Substitute Marine A for Pilot A.

[Hangarshuffle]

The subject will not go away. Mods feel free to delete as you require. But...

What will happen then in the following hypothetical scenario; In the future...
A mother pirate ship has been allegedly sending pirates out from herself offshore NE Africa, within international waters. They attack ships, with weapons but fail to capture one and withdraw to the mother ship. They are tracked by RN vessels and challenged. The Captain of one RN ship orders his Lynx Helicopter crew to attack the mother ship with Sea Skua. He does this based on the reason the pirates are a threat to himself and other cargo vessels in vicinity, they are armed with MANPAD to repel a helo board, they are heavily armed with small arms and would repel an RN RIB boarding team. They refuse to stop, they refuse to do anything except proceed towards their own coastline in escape.
If the Lynx Crew attacked and heavily damaged, set afire the mother ship, is or was this lawful?
What would happen then if the Lynx crew returns to the RN ship, it reloads arms and refuels and returns on task?
It then elects to re-attack the mother ship - aggressively so because the crew believe the ship still poses a threat, to themselves and others. Is that reasonable?
If they then proceed to totally destroy a ship, manned by pirates but now on fire, has began to lose power and control, is taking in water and looks to be on the point of surrender (arguably) - if they kill the pirates, if the ship is totally helpless, would that not also make the aircrew be culpable of a murder charge?

Apologies to real aircrew of any hue for my simplistic "fantasy fight" if you like - you will be groaning at my comic book simple scenario. But you could substitute a Lynx for an Apache following a damaged APV on the ground, you could substitute a fighter plane following a damaged enemy cargo aircraft in the air.

Is this all not really very, very important to HM Forces? (I cannot find on the internet any evidence worldwide of soldiers been CM'd anywhere in the world at the present time (with all the fighting that is occurring on the planet) for allegedly shooting a prisoner, or being challenged in court).(No doubt someone will correct me now).

Are we not about to totally dis-establish the idea of "engaging the enemy more closely" then, in applying law of the Geneva Convention?(Would it apply here)?
Or will the recent type of court decision only be applied ever be applied to the lower deck (that's rating and non officers to the RAF/Army) and SNCOs?
I cant debate, I'm in a different time and zone. Where I am incidentally, pirates roam and are an increasing menace, the RN defence is small - the civilian ships I see daily are increasingly heavily protected with razor wire and employ (whisper it, "armed men"). The poor ships crews are now practically prisoners on their own vessels - if they have a fire on their own ships they possibly will not even escape themselves, they are totally razor wired in, to keep them out. Think about it.

[TomJoad]

Hangershuffle,

Any action taken by any of HM Forces in your hypothetical scenario would be taken within carefully scripted ROE agreed and authorized by the international community/UN. The commander of such forces authorizing use of lethal force would be well versed in those ROEs as would the crews. The answer to your question then needs to be addressed to what those ROEs would be. Open pursuit of those who have surrendered or are not in the immediate act of endangering life would be unlikely. Not really much different to the armed guard situation at most stns.

[highflyer40]

sounds completely ok to me, now if they are waving a white flag or standing in deck unarmed with their hands in the air then I would say the helo crew would be in violation to continue the attack.

as long as they are not openly surrending they are fair game

[ShotOne]

It's a great question hangarshuff and I'd treat the answers which follow with caution. Most people who have served in combat can give examples of ROEs which were NOT carefully scripted. The issue will be heightened for RPAS ops where every word and action is video recorded, especially where they are operated somewhere we're not formally at war with. I hope their pilots have good legal cover!

[barnstormer1968]

Why go for for a situation like that?

Marine A apparently was in the wrong because the person he shot was no threat to him, and so shooting him is murder......or something like that.

So, how about a fictional Apache pilot who is above the effective range of an insurgents weapon in a country that could be Afghanistan. The insurgent is no threat at all to him, but he engages the aircrafts cannon. After round one the apache pilot will not be able to see the insurgent due to dust kick up. The insurgent may be hit and wounded, and may have dropped any weapon he had, but the cannon shells are still landing all around this unarmed and injured man. If a later round hits and kills the insurgent does that make the apache pilot (long range) or gunner (close in) guilty of murder?

The ROE's involved dictate whether its murder I suppose, or whether it's just killing an enemy combatant.

Edited to add: our current ROE's don't work and can't work IMHO. A squaddy seeing a baddy who has just beheaded, or blown up his best mate can't shoot the baddy once any weapon has been laid down. The same goes for an insurgent sniper, pop down your weapon and raise your dish dash and you are free to go. But if the sniper is behind a wall having a brew after killing a Brit he may be on the receiving end of a javelin or hellfire, even though he is unarmed.
I sometimes wonder if our ROE's might be a bit more warlike if they were written by the Taliban.

[bosnich71]

There's a discussion going on at jet blast about this event.

[Tiger_mate]

'Murder' only requires a single bullet.

In the fallout over Lee Clegg in NI, a military legal advisor gave a presentation in which he confirmed that 'homicide' does not exist in UK Law and that the operator was responsible for every bullet including a ricochet. This when SH were armed with GPMG, an Area Suppression weapon.

This makes urban warfare such as seen recently in A Kenya shopping centre an invitation to go to jail without passing go or collecting £200. Yet Nations of the world will have seen this happen and prepare for repetition.

The means to challenge these cases, be it Police or Military should be supported by those who task them. There is no way that any weapon from an aircraft can be used with the finite precision that the Law would like to believe is possible.

[VinRouge]

This kinda puts it in perspective....

LiveLeak.com - Apache Helicopter kills 20 Taliban

Marine A, whilst I believe was utterly wrong in their actions, was right when he said it wasn't anything they wouldn't do to us.

It's a shame the video wasn't deleted when it was discovered.

[Basil]

Did the guys in the panto horse make it? :E

[Hangarshuffle]

Basil, that's terrible man! (I couldn't watch that film to the end, I'm just not cut for it - I admit it).
There's some good replies there especially yours TM.
Not even in the same level of risk or responsibility, years ago when I was doing the Ships Protection Organisation at Senior Rate Level, as well as repeat the usual list on the 3 JSP cards (orange, white and one other - I've forgotten) I gave our very young ships protection team a hypothetical question/scenario about what could happen (unlikely but never totally impossible given the political situation at that time) at our particular berth that day, and I asked them " Would you return fire here or perhaps here, if this happens"? To a man and women they all would have declined to open fire, or return fire - and stated the reasons why.
I remember being really surprised and even a little stunned.
Either I was too aggressive, or they were too risk averse, or simply didn't trust our own law to protect themselves in court. I don't know. Nothing seemed straightforward anymore.

I think somehow HM Forces are now about to go up from the thin end of the wedge, as regards being even more liable for follow up and prosecution. And it wont be confined to our fighting soldiers and marines. Law Firms will have been watching carefully the recent events, as will others.

Yes VR, in perspective.Someone could argue then, in the video above the gunner had no requirement to shoot some of those injured men, for a variety of valid reasons. Someone's going to argue that, eventually. That video could be poured over in court, looked at for hour after hour - every single second.
Anyway, I know its a cliché but I remain with nothing but high respect for all HM Forces. I'm just glad I'm now out.

[Hangarshuffle]

TomJoad
Just read your reply again. The bad guys win then? They are winning? Against us? Does this, would this not give them some tactical advantage, if they are savvy to our ROE?
It seems ridiculous.
Incidentally as I have mentioned the situation down here (my neck of the woods today) appears to be getting worse, even in the medium time I have been operating here.
The ships I work with are becoming slowly and surely increasingly more defended but to the detrimental safety of their own civilian crews (an oxymoron?) when not under attack. There is now so much razor wire on some of them, around the living accommodation and leading up to the bridge, that in the event of a fire, a collision then the poor crews wont be able to escape, to make an escape via any external exit or stairwell. Its crazy to see.
But I concede any revision of the ROE, or revision of the Geneva Convention, could simply make the world an even more brutal place that it already is.
The bad guys are slowly winning. I thought it an irony that even in the event of his death that Afghan took the life of Marine A.

[Pontius Navigator]

The green card rules would be a good basis on which to answer.

Your mother ship approaches and performs a hostile act - you can retaliate.

The mother ship then retires and poses no further threat to you or any vessel you are charged to protect - you can pursue and challenge but not engage.

The mother ship perceives your hot pursuit as a hostile act and attacks - you can retaliate.

The mother ship is disabled, on fire, and sinking - if they continue to engage you can continue to return fire. If they surrender then you cannot continue to engage and, when safe to do so, render assistance and take their surrender.

It then elects to re-attack the mother ship - aggressively so because the crew believe the ship still poses a threat, to themselves and others. Is that reasonable? In this case they should not engage.

Now the Belgrano is a different matter.

[melmothtw]

Marine A, whilst I believe was utterly wrong in their actions, was right when
he said it wasn't anything they wouldn't do to us.



So are the Taliban justified in executing British soldiers, because "it [isn't] anything they wouldn't do to us"?

I have to say I'm a little troubled by people trying to mitigate this murder because the perperator has seen and experienced terrible things. That's war, unfortunately. We dont similarly excuse the murderous actions of German soldiers in WW2, who also would have seen their comrades brutally killed and maimed by partisans.

I sense the reason folks are doing so know has less to do with the legality, or even morality of the case, and more to do with the fact that the accused is British.

[TomJoad]

TomJoad
Just read your reply again. The bad guys win then? They are winning? Against us? Does this, would this not give them some tactical advantage, if they are savvy to our ROE?
It seems ridiculous.



Not sure that is the conclusion I would draw Hangershuffle.

Does knowledge of your enemies ROEs give you a tactical advantage - of course it does. Should you use the constrictions of your enemies ROEs against them - of course you should! If the Taliban do not do that then they are idiots - and they are not that.

Look, there should be no surprises here, but I must admit having some surprise at the questions being asked wrt legitimacy of pursuing the enemy when they are no longer in the game. As for understanding the pressure of the heat of the moment - yes we understand that, armchair warrior or not. But it does not justify murder nor should it. Consider - it would be a poor defence for the murderers of Lee Rigby to ask "judge me after having walked a mile in my shoe". No, we have the highest respect for our soldiers, sailers and airmen because we hold them to the highest of standards. Does that automatically mean that the bad guys win, no I don't think it does as it has not in the past. If the bad guys ultimately win in Afghanistan perhaps it will be for altogether different reasons. However, if we abandon the conventions that keep us true such as GC and ROEs for expediency then we certainly loose.

[dctyke]

How about the pilots of remote ac that take out cars on public roads in countries not at war. Ok, they may be after one 'baddy' however are the other passengers/drivers murdered?

[TomJoad]

What do you think dctyke?

[dctyke]

I'm not sure, thats why I'm asking the question to folks like you who seem to have a great deal to say on the subject.

[TomJoad]

Like everybody else, just thinking out loud.:ok:

[baffman]

Interesting discussion but the obvious difference is that in one case you have a helpless wounded insurgent who is at your mercy and under your control, and in the other case you have no non-violent means of detaining the hostile personnel and removing the threat.

However much sympathy one might have, you can't justify a murder committed at close range on the ground by going on about the difficulties of aircraft or ships in engaging the enemy.

[TomJoad]

Agreed, in effect what we are saying is that the means by which you are prosecuting the aim are inappropriate.

[500N]

baffman

The helpless wounded insurgent was only "under your control" because they moved him. Up until that point he was still an armed insurgent with a weapon and a grenade.

[Easy Street]

The 'cargo aircraft' scenario that HS referred to in his opening post is a relatively easy one to put to bed. Assuming that offensive air-to-air ROE are in place, the cargo aircraft is a legitimate target because it is delivering military supplies and there is military advantage to be gained by shooting it down. An attack is made. The possible outcomes are:


The aircraft is completely destroyed. Job done.
The aircraft is completely undamaged. The attack can be repeated on the same grounds as the original attack.
The aircraft is damaged but continues to fly. The cargo will still reach its destination. Therefore there is still a military advantage to be gained by attacking, so a further attack is legitimate, however badly damaged the aircraft.

The fourth possible outcome is the tricky one: the target aircraft is damaged to the point where it will either crash or have to land at the nearest airfield, without delivering its cargo as intended. Now, the military advantage to be gained by attacking again is either zero or very small. However, the question is whether it is reasonable for the fighter pilot to shadow the cargo aircraft to see whether it is actually going down, or whether it intends to sneak away at low level to continue its mission. In these circumstances there is a judgement to be made; if flames are pouring out then a further attack would be unjustifiable, whereas if the aircraft is spiralling down, trailing smoke, then it might be reasonable to administer a coup de grace on the basis that the target might fly away a few minutes later when the fighter has had to depart the scene. In practice it would be extremely difficult for a fighter pilot to make an immediate assessment of the degree of damage inflicted on the target, so the 'military advantage' aspect of offensive ROE would practically always allow a further attack.

