Should CDS be Dismissed?

[Blacksheep]

... well should he?

He has made a statement that a serving soldier, convicted by a court martial but not yet sentenced, should receive the harshest possible sentence.

Is that not interfering in the judicial process and therfore a contempt of court?

[Trim Stab]

Is that not interfering in the judicial process and therfore a contempt of court?

No, not at all. The verdict has been given - CDS is just expressing his view on what the sentence should be.

[Wander00]

On the basis of the facts as presented, I regret I cannot disagree with CDS on this one.

[Hangarshuffle]

Yes I have found it surprising the number of alleged high level commentators who have spoke up and asked for this, that and the other. Reduces it to the level of the Middle Ages Market Place. Publically he should remain silent. Lets face it he does about everything else.

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

CDS did not say that 'Marine A' should get the harshest sentence possible

What he did say is that he should not get special clemency simply because he is a serving soldier - and with that I whole heartedly agree.

The Court has a duty to consider mitigating circumstances which could call for clemency. These could certainly include specific local/recent events - for example whether the NCO had just seen one of his own men killed in the same engagement. In no way a justification for his actions, but perhaps some explanation for his lack of professionalism in that moment

But clemency purely because he's a soldier? No.

CDS's intervention was merely to re-assert the authority and independence of the Court. Unlike those 'campaigning' for a particlular sentence, he was in no way seeking to guide or direct the Court, as I read it.

[Wander00]

I cannot see how anyone could disagree with that view.

[dervish]

Is that not interfering in the judicial process and therfore a contempt of court?

Yes. He is bringing his influence to bear. The sentencing can no longer be seen to be dealt with impartially or fairly. Sacking? Other VSOs have done far worse and been praised. At least Marine A is guilty.

[Basil]

should receive the harshest possible sentence.
Blacksheep, where is that reported? I've seen the CDS interviewed by Andrew Marr on the BBC and he appeared to say that members of the armed forces were not above the law and that leniency was the prerogative of the JAG.
He could hardly say otherwise.

Make no mistake; I am of the opinion that they are more guilty of stupidity than murder.

[Wander00]

Basil - IMHO guilty of both, in spades

[Wrathmonk]

After Maj Gen (Ret'd) Thompson put in his two penneth I don't think CDS had any choice but to make a statement.

Anybody remember how many senior officers (retired or otherwise) made statements calling for special treatment in the case of Pte Lee Clegg?

[CoffmanStarter]

Here is the BBC Marr interview. CDS called it right IMHO.

CDS BBC Marr Show Interview (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24888089)

[Pontius Navigator]

From what I see I thought there was a public ground swell that clemency should be shown. CDS was reasserting the primacy of the judiciary over media justice.

[Surrey Towers]

I saw the CDS too, in no mood to discuss anything with an open mind as I saw him. On the one hand he said in the Telegraph today that Maj. General Julian Thompson should not have offered an opinion on clemency, yet on the other hand the CDS did just that. General Thompson said that it would be right that clemency should be considered.

I am not in a position to decide the law one way or the other but I do feel that the CDS went too far in saying that it was a clear case of murder, and murder is murder - the verdict. He dismissed clemency and said that it should not be considered. That is enough for me when you take into account that sentence has not yet been determined and the advocates will have to discuss it with the words of the CDS in their minds. It shows a large content of suggestion and of how the sentence should be maximum. I do not agree with that. But they will also have to remember that the CDS has not one iota of influence on the court martial, but it would appear that he thinks otherwise.

The Geneva Convention (GC) has been mentioned several times. Fair enough. But what do the Taliban think of the GC? Nothing. They murder on a daily basis and if they don't like something said about them they will murder anyone. Remember the little girl getting a bullet in the head?

The war in Afghanistan is not a fair war and 446 of our guys have been killed and maimed. I know how that would make me feel. Our guys have been

A couple of little perspectives remind me that we have 'committed' acts of 'murder' when a sniper can kill a person who is over a mile away, or a drone can missile the leader of the Taliban only to find that they now have another.

Soldiers wear uniforms, except the Taliban, and we have no chance of knowing who is who, yet we have to abide by the GC while our guys get killed and their heads and limbs are put on display. What does the GC say about that and when was the last time it was used against insurgents?

Its a rotten mess and Marine 'A' happened to get caught up in it. It seems to me that he acted more or less how many of us would have. Also, I would take a bet that it is not the first time

I have signed a petetion for clemency - the link is here from the Telegraph. It is entirely up to you how or if you want to sign it.

"Court martial board: Show clemency towards Marine 'A' on Change.org.

http://www.change.org/petitions/court-martial-board-show-clemency-towards-marine-a?share_id=GXdyBcRFMp&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

[Just This Once...]

It seems to me that he acted more or less how many of us would have.

Utter drivel.

[Archimedes]

The transcript of the interview is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/1011201302.pdf

In terms of the suggestion that he's calling for the maximum sentence:


MARR: So you’re not ruling out personally the idea of clemency by judicial process, in the proper process?

GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON:
No, what I’m saying is that those who are in authority over the armed forces ...

ANDREW MARR:
(over) You can’t call for it?

GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON:
... should not request any form of leniency. In fact I think it’s dangerous to do so. We should be immaculate in these respects. Murder is murder. This is a heinous crime. Thankfully it is an exceptional act in terms of the broad conduct of armed forces.


1. He did not call for the soldier to receive the harshest possible sentence, although he did express revulsion at the crime.

2. He noted that there was due legal process and it should be followed without interference.

3. He did not say that clemency should not be considered by the CM: 'you are not ruling out...the idea of clemency by judicial process?' gets the answer 'No'. Nowhere can it be said that he is calling for 'the maximum sentence' (it has to be life, because that is the sentence for murder - the issue is the tariff for time served, for which there is no maximum now that whole life tariffs have been effectively squashed by the European Court - which, before we get the usual input from the usual sources, is not part of the EU - so how could CDS be calling for 'the maximum'?

