed that exceptional circumstances applied and went below both that and the minimum for those who murder with a knife carried for the purpose.
On that basis 10yrs looks like considerable leeway already applied.
Blackman has apparently appealed so let's see what the appellate court makes of it.
|
>> The starting point for murder with a firearm is 30yrs. The panel agreed that exceptional
>> circumstances applied and went below both that and the minimum for those who murder with
>> a knife carried for the purpose.
>>
>> On that basis 10yrs looks like considerable leeway already applied.
>>
>> Blackman has apparently appealed so let's see what the appellate court makes of it.
>>
There should be a separate offence..along the lines of 'unauthorised military death'.
|
>>There should be a separate offence..along the lines of 'unauthorised military death'
Tony Blair can be tried first.
|
Worst of all - he got caught.
|
Give a man a gun, teach him to kill and reward him with medals when he does but don't be surprised if he doesn't observe the Queensberry rules. If you send men to war you can't complain when they wage war.
I wonder how modern society would view the crew of a Lancaster bomber, dropping their load on a Berlin that was already invisible under the flames and knowing full well 99% of the people below were civilians, most who were probably women and children.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 10 Dec 13 at 17:46
|
>> I wonder how modern society would view the crew of a Lancaster bomber, dropping their
>> load on a Berlin that was already invisible under the flames and knowing full well
>> 99% of the people below were civilians, most who were probably women and children.
>>
Probably just the same as they view the crew of a German bomber that dropped bombs on a defenceless British civilian population, or fired rockets at them in the later stages of the war.
He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind - or something.
They started it. Zero sympathy.
|
>>
>> Probably just the same as they view the crew of a German bomber that dropped
>> bombs on a defenceless British civilian population, or fired rockets at them in the later
>> stages of the war.
>>
>> He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind - or something.
>>
>> They started it. Zero sympathy.
>>
And that's exactly how I'd view it. Because all the population of the day were under threat from German bombing and didn't give a stuff how many Germans were killed or maimed as long as we hit back and won.
But now we live safe and far away from the conflict in Afghan. It's easy to be sanctimoniously judgemental about some poor guy who's seen his mates lose limbs and get killed by an enemy who has no regard for any rules of conflict.
|
>>It's easy to be sanctimoniously judgemental about some poor guy who's seen his mates lose limbs and get killed by an enemy who has no regard for any rules of conflict.
And that should have been the basis of his defence/mitigation rather than telling a bunch of lies that were obviously not supported by the available evidence.
He was banged-to-rights, pardon the pun.
|
>>I wonder how modern society would view the crew of a Lancaster bomber, dropping their load on a Berlin that was already invisible under the flames and knowing full well 99% of the people below were civilians
That's why there are rules in war - your example was within the rules of the time.
The fool going to jail knowingly broke the rules, got caught, and had a crap defence.
|
>> The fool going to jail knowingly broke the rules, got caught, and had a crap
>> defence.
>>
All of what you've said is true..but..the bottom line for me is, would I want this fellow walking about on our streets...and the answer to that is 'yes' I have no problem with that.
We sent him off to war having trained him, he otherwise did well, he killed someone that I think is a bad guy and who wouldn't have offered any of our citizens any leeway.
I understand the breaking of the rules bit..and agree he shouldn't have..but 10 years locked away is a long time, especially when you think of some of the pieces of crap walking our streets and whenever they get to a court, seem to live a charmed life.
|
>> >> The fool going to jail knowingly broke the rules, got caught, and had a
>> crap
>> >> defence.
>> >>
>>
>> All of what you've said is true..but..the bottom line for me is, would I want
>> this fellow walking about on our streets...and the answer to that is 'yes' I have
>> no problem with that.
And the answer for me is NO.
Yes we trained home for war, and armed him and he has showed he has no responsibility in the correct use of the skills. Is there a chance he would beat some bloke to death in civvy street? Possibly.
|
Whether or not he will be a useful member of society after he is released I have no idea, and I suspect he likely will be. I don't know they guy, or the circumstances that lead to him thinking it was ok to kill an injured prisoner.