[baffman]

baffman

The helpless wounded insurgent was only "under your control" because they moved him. Up until that point he was still an armed insurgent with a weapon and a grenade.

I don't want to get too much into the individual case, but the drill would be to remove weapon and ammo from the wounded insurgent before doing anything else. From that point if not before, the insurgent would be "under control" and detained. Moving the insurgent afterwards reinforces the fact that he was already under control. If reports are correct, there is no suggestion of complicating factors such as the troops being in actual contact at the time.

[500N]

"If reports are correct, there is no suggestion of complicating factors such as the troops being in actual contact at the time."

Ah, that is what I maybe missed.

He "could" have raised his AK at the soldiers as they approached ;)

[baffman]

"If reports are correct, there is no suggestion of complicating factors such as the troops being in actual contact at the time."

Ah, that is what I maybe missed.

He "could" have raised his AK at the soldiers as they approached

Is that what happened?

[500N]

No, I was hinting that if when they came across him he had raised his AK at them
then wouldn't they be justified in shooting him ?

I don't know how far gone he was.

Too many iffffssss !

[baffman]

No, I was hinting that if when they came across him he had raised his AK at them
then wouldn't they be justified in shooting him ?

Of course they would have been. Why make that an issue?

I don't know how far gone he was.

Nor do I - but according to reports, it was claimed by the defence that he was already dead when shot.

Too many iffffssss !

Agreed but with respect, it's not me who is introducing them.

[500N]

No, it was me bringing them in. I am going to cease as this could
go round in circles for ages !!!

[Hangarshuffle]

Some good answers and points above, hard to disagree - glad I am no longer involved with the responsibility of it all. Perhaps the conviction of the Marine "A" (was that tag done to dehumanise the poor man and reduce him to being not even worthy of a real name? -I understand the thought behind it but in a age of electronic and social communication on a global scale, where people are usually exposed easily, is it even now really relevant? - like something from a film..)
..
perhaps the conviction of the Royal Marine simply fits with the Zeitgeist of our new British age?
I posted a story, told to me by my Grandfather, and its on another web forum - some might have read it? Basically, he witnessed first hand and at close range the summary execution of an enemy sniper by a British Army officer, in the closing stages of WW2.Not particularly like the recent tragic event we discuss - but done in pretty hot circumstances where the officer made an immediate and very quick decision (and in my armchair view, the correct one) to kill an unarmed man (justifiable yes, but if the same event had happened now today I have no doubt would have resulted in another CM). But I still couldn't help but wonder about the difference of that WW2 outcome and the present early 21st Century one of the Royal Marine, who I still believe may be the victim of a sort of military Zeitgeist verdict. No one else's military seems to be doing this, you know?

[Wander00]

ISTR reading that snipers were shot out of hand by troops of all combatant countries during WW2

[500N]

In the future troops don't just have to think of the soldier next to them
with a GoPro Camera on the helmet.

Both sides will have UAV / Drones or whatever you want to call it
and you won't know what they are watching or how zoomed in they
are but if a battle had been raging the likelihood is that someone
will be watching in case fire support is required.

[Basil]

The mother ship then retires and poses no further threat to you or any vessel you are charged to protect - you can pursue and challenge but not engage.
I'd say that a retreating enemy should be pursued, engaged and destroyed on the basis that you will now have no further trouble from that unit.

[barnstormer1968]

Baffman

I wonder how the defence could claim the insurgent was dead (as opposed to believed to be dead) when shot, as the video shows the insurgent raising his hands to his chest after being shot (well, shot for the second time that day at least).

[Hangarshuffle]

PETER HITCHENS: Marine 'A' is going to jail - but the guilt is all Blair's | Mail Online (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/debate/article-2508447/PETER-HITCHENS-Marine-A-going-jail--guilt-Blairs.html)

Far better than I can articulate. I still live in optimistic hope that one day Blair will be held to account in a British court. Perhaps with a few senior officers alongside him? To "encourage the others"?
I've never gotten over the fact I (we onboard our ship) was briefed such a pack of bare faced lies on the eve of Telic. This bitter cynicism about the upper military that I now seem to hold within me stems from this time. That and my age.

[baffman]

Baffman

I wonder how the defence could claim the insurgent was dead (as opposed to believed to be dead) when shot, as the video shows the insurgent raising his hands to his chest after being shot (well, shot for the second time that day at least).

Barnstormer1968, I am sure you are right, I believe there was also evidence by a pathologist who viewed the video, I was just quoting what I understood to have been the defence line at one time. Thanks.

[baffman]

Marine "A" (was that tag done to dehumanise the poor man and reduce him to being not even worthy of a real name?

Hangarshuffle, do you really not know the answer to your question?

[Toadstool]

Agreed. HS, I assume that you are either in or have been in the military. If you think a wee bit then you would answer your own question. Blair being held to account is another issue. If you read the latest reports which indicate that the Americans are unwilling to release the transcripts of conversations between Blair and Bush prior to the GW, then it would suggest that he will never be held to account.

That said, what happened was murder plain and simple. We as civilised nations have preached to others on countless occasions about applying the rule of law and adhering to the Geneva Convention. As soon as this Taliban crossed over from being an armed insurgent to a wounded prisoner then, despite our revulsion, he must be treated as a wounded captive. Last time I checked, we don't shoot wounded captives. In a future conflict, I would hope that others don't shoot British soldiers who are wounded captives.

[Canadian Break]

Gents, although the circumstances are different I think that there is a striking similarity with the case of Sgt Nightingale (if you ignore all the media hype around it). What Marine A did is an absolute offence under International Law, the LOAC and UK law. Therefore, there is no defence. However, it would seem to me that many of the arguments put forward on this thread are MITIGATION - brought about mainly due to the prevailing, and preceding circumstances - just as in Nightingale's case. Many (if not most) of us on this site will never have been under the pressure that these guys were under - and I say that having been to sandy places and had regular incoming, but it was not up close and personal (if you see what I mean). We must just hope - for everyone's sake that the Learned Judge (who is not intellectually stupid) CAN understand that pressure and will weigh the mitigation accordingly. Just my thoughts for what they are worth.

[Hangarshuffle]

I'm afraid we have, and probably will always do so, in the mad utter savagery of war, killed prisoners.
My grandfather actually witnessed this at close hand in WW2 but in even more horribly violent circumstances, which he described to me, when I was young. At the time I was in open disbelief, but as I got older I understood more what had occurred, what can occur.

That Sgt RM's name will be somewhere in the public domain anyway and will probably be shortly widespread. I take it if and when he is sentenced he will be in a civilian prison anyway, and everyone therein will be pretty well aware within hours. And all the cons and screws have phones.

The real villains who set this disaster up in the first place (on our side that is) are well out of it, tossing people away like the RM as they go.
PETER HITCHENS: Marine 'A' is going to jail - but the guilt is all Blair's | Mail Online (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/debate/article-2508447/PETER-HITCHENS-Marine-A-going-jail--guilt-Blairs.html)

Yep only the scummy Mail but largely pretty true.

A lot of people want their 21st C do-gooder wars but seemingly don't want to see the horrible bloody nasty reality of it.
The posing morality of some people about this has to be heard and seen to be actually believed.
I am reminded of the type of people who want to eat meat, but demand their food from a nice clean supermarket, and do not want to go and see behind the counter or look further into the field.

Well its the thin end of the wedge for those serving. And I know I am going around in circles but what on earth is the difference from an RM shooting a man, an injured enemy on the ground, to a pilot carrying out repeated attacks on someone they've just done over anyway? Is it not illogical to prosecute one and not another? 420 kts and 250 feet away or whatever, is that a fair defence?

If anything, couldn't it not have been argued in court that the RM shot the man for humane/practical reasons to help his own side? i.e. no one wanted to treat him for FA among his men-because they were understandably f*cked off with the Taliban. Carrying him back to their base may have degraded the RMs own ability to defend themselves en route back. They then, if had dragged him back, would have had to explore flying him back to a hospital, putting yet more allied lives at risk.

Dare I argue that leaving him dead, for his mates to find, might have been a good embuggarance factor for his Taliban mates to deal with - may have even focused some Afghan minds that fighting with the RM maybe was not a good idea after all?

Am I right out on a limb here? Is the nation simply too squeamish for this sort of thought?
No one else in the world appears to be taking this hard-line attitude to their rough fighting men.

[Hangarshuffle]

Sorry TS, good points but we ain't that civilised. Just pretend to be.

[Easy Street]

And I know I am going around in circles but what on earth is the difference from an RM shooting a man, an injured enemy on the ground, to a pilot carrying out repeated attacks on someone they've just done over anyway? Is it not illogical to prosecute one and not another?

It's practically impossible for a pilot to determine the degree of injury that he's inflicted in an attack. If a wounded enemy is seen limping away then there's no clue whether it's a minor flesh wound or whether the clock is ticking on a fatal injury. Thus it is much, much easier for a defence of 'honest belief' or 'reasonable doubt' to be succesfully argued for a pilot who has reattacked after seeing his first attack cause injury than it is for a marine who has shot a wounded, submissive captive at point-blank range.

420 kts and 250 feet away or whatever, is that a fair defence?

In that it gives more scope for 'reasonable doubt' than 0kts and 3 feet, yes.

[Pontius Navigator]

If a wounded enemy is seen limping away then there's no clue whether it's a minor flesh wound or whether the clock is ticking on a fatal injury. Thus it is much, much easier for a defence of 'honest belief' or 'reasonable doubt' to be succesfully argued for a pilot who has reattacked after seeing his first attack cause injury than it is for a marine who has shot a wounded, submissive captive at point-blank range.

I don't know current ROE, but surely it would require that your wounded 'enemy' is carrying a weapon or not. If carrying a weapon then that would suggest he is still a combatant.

If the pilot has been able to keep eyes on the previously armed and hostile enemy then a re-attack could be legal.

If he is not carrying a weapon he might be an innocent bystander fleeing the scene or a combatant who has now been converted to the true faith.

A good case for using 2-seat Typhoons. Pilot-Weapons Operator in the front, lawyer in the back.

[Hangarshuffle]

In the future we will get close to the stage that service people in action/combat will have to think about the enemies potential action towards him and his own sides as well. Possibly in equal measure. Actually, that's already happening.

Very much like the police within the UK are now, one could possibly say. We will become increasingly risk averse, and potentially hamstrung in combat.

Okay - you win the argument about shooting injured potential prisoners.

I hope the judge can show a degree of compassion to his own side when he hands down the sentence.

Incidentally is anybody prepared to name the panel of the Court Martial? I'm interested in their service backgrounds, who they are. Or do they remain as anonymous as the rest of the trial? No named dead man, no named Marines and no named CM panel. (Is it a panel anyway)? Thought justice was about openness and fairness?

[baffman]

...Incidentally is anybody prepared to name the panel of the Court Martial? I'm interested in their service backgrounds, who they are. Or do they remain as anonymous as the rest of the trial? No named dead man, no named Marines and no named CM panel. (Is it a panel anyway)? Thought justice was about openness and fairness?

HS, why are you still objecting to the anonymity of the Marines when, if you have read anything about this case, you should have noticed that the Marines themselves are trying to retain their anonymity? See my post #36.

Similarly, if you have been following the case you should know that the names of the Judge Advocate, Prosecutor, and other counsel are all in the public domain. The CM took place in public and the media were present and reported it.

As for the names of the CM panel, why exactly do you ask? We dont expect the names of members of a civil jury, do we? I dont know the names but the ranks and service have been published - all RM or RN.

"I thought justice was about openness and fairness". With great respect you have put forward nothing to show that this CM hasnt been conducted openly and fairly.

[barnstormer1968]

I've just popped into this thread, as a bit of a 'thought chain' has been brewing in my head.

Just to set a but of a scenario: many people seem to think that what marine A did was wrong, but then many people would like him to get a small sentence for what he did. Do the masses feel sorry for him/feel what he did was correct OR could it be that the population are sick of politicians lying daily, and getting UK forces involved in wars that they see as totally unjust and not in the UK interest. If it is the latter then perhaps the public see our forces as the victim in all this no matter what they do.

I find this situation hard to deal with as the UK have routinely killed unarmed or wounded combatants in all wars up to the present, and it really is still the policy to do that in Afghanistan (but in tiny numbers compared to a WW2 bombing raid). The Brits still employ snipers and SF. If a sniper is looking at an enemy formation and can see: three soldier laying in guard positions; the enemy OC unarmed and having a cup of coffee; an unarmed enemy soldier having a bath or sat on a latrine or maybe even one asleep after being on guard, which are the best targets for him?