As for petitions, are we seriously in the position of saying that the public should, via Facebook, be able to influence decisions of a court? Whether one feels sympathy or not for Marine A, the idea that popular opinion should influence sentencing is - sorry - utterly bonkers.

It's also somewhat er... ironic that a poster putting a link to a petition - thus seeking to interfere with due process - condemns CDS for interfering in due process with his comments...

[TomJoad]

http://www.change.org/petitions/court-martial-board-show-clemency-towards-marine-a?share_id=GXdyBcRFMp&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition[/URL]

What the Taliban or any other foe thinks about the Geneva Convention is completely irrelevant. It is a standard against which we hold ourselves and rightly so. In conducting war we walk a very narrow path where, without extreme caution, we risk allowing ourselves the expediency of the most horrible of atrocities. We hold ourselves to the Geneva Convention and its like because it embodies the very reason we engage in war. It is not by accident the words 'in accordance with the rules and discipline of war' appear writ large on our commissioning scrolls. The convention is there to keep us true, so that we can live with ourselves and our former enemies when the fighting is over.

[Yozzer]

I have heard it said that the Geneva Convention and Rules of Engagement go out of the window as the first bullet passes you by.....

That and the subsequent adrenalin rush fall under the caveat of human nature. Some would say human failing. They haven't had a bullet rush on by...

If soldiers have to hesitate before pulling the trigger, there will be a need for some more C17s very soon, for all the wrong reasons.

[1.3VStall]

To answer the question that this thread poses: yes!

[Squirrel 41]

The Geneva Convention (GC) has been mentioned several times. Fair enough. But what do the Taliban think of the GC? Nothing.

The Geneva Convention does have a great deal to say for both sides - it's in the 1977 2nd Additional Protocol, which covers civil wars and insurgencies. The contention that the other side isn't playing by the rules doesn't mean that we shouldn't: after all, the fundamental point that we're making is that we live in a modern liberal law abiding culture - and that the Taliban have a different conception of what society looks like. I presume to assert that our conception is better than theirs - and I am proud to say (on 11/11, especially poignantly) that I have played a (very) small part in defending those values and freedoms.

We abide by the laws of war because it is who we are and what we do - there is only one circumstance under which we would use Reprisals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprisal) (ie, knowingly breaking the law of armed conflict), which is the extreme case of attempting to coerce the opposition to stop behaving illegally. I'm struggling to think of an example of when this has happened with British forces, and today would almost certainly require a Ministerial and probably a Cabinet decision: it's not a decision for blokes in the field. In any event the GCs (quite rightly) prohibit reprisals against PoWs or casualties, so it could not have applied in this case anyway.

They murder on a daily basis and if they don't like something said about them they will murder anyone. Remember the little girl getting a bullet in the head?

If you're talking about the (very brave) Malala Yousafzai, that was the Pakistani Taleban who aren't the same group. (Which is not to legitimate their actions in any way, obviously.)

S41

[cornish-stormrider]

whether or not marine A has seen hundreds of mates killed, done 10 tours or not, engaged in many battles and taken hundreds of lives.

it does not excuse this in the slightest - thankfully the courts can be above trial by television or emotion (hopefully)

Due process is due process, the law (such that we have) is above all.
No Exceptions or exemptions.

I am sure marine A and his fellow patrol members are deeply regretting their utter stupidity - it would be one thing to possibly euthanise an opponent in such pain and distress with no way of helping them but "there you go - shuffle of......." etc is nothing more than murder.

whether or not our enemy subscribes to the genevea convention is irrelevant.
if we do not follow it we are no better than terrorists and infidels.

By all means fight aggresively - but fight within the RoE, such as they are.

if you can no longer do so you need to man up and report this to your chain of command.

The RoE might be decided by a bunch of war dodging remfs but, and it's a big but.

No-one forced you to go sign up, join up, go thru all the training and then go to war without explaining in detail on numerous times the consequences of your actions.

some instances and "fog of war" can be put down to confusion on the battlefield - i.e. i thought i saw a weapon pointing at me etc.....

but not this. CDS was right to NOT request clemency publicly - what he does in private is up to him

How many more insurgents, martyrs and home grown terrorists will this outrage generate?

just my opinion - and you what is said about them....

[Chugalug2]

It was Jackson that was out of order rather than the CDS. As has been said before, he was trying (against typical BBC interrogation techniques of the "So what you are really saying is that...") to restate the importance of abiding by Military Law and of due punishment for breaking it.

You could hardly imagine a more glaring example of breaking it than from the evidence published in this case. Was I alone in wondering how the mundane soundtrack would have sounded if it was in German, and how creepily familiar?

[Willard Whyte]

We have already lost if we play by the rules of cricket.

[Squirrel 41]

We have already lost if we play by the rules of cricket.

No, we've lost at the point at which we throw the rulebook and our moral authority away.

S41

[Bill Macgillivray]

I would suggest that most of us posting here are no different to CDS (not in rank!) but in the very fact that we are giving opinions (?) that could be construed as possibly affecting the sentence on Marine A. Whatever we think, let us wait for the result of the CM and then, if we have to, start to complain about justice !!

[Courtney Mil]

When refering to servicemen not being above the law, it might have looked better if Sir Nicholas had said "we" rather than "they". Also, it's "heinous" not "henious". Still, he's only CDS.

[Force For Good]

Originally Posted by Surrey Towers
The war in Afghanistan is not a fair war

Let me play devil's advocate. What is a fair war?