Imagine, if you were back at work, if you beat the *hit out of a prisoner in the cells, as retribution say after he had spat on you, and perhaps hospitalised them with some broken bones, while your mates watched and it was caught on CCTV....
You would lose you job and go to jail for a year or three.
It doesn't mean you'd be at a high risk of harming Joe Public, but it does show an ability to act outside the accepted norms of society.
Right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder, but in the eyes of the Law you know where you stand - I've no doubt that KKK members lynching blacks in early 20th century America thought they were doing 'the right thing'.
|
>> Right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder, but in the eyes of
>> the Law you know where you stand -
What you say is true of course...it's just that I admire what they do over there in Afghanistan, in exceptionally difficult circumstances...and I weigh that up against some of the pieces of crap that daily infest our society here...and the absolutely pitiful sentencing they get, if they get caught at all.
Somewhere along the line, the balance is wrong for me.
|
>> Somewhere along the line, the balance is wrong for me.
Of course it is, but you can't swing it all the other way have one law for the good guys and another for the bad guys.
|
>>
>> >> Somewhere along the line, the balance is wrong for me.
>>
>> Of course it is, but you can't swing it all the other way have one
>> law for the good guys and another for the bad guys.
You're right of course...maybe the law needs tweaking then.
|
The judge's summing up points out the propaganda victory this incident has handed to the insurgents. Not only in the fact of the murder but in the justification they will see in meting out worse atrocities on UK troops.
On that basis he's done his colleagues a massive disservice and shredded his good professional record.
Ten years looks about right to me, indeed it makes full use of mitigation.
If other guys committing street offences in UK are getting off lightly them that's a different issue.
|
"Guilty" was clearly correct. And the guy is obviously a bit of a plank given his chosen defence, but 10 years in jail?
What's that going to achieve?
I wouldn't have let him walk, but I'd have found something better than 10 yrs jail. 10yrs training youth teams, 10 years work with a charity, I dunno....
But something which was oriented around him giving back to a society he had wronged in the eyes of the law, not pointlessly locked in a cell somewhere.
Have I ever mentioned I don't like the prison system?
|
|
I'd have thought you would have evaporated him ;-)
|
|
Two types; redeemable or not. He seems like he might just fall on the side of the non-vaporised.
|
|
Well at least that's not too simplistic a viewpoint.
|
|
Computers seem to do well with binary, so I thought I'd give it a go.
|
>> If other guys committing street offences in UK are getting off lightly them that's a
>> different issue.
>
Well not really.
Joe Public will accept sentences more readily if there's a degree of uniformity and a proper sliding scale...so the really awful get the longer porridge (within the sentencing parameters of the offence charged with).
The current system has unpleasant repeat offenders get very light sentences or none at all (in reality)....which brings the system into disrepute.
...and as Joe Public pays the bills, they should ultimately get what they desire..which is considerably more fairness in the system and harsh sentences for those that deserve them.
|
>> The judge's summing up points out the propaganda victory this incident has handed to the
>> insurgents. Not only in the fact of the murder but in the justification they will
>> see in meting out worse atrocities on UK troops.
>>
I think he's a bit naive frankly. As external propaganda it may have some value, but as a justification to increase any attacks on UK forces I'd say it was minimal.
It may be the last one we see in the court room, however I doubt it'll be the last one nor the first in Afghan.
|
>> I think he's a bit naive frankly. As external propaganda it may have some value,
>> but as a justification to increase any attacks on UK forces I'd say it was
>> minimal.
>>
>>
The insurgents don't need any excuses to do what they do, they'll do it whether British troops behave like the SS or like choirboys. People with the sort of mindset that allows them to justify shooting a 14 year old girl for going to school are not the type to worry about rules.
|
|
They are very much worried about rules. Like ones which says girls can't go to school. They're so worried about them they are prepared to shoot girls who try to. Just because they're not worried about OUR rules, doesn't mean they're not worried about rules. I'd say they're more worried about (Allah's made-up) rules than we are as "Western" society.
|
>> They are very much worried about rules. Like ones which says girls can't go to
>> school. They're so worried about them they are prepared to shoot girls who try to.