Its certainly not the ones laying on guard.

Maybe the issue with this whole news story is the publics disgust at what our politicians are doing, and their understanding of our rules of engagement, and only to a lesser extent as to what would be murder on UK soil.

During WW2 the UK fought for what it thought was good against evil, and to keep the axis forces from our shores. Do the population think that again today, and does the fact that Afghan immigration to the UK is rising steadily have any bearing on the view of the conflict.

[baffman]

...I find this situation hard to deal with as the UK have routinely killed unarmed or wounded combatants in all wars up to the present, and it really is still the policy to do that in Afghanistan (but in tiny numbers compared to a WW2 bombing raid). The Brits still employ snipers and SF. If a sniper is looking at an enemy formation and can see: three soldier laying in guard positions; the enemy OC unarmed and having a cup of coffee; an unarmed enemy soldier having a bath or sat on a latrine or maybe even one asleep after being on guard, which are the best targets for him?

Its certainly not the ones laying on guard.


barnstormer, your scenario gets us nowhere because all your examples are clearly enemy combatants and therefore the legitimate subject of attack under the LOAC.

Whether someone is armed or not, and what with, may make a difference to the ROE applicable. It could also be an obvious factor (both in fact and in law) in deciding whether someone in civilian clothing is to be treated as a combatant or not.

But it makes not the slightest difference to the right to engage any of those enemy personnel in your scenario.

[barnstormer1968]

Baffman

Your comment is pretty worrying to be honest.

Our current ROE's are pretty strict, and just as we don't shoot someone 'who has already' or 'will later' shoot someone we also dont have it written that someone who is having a bath, and is unarmed is a legit target (I take it you noted I said at least two target were unarmed).

Can you define what clearly makes someone an enemy combatant as you put it?
The baddies in afghan now can go from civvy to combatant and back twenty times per day under our ROE, and they don't even need to change clothing or move around. Maybe you have the magic answer that has eluded western forces for many decades in how to spot the difference between a civilian who is an insurgent (full time, part now, or just now and then), or just a civvy. Either way they can have the same clothes on, any may be carrying a weapon or not.

[baffman]

Barnstormer, I remind you that this is your scenario under discussion:

a sniper is looking at an enemy formation and can see: three soldier laying in guard positions; the enemy OC unarmed and having a cup of coffee; an unarmed enemy soldier having a bath or sat on a latrine or maybe even one asleep after being on guard,

The LOAC is perfectly clear on that point, and is what I stated. We are talking about an organised enemy formation in a hypothetical theatre of war, identified as a belligerent enemy, because that is how you described it.

All that about "Afghan insurgents going from combatant and back twenty times a day" has nothing to do with the scenario you asked about and which I replied to.

ROE can be a different matter (while complying with LOAC) as my reply also made clear. I am sure you know that they are not usually published.

[teeteringhead]

And one guesses that such things have always happened :(

Shakespeare reported that Henry V ordered the killing of prisoners (Henry V Act 4 Sc 8)

Besides, we'll cut the throats of those we have,
And not a man of them that we shall take
Shall taste our mercy. Go and tell them so.


Which was in reprisal for what the Feelthy Froggies had done to our non-combatants, which (even then) was noted as being illegal, as related earlier in the same scene by Fluellen, the Welsh Lieutenant:

Kill the poys and the luggage! 'tis expressly
against the law of arms: 'tis as arrant a piece of
knavery, mark you now, as can be offer't; in your
conscience, now, is it not?


.... so it was only doing what they had done/would do to ours .....

[Hangarshuffle]

Comments removed by self.

[Hangarshuffle]

The Royal Marine has been named by a judge.Just now - I heard his name on the radio. Not going to repeat it. I thought this would happen from the start, and even argued for it, but in retrospect think its not so much a mistake but simply another poke in the eye from the establishment to the non commissioned ranks.
In fact I actually no longer know what to think about this.
Was justice served?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Arguably, it could be open season on his family now, as far as Abul the Dull's concerned.

We ask blokes to do beastly things in crappy places and, now and again, some stuff up. So we can now punish them twice; once by the penal system and again from any passing fatwa. I do think we owe some protection for the ones that, for whatever reason, stuff up. OK, it wouldn't take the investigative brain of tabloid hack to find the identity but there would always be that element of doubt. This way, we broadcast a positive, authenicated Ident to the entire universe. Well done; support your local Serviceman. :D

[HTB]

I listened to the "Moral Maze" programme on Radio 4 last night, where this topic was discussed with a cross section of "thinking people", including the viewpoint of a lawyer who specialises in this sort of case (but not on the side of the servicemen - only the "victims"). I was amazed by the lack of empathy for Marine A across the board, especially as by their own admission none of the participants has been within a thousand miles of a combat zone - unless you include proximity to NI, but without actually being there.

I've only been involved in conflict as an aviator, but that is a world different from being an infantry soldier on the ground, in constant peril from any number of unidentifiable enemies. So I can't judge what happens to men in these situations - and neither can the talking heads on radio - after prolonged contact with an enemy who does not fight by rules that civilised countries employ. We know the details of losses from the unit involved, and the subsequent barbaric flaunting of mutilated remains of the dead comrades of those involved.

This is not to excuse any actions, but should help to give an understanding of causal factors leading to those actions. "Walk a mile in my boots"; I wouldn't even dare to put on those boots, let alone do so continuously for several years/deployments in hostile environments. But at least I can try to understand; something that seems to sadly lacking of the establishment.

The trial currently being conducted over the Woolwich murder serves as a reminder of the mentality of those whom our deployed forces have to face every day. I wonder what the outcome of that trial will be in comparison to the sentence that will be handed down to Marine A.

Now, to add further calumny to the man, his fanily (and those of the other Marines, who were acquitted) will be exposed to the potential dangers from UK resident like-minded zealots facing our troops in foreign **** holes.

What a moral dichotomy betweem applying "law" and "justice", especially by people who have little knowledge and no understanding of what military operations entail for the individuals involved.

It would be fair to say that my sympathy lies with the servicemen; but let the punishment be tempered by a big dose of empathy. And, although it's probably too late now, do not extend the punishment to families of those servicemen by exposing them in public.:sad:

Mister B

[HTB]

From the BBC News internet site:

A Royal Marine who murdered an injured insurgent in Afghanistan has been named as Sergeant Alexander Blackman.

Three senior judges sitting at the High Court in London lifted an anonymity order which prevented him from being identified.

Arguments made forBlackman and other marines in the case suggested their lives would be at"real and immediate" risk if their names were released.

But the judges upheld a decision to name him and two others.

On 8 November a court martial board found Blackman guilty of murdering a man in Helmand Province more than two years ago.

There's more, and a picture, but I don't feel inclined to add any more.

A sad day for common sense and natural justice.

Mister B

[Wander00]

HTB - and your logic is.................?

[MSOCS]

Perhaps HTB's logic here is that the 'Justice' system seems to have fed the Marines to the lions; by which I mean their identities, having now been publicly revealed, leave them and their families wide open to attacks of retribution by all sorts of empathisers to the Afghan who was killed. Many might believe that you reap what you sow on this occasion but it's worthwhile reminding all that the very same 'Justice' system has [in the past] subsequently protected the identity of the Soham murderers and such like.

I wonder what treatment the involved service families will get from all of this. They are innocent and deserve protection at the very least.

[Bill Macgillivray]

Justice was served (I believe) by the finding of the Court (not something that I would care to enter into, to be honest). However, as has already been said, justice(?) has now condemned several other (and inoccent people) to potential death! Sounds awful, does it not, but that is what has happened! Where is our Prime Minister and his so-called "Military Covenant" now? Words fail me!!

[Out Of Trim]

Just been watching clips on You Tube where Armed Taliban Troops are being attacked by Appache Gunships.. Some can be seen after the first attack staggering or crawling away.. Obviously injured, yet they are re-attacked by cannon or even missile fire!

Can't really see that that's any different to what Soldier A did! Just that he was a bit closer; ie on the ground!:suspect:

If any harm should come to Soldier A's family then The high court judges should be open targets too!

The High court Judges Names Are ???

Lord Thomas is one..

[Mickj3]

HTP
I to listened to this program and was appalled at the views and sentiments of the "contributors". If I am right I understand that the identities of the two marines that had the charges dropped have been withheld to protect them and theirs from retribution, whilst the the names of marine A and the two who were acquitted have been released. Where is the logic in that. I wonder what the state of morale is in the marine corps this evening,

[Toadstool]

OOT

there is a huge difference. The Taliban who are attacked by AH may actually be stunned and uninjured as has happened in the past. The fact that they are crawling or staggering away from the attack has no bearing as to the extent of their injuries. Even if they are injured, if they get away then they could still be a threat, in which case they remain a valid target for a re-attack.

[Dave Wilson]

I remember clearly during GWII a film crew with a US Marine company who filmed a marine shooting a wounded and at the time non-combatant insurgent through a window and saying 'He's done.' and calmly walking away. This was on national TV.

If anyone thinks that what Marine A did was a one off aberration then they must be seriously away with the fairies. War does terrible things to people and not just to those who are injured or killed. You cannot really expect that every person who you train to kill will be unaffected by their actions and act as rational and reasonable human being. If there are to be consequences for those who fall by the wayside then there must also be consequences for those who did not pick up on the fact that Marine A was going off the rails.

[GreenKnight121]

OOT - to extend Toadstool's comment... remember that Marine A and his men had taken their victim into custody, disarmed him, and moved him to a more-secure location before the fatal shot was fired.

This is a huge difference, and which does make his act into a crime.

Jon Alexander. Sgt USMC 1981-1989

[Dave Wilson]

I'm not condoning his actions, nor am I criticising the US Marines. I'm just saying that in war these things are going to happen and we shouldn't be aghast when they do and pretend they are one off incidents. I'm assuming that marine A was highly thought of as he was up for promotion so the chances are he wasn't a homicidal maniac, just a bloke who had gone over the edge.

There seems to be a baying pack amongst the chatterati who will no doubt be rubbing their soft and unsullied hands with delight that he and his co defendants have been named.

[A and C]

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the Marine A case the courts decision to release his name has made his family and friends the target for all sorts of trouble ranging from gutter press intrusion to the potential for revenge attacks by militant factions.

Marine A will no doubt be banged up and safe, his family and friends will not have that protection.

This is the sacrifice of the lives of the innocent to serve so called justice.

[Basil]

That was a very unfortunate and disappointing decision by the three judges.

Furthermore, if the names of those who were found not guilty are to be released then why not release the names of every Brit who's been in a contact and the SF and the addresses of all the government and Civil Service personnel involved?
You couldn't make it up!

[captbod]

Just been jailed for life, (Sky News).

[Whenurhappy]

Life - with a minimum of 10 years.

I was in Whitehall today and there was a stinking handful of EDL supporters opposite Downing Street demanding 'justice' for Marine A. I engaged them in an attempt at conversation (and that's when I discovered the two guys reeked of alcohol). Their argument was along the lines of 'the Taliban aren't signatories to the Geneva Law (sic) thus it shouldn't apply to Sgt Blackman. When I pointed out that Sgt B had shot the wounded and disarmed man in cold blood, they agreed that it was 'sort of' murder, but the EeeYew shouldn't dictate our laws. I did try to correct their shallow understanding of IHL, but they were packing up and heading off to the pub!

It is unfortunate for his family that he has been named but the need for judicial transparency is paramount. Furthermore protection of his family - if really needed - is a matter for the police and not the judiciary.

[Hangarshuffle]

You that still serve, you have all been warned. This sentence is a punishment for this individuals act and a warning for your future conduct on operations, be in no doubt.
Wonder how long before political commissars are embedded into operational units to study film, combat footage and analyse reports to try and find transgressors of the Geneva Conv. and all else (on our side)? Think me mad, but I think this will happen sooner rather than later, after today.

[Hangarshuffle]

I wouldn't talk to them mate, they're nutter's, half of them. This case has been too emotive by far for a lot of people, including me. People turn really nasty over the whole thing at the drop of a hat.
10 years+ = another life ruined by the whole bloody stupid war.

[Trim Stab]

It is unfortunate for his family that he has been named

It was inevitable that he would be named. Unfortunate for him too as it will mean going on the cucumbers with the nonces, which will pile on the humiliation.

[SAMXXV]

Life for an act in a war zone where the ragheads were trying to kill you & your comrades! What has our country come to where the exalted judges - who have never done a days manual labour, & live at the taxpayers expense on a daily basis in utter comfort. What a parody!

[finncapt]

Only comment I wish to make is:

I am sad to be British.