One in which an equal number of equally equipped soldiers charge at each other? With swords and shields? From a line of trenches to another?

The Taliban show no regard for the GC, but nor do they have an AC-130 gunship or a LGB to eliminate their targets. They have no way of 'winning' a 'fair' war of honor.

[Yozzer]

An armada of air power including AC130 did not prevent the Viet Nam war being lost. Protocol and politics did!

[Blue Bottle]

Whilst it's easy to sit back and judge, maybe we should walk in his shoes a while..Well worth a read

The Royal Marine Murderer | Kevin Godlington (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kevin-godlington/royal-marine-murderer_b_4246911.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false)

[Blacksheep]

I'm rather pleased that my deliberately provocative topic has resulted in such a civilised discussion. However, I intervene to point out that if he had been prosecuted in a civilian court he would have faced a manslaughter charge and his defence lawyers would have made a case for him committing the offence while the balance of his mind was disturbed. Which is not exactly an appeal for clemency, it is a plea of mitigation.

[Wander00]

Blacksheep - and the logic for that is.....? ISTR that the old MML calendar of offences included manslaughter, so if you are correct why was he not CMd for Manslaughter

[P6 Driver]

One report I heard stated that having been found guilty, a mandatory life sentence would have to be given - anyone know if this is correct and if so, how many (or how few) years are likely to be served?

[moggiee]

I know that this thread is about the CDS rather than Marine A, but I find it hard to condemn Marine A for his actions. Many of us are armchair warriors and we are all to ready to pass judgement on Marine A's actions without ever having been involved in the sort of bloody, screaming, adrenaline-fueled, dirty war that he was part of. The opposition are operating outside the Geneva convention, employing terrorist tactics and showing no regard for the lives of civilians or for the "rule of war" - including their treatment of prisoners. Marine A's rules of engagement mean that HE has to fight with one hand tied behind his back

If Marine A had been taken by the Taliban he would probably have suffered an unpleasant, slow death through the typical beheading (which isn't beheading as Anne Boleyn would know it but is usually a gruesome, slow sawing off of the head with a knife). When faced with a wounded Taliban fighter who had recently being trying to kill him and his colleagues, Marine A made an understandable choice. I suspect that I might have made a similar choice in those circumstances

His biggest mistake in my opinion was not switching off the helmet cam.

I will be interested to see what sentence is passed - murder means that he has no choice but to pass a life sentence. However, he must also consider all the mitigating circumstances.

[moggiee]

PS: I've just read Kevin Godlington's article - we seem to share our opinions, by and large.

[Stendec5]

Why the hell did they FILM it all??? Bad move.

[NutLoose]

Hypothetically speaking now

Say you have a squad of SAS operating behind the lines during a war, say Scud hunting and they are spotted by a patrol, during the brief engagement one surrenders and the rest are killed, what do they do with him, the obviously cannot take him along and leaving him behind means they will be compromised..

Similar when the Paras in the Falklands overrun the Argentine positions and were so far ahead of the rest of the Army, what do they do? It's ok saying take no prisoners before any action, but if you have troops trying to surrender which I believe they did, what do they do with them? They wouldn't have the strength to take them with them and watch them, equally leaving them in the trenches behind them with the amount of ordnance lying about means you now have a potential threat to your rear..

This incidentally makes interesting reading

The Royal Marine Murderer | Kevin Godlington (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kevin-godlington/royal-marine-murderer_b_4261888.html?1384283401)

[Whenurhappy]

I think that there are several themes conflating here - whether CDS should have spoke, whether there should be clemency for Marine A and whether the 'normal' IHL/LOAC should apply in this case.

I think it is to recall the undisputed facts in the case. The patrol was not in contact when they found the alleged insurgent, who appears to have been injured as a result of fire from an Attack Helicopter. The nature of his injuries (which were probably mortal) meant that the victim clearly posed no further risk; they denied him first aid and then dragged him under cover so what followed could not be readily picked up by the myriad of ISR platforms in the area, apart, of course, from Helmet Cam. He was then unlawfuly killed - murdered - when his status was that of a protected person.

- What the Taliban would do in a reciprocal situation is irrelevant. By not playing by the rules, this Marine has delivered a propaganda coupe to the Taliban.

- The crime here was not that it was 'unfortunately' caught on camera; the crime here was murder, unequivocal murder. Wrong under any circumstances.

- There has been a lot of speculation that this prosecution was politically motivated. Unlikely, but if so, why?

- Should there be clemency? An experienced SNCO, albeit under a degree of stress, calmly deciding to murder a person who should have been protected. The Sgt knew what he was doing was wrong and knew the penalty of being discovered, thus implying he had hoped to get away with it. A great example n'est pas?

- The recordings show that this was not a 'spur of the moment' decision by Sgt A; the eventual murder of an injured man was discussed or c 6 minutes.

- If clemency was granted or the case not taken to CM for 'political reasons' (most, most unlikely) - what message would this give both within the forces and without? That murder is OK...outwith LOAC, UK domestic law (which Sgt A is also subject to) and Good Order and Discipline?

- In spite of well publicised US cases of gung-ho activity by AH crews, those familiar with the use of lethal force in Afghanistan know that it is a matter of last resort, apart from the usual Art 51 inherent right of self defence. Just because others have done it - and comments columns in the papers are full of historical cases - doesn't lessen the severity. Murder does not cease to be murder because of customary practise.

- The question that the Services (and the Royal Marines in particular) have to ask, is how can an otherwise professional, experienced leader (and a RM Sgt is ordinarily primus inter pares) cast aside his training and morals and murder a man in cold blood?