>> Just because they're not worried about OUR rules, doesn't mean they're not worried about rules.
>> I'd say they're more worried about (Allah's made-up) rules than we are as "Western" society.
Ostensibly we are there on the precept that our rules are civilised and theirs are not. However this pillock who gratuitously shot a wounded prisoner has just proven they aint. Or would have done if he hadn't had a severe slap. So thats what he got.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 12 Dec 13 at 18:30
|
>> Just because they're not worried about OUR rules, doesn't mean they're not worried about rules.
They make their own rules up.
By that, I mean they twist the religion to fit their own beliefs, rather than have it the other way around.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 12 Dec 13 at 18:54
|
We have laws, a lot more serious than rules. Rules are for schoolchildren.
Muslims have laws too, quite strict ones. But Islamists don't really have rules or laws, just attitudes, and crap ones at that. They claim outrages are justifiable because the West is making war on their brothers, a narrow, arrogant, jumped-up view, and quite wrong of course. We don't kill people because they kill our 'brothers' but because they kill human beings. And for 'political reasons' of course, a bit dodgy that. One can't help thinking, 'If your brothers are anything like you they deserve everything they get.'
Sad thing is their brothers aren't all like them at all, but they still get killed in these wars.
Peripheral but threatening aspects of the human tragi-comedy. Makes you want to puke sometimes.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 12 Dec 13 at 19:25
|
Alexander Blackman's appeal against conviction has been refused but minimum term under life sentence is reduced from 10 years to 8.
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/r-v-sergeant-alexander-wayne-blackman.pdf
|
Hardly a "heat of the moment" thing, then? I can see no reason for any sympathy.
"[The insurgent] had been seriously wounded having been engaged lawfully by an Apache helicopter and when [the appellant] found him he was no longer a threat. Having removed his AK47, magazines and a grenade [the appellant] caused him to be moved to a place where [the appellant] wanted to be out of sight of [the] operational headquarters at Shahzad so that, to quote what [the appellant] said, “PGSS can’t see what we are doing to him”.
He was handled in a robust manner by those under [the appellant’s]command clearly causing him additional pain and [the appellant] did nothing to stop them from treating him in that way. When out of view of the PGSS [the appellant] failed to ensure he was given appropriate medical treatment quickly and then ordered those giving him some first aid to stop.
When [the appellant was] sure the Apache helicopter was out of sight, [the appellant] calmly discharged a 9 millimetre round into his chest from close range. [The appellant’s] suggestion that [he] thought the insurgent was dead when [he] discharged the firearms lacks any credibility and was clearly made up after [he] had been charged with murder in an effort to concoct a defence. It was rejected by the Board.
Although the insurgent may have died from his wounds sustained in the engagement by the Apache [the appellant] gave him no chance of survival. [The appellant] intended to kill him and that shot certainly hastened his death.
[The appellant] then told [his] patrol they were not to say anything about what had just happened and [the appellant] acknowledged what [he] had done by saying [he] had just broken the Geneva Convention. The tone of calmness of [his] voice as [he] commented after [he] had shot him were matter of fact and in that respect they were chilling."
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 22 May 14 at 13:40
|
>> Hardly a "heat of the moment" thing, then? I can see no reason for any sympathy.
ditto.
|
I've never had any great sympathy for the guy especially with his "he was already dead so it can't be murder" defence, but that's not to suggest he hadn't been damaged by his experiences in various tours of duty that would lend a major hand to mitigating the crime.
Mental illness/distress doesn't usually manifest itself as 'spur of the moment' poor choices, but by changing behaviour and actions on a wider basis.
The issue in this trial was a very weak defence against a murder charge - he should have been going for manslaughter/diminished responsibilities and owning up to the actions.
Maybe, however, he was acting fairly rationally and not far from his usual character and thus was unlikely to pull that off either. Not impossible that he had previous, although that is wildly speculative on my part.
|
Sympathy For The Devil - No FM2R