It's guys like him (marine A) that we need.

[Whenurhappy]

The EDL make my blood boil and engaging with them reinforced my view that they are ignorant, weasily thickos. But loads of passing vehicles did toot their horns, presumably in support for their wider, racist, ideals.

To the matter at hand, the Sgt did murder the wounded unarmed prisoner, with malice aforethought. Behaviour of the taliban is largely irrelevant. However, he is unlikely to be regarded as a dangerous prisoner so one hopes that he will be moved to an open prison in due course.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

With regards the EDL mob, I couldn't agree more. The car hoots of course might have been showing support for Marine A.


It is unfortunate for his family that he has been named but the need for judicial transparency is paramount


Not too sure I understand why naming him ensures judicial transparency,

[lurkposition]

Note how our fear of terrorism (Terror according to the media) has had a direct effect on a lot of our activities as so called "free" citizens. The non GC people will always win against all the angst directed at our forces. Its all "them" and very little "us". What, I wonder, will all the clever, safe, townie lawyers do when we all come under Taliban type law in several years time? I'm old and won't live to see it. Good luck all.

[mopardave]

I'm lost for words.........he'd seen his mates wounded or killed. What the hell does the judge know about a high pressure environment like war.......but then I suspect there are some officers who should hang their heads in shame........after all, aren't they the ones who found him guilty in the first place!
I don't think for a minute he'd have posed a threat had he been released. I'm so glad my son left the army........hanging good people out to dry is what we're best at these days! I feel so very sorry for him and his family! I bet those evil creatures that butchered Lee Rigby will be afforded more in the way of human rights.......their defence paid for by the good people of this sorry nation!
I give up.......truly, I give up!

[Whenurhappy]

Whoops my post has vanished.

Basically, not only has Justice to be done, it also has to be seen to be done. If his name remained supressed, this would give rise to all sort of wild conspiracy theories and set a precedent in other case. There would also be the lingering concern wondering why 'the Government' did not want to reveal the name of a convicted murderer, implying, perhaps, there was some cover-up.

Sgt Blackwood is an experienced leader and all the more reason for him to set an example, whereas in a cold, calculated way he murdered an unarmed, injured man, whom he presumed was an insurgent (he had not been in'contact' with this man). As I mentioned above, what the Taliban would do in a parallel situation is irrelevant. HM Forces are required to adhere to IHL/LOAC as well as civilian law, and dare I say, moral decency. The study of the history of counter-terrorism is something I have spent a lot of time on - and I cannot think of any occasion when government brutality has prevailed. The oft-cited Malayan Emergency was only 'won' because British and Commonwealth forces won the hearts and minds by being considerably better behaved than the so-called MPLA.

[ex_matelot]

Anyone here in Sierra Leone during the...err.."unpleasantness"?

[Mahogany_Bomber]

Anyone discussion which contains the unchallenged use of the word "raghead" might perhaps be considered unworthy of dignifying with a response but I can't stop myself from contributing. I appreciate that this is the internet and thus has all of the quality control of a British Leyland car plant but I find that the amount of uninformed comment and out of touch bluster on this thread is incredible.

Military personnel on the ground are dealing with a high-tempo, multi-faceted conflict which regularly proves ambiguous in terms of both morality and legality. What is not ambiguous is whether it is legally acceptable for an individual who is no longer a threat to be deliberately shot by a member of HM Armed Forces. That's the long and the short of it and I have great difficulty is seeing anything else (whilst adding colour) as simply irrelevant.

I was in Helmand at the time, patrolling the same fields and compounds, facing the same dangers, seeing my friends and colleagues shot and blown-up and riding the same emotional roller-coaster (albeit in a different unit in a different part of the British AOR). Having "walked in his boots" (which so many of you consider is a prerequisite), I do feel in a position to judge. One can contextualise, sympathise and, with my experience, empathise but I cannot for one second condone what was done. It is a non-negotiable requirement of our personnel to behave with morality in an oft-times immoral conflict which sets us apart. I couldn't give a monkey's about how the insurgents or other nations behave; I am held to account by UK standards of behaviour and UK laws and should frame my actions in that knowledge. This individual failed to uphold the trust placed upon him both as an individual and a leader. It makes me incredibly angry that all of the good work and the price paid by our country in Afghanistan in both blood and treasure has been tarnished by this deed.

It is perfectly legitimate to discuss the reasons why the UK has a military presence in Afghanistan, what effect our political and military engagement in that country have has and whether it has been worthwhile. What is indisputable (without even stopping to look at issues of morality) is that shooting an individual who is wounded, incapacitated and no longer presenting a threat is illegal and I for one am glad that it remains the case even in a war of such shades of grey.

MB

[TomJoad]

You that still serve, you have all been warned. This sentence is a punishment for this individuals act and a warning for your future conduct on operations, be in no doubt.
Wonder how long before political commissars are embedded into operational units to study film, combat footage and analyse reports to try and find transgressors of the Geneva Conv. and all else (on our side)? Think me mad, but I think this will happen sooner rather than later, after today.

You could not be more wrong Hangarshuffle it always has been contrary to military and civil law to execute unarmed prisoners in the manner Marin A did. So no I do not think you are mad, simply wrong.

[TomJoad]

It is a non-negotiable requirement of our personnel to behave with morality in an oft-times immoral conflict which sets us apart. I couldn't give a monkey's about how the insurgents or other nations behave; I am held to account by UK standards of behaviour and UK laws and should frame my actions in that knowledge. This individual failed to uphold the trust placed upon him both as an individual and a leader. It makes me incredibly angry that all of the good work and the price paid by our country in Afghanistan in both blood and treasure has been tarnished by this deed.



MB


Well said MB :D:D:D:D

[Genstabler]

I served for 34 years in the Army. My heart bleeds for him and more so for his family. He has given a great deal for his country and up to this incident seems to have been a brave, gifted, dedicated and inspiring marine SNCO.

However, he is a professional soldier and an experienced leader of men. There is no excuse for what he and his patrol did. Read the transcript of the video recording. This was a chilling, cold blooded, premeditated, immoral and illegal act. Murder. What the Taliban would have done to him, had the roles been reversed, is not relevant. He has behaved disgracefully and let down himself, his fellow servicemen, his Corps and his country. And he compromised the mission for which he and thousands of other service men and women have been risking their lives in that God foresaken country for years. I hate to say it but his sentence is appropriate.

I hope, and expect, that the RM will look after his family and, when he is released, him too. This is a tragic and embarrassing business.

It will be interesting to see if a supposed relative of the victim now turns up and puts in a bid for compensation!

[dervish]

This was a chilling, cold blooded, premeditated, immoral and illegal act.

Hmm, lots of them discussed here but they still have their knighthoods. :mad:

[Mahogany_Bomber]

Dervish,

I'm obviously a bit thick as I don't get your point. Sgt Blackman was tried and convicted by a properly constituted court martial on the evidence presented to it, what illegal acts and knighthoods are you referring to?

MB

[vascodegama]

TJ

Just read your post overleaf-the film "Breaker Morant" has some interesting parallels.

[Toadstool]

You that still serve, you have all been warned. This sentence is a punishment for this individuals act and a warning for your future conduct on operations, be in no doubt.
Wonder how long before political commissars are embedded into operational units to study film, combat footage and analyse reports to try and find transgressors of the Geneva Conv. and all else (on our side)? Think me mad, but I think this will happen sooner rather than later, after today.

Yep, Hangar, while not mad, I think you are complete wrong and shows just how out of touch you are. Allow me to offer a completely contrary opinion. It is precisely the fact that we have Legads etc involved in the process, which allows our troops in combat not to worry that they are doing something wrong. Knowing that you are acting correctly with legal backup means that you do not have to worry about facing disciplinary action on return to base. If you have have acted within the ROE and haven't contravened the LOAC.

Given that this Royal knew that he was acting incorrectly when he shot this unarmed seriously wounded soon-to-be prisoner shows that, in the wider context, our highly motivated and professional troops know exactly where the boundaries lie.

[Training Risky]

Or (b)...

The GC are so out of date they are unsuitable for 21C insurgent warfare where illegal combatants/terrorists/criminals swim amongst the population and don't play by Queensberry rules. It was bad enough in Malaya, Kenya and NI - now they have the internet for their spin.

This guy despatched an illegal enemy combatant, who had already been targeted for killing by an Ugly callsign, and delivered a mercy killing to boot.
I take it we'll still be shouting Humanity and Proportionality when the enemy are swarming over the home counties killing our kids?

The discredited, biased court-martial system is a joke. Sgt B has been stitched up royally for doing his job - killing the enemy.

Thank the lord I am leaving this shower of xxxx in 2 years.:mad: And if the recall comes when I've retired...I've moved abroad thanks very much.

[Toadstool]

SASless has already discussed this but another factor...

Tighter rules of engagement contributed to US casualty rate in Afghanistan ? report ? RT USA (http://rt.com/usa/battlefield-deaths-rules-engagement-change-862/)

It appears that tightening of the ROE may have contributed to more coalition casualties. This is a tragedy.

However, shooting unarmed injured prisoners.....wrong!!

Or you could take the other view and call it this delivered a mercy killing to boot. :ugh:

[Genstabler]

Read the transcript of the video. This was no mercy killing. There was no compassion, no respect, just cold blooded murder.

[Mahogany_Bomber]

Training Risky,

hyperbole and exaggeration are the reasons why this debate descends in to a parody of a Fox News or Daily Mail headline in fairly short order - you appear to have double-tapped. Addressing your points:

- Mercy killing; no such thing exists under LOAC.
- Illegal enemy combatant; irrelevant, he was no longer a threat.
- Enemy swarming all over the Home Counties killing our kids - swarming, really?

It is all about Humanity and Proportionality and I for one am glad of it. It's frustrating, upsetting and often far more dangerous as a consequence of those two words but I wouldn't want to be part of an organisation which chooses not to recognise their validity. The behaviour of the enemy in this regard is of no consequence; we're undertaking population-centric COIN in this particular war and I fail to see how ditching the principles of Humanity and Proportionality would make our operations more effective in that context

MB

[Whenurhappy]

MB - I'm totally in support of your views. It is a population-centric campaign where a degree of tacit consent of the CIVPOP is essential for even a modicum of success, and as I mentioned above, I cannot recall a single counter-insurgency campaign that has been successful when the Government side has resorted to brutality and breaking both IHL and civil legal norms.

I am surprised - really surprised - that some many posters on here believe that because the Taliban don't play by the rules, it's ok for Pvt Tommy Atkins to commit murder (as apart from legal and proportionate and descriminatory killings on the battlefield). Several posters have drawn Daily Mail comparisons with the handling of those accused of murdering Lee Rigby. Following the above logic, it would be apparanetly ok for the Police to have taken the two accused somewhere out of view and murdered them. Where these two cases do merge, it is on the possible outcome. The man killed in Helmand (whom is assumed to have been an insurgent, but this was never demonstrated, and nor did it have to be) could become the new poster boy for extremism. Similarly, if the two accused in the Woolwich case had died at the hands of the Police, they too would have achieved some sort of martyr status.

It is also irrelevant, sadly, to consider Sgt B's service record, apart from illustrating that he was clearly au fait with IHL/LOAC and knew what he did was cold-blooded murder. I have several RM friends and not one of them disagrees with the verdict. The Court Martial was not politically influenced (as some have inferred - and why would politicians want to influence it?) and the evidence seemed to be overwhelming. Of interest, I would keen to learn of the administrative action that may be taken with his co-accused who were acquitted.

[Ex RN ATC]

I think it is very easy to be an armchair lawyer in cases like this but I have no experience of what the guys on the ground in Afghan go through or the pressures that they are under. However, several of my colleagues are ex infantry with many tours in Afghanistan under their belts - all of them agree that Marine A overstepped the line and as such deserved to be punished although they did say that the amount of stress etc that and circumstances of his tour should have been taken into account when deciding his sentence.

What all of us agree on is that the names should not have been released, with the amount of fanatics and idiots that are running about the families are now like it or not, targets for any extremist that wants any easy option.

Just my humble opinion

[Toadstool]

MB, totally right. Since when, ever, did we do mercy killings. I am completely surprised that people in the military would ever have that sort of opinion.

TR, for someone who only has two years to do, at what point during the multitude of your career military training/MATs/CCS (whichever service tng) and then PDT pre Balkans, Kosovo, GW1 GW2 and Afghanistan (if you did that) did you ever hear that mercy killings was an option. If the boot was on the foot and it was one of our soldiers at the mercy of another, would you expect first aid or a mercy killing. Do tell!!!