Oh dear, cue the 'you weren't there, you don't understand' crap. I have in my career made ready once with a pistol (and heavily out-gunned) during an otherwise forgotten event in teh Balkans. If there had been a fire-fight rather than a particularly embarrasing stand-off, would I have gone around and 'offed' the injured survivors, having first taken steps to conceal my intentions? No, and I hope there are no current and former SP here that would advocate murder of 'protected' persons who no longer posed a threat.

[Surrey Towers]

I did not intend to make a stance for or against the CDS or for or against Marine 'A' but I can see that some questions for my post were deserved.

However, I am going to express an opinion once again regarding the Geneva Convention (GC) and its worth and the worth of the court martial in going headlong into a murder trial rather than one of manslaughter as under our laws. mogiee in a well thought out post probably has it better in perspective than I have.

The fact is that the CDS does not, even as head of the arrmed forces, have the right to offer opinions or suggest what the board should hand down as a sentence after a verdict finds the accused guilty. Even if he thinks it is right it must be morally wrong. That Marine 'A' is to be sentenced for murder is IMHO iffy even though it is clear that he dispatched one of the enemy.

As for the GC I find its purpose in these circumstances and in others in the past entirely hypocritical. How can our guys be subjected to it when so many other illegal forces probably don't even know it exists. As mogiee says we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

This then raises the question about the GC and what should be done. Who convenes its meetings to decide any changes that are needed? Why haven't sensible changes been applied to counter the above? Is it out of date and time for the United Nations and the world to deal with it?

It needs addressing instead of just saying it is there and we must obey.

I feel very uncomfortable about what lies ahead for Marine 'A' regarding his sentence. Any sentence should, in my view, be a softer one than some, like the CDS, advocate fits the crime. That is my opinion and counts for nothing. The CDS with his utterings gave the distinct impression that someone in his position can 'propose' by inference that the full force of the law be bought down upon Marine 'A' - that is blatantly wrong.

[Trim Stab]

If Marine A hadn't boasted immediately after the execution "I just broke the Geneva Convention - obviously this goes no further lads" then his defence might have been able to argue for mitigating circumstances. However, Marine A's boast made it clear that he knew full well that what he was doing was wrong, and also hints at a degree of pre-meditation. I don't think he will get much leniency in sentencing.

Having said that, he will get parole at first attempt as he is clearly not a danger to society at large, so I suspect he will do about ten years in the clink and then be on licence for the rest of his life sentence. He will still be young enough to able to rebuild his life afterwards.

[Whenurhappy]

Surrey Towers:

So you would happily sanction a service person dragging an injured enemy combatant out of view and murdering him, because 'they' don't play by the rules? Read my above for the sequence of events.

Furthermore CDS has every right and authority to discuss the handling of sentences 'in cases such as this'; he certainly should not be dismissed for discussing a case where the sentence is critical as a deterrence to maintaining good order and discipline.

[Trim Stab]

Whenurhappy:

Agreed.

Nutloose:

In your hypothetical example, the LRRP patrol SOP for dealing with injured enemy was the same as for dealing with your own injured - treat casualty, signal position back to HQ, then carry on with mission.

[NutLoose]

I wasn't talking about wounded, simply a full able bod, in the Gulf War when the SAS were well behind the lines with no comms Scud hunting, whistling up anything was not going to happen. Do you just leave him to alert everyone to your presence? tieing him up in the middle of nowhere and abandoning him will in itself be a death sentence,

[racedo]

tieing him up in the middle of nowhere and abandoning him will in itself be a death sentence,

Maybe, Maybe not but killing him outright is what ?

Everytime someone serving is charged with something like this, a danger of lets have clemency and leniency gets called for, it means there then becomes no deterrent. If service personnel feel they will always get away with it then when do you stop ?

Would it be ok to shoot 1 unarmed person but two would be wrong or do you set the line at 3 or 4 etc ?

Accusations by local population that they are just a bunch of murderers becomes harder to counter when everybody knows a perpetrator will always get let off.

What then if someone shoots another member of a Unit, do you then charge someone with that but killing of a person under circumstances like this incident was ok a month before especially if same person ?.

CDS correct in highlighting official line and correct in reminding people that law must be upheld, not doing so allows people to make up their own rules when it suits themselves.

[dervish]

the LRRP patrol SOP for dealing with injured enemy was the same as for dealing with your own injured - treat casualty, signal position back to HQ, then carry on with mission

Not wishing to get into too much detail, but it was only 2004 when such patrols had the confidence their messages actually got through and even then the amount of kit was so low the RM (especially) didn't have it, because they couldn't get their bosses to sign up to a requirement. They relied on units who had it leaving it behind for them at tour end, which they were reluctant to do because they knew they'd never get it back. Not talking about BOWMAN, which has never covered this requirement.

[Hangarshuffle]

The Royal Marine has been CM'd and now found guilty in a (relatively new to many surprised people) manner that suits the current political, judicial and military zeitgeist - nothing less.
It will be the thin end of the wedge for good people remaining and serving within the military. In the future you can expect your VT, you voice recorders, your head-cams and everything else all to be forced from you in case of when the time arrives and suits a challenger.
I will go as far as to wager (if they don't even already exist) that because of the circumstance in which the vital evidence was gathered and presented in court (the film) - that in the future -independent officer-level lawyers will be likely to be attached to units on operations and one of their tasks will be to gather, record, collate and store all media as evidence (for use in court and that will roll one way or the other). I can see this coming a mile off, and then you will be all totally screwed. Mark my words.

edit to add - to be clear, you will have to work alongside a form of independent modern Commissar charged with holding the media for future use in an independent role in court. The Govt. will drive this upon you whether you like it or not.

[racedo]

The Royal Marine has been CM'd and now found guilty in a (relatively new to many surprised people) manner that suits the current political, judicial and military zeitgeist - nothing less.
It will be the thin end of the wedge for good people remaining and serving within the military. In the future you can expect your VT, you voice recorders, your head-cams and everything else all to be forced from you in case of when the time arrives and suits a challenger.
I will go as far as to wager (if they don't even already exist) that because of the circumstance in which the vital evidence was gathered and presented in court (the film) - that in the future -independent officer-level lawyers will be likely to be attached to units on operations and one of their tasks will be to gather, record, collate and store all media as evidence (for use in court and that will roll one way or the other). I can see this coming a mile off, and then you will be all totally screwed. Mark my words.

They said the same when people had messengers, then telephone, then radios and Sat gear etc etc

Reality is that it would show a battle from many different angles with lots of different pressures and a need to make decisions quickly.

Those who commit illegal acts will hate it because there is no place to hide nor should there be.

[Whenurhappy]

The Royal Marine has been CM'd and now found guilty in a (relatively new to many surprised people) manner that suits the current political, judicial and military zeitgeist - nothing less.
It will be the thin end of the wedge for good people remaining and serving within the military. In the future you can expect your VT, you voice recorders, your head-cams and everything else all to be forced from you in case of when the time arrives and suits a challenger.
I will go as far as to wager (if they don't even already exist) that because of the circumstance in which the vital evidence was gathered and presented in court (the film) - that in the future -independent officer-level lawyers will be likely to be attached to units on operations and one of their tasks will be to gather, record, collate and store all media as evidence (for use in court and that will roll one way or the other). I can see this coming a mile off, and then you will be all totally screwed. Mark my words.

Erm, what current political zeitgeist? What on Earth would 'politicians' (ie HMG) want something like this to be publically aired in the manner that you suggest? If there was political interference, commonsense would indicate that political leadership would want to cover up something like this!

Again, you seem to indicate that murder only occured because it was filmed and this film was inadvertedly released. So, if this dreadful incident hadn't been filmed, should there not have been a trial? And if the siezure of social media devices (OP MINIMISE anyone?) stops warcrimes being committed, what's the problem?

[NutLoose]

Film and pictures can and do lie. It only shows what's happening from a very narrow viewpoint, just remember that. Look at Hillsborough, what was seen never showed the true picture.

[kaikohe76]

I certainly agree with you Nutloose regarding Hillsborough.
On the question of the CDS, yes he may be correct in theory, but I would suggest, he is more interested in keeping his large pension in tact & looking for his seat in the Lords.
Surely the CDS, should have kept his trap shut untill the Court Martial was complete, including the sentance handed down. I just wonder whether, he was under pressure from others & took the cowards way out, insted of saying get lost & keeping mum until the trial was over.
Whatever the sentance, it will be tainted with political correctness & rightly or wrongly, most unfortunately, the convicted serviceman will be hung out to dry.
Anyway Mr Cameron will be happy, he can save money. I would think there will not be too many prospective service personnel ready to sign up in the near future & also a few who might consider, taking the Queens's shilling early.

[Mahogany_Bomber]

There are two separate (yet related) issues being discussed and at times conflated/confused:

1. The public comments made by CDS.

2. The rights/wrongs of Marine A's conviction.

The comments made by CDS appear to me to be in response to those made by a variety of media outlets, ex-serving senior officers and the usual talking heads. I'm not suggesting that the topic is off limits for debate, far from it, they have every right to comment and engage in a debate. CDS appears to have been exercising the right of reply as the professional head of the Armed Services in order to address some of the issues raised by some less than well-informed comment.

As for Marine A, I wasn't at the CM so can only offer a judgement based on a careful reading of the media reportage - guilty as charged. The attitude of the insurgents to the Geneva Conventions, their actions or their status as combatants is irrelevant. It is our actions that are of importance (and which distinguish us as a disciplined military force) and his actions were legally and morally wrong. Talk of the fog of war, adreneline, unit losses, 5 months into the tour etc, whilst offering context, in no way excuse the murder of an individual who was no longer a threat.

Having served in close combat roles in Afghanistan for extended periods (I was in Helmand at the time of the incident) I fully undertand and appreciate both the specific and wider contexts within which the incident took place but I cannot accept that there is any justification for Marine A's complete failure of judgement, leadership and loss of moral compass. LOAC and ROE are meat and drink to a professional such as him (especially so as a highly-experienced SNCO) and his comments after the fact ref the Geneva Convention suggest that he knew exactly what he was doing. Murder is murder and I am personally and professionally disgusted by his actions.

MB

[Red Line Entry]

kaikohe,

On what evidence do you suggest that CDS:

'is more interested in keeping his large pension in tact & looking for his seat in the Lords'

rather than, as Mahogany Bomber puts it,

'have been exercising the right of reply as the professional head of the Armed Services in order to address some of the issues raised by some less than well-informed comment.'

Do you know CDS such that you think such a personal slur is warranted? Or are you simply exercising your right in a free society to uninformed criticism and half-arsed cynicism? If the latter, crack on...:ugh:

[Whenurhappy]

And, Kaikohe, what is evidence of Poltical correctness associated with this dreadful incident and the CM? Because the victim was brown-skinned?

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Now what was the question? Should CDS be Dismissed? No. but should STFU till the sentence is given and not try to influence it.
Were the findings correct...definately not.
Would I have done the same......probably but was never in that situation....I was just a navigator dropping nuclear bombs on civilians (legally apparently).
War is sh1te, not a game to be played according to a set of rules only one side follows. The moral high ground is an expensive myth. The only murderer(s) in this sad case is/are the politicians who sent our armed forces into that shambles.
Was the Marine wrong in his actions....yes he showed poor judgement in shooting and expressing his concerns and filming the debacle.
These are my opinions based only on what I have read.