[Training Risky]

My argument is that even though mercy killings are not technically part of our ROE, the thoroughly intense and asymmetric nature of the COIN campaign in Helmand should have been taken into account when the Military Prosecuting Authority decided to stitch him with murder. They could have framed it as Manslaughter (diminished responsibility or not) with v extenuating circumstances (battle conditions, unreliable wounded enemy who are not known to surrender with honourable intent, booby trapped casualties, etc.)

The point is that all kinds of legal precedents are set during COIN campaigns. We set convicted PIRA murderers free in 1998 on a political whim. The police can get away with shooting practically anyone they like (Stockwell, Harry Stanley, etc - I know that's the UK but we are all subject to English law whether in Stockwell or Afghan.)

Look - I have spent many years since 9/11 engaged on RAF ops in Iraq, Afghanistan and in many a CAOC (since you asked) and I have watched the British body count clock up, constantly feeling like an expendable pawn to be wasted in a futile, dangerous war with restrictive ROE and NO strategic planning or endstate, while Gen Haig's successors (a la 1916) in Main Building throw the occasional example to the wolves. Enough. Threaders.

If the boot was on the foot and it was one of our soldiers at the mercy of another, would you expect first aid or a mercy killing. Do tell!!!

I'm glad you asked that, because your answer is already to be found hanging in the trees of Helmand where the enemy have mutilated Sgt B's Marines. I would expect nothing more than torture and execution from this enemy.

[Genstabler]

Military Prosecuting Authority decided to stitch him with murder. They could have framed it as Manslaughter (diminished responsibility or not) with v extenuating circumstances (battle conditions, unreliable wounded enemy who are not known to surrender with honourable intent, booby trapped casualties, etc.)

There was no stitch up. What you suggest should have happened is immoral and illegal. Was there ever a more clear cut example of premeditated, cold blooded murder of an incapacitated enemy. Read the blooming transcript. There was no pressure of battle at the time. The patrol coldly discussed killing him and then did so, fully aware of what they were doing.

My heart bleeds for his family but the verdict and sentence of the properly constituted court martial were spot on.

[Training Risky]

What you suggest should have happened is immoral and illegal

Err - how? If that interpretation was accepted by the SPA and the CM panel, then that is what would have been a charge of manslaughter (or perhaps less) by definition. Are you saying that the conditions I briefly described on the day were not possible? It may surprise you to learn that transcripts are not the definitive record of anything. You don't use SIGINT transcripts alone - you corroborate it with human sources, imagery, background info, nuance...

To finalise my contribution before dinner and bed, I sincerely hope that Sgt B'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.)

[Mahogany_Bomber]

Training Risky,

I'm not sure how you can attempt to justify this murder by referencing Stockwell (different ROE, LOAC not applicable) and Haig (I'd suggest reading John Terraine or Gary Sheffield for a balanced view of WW1 rather than watching Blackadder).

Mercy killings have nothing to do with ROE, technically or otherwise. The whole point about ROE is that they do place restrictions on our actions in terms of what is politically, socially and legally acceptable, hence why they are Rules of Engagement rather than "suggestions which you may wish to consider but disregard as you see fit". The reputational risks exemplified by Krulak's Strategic Corporal are writ large in many of the things we do on military operations. Providing clear ROE which bound our freedom of manoeuvre are a key part of ensuring that we reduce (especially in the age of social media and rolling news) the opportunity for our enemies to use our tactical mistakes as strategic levers against us.

If you find it all so contemptible why don't you leave? You mention stitch-ups as fact, show contempt for those up the chain of command at MB, you say you feel expendable and merely a pawn and yet you keep wearing the uniform, taking the pay and are (I'm assuming) waiting another couple of years before taking your pension as well. Exercise some moral courage and PVR, simples.

[Training Risky]

Oh how nice it must be to be able to afford principles, but some of us have a family to provide for and have to keep swimming in the dwang to stay afloat. Anyway, I earned that pension over many years, serving loyally and making sacrifices to what seemed like a different Service. I'm sure you may be aware of plebs like me from your oh-so-high ivory tower.

[baffman]

Link to the judge advocate's sentencing remarks:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-blackman-marine-a-sentencing%20remarks.pdf

Whatever anyone may think of the sentence, the various mitigating factors which people have been mentioning do appear to have been taken into account.

[Wander00]

JAG's comments seem pretty comprehensive. Surprised it was not a 15 year minimum term, but IMHO cannot accept other than that the case is proven and the sentence appropriate. End of................

[Prawn2king4]

There’s no winners of course, in this public demonstration of the moral high ground. But I wonder if the first police officer who inadvertently viewed this tape (as I understand the situation) is now asking himself (or herself) that a blind eye would have served the situation better.
It would be interesting to know what the circumstances were regarding the initial confiscation of the computer on which this tape was discovered.

[Hangarshuffle]

Soldiers to face 11 more 'trials' over Iraq deaths - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10503268/Soldiers-to-face-11-more-trials-over-Iraq-deaths.html)


Phil Shiner and his lads have a book full of stories to tell apparently....expect plenty more HM forces will be having their collars felt and given full chance to explain all in our brilliant justice system, which we are all so proud to support.
Don't worry though.... it'll only be the grunts being done over. As ever is the case these days.

[Whenurhappy]

There’s no winners of course, in this public demonstration of the moral high ground. But I wonder if the first police officer who inadvertently viewed this tape (as I understand the situation) is now asking himself (or herself) that a blind eye would have served the situation better.

A blind eye to murder?

From the evidence present at the CM, there is no equivocation. This was a deliberate and deliberated upon act taken in cold blood. Any police officer exercising 'discretion' over finding this evidence could not be relied upon in any circumstance.

I was reading the Heily Telegraph this morning and the comparison with the Sgt Nightingale case has been drawn along the lines of

'Our hero lads punished by unfair and corrupt military justice system'

There is no evidence in either case of political interference - at least in terms of bringing the charges and the conduct of the hearing - and both cases were pretty clear in both the evidence and the findings. Guys, who should have known better, wilfully broke serious laws and had their time in Court. And for those accusing the CM system of being corrupt, would they prefer the Board of Officers (a jury by any other name) to now consist of the typical High Court jury profile?

[tucumseh]

When it comes to prosecuting, I don't think there is any need for political interference. Senior staffs can be relied upon to screw juniors without any help, thank you very much.


Where the political interference kicks in is when the decision is made who NOT to prosecute.


The Marine did wrong, no doubt about it. But there are shades of grey and the contribution and acts of senior officers and politicians go unpunished. His boss had the balls to speak up for him, while not condoning what he did. That will not have gone down well. Yet he is probably the one man who truly understands what 42 Commando went through on that tour. I'd happily buy Sgt Alexander a drink. But I wouldn't be seen in the same room as the bastards who sent him there.

[Basil]

Blow me! There I was thinking that our basic function was to kill the enemy until his will and capability to wage war was destroyed. Must go up to the loft and read my old training précis again. Must have misunderstood first time round. :rolleyes:


p.s. How do you spell the plural of 'précis' ?

[Genstabler]

To correct a common misconception, we are not at war with Afghanistan. We are trying to assist the elected government of the Godforsaken place in restoring a semblance of peace and stability after centuries of tribal infighting. Why our politicians thought it would be possible to achieve that objective is beyond me, but sure as hell what Sgt Blackman and his mates did will certainly not help to achieve that objective.

[Basil]

We are trying to assist the elected government of the Godforsaken place in restoring a semblance of peace and stability after centuries of tribal infighting. Why our politicians thought it would be possible to achieve that objective is beyond me
Certainly agree with you there. I've always been of the opinion that you stay out and pay off the head man.

[Toadstool]

Basil

I believe that is what the Italians tried in their AOR. It certainly reduced their casualties.

[Whenurhappy]

But then the Italians are used to 'facilitation payments 'to il patrone' . Staring with a recent ex-Prime Minister

[Mahogany_Bomber]

It may have reduced Italian casualties but unfortunately not those of the French:

French troops died after Italy stopped bribing local Taliban, Times reports - AFGHANISTAN - FRANCE 24 (http://www.france24.com/en/20091015-french-troops-ambushed-italy-bribes-times-afghanistan-taliban-military)

[ExGrunt]

HS,

I am not sure that this is such a 'new' issue. Here is a scenario from the mid 1980s in NI, now nearly 30 years ago (God where did all that time go!)

A. Scrote with home made coffee jar type grenade runs out of an alley to throw grenade at APV.
B. Scrote has thrown coffee jar which is now sailing through the air and is now unarmed.
C1. Grenade hits target explodes and causes death/injury.
C2. Grenade misses target and explodes harmlessly.
C3. Grenade fails to explode.

Under the then yellow card a top cover sentry (ie stood up in the hatch at the rear of an APV):
A. This is clearly armed and about to endanger life so fair game.
B. Strictly applying the yellow card this is a no go as the scrote is unarmed and has not yet killed or seriously injured anyone and is not about (future tense) to do so.
C1. Fair game.
C2 & C3. Again is unarmed and has not killed or seriously injured anyone.

The tricky part is: stood up, moving between 10 & 30 mph, by the time you have seen A you are already into situation B and need to wait until you know the outcome C, by which time the scrote will be long gone. Equally, the coffee jar may just be an empty bottle.

By comparison your pirate scenario is quite clear cut. There are plenty of examples of naval engagements where ships/crews have continued to fight long after it was sensible/ effective to do so eg AMC Jervis Bay v Admiral Scheer. So to my mind mothership with MANPAD is a clear threat until completely destroyed.

EG

[SASless]

I hope, and expect, that the RM will look after his family and, when he is released, him too.

So they convict him of Murder....sentence him to Ten Years to Life....give him a Dishonorable Discharge....forfeiture of all pay and allowances....and you have the unmitigated gall to say what you do?

Just how do you expect the RM to "Look after his family" while he is in Prison?

Do explain that will you?

[Genstabler]

SASless
Gosh, you are a slow reader! You also have a lot of passion, and that would be admirable if it were tempered with moderation, knowledge and common sense. In your case sadly it seems it is not.
I didn't convict and sentence him so why accuse me of unmitigated gall when I express compassion for him and his family? I believe he behaved disgracefully on this occasion and is being punished accordingly. I also believe he has been an outstanding soldier and, until this occasion, served his country long and well. His family are not guilty of anything and should not be punished.
You are an American and so can be forgiven for not understanding how the British military regimental family works and can look after it's own through its regimental charities which are independent of the MoD. The RM didn't convict and sentence him. A military court martial did. The RM family will, I hope, not abandon him, even though he has been a naughty boy.
Is that clearer now?

[SASless]

https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p480x480/1463125_548487771902406_1686545860_n.jpg

[baffman]

SASless, GENstabler said nothing more heinous than this message sent round the Corps by the Commandant General Royal Marines following the guilty verdict:

'We will hold true to our duty of care and responsibility for this member of the corps family, and his family, as he serves out his sentence.

'Our mantra of "once a marine, always a marine" is not conditional.'

That pledge concerns the Corps and its charities, not the Government or the service discipline system.

[SASless]

Baff,

Marines either Royal or American are a very proud, close knit group of Warriors.

I have no doubt there are many of Royal Marines that will do what they can and that is as it should be....particularly in this case.

We saw that when the USMC went after the Haditha Marines despite one of our most corrupt Politicians trying to make as much hay out of it as possible (despite being a Marine himself....which proves there are some who put politics over Corps).

Politics is what has kept us involved in Afghanistan long past when we should have left. Politics both large and small "p" is what led to the Sentence that was handed down and for what charges were filed in both Marine A's and the Haditha' Marines.

Some of the warm loving care and attention should have been applied before the Charges and Trial ever took place.

The most effective time for "Help" is long before the Gavel falls adjourning Court.

We send our Troops off to fight time and time and time again....and then run them up the Yard Arm when they do something that results in a Public Relations disaster.....meaning they are really getting "Hung" for the Embarrassment and no the underlying offense.

Had there been no video splashed all over the media....and just the oral testimony of his Squad.....do you think the case would have been handled as it was?

In the Haditha event, Criminal Charges against six of the Marines were dropped, One Trial resulted in an Innocent Verdict, and the last wound up in a Plea Bargain agreement.

Marine pleads guilty, ending final Haditha trial | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-marine-haditha-idUSTRE80M1U620120123)

[baffman]

Thanks for your post, SASless. You asked:
Had there been no video splashed all over the media....and just the oral testimony of his Squad.....do you think the case would have been handled as it was?In fact there has been no "video splashed all over the media". Some audio and a few stills have been released into the public domain, but only very recently, when released by the court during the court martial. Clearly the investigation and the decision to prosecute took place a long time before that.

Whatever you may think of the decision to prosecute, it was not taken in response to public or media outrage about the killing. I recall there was reporting in the early part of the year that a number of marines had been arrested but there was nothing about the nature of the case until very recently. There was no public awareness of the case to be outraged about it.