[Hangarshuffle]

Its just that the general public are ....confused by our military. HM Forces fight by their own rules and yet the enemy appear not to answer to anyone's.
We appear to punish our own failures and they do not. They punish (even in their own publicly filmed ends..) only our failures.
We appear to be losing and they appear to be slowly and now irrevocably winning. What a waste of our blood and lovely treasure - that's where our rules got us.

No one here in GB will give a wrap about the Royal Marine in 6 months (weeks) time-stand-fast his friends and family).

Zeitgeist= the Govt and political classes have already decided the war is long lost and they move on. Tossing the Royal over their shoulders they exit....and who will care about our rules then?

If snipers were shot out of hand by our men in way back then, why were the (our) killers not brought to justice in 1945? Were we a worse society for this failure? I think not. Was our queasiness then quickly quelled by the black and white film of Ravensbruck and the other camps?

Final pissed up thought before I slumber off, safe in the knowledge that somewhere out there rough men guard me (although who guards them, they may reason?).

The RM patrol, they would have had to have dragged the mortally wounded enemy to some relative safety. Summoned support - medical aid? And what was that? A helicopter>? An AFV equipped for medical aid? And put further British or allied lives at risk in the recovery? Was this ever brought up in trial? The further risk to some mothers son? Perhaps this crossed the RMs mind as he fired?As someone in line said (aircrew) " take a life to save a life"?

I'm sorry for confusing the thread MB, I am spent and tired of argument. Goodnight.

[kaikohe76]

Thanks for the two replies to my earlier posting,

All I would say is, no I do not personally know the CDS, but I do think, he should have kept quiet, untill the Court Martial was completely finished, that includes any sentance impossed on the defendent.
My own personal feeling, is that it is quite likely that, a great deaL of pressure has been applied from the very top. My thoughts only & no slur intended, but I was in the Forces in the day, when very Senior Officers, stood by their men & women through thick & thin. Yes give them hell in private, but at least appear to support them in public. Finally one of you mentioned a skin colour, I most certainly did not.

[Mahogany_Bomber]

Romeo Oscar Golf,

The Law of Armed Conflict is exactly that, whether our enemies abide by it is of no consequence, and it is a topic of mandatory training both on an annual basis and prior to deployment. Equally, I was required to ensure that me and my personnel were refreshed on ROE on a monthly basis. That's the current reality and I wouldn't have it any other way. I've had to watch unarmed insurgents digging in an IED and not been able to engage due to the absence of an immediate threat. I wasn't particularly happy but equally I recognised the legal, moral and military boundaries of the situation I found myself in. What may or may not have happened in previous conflicts does not inform the debate, we live in the here and now and fight as we must, not as we might.

MB

[Fortissimo]

MB is correct in pointing out that there are two issues here; I will confine my post to CDS' remarks.

It is worth remembering that CDS commented in response to direct questions from a reputable and perceptive journalist in the course of a live televised politics programme and, crucially, after a verdict had been delivered on Marine A by a properly constituted Court presided over by an appropriately trained and legally competent Judge Advocate.

What message would CDS have sent to serving personnel if he had prevaricated, or chosen to answer a different question as the politicians are wont to do? Instead he stated that Marine A's behaviour was unacceptable as it breached not only the law but the principles on which we conduct our military business in this country (I paraphrase).

He also said that it would be wrong for anyone in authority to attempt to influence the juducial process by way of special pleading. He was correct - to do so would be seen as effectively excusing Marine A and,by extension, giving the nod for others to act similarly. I agree with CDS on this one. We may understand why Marine A acted as he did, we may even have some sympathy for him but we must not, and cannot, condone his actions. If we condone this event it can only lead to greater atrocities. We are better than that.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I can find no disagreement with the 2 previous Posts. If Sgt A later wishes to play the psycho card, great; he may well qualify. I originally thought that pleading extenuating circumstance (was that the point Gen Julian was making?) would be a fair argument. I was wrong, though. The spotlight is now on our military conduct and it must be seen to be just and honourable. If it's not, we are buggered on several planes and several levels.

What happens the next time we are in an a "symetrical" conflict and the opposition has the chance to give up or surrender their wounded? Would they think twice and crack on with pointless loss on both sides with the worry that they might be slotted anyway? A quick refresher on the writings of Sun Tzu might be enlightening.

On the original point of this Thread, why should CDS be dismissed for doing his job?

[dervish]

I've had to watch unarmed insurgents digging in an IED and not been able to engage due to the absence of an immediate threat.

I think this is the point many make, that we operate with one or two hands tied behind out backs. A reasonable person would ask why we didn't immediately engage and destroy. There may be tactical reasons why not immediately, but morally and militarily it would be the proportionate response. "Legally" is another thing which we have no say in; that sits with politicians in comfy isolation. They have no effing concept.

[Sand4Gold]

My penny's worth,

Do I be believe CDS should of buttoned his lip until after the legal process has been completed - yes I do?

Do I believe the pace, pitch, tone and content of the (heard) audio (re this case) damming enough to warrant an appropriate sentence - yes I do?

Would I, if the opportunity arose, share a beer with Marine A - yes I would?


S4G

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Thanks for the lecture MB. You think perhaps I didn't know that?
I gave my opinion, I happen to think the present thinking is wrong.:)

What may or may not have happened in previous conflicts does not inform the debate, we live in the here and now and fight as we must, not as we might.
I'm not sure where you learned your debating skills but to discount history and indeed new ideas and only deal with the here and now is limiting to say the least.

[glojo]

Am I correct in saying this incident only came to light following an event\investigation by the local police who were investigating an unrelated incident and during their investigations they found this unauthorised recording?

My thoughts are that if this is correct then how long after the event did this happen and if the police had not taken this action would anyone have been any the wiser?

If this incident had been reported at the time, would there have been the same charges laid against those offenders?

This was an unauthorised film shot by a camera that should not have been used\worn and the reality is that if Marine A had done his job and ordered that Marine to remove the camera before they went out on patrol.... Where would we be?

One last observation
Is anyone convinced this is the first time this has ever happened and if not how many soldiers in the last fifty years have faced court martial for a similar act?

Somed very good points have been raised and I find Nutloose has made an interesting point but perhaps not comparable.

In the specific circumstances we are discussing I fear murder is murder is murder.

Regarding the CDS speaking out, I have no opinion on that specific point, but dismissal??? I think not.

[Mahogany_Bomber]

Romeo Oscar Golf,

my apologies if I came across as lecturing, having re-read my post it certainly is a little heavy on self-righteous hectoring, sorry. I'm perhaps a little over-earnest because for me and my currently serving peers it's not simply an internet discussion on an esoteric topic but an issue which will undoubtedly have consequences for me when I return to Helmand.

I'm certainly not discounting the past; what I was (somewhat clumsily) attempting to iterate was that the current framework set by the Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement, European Conventions, The Human Rights Act et al is, by its very nature, of the moment and reflects the current social, political and legal norms. The contemporary operating environment is exactly that and, as we have seen with recent legal judgements based on the applicability of UK and EU legislation on operations, it can change fundamentally on a single legal judgement. Would I have liked to engage the IED emplacers? Yes I would and in just about every conflict up to the end of the 20th Century I probably could have without any great legal concerns. But, that was then and this is now and even if everything else had remained the same, the modern legal framework within which we are obliged to operate is almost unrecognisable from that of previous generations.

I'm not dismissive of the past or closed to new ideas, I'd much rather learn from somebody else's mistakes than my own! What I am is a commander fighting in a multi-dimensional, high tempo, highly kinetic war who is constantly pulled in all directions by an ever-changing black and white legal framework overlaid on a shades of grey operating environment.

MB

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Thanks MB, I hope you and all the others who have to serve under impossible rules and conditions return safely.

[A2QFI]

Taking the Queen's Shilling is enlisting, I think. Few will be encouraged to join the military as a result of these events , I suggest.

[racedo]

Taking the Queen's Shilling is enlisting, I think. Few will be encouraged to join the military as a result of these events , I suggest.

Will not make a single piece of difference.

Wearing the uniform should not be seen as a get out of jail card for murder.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Will not make a single piece of difference

You may be right, but of course we'll never know. I will certainly do all in my power to advise would be servicemen and women not to join up. The present rules prevent them from fighting the ****e wars our pollies seem to love where the greatest threat is not from the enemy but from our own side.
You may think it murder, many others myself included do not. Please don't quote the "rules" to me , I am sadly only too aware of them, and it is because of that the Armed Forces cannot fight a battle against these despots.

[Hangarshuffle]

Second ROG totally.
I wouldn't recommend anyone to join hands, let alone join any of HM Forces.

In retrospect, he shouldn't lose his job. CDS.

After the well remembered and generally laughed at ipod incident involving HMS Cornwall and the rest....weren't the public and the politicians jolly cross with RN/RM then....? They were pretty ashamed the RN hadn't opened up and gone down fighting to the last round, it seemed.

We suffered all sorts of cheap paper bolleaux posted and sent our sections sent from 2ndSeaLord, basically telling us ratings to all man up a bit (maybe it was just the RN that got this).:{

Now, the RM part of the service has been seen to over step and been too...what exactly? Savage? Brutal?

This line they have to keep.....:confused:

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

should receive the harshest possible sentence


Life with a minimum of 10years and named with current photo.

I think CDS has probably got his wish.

[Onceapilot]

Quite how anyone can enlist without mandatory legal advice these days, I do not understand? Maybe a case?

OAP

[baffman]

should receive the harshest possible sentence Life with a minimum of 10years and named with current photo.

I think CDS has probably got his wish. In the first place, that is not what CDS said. The misquote was already pointed out in this thread.

Secondly, whatever people think of it, a 10 year tariff is not "the harshest possible sentence". The tariff for murder under the normal sentencing guidelines starts at 15 years.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Yes you're right Baffman. Apologies for not checking.
Was it the right sentance though??

[moggiee]

The sentence is pretty much what I expected - the judge must have taken note of the circumstances when working it out.

[Wrathmonk]

the judge must have taken note of the circumstances when working it out

Clicky here (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-blackman-marine-a-sentencing%20remarks.pdf) to see exactly what the Judge took into account ...(as posted by Basil on the other thread)

[Training Risky]

I sincerely hope that Sgt Blackman's wife learns from Sgt Nightingale's wife and sells her story to the highest bidder to a) make some money to compensate for losing the main breadwinner for at least 10 years and b) stick the boot right in to the military legal system and show up the higher MOD CoC. (Although it seems his CO and the Marines charity may be of some support.) Some xmas this will be for his family.

And ref the military legal system - I, like many others on this forum I am sure, have run an Orderly Room and am only too aware of the inappropriate pressure applied by OCs to find the charge proved and award an 'appropriate' sentence for the 'guilty barsteward' as a warning to others.

[Red Line Entry]

I thought Judge Blackett's remarks were logical and comprehensive and led to the most appropriate sentence being delivered. A far cry from the shrill demands from both sides for either cruxifiction or freedom.

In my opinion, justice has been done.

[tucumseh]

Former defence minister Sir Gerald Howarth has been on the radio today saying the sentence is too harsh and he shouldn't have been named.