So to answer your question whether there would have been a decision to prosecute if there had only been incriminating testimony from the other marines, and no video on a few laptops, the answer is Yes.

[GreenKnight121]

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-blackman-marine-a-sentencing%20remarks.pdf

Quote:
Sergeant Blackman,

On 15 September 2011, while on patrol near CP Omar in Helmand Province, you shot an unknown Afghan insurgent in the chest and killed him. He had been seriously wounded having been engaged lawfully by an Apache Helicopter and when you found him he was no longer a threat. Having removed his AK47, magazines and a grenade, you caused him to be moved to a place where you wanted to be out of sight of your operational headquarters at Shazad so that, to quote what you said: “PGSS can’t see
what we’re doing to him”. He was handled in a robust manner by those under your command, clearly causing him additional pain, and you did nothing to stop them from treating him in that way. When out of view of the PGSS (Persistent Ground Surveillance System) you failed to ensure he was given appropriate medical treatment quickly and then ordered those giving some
first aid to stop. When you were sure the Apache Helicopter was out of sight you calmly discharged a 9mm round into his chest from close range. Your suggestion that you thought the insurgent was dead when you discharged the firearm lacks any credibility and was clearly made up after you 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, you gave him no chance of survival. You intended to kill him and that shot certainly hastened his death. You then told your patrol they were not to say anything about what had just happened and you acknowledged what you had done by saying that you had just broken the Geneva Convention. The tone and calmness of your voice as you commented after you had shot him were matter of fact and in that respect they were chilling.

That Afghan man, as an injured enemy combatant, was entitled to be treated with dignity, respect and humanity. Some commentators and members of the public have said that you should not have been prosecuted and that you have not committed a crime because it was killing within a conflict. Some also suggest it is legitimate to kill wounded enemy combatants because, as you said after you shot the insurgent, it is nothing they wouldn’t do to British casualties. Those commentators are very wrong: if the British Armed Forces are not assiduous in complying with the laws of armed conflict and international humanitarian law they would become no better than the insurgents and terrorists they are fighting. Hearts and minds will not be won if British service personnel act with brutality and savagery. If they do not comply with the law they will quickly lose the support and confidence of those they seek to protect, as well as the international community. You and all Service personnel learn this throughout your training - you demonstrated that you knew that then, because you tried to cover it up, and you know it now.

This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a fire fight. Nor were you under any immediate threat – the video footage shows that you were in complete control of yourself, standing around for several minutes and not apparently worried that you might be at risk of attack by other insurgents. You treated that Afghan man with contempt and murdered him in cold blood. By so doing you have betrayed your Corps and all British Service personnel who have served in Afghanistan, and you have tarnished their reputation. In one moment you undermined much of the good work done day in and day out by British forces and potentially increased the risk of revenge attacks against your fellow service personnel. You have failed to demonstrate the self discipline and restraint that is required of service personnel on operations,
and which sets British troops apart from the enemy they fight.

Of course sitting in a court room in middle England is a far cry from the brutality of the conflict in Afghanistan, but you have been judged here by a Board made up of Service personnel who understand operational service because they too have experienced it. That is one of the strengths of the Court Martial system.

Many people have expressed views on your sentence in the media demanding a severe punishment on one hand and leniency on the other. However, you are not being tried by the media nor by those who express themselves vociferously. This Court Martial is an independent and impartial tribunal which will not be influenced by these sorts of statements and we have ignored them. We have reached an independent decision on the appropriate sentence based on all of the evidence we have heard, your plea of mitigation and the legal framework which we are obliged to apply, together with our collective experience of the law and the context and stresses of operations. Board members have served in all the theatres in which you have served.

Murder has always been regarded as the most serious criminal offence and the sentence prescribed is different from other sentences. By law, the sentence for murder is imprisonment for life and, by virtue of the Armed Forces Act 2006 s217, that is the sentence we must pass on you. There is no discretion to do otherwise. You will remain subject to that sentence for the rest of your life.

The decision whether to release you from custody during this sentence will be taken by the Parole Board which will consider whether it is safe to release you on licence. We are therefore required by law to set a minimum term that has to be served before the Parole Board may start to consider whether to authorise your release on licence. If you are released, the licence continues, as I said, for the rest of your life and recall to prison is possible at any time.

This offence is unique and unprecedented in recent history. You were in a tough operational environment where you were legally entitled to use lethal force against the enemy. Whilst carrying out your duty, you came across a very seriously wounded enemy combatant. You were obliged to care for him but instead you executed him. That is a wholly different matter from the cases of murder in the UK normally considered by the civilian Courts, but we are still required by law to apply the same law which those courts are required to apply.

Parliament has set starting points (based on the circumstances of the killing) in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Schedule 21, and we must apply that Schedule when fixing the minimum term. We reject the defence submission that Schedule 21 is not applicable. The drafters of the legislation provided a framework for all offences of murder and it is an unmeritorious argument to suggest that one particular type of murder was outside their contemplation. Schedule 21 provides a framework to assist the court in arriving at an appropriate sentence and there is sufficient flexibility to take into account the exceptional circumstances of this case.

We have, therefore, identified an appropriate starting point within Schedule 21. From there we have gone on to consider whether to increase or reduce the sentence fromthat starting point in the light ofaggravating or mitigating factors.

This is not a case where a whole life order is appropriate. The normal starting point for a murder involving the use of a firearm is 30 years. (paragraph 5 of Schedule 21). In the case ofR v Jones and Others [2005] EWCA Crim 3115 Lord Phillips LCJ (at paragraph 26) explained why this was the case. He said: “We have no doubt that the reason why the seriousness of such an offence is normally considered to be particularly high is that it results from the unlawful carriage of a loaded firearm and that the usual purpose of carrying such a firearm is to be able to kill or cause really serious injury. It is possible to envisage circumstances where this is not the case, but they will be very rare. Where a firearm is carried for the purpose of being used as an
offensive weapon, we find it hard to envisage what reason there could be for not following the guidance in Schedule 21 and adopting 30 years starting point.”

Clearly this is not a “normal” firearms case. You were on duty in Helmand Province where you were undertaking duties on behalf of the British Government. Thoseduties were dangerous and life threatening and you were required to carry weapons and if necessary use lethal force in the furtherance of Government policy. Your case is one of the exceptionally rare circumstances envisaged by their Lordships in Jones where a firearm was used but where the starting point will be less than 30 years.

We are also satisfied that this offence does not fall within Schedule 21 paragraph 5A which specifies a minimum term of 25 years for offenders who take a knife or other weapon to the scene intending to commit any offence or have the weapon available and use it in committing a murder. As I have already said, you were armed legitimately and there is no suggestion that you set off on that patrol intent on murder.

In circumstances where the offence does not fall within the whole life, 30 year or 25 year starting points, the appropriate starting point is 15 years (Schedule 21 paragraph 6) and that is the starting point we have adopted. As I have said we must then apply aggravating and mitigating factors to that starting point.

We have considered the list of statutory aggravating factors in paragraph 10 of Schedule 21. We do not accept the prosecution submission that the use of a firearm is an aggravating factor. You were armed legitimately and authorised to use lethal force. In fact in this circumstance your use of force was illegal, but it would be wrong to consider the use of a pistol which was carried lawfully in the context of military operations as an aggravating factor. We also accept that there was not a significant degree of planning or premeditation although it is clear from what you said that you decided shortly after you had disarmed the insurgent that you were going to do something to him which you did not want to be seen by your superiors in the
headquarters. However, we have taken in to account the following statutory and other aggravating factors:a. The victim was particularly vulnerable because he was seriously wounded and lying helpless and in obvious pain while you considered what to do with him.

b. Your actions have put at risk the lives of other British service personnel. You have provided ammunition to the terrorists whose propaganda portrays the British presence in Afghanistan as part of a war on Islam in which civilians are arbitrarily killed. That ammunition will no doubt be used in their programme of radicalisation. That could seriously undermine the reputation of British forces and ultimately the mission in Afghanistan. As I have already said, committing this sort of act could well provoke the enemy to act more brutally towards British troops in retribution or reprisal.

c. You were in charge of the patrol and it was incumbent upon you to set the standards. Long before you shot the insurgent you should as a Senior NCO have shown better leadership to young and less experienced men. In fact you abused your position of trust by involving the other junior and subordinate members of your patrol in covering up what you had done and lying on your behalf. On the other hand, there are a number of statutory and other mitigating circumstances which apply, and which we have taken into account.
a. First provocation: The cumulative effect of the increased kinetic activity, together with the deaths and life changing injuries to fellow marines had an obvious effect on you. You were also affected by the story that the Taleban had hung a British Serviceman’s severed limb in a tree, although you did not personally see that. You were also in no doubt that the victim was an insurgent who had been firing at CP Taalanda moments before he was wounded.

b. Second, the stress of operations: This was your sixth operational tour and your second to Afghanistan in under 14 years of service. We accept that you were affected by the constant pressure, ever present danger and fear of death or serious injury. This was enhanced by the reduction of available men in your CP so that you had to undertake more patrols yourself and place yourself and your men in danger more often. We also accept the psychiatric evidence presented today that when you killed the insurgent it was likely that you were suffering to some degree from combat stress disorder.

c. Third your personal mitigation: The recent death of your father, your previous good character and excellent record of Service and the fact that you would never have committed this sort of offence at home in the UK.The determination of the ultimate sentence is not a mathematical calculation but a question of balance and we have drawn together our collective experience of the law and of the Armed Forces to pass a sentence which reflects the seriousness of the offence, the context of the offending and your personal mitigation. While we acknowledge your personal circumstances and the immense pressure you were under, we note that thousands of other Service personnel have experienced the same or similar stresses. They exercised self discipline and acted properly and humanely; you did not.

It is also very important that this Court sends out a very strong message that while this sort of offence is extremely rare, if not unique, those Service personnel who commit crimes of murder, or other war crimes or crimes against humanity while on operations will be dealt with severely. This is a message of deterrence but it is also to reassure the international community that allegations of serious crime will be dealt with transparently and appropriately. In our view that message is delivered by sentencing you to imprisonment for life. Setting the minimum term reflects the seriousness of the offence while taking account of the unique and special circumstances of this case and your personal mitigation.

We took some of the operational contextual mitigating factors into account in reducing the starting point from 30 to 15 years, but the other mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors we have identified. Having balanced all of these matters we have determined that the minimum term you must serve before you are eligible for the Parole board to start considering whether you should be released on licence will be 10 years. That will be reduced to 9 years 327 days to reflect the 38 days you have already spent in custody.

As an inevitable consequence of a sentence of life imprisonment you will also be reduced to the ranks and dismissed with disgrace from Her Majesty’s Service. We consider it necessary to dismiss you with disgrace because a sentence of dismissal simpliciter would be inadequate to reflect the gravity with which the court regards your conduct.

His Honour Judge Jeff Blackett
The Judge Advocate General of
Her Majesty’s Armed Forces
6 December 2013

[bosnich71]

Green Knight .... " provoke the enemy to act more brutally towards British troops". Judge Advocate General.
and there's me thinking that the Taleban were acting about as brutal as they could be before this event !

[Whenurhappy]

Green Knight

Thanks for posting this; I hope that it puts to bed that this Court Martial - and the findings and sentencing - were in some way vindictive and/or politically motivated.

[Genstabler]

GK 121
Thanks for posting that. I am VERY impressed that you found it. I had no idea that the website existed, and I'm a Brit!

[Training Risky]

-The cumulative effect of the increased kinetic activity, together with the deaths and life changing injuries to fellow marines had an obvious effect on you.
- You were also affected by the story that the Taleban had hung a British Serviceman’s severed limb in a tree, although you did not personally see that.
- You were also in no doubt that the victim was an insurgent who had been firing at CP Taalanda moments before he was wounded.
- This was your sixth operational tour and your second to Afghanistan in under 14 years of service.
- We accept that you were affected by the constant pressure, ever present danger and fear of death or serious injury.
- This was enhanced by the reduction of available men in your CP so that you had to undertake more patrols yourself and place yourself and your men in danger more often.
- We also accept the psychiatric evidence presented today that when you killed the insurgent it was likely that you were suffering to some degree from combat stress disorder.
- The recent death of your father, your previous good character and excellent record of Service.
- And the fact that you would never have committed this sort of offence at home in the UK.