I don't agree with his politics, but Sir Gerald is well known for speaking up and has some pretty robust views about who SHOULD be in prison; for example, over Nimrod MRA4. I hope his seniors listen on this occasion!

[Whenurhappy]

Tecumseh,

I respect your opinion - especially on engineering and procurement matters, but in the case at hand, there was no political interference (why would there be?) and the evidence was overwhelming - not only to demonstrate that the Sgt committed a deliberate act of murder (oxymoronic, I know) but also took a considerable number of steps before hand to prepare for it - malice aforethought.


Just by implying that others - VSOs and Ministers - are, in some way, guilty of other crimes has no bearing on this warcrime - and for a crime that is also covered under British criminal law. -and, dare I say, the 10 commandments.

[tucumseh]

Whenurhappy

I'm not sure you've interpreted my meaning correctly and I apologise if I've not been clear. I've already said I believe the Sergeant guilty of wrongdoing; and specifically said I don't think there was political interference. While entirely possible, I think Sir Gerald Howarth's statement today reveals they took a wait and see approach.

I also believe there were extenuating circumstances in this case that simply do not apply outwith the Military arena. But being sympathetic to his plight does not mean I think him innocent.

I concede my personal experience is limited in such things. But I always remember the first time I attended the High Court of Appeal - training and familiarisation. (I haven't always been an engineer!) It so happened a soldier was appealing his sentence (not conviction) for something he'd done while recovering from serious wounds received in NI. He'd been gaoled for 4 years. The three Lords, Stott, Robertson and one other I can't recall, took all of 2 minutes to replace the sentence with a £200 fine, which his Commanding Officer paid there and then. About 4 months wages to me at the time and it sounded a lot! Lord Robertson was very robust in his decision, something along the lines of "No ordinary person can know what the soldier has gone through". I have a sneaky feeling he'd have something similar to say today. Lord Stott even more so. That doesn't mean they were soft on crime; but they did come from a generation who appreciated the Military far more. Today, it has few friends in the Establishment.

[racedo]

I concede my personal experience is limited in such things. But I always remember the first time I attended the High Court of Appeal - training and familiarisation. (I haven't always been an engineer!) It so happened a soldier was appealing his sentence (not conviction) for something he'd done while recovering from serious wounds received in NI. He'd been gaoled for 4 years. The three Lords, Stott, Robertson and one other I can't recall, took all of 2 minutes to replace the sentence with a £200 fine, which his Commanding Officer paid there and then. About 4 months wages to me at the time and it sounded a lot! Lord Robertson was very robust in his decision, something along the lines of "No ordinary person can know what the soldier has gone through". I have a sneaky feeling he'd have something similar to say today. Lord Stott even more so. That doesn't mean they were soft on crime; but they did come from a generation who appreciated the Military far more. Today, it has few friends in the Establishment.

But did this involve same (similar) incident as Marine ?

[tucumseh]

racedo

It was an "offence against the person", and the original sentence is what you'd expect outwith the Military given the person was an adult.

My point was I believe extraordinary extenuating circumstances can be found in many military cases and, therefore, and like it or not, different standards apply to sentencing. The soldier in my example was severely wounded and had been on strong, addictive opiates as painkillers. This diminished responsibility. Not a million miles away from what Marine A's experiences on that tour MAY have done to him.

I also think a soldier, on operations, cannot be judged by civilian standards, simply because the soldier's job is to kill. His "line" is in a different place and can be under extraordinary pressure and stress when it comes to deciding where it is.

I don't want to seem flippant but Brian Clough's brilliant remark on the new offside rule comes to mind. "If he's not interfering with play, he shouldn't be on the pitch". (Sorry SASless, that may be beyond you).

Again, I do not condone, but think I understand a little.

[Mahogany_Bomber]

tucumseh,

Wrathmonk's link above to the sentencing comments show that this most definitely wasn't treated as equivalent to a purely civilian offence in a purely civilian environment, hence why the starting point for sentencing was 15 years. Other allowances were made for similar military factors, leading to a minimum terms of 10 years instead of the possible 30 years if no such consideration had been made.

MB

[racedo]

It was an "offence against the person", and the original sentence is what you'd expect outwith the Military given the person was an adult.

My point was I believe extraordinary extenuating circumstances can be found in many military cases and, therefore, and like it or not, different standards apply to sentencing. The soldier in my example was severely wounded and had been on strong, addictive opiates as painkillers. This diminished responsibility. Not a million miles away from what Marine A's experiences on that tour MAY have done to him.

I also think a soldier, on operations, cannot be judged by civilian standards, simply because the soldier's job is to kill. His "line" is in a different place and can be under extraordinary pressure and stress when it comes to deciding where it is.

I don't want to seem flippant but Brian Clough's brilliant remark on the new offside rule comes to mind. "If he's not interfering with play, he shouldn't be on the pitch". (Sorry SASless, that may be beyond you).

Again, I do not condone, but think I understand a little.

Thank you for that and yes I understand.

I have posted before that I believe support for mental illness for ex personnel needs to be better. It isn't a shock that a significant proportion of homeless persons / prison inmates are ex service people who cannot fit into civilian life nor that many will never do so.

I see a danger that having served in any "hot zone" it then becomes an automatic get out of jail free card if you commit an offence. It then will quickly become abused and diminishes Armed forces standing as people will then see them as using service record to avoid responsibility for actions.

An honest question I asked someone who had done lots of special drops in NI, was what would he do if some of the people he had served with moved in next door. Simple answer was "move as quickly as possible", he valued and respected those he served with but would not wish to live anywhere near them. I doubt he would be alone with that view.

[tucumseh]

Well said Racedo.

MB, yes I understand that. My opinion is he was still dealt with too harshly, but I respect the opinions of others.