After all these mitigating conditions, the Judge and panel of senior officers should hang their heads in shame at finding him guilty. At worst it was manslaughter. Talk about justice having to be SEEN to be done... :mad:

[Genstabler]

Training Risky

On 15 September 2011, while on patrol near CP Omar in Helmand Province, you shot an unknown Afghan insurgent in the chest and killed him. He had been seriously wounded having been engaged lawfully by an Apache Helicopter and when you found him he was no longer a threat. Having removed his AK47, magazines and a grenade, you caused him to be moved to a place where you wanted to be out of sight of your operational headquarters at Shazad so that, to quote what you said: “PGSS can’t see
what we’re doing to him”. He was handled in a robust manner by those under your command, clearly causing him additional pain, and you did nothing to stop them from treating him in that way. When out of view of the PGSS (Persistent Ground Surveillance System) you failed to ensure he was given appropriate medical treatment quickly and then ordered those giving some
first aid to stop. When you were sure the Apache Helicopter was out of sight you calmly discharged a 9mm round into his chest from close range. Your suggestion that you thought the insurgent was dead when you discharged the firearm lacks any credibility and was clearly made up after you had been charged with murder in an effort to concoct a defence. It was rejected by the Board.

Manslaughter? You must be joking.

[baffman]

TrainingRisky

panel of senior officers should hang their heads in shame"Panel of senior officers" gives a misleading impression of the panel of 7 serving personnel drawn from a range of ranks down to and including warrant officers.

You are of course entitled to disagree with the court martial's decisions, and to hope that an appeal by the defence against sentence and/or conviction may succeed. But your attack on the court martial panel is unjustified.

You gave a quote from the judge's sentencing remarks. Here's another, my bold:
Of course sitting in a court room in middle England is a far cry from the brutality of the conflict in Afghanistan, but you have been judged here by a Board made up of Service personnel who understand operational service because they too have experienced it. That is one of the strengths of the Court Martial system.

Many people have expressed views on your sentence in the media demanding a severe punishment on one hand and leniency on the other. However, you are not being tried by the media nor by those who express themselves vociferously. This Court Martial is an independent and impartial tribunal which will not be influenced by these sorts of statements and we have ignored them. We have reached an independent decision on the appropriate sentence based on all of the evidence we have heard, your plea of mitigation and the legal framework which we are obliged to apply, together with our collective experience of the law and the context and stresses of operations. Board members have served in all the theatres in which you have served.

[Training Risky]

But your attack on the court martial panel is unjustified.

I don't think so. I am only too aware of the undue influence that senior officers, who are looking to send a signal to other potential miscreants while not too concerned with justice, can exert on junior officers and SNCOs during the military legal process.

At risk of repetition - there was scope to find Sgt B guilty of manslaughter considering the mitigating factors.

[FODPlod]

...At risk of repetition - there was scope to find Sgt B guilty of manslaughter considering the mitigating factors.

At risk of repetition, have you bothered to read the judgement at Post #118 (http://www.pprune.org/8203744-post118.html)?

...He had been seriously wounded having been engaged lawfully by an Apache Helicopter and when you found him he was no longer a threat. Having removed his AK47, magazines and a grenade, you caused him to be moved to a place where you wanted to be out of sight of your operational headquarters at Shazad so that, to quote what you said: “PGSS can’t see what we’re doing to him”...

When you were sure the Apache Helicopter was out of sight you calmly discharged a 9mm round into his chest from close range...

You then told your patrol they were not to say anything about what had just happened and you acknowledged what you had done by saying that you had just broken the Geneva Convention. The tone and calmness of your voice as you commented after you had shot him were matter of fact and in that respect they were chilling...

[Training Risky]

Yes I have read the facts as reported, including the Judge's subjective opinions, and in spite of all that I, and many others, believe that there is scope for leniency, bearing in mind the extremely hard conditions Sgt B was operating under. You may be prepared to totally write off an asset to our country after 15 years of hard graft in an unbelievably horrific war, but I am not. That is my right.

[Genstabler]

Appropriate leniency for all the mitigating circumstances was calculated, applied and carefully explained in the judge's statement. How can you look at what he did and how he did it and not agree with the verdict of murder? I don't think they have a verdict of calculated, cold blooded manslaughter.

[Toadstool]

TR, in your many times spent in a CAOC, did you ever do a PDT? Heard of the LOAC and GC or were you asleep each and every time these lessons were given. If you were awake, was there a sliding scale in which you were allowed to carry out a little bit of a murder.

Perhaps after one month in theatre you are allowed to file down one of your rounds in your magazine?

Are you aware of the difference between murder and manslaughter? To put it in really simplistic terms, manslaughter is where the person committing the act actually didn't mean to kill the victim. Having read the transcript, at what point where the Royal shot the Taliban and said "shuffle off your mortal coil" did he say oops, I didn't mean that?

What exactly are the reasons for your thinking that the JAG's comments were subjective. Just your subjective opinion? Heard of the saying "barrack room lawyer"?

[PPRuNe Pop]

Think it is still a point of law that murder is only murder so long as it can proved to be pre-mediated. If it cannot then manslaughter is the next option.

[Toadstool]

Many people are killed each and every day by people who suddenly snap. Say for example a couple having an argument and the husband/wife suddenly stabbing the other one to death. This is not pre-meditated but is murder just the same.

[FODPlod]

Yes I have read the facts as reported, including the Judge's subjective opinions, and in spite of all that I, and many others, believe that there is scope for leniency, bearing in mind the extremely hard conditions Sgt B was operating under. You may be prepared to totally write off an asset to our country after 15 years of hard graft in an unbelievably horrific war, but I am not. That is my right.

A court-martial composed of WOs and others who have experienced the same conditions in the same campaigns as Sgt B has made a decision based on the evidence. Never mind the Judge's opinions; just read the facts of the case. Appropriate leniency has been applied which is why Sgt B has been sentenced to ten years instead of 30. The conditions under which Sgt B was operating were no harsher than those experienced by other member of our armed forces in Afghanistan over the past 10 years. The difference lies in the fact that others haven't shot their wounded, disarmed prisoners out of hand despite their certain knowledge that such action is illegal.

Moreover, many other personnel have invested more than 15 years of graft in the armed forces without committing murder (UK definition (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#murder)- it doesn't have to be pre-meditated). Apart from the fact that Sgt B had served long enough and was senior enough to know better, what gave him the exceptional right to ignore his training and the rule of law and then try to cover up the fact by swearing his subordinates to secrecy, thus aggravating their involvement in his crime? The facts speak for themselves.

Sgt B hasn't been 'written off but has been judged in accordance with the law (both civil and military) and found guilty of murder. This will not prevent his Corps and its associated organisations from continuing to support him and his family.

...Some commentators and members of the public have said that you should not have been prosecuted and that you have not committed a crime because it was killing within a conflict. Some also suggest it is legitimate to kill wounded enemy combatants because, as you said after you shot the insurgent, it is nothing they wouldn’t do to British casualties. Those commentators are very wrong: if the British Armed Forces are not assiduous in complying with the laws of armed conflict and international humanitarian law they would become no better than the insurgents and terrorists they are fighting.

Hearts and minds will not be won if British service personnel act with brutality and savagery. If they do not comply with the law they will quickly lose the support and confidence of those they seek to protect, as well as the international community. You and all Service personnel learn this throughout your training - you demonstrated that you knew that then, because you tried to cover it up, and you know it now...

[baffman]

Pop, premeditation isn't an essential element of murder, but this is from the judge advocate's sentencing remarks posted earlier, my bold:
We also accept that there was not a significant degree of planning or premeditation although it is clear from what you said that you decided shortly after you had disarmed the insurgent that you were going to do something to him which you did not want to be seen by your superiors in the headquarters. ...

PS this was also in the sentencing remarks:
...there is no suggestion that you set off on that patrol intent on murder.

[Training Risky]

Appropriate leniency for all the mitigating circumstances was calculated, applied and carefully explained in the judge's statement. How can you look at what he did and how he did it and not agree with the verdict of murder?

I agree that the Judge awarded what he thought was a lenient tariff of 10 years (and I'm glad it wasn't more), but I don't believe that the mitigating circs were given nearly enough weight by the Service Prosecuting Authority and the CM panel.

TR, in your many times spent in a CAOC, did you ever do a PDT? Heard of the LOAC and GC or were you asleep each and every time these lessons were given. If you were awake, was there a sliding scale in which you were allowed to carry out a little bit of a murder.

Are you aware of the difference between murder and manslaughter? To put it in really simplistic terms, manslaughter is where the person committing the act actually didn't mean to kill the victim.

I am not about to talk about what I have done in any CAOC anywhere, but you are obviously not aware of the sliding scale of lawful killing that now exists in, and has been necessitated by, this nasty brutish and long COIN campaign. I'm not a lawyer, but I know the difference between premeditated murder in cold blood, and manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Sgt B has been judged under English Law and thrown in a UK civilian jail with UK-grown Jihadis. But he killed a foreign insurgent in a foreign country, on a sanctioned military op, in unprecedented circumstances in which nobody in England has ever been convicted of murder before. Go figure.

I say again, this wasn't a murder in 'civilised' England in cold blood, this was a possible manslaughter in a warzone.

Don't get me started on the release of his name and photograph...:=

[Toadstool]

you are obviously not aware of the sliding scale of lawful killing that now exists in, and has been necessitated by, this nasty brutish and long COIN campaign.

Oh, but I am. Without going into detail and breaking Opsec, I am more than aware of what goes on. I am just not really sure that you do, other what what you may have been told or read in the Daily Mail.

but I know the difference between premeditated murder in cold blood, and manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Clearly you don't. Again, and this is like pulling teeth, read the trial transcript. Then read the LOAC, the GC and brush up on the ROE in theatre.

[Training Risky]

Clearly you don't. Again, and this is like pulling teeth, read the trial transcript. Then read the LOAC, the GC and brush up on the ROE in theatre

Oh thanks for schooling me on such issues sir. :rolleyes: A dissenting opinion does not make it invalid just because you say so.

Oh - and ref the judge's remarks on the supposed propaganda coup Sgt B handed the enemy, if that was in any way a factor in his conviction or sentence...then Piers Morgan would have spent time in a cell for publishing those fake images of 'Iraqi detainee abuse' in the Mirror.

[Toadstool]

Oh thanks for schooling me on such issues sir.

You're welcome. Any time.

[baffman]

Oh - and ref the judge's remarks on the supposed propaganda coup Sgt B handed the enemy, if that was in any way a factor in his conviction or sentence...then Piers Morgan would have spent time in a cell for publishing those fake images of 'Iraqi detainee abuse' in the Mirror.

This IS like pulling teeth. Morgan wasn't being done for murder.

I just wish somebody would have a go at arguing a rational case for greater clemency in this case, without the nonsense like the CM "panel of senior officers should hang their head in shame".

[Hangarshuffle]

Name the panel then Baffman. The judge seems a million miles from a man who has done a tour as a footsoldier. Name all 7 of them - they called it. You know as well as I do that every bar, every bus full in GB disagrees with 10 years.

[Hangarshuffle]

It was political. Same old same old.


Rational case? I would have tried: (bearing in mind I've has half a bottle of red with Dinner....
1. RM are highly trained to fight as soldiers and even as gutter soldiers who will adopt any method fair or foul on our side, in our name. Are you surprised an enemy is dead as a result of this....?
2. Long tours breed...frustration with everything..
3. Weigh up the risk of abandoning a dead ****er against carry back a live one with all the risk to his lads and more that will occur. See my past posts.
4. As a warning to the dead ****ers mates that you are dealing with RM (see 1)..may have actually saved some of our lads lives this..think about it.


and more and more and more...
Couldn't the panel see this? Truth is they wont do gore, they want it to be as clean as whistle, and it isn't, its horrible and messy.

[papajuliet]

There's a world of difference between the Law [made by politicians don't forget] and Justice.
However, those of you in the Armed Forces, can rest assured that you have the full support and loyalty of those at the top of the monkey tree.

[Just This Once...]

I think the prosecution, verdict and sentence were justified and balanced.

[Training Risky]

I just wish somebody would have a go at arguing a rational case for greater clemency in this case, without the nonsense like the CM "panel of senior officers should hang their head in shame".

I have - read above. Maybe the 'hang their head in shame' bit was a tad 'Eastenders', but my argument after that stands.

[baffman]

Sorry HS, I was trying to suggest that someone has a go at a rational case.

PS - TrainingRisky - just read, thanks for that.:)

[SASless]

Seems this breaks down to those who have walked a mile in Marine A's shoes are far more willing to give him a Pass on this....while the Staff and HQ's types are far more willing to support the verdict.

There lies a bit of Truth....the further from the enemy you get...the easier it is to read the QR's in Black and White.

Message sending by the Brass does get in the way of Justice....don't it!

[baffman]

Seems this breaks down to those who have walked a mile in Marine A's shoes are far more willing to give him a Pass on this....while the Staff and HQ's types are far more willing to support the verdict.Someone stole Marine A's shoes?

[FODPlod]

Seems this breaks down to those who have walked a mile in Marine A's shoes are far more willing to give him a Pass on this....while the Staff and HQ's types are far more willing to support the verdict...

In general, those who've actually walked a few miles in Sgt B's shoes in recent times tend to think he has let the side down big time. It's mostly heart-on-sleeve-wearing civilians and some 'old & bolds' with extreme views expressing their misguided sympathy for him on the ARRSE thread (http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/206382-marine-guilty-executing-afghan-insurgent.html).

[Genstabler]

Originally Posted by SASless
Seems this breaks down to those who have walked a mile in Marine A's shoes are far more willing to give him a Pass on this....while the Staff and HQ's types are far more willing to support the verdict...

On what evidence? None credible. However, the more often you repeat a myth, the more likelihood that some one will believe it, as Josef Goebbels knew.

[SASless]

Gen....if I brought you the Ten Commandments in the original Stone you would challenge them as being a cheap knock off.

[Genstabler]

So no evidence then. Merely mischievous theory.

[Training Risky]

The evidence is to be found in the way some posters here are quite willing to throw Sgt B to the wolves with not a hint of loyalty or respect for his service or the conditions he served in.

The evidence is to be found in the way Blackett (a career navy lawyer) and the CM panel (my opinion of which I have made clear) disregarded the weight of all the mitigating circumstances.

Some posters here obviously care more about an insurgent/terrorist who was a valid target, been engaged by an Apache and was dying. The manner in which he was dispatched was not murder.

Any of that incorrect? Do tell.

[Genstabler]

Nearly all of it. But you are entitled to your opinion.

[Mahogany_Bomber]

Training Risky,


I don't know what has led you to have your view of the service where we all appear morally bankrupt and bereft of the ability to do what is right in the face of pressure from senior officers, lawyers and politicians. On this issue you see political interference, a JAG who's less than independent and a CM panel who've been nobbled. I see an individual who was tried and convicted by a properly constituted CM based on the evidence presented to it.


I have walked a mile or two in Helmand (in my boots and not his!), suffice it to say I have seen my lads blown-up and suffer life changing injuries, I have suffered from combat stress and I have had to make life and death decisions under fire and yet I have never, ever considered acting as he did in this case. It is not a matter of context, mitigation or misapplication of the law but a matter of murder pure and simple. 20+ years of MATTs, CCS, LOAC, PDT (and plenty of other abbreviations for good measure!) as well as basic common sense and knowing right from wrong have all pointed me in one direction - if you deliberately drag an incapacitated and disarmed individual into a location where know you can't be observed, tell your subordinates not to give first aid, shoot him in the chest (having discussed not shooting him in the head as that would be "too obvious"), admit you've broken the Geneva Convention and then remind your subordinates not to say anything - if you do all of that you have committed murder.


Whether or not you agree with the decision to prosecute, the verdict or sentence, the basic facts as presented (and not disputed by the defence) are shabby in the extreme and bring no credit to any of the individuals concerned. I don't subscribe to the theory that you have to have operated on the ground in this environment to be able to offer an opinion but for those of you who do, I have and I abhor his actions. We all form opinions based on our own experiences and I am no different in that respect. Hence my disgust at the crime, my trust in the honesty of the court martial and the appropriateness of the sentence as delivered by the JAG. My world sure ain't perfect Training Risky but it appears a lot less bitter and cynical than yours and for that I am truly grateful.


MB

[FODPlod]

The evidence is to be found in the way some posters here are quite willing to throw Sgt B to the wolves with not a hint of loyalty or respect for his service or the conditions he served in...

Inadvertently, Sgt B has displayed more disloyalty and disrespect towards his own service than any of us could achieve, even if we wished to. As a consequence of his actions, the honorable reputation of the Royal Marines and of our armed forces in general has suffered worldwide damage. The conditions in which he served were not unique to him but no one else in the same circumstances has behaved with such callous and illegal cruelty. I feel sorry for the subordinates he so cynically implicated by perverting his authority. They will forever be tainted by, and have to live with, their involuntary participation in his grossly criminal act.

The evidence is to be found in the way Blackett (a career navy lawyer) and the CM panel (my opinion of which I have made clear) disregarded the weight of all the mitigating circumstances...

Mitigating circumstances don't affect the question of Sgt B being guilty of murder which the evidence proves beyond all doubt. They only affect his sentence which could easily have been three times longer if no mitigation had been taken into account.

Some posters here obviously care more about an insurgent/terrorist who was a valid target, been engaged by an Apache and was dying. The manner in which he was dispatched was not murder.

Where is your proof that the victim was dying? Thanks to Sgt B, he wasn't given any medical examination or treatment. Once he had been incapacitated, disarmed and taken prisoner, he ceased to be "a valid target". His subsequent surreptitious despatch with a shot to the chest at point-blank range with obvious intent to kill (which Sgt B later tried to justify as a 'mercy killing') was cold-blooded murder. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Any of that incorrect? Do tell.

A more valid question would be whether any of what you posted is correct. As you've invited us to tell you, obviously not much.

[Training Risky]

FODPlod

Where is your proof that the victim was dying? Thanks to Sgt B, he wasn't given any medical examination or treatment.

Where is your proof that Sgt B who was there at the time didn't have an honest belief that the insurgent was not dying? You can't have it both ways! A man has been convicted of murdering an unknown person, with no body to examine, on the evidence of a piece of film.

Inadvertently, Sgt B has displayed more disloyalty and disrespect towards his own service than any of us could achieve, even if we wished to

Spoken like a true keyboard warrior with the utmost piety.

MB,

My world sure ain't perfect Training Risky but it appears a lot less bitter and cynical than yours and for that I am truly grateful.

I understand the sentiment behind this statement and I can appreciate that it is black and white in your (and others) eyes: you only kill in self defence or when ordered, anything else is murder. But...

We all form opinions based on our own experiences and I am no different in that respect. Hence my disgust at the crime, my trust in the honesty of the court martial and the appropriateness of the sentence as delivered by the JAG.

My own experiences lead me down an obviously more cynical path than yours. You will possibly know that ISAF allows for the targeting of individuals in Afghanistan who are not actively participating in hostilities and have no displayed weapons at the time of the killing (legal assassination - call it what you will). I won't say more than that, but it appears that there is the moral space for ISAF (and the MOD by association) to operate on the sliding scale of killing/murder, but not an individual facing the enemy on a daily basis under extenuating circumstances...which can lead to injustice.

[orca]

TR,

What is your take on his defence, which was built on the belief that the insurgent was already dead? To me it doesn't really make sense in that:

1. If you've asked your team about giving first aid you probably suspect the enemy still lives.
2. Why a single shot to the chest? If you really were at the end of your tether how about multiple kicks to the head?
3. Why move a dead person at all?
4. If you put a round into a dead person why would it matter what the desired point of impact was and why would it breach the Geneva Convention?

I only ask because I think it flies in the face of the mitigation. To me it would have been far better for him to stand there and adopt a 'I knew what I was doing but this is what I'd seen and been through' defence than what actually came across as (for want of a better phrase) a play ground excuse which didn't really stack up.

FWIW (and it isn't worth much) I think if he had done it immediately on locating the insurgent even if PGSS had seen him we wouldn't be having this debate. But, as others have pointed out that's not what happened.

[bosnich71]

How about a chat about the use of drones in Afghanistan ?

[Toadstool]

Bos

start a new thread and I'm sure you will get some debate. I for one am wildly in favour for the use of drones/UAS/UAV etc.

[bosnich71]

Toads .... I'm not taking sides in this debate at all but consider the following.


Marine A kills known Taleban who wasn't dead but just wounded, result a charge of murder. Found guilty and, sentenced to a minimum of 10 years.
A Drone driver is ordered to target a known Taleban, result Taleban bloke dead. Drone driver awaits the next mission and no one is bothered about any collateral of which there always seems to be some.


P.s. I'm also in favour of drones. In fact I'm in favour of wiping out any who would do us and ours any harm.

[Training Risky]

Toadstool,

What exactly are the reasons for your thinking that the JAG's comments were subjective. Just your subjective opinion? Heard of the saying "barrack room lawyer"?

What an asinine comment. By your rationale we are ALL guilty of that tag on this thread.

orca,

Considering the footage, I kind of agree that it is a weak defence to claim the insurgent was presumed actually dead, but totally plausible to claim it was thought he was far beyond the point of saving and was going to die anyway. And I realise that is not his call to make under the current ROE, but that doen't negate a lesser charge of manslaughter.

To me it would have been far better for him to stand there and adopt a 'I knew what I was doing but this is what I'd seen and been through' defence

I guess this is what I am saying should have been given more weight by Blackett and the panel.

NB: given the comments made about Sgt B's 'calm tone' and apparent 'self-control' that prove it was 'murder'...it is worth pointing out that TRIM and PTSD studies show that stress can result in mental health issues in non-obvious ways in the months/years after cumulative stressful events. His calm tone and apparent self-control may not be all they appear and should have been considered further.

[Toadstool]

Bos

Marine A kills known Taleban who wasn't dead but just wounded, result a charge of murder. Found guilty and, sentenced to a minimum of 10 years.

This has been debated at length in this thread. Regardless of what anyone thinks, the trial is over. I will be interested to hear whether or not there will be an appeal. As I have said previously, I just wish that Taliban had been blown to smithereens then the Royal, who was a brave and professional soldier with an exemplary record, would not be in this sorry mess.

A Drone driver is ordered to target a known Taleban, result Taleban bloke dead.

I have no problems with this whatsoever.

Drone driver awaits the next mission and no one is bothered about any collateral of which there always seems to be some.

Incorrect.

I am not going to comment further on this point with regard to UK ops.

The CIA on the other hand seem to be operating with a completely separate and much more relaxed ROE. This is only my opinion based on press reporting.

[Training Risky]

Turned on R4 this morning to hear Freddie Forsyth discussing the renewed campaign to clear Sgt Blackman's name.

I know it's the DM (bear with me) but this story (even if partially true) vindicates everything I said earlier about the chain of command leaning on junior officers and the whole courts-martial process to get the 'right' outcome.

Colonel resigned in protest at the betrayal of Sergeant Alexander Blackman | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3230016/How-hero-colonel-resigned-protest-betrayal-Sergeant-Blackman-failure-moral-courage-chain-command.html)

I never usually give to charity online, but the paypal payment to his defence fund that I just donated is the best use of my MoD salary this week!

Link to aviation? Apache mortally wounds insurgent, then Marine is jailed for finishing the job. Anyone ever involved in air weapons targeting should watch their front gate for SIB to stalk up the path...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Anyone ever involved in air weapons targeting should watch their front gate for SIB to stalk up the path...

As long as you are not targeting unarmed individuals who are Hors de Combat, you should be alright.

[alfred_the_great]

As long as you are not targeting unarmed individuals who are Hors de Combat, you should be alright.

Having first dragged out of the sight of persistent ISTAR, and then dis-arming them before shooting them in the chest.

And if you can do all of that from the aircraft, I'm impressed.

[Training Risky]

Well maybe dismounted warfare is a bit different from the safety of a portacabin in Lincolnshire. Afghanistan is obviously distant enough in the corporate memory for people like you to make such comments...like I should be surprised

[ShotOne]

Training risky, I'm not sure what you're driving at by talking about the "safety" of a portakabin in Lincs. in the context of retrospective legal action it's anything but. Every word and action of the Reaper crews is recorded in detail and stored, in effect, forever; if some future investigator decides they disapproved of a decision they could find themselves facing a court in twenty or more years time.

[Training Risky]

ShotOne, what I was alluding to was the extreme difference in operational conditions between the 2 opposite ends of the targeting chain: geographically remote, clinical RPAS operators versus 6 months of under-resourced, over-stretched troops going face to face with a dangerous enemy who doesn't play by the rules.

To put it another way, it is very easy for 'Air' posters on this site to judge the 'Land' man when they have never served in such conditions (stand fast the SH force).

[Mil-26Man]

To be fair Training Risky, no one ('Air' posters or not) had sought to judge anybody on this topic since December 2013, until you decided to bring it back up again.

Were you just looking to pick a fight?

[Training Risky]

No, no fights necessary. I just wanted to remind people that one of our own was cast aside and abandoned for political expediency.

[ShotOne]

Even the majority here who agree with your basic point, training risky, can't fail to be narked at your implication that their view counts for less than that of a 'Land' man. All aircrew are exposed to the full force of the system if they make a wrong call. In the case of crews presently operating over Iraq, with the added prospect of being put in a metal cage and set on fire if anything goes wrong.