Soldier rally for jailed marine?

[Jayand]

Military chiefs ban serving personnel from mass rally in support of Alex Blackman | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3290857/Fury-MoD-cowards-Soldiers-anger-military-chiefs-ban-serving-personnel-mass-rally-support-jailed-marine.html)
You never have been allowed to demonstrate or go to a rally of this sort.
Not sure if the Mail has got knickers in a twist as usual or if the "Soldiers" are ignorant of the rules?
What next a military union?
Personally would not stop me if I felt strongly enough about it though.

[The Old Fat One]

I've read two articles in the Mail of which I had personal knowledge - both were a pack of lies. Pretty much sums up all journalism in the UK, although some papers do take it to the extreme and the Mail has always seemed to be right up there with the worst.

I don't really have a problem with it to be honest. As someone once said...

"You get the politicians you vote for, and the newspapers you buy".

Quite why anyone would buy and read the Daily Mail in this era, is frankly beyond my ken.

[Tourist]

I would be there if I could.

[Tankertrashnav]

I have huge sympathy for this NCO and think he has been very badly treated by the corps he served loyally. I do not condone his actions, but nor do I condone the actions of a woman suffering from post natal depression who kills her child. The law recognises her condition, hence the offence of infanticide, which is treated differently from murder and often attracts a non-custodial sentence. Sgt Blackman was in an analogous position, and should never been tried for the crime of murder which carries a mandatory life sentence, but manslaughter, for which he could have pleaded guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility

That said, I understand that anyone still serving should not get involved in this protest, but I also hope that groups like "Britain First" etc do not try and hijack it in order to publicise their own racist views.

[Fluffy Bunny]

Bit late for that TTN, I've seen plenty of Failbook posts claiming to come from such right wing groups using this issue as evidence of failure by the government to protect our troops.

[dallas]

Spot on, TTN.

[Old-Duffer]

Am I missing something here?

Taking an overt political stance has always been forbidden/discouraged for active members of the armed forces. However, in recent times the armed forces have been 'encouraged' and permitted to become involved in activities which might be seen to fall in to this category.

There seems to me to be more than a tad of double standards here!

Old Duffer

[Simplythebeast]

Im pretty sure they would be allowed.....nay, encouraged to attend a Gay pride demo.

[Rosevidney1]

Yeah. They got their Yuman Rites, innit?

[heights good]

I rarely post... However!

No matter what way you look at what happened with this Marine, he walked up to an injured fighter and shot him. Prior to doing this he asked if the helmet cam was switched off (because he knew what he was about to do was wrong), then stated he was about to breach the geneva convention and finally muttered some Shakespeare before killing the wounded enemy fighter! After the deed was carried out he then tells his section that it didn't happen.

I am no head doctor, but that does not sound like a man on the edge who had PTSD or "diminished responsibility". He killed someone in cold blood and made a conscious effort to do this despite several comments that demonstrated he knew the legality, morality and gravity of his actions and subsequent attempts to cover it up.

That being said, I do believe there are extenuating circumstances such as being battle weary, under-manned, numerous contacts and his friends injured. None of these can justify the killing. He was a SNCO who has a duty under service and international law, namely the Law of Armed Conflict, to provide medical assistance to injured enemy combatants.

This is not something new and I am 100% confident he would have been taught this on several occasions.

[newt]

Well I for one support this soldier! I don't give a monkeys stuff for the legal wranglings of this case! This guy did his job! Would the Taliban fighter have survived? I very much doubt it from the reports read out at the CM! This is not a fluffy political debate! The guys were fighting for their lives and war is tough!:mad:

[mopardave]

Well I for one support this soldier! I don't give a monkeys stuff for the legal wranglings of this case! This guy did his job! Would the Taliban fighter have survived? I very much doubt it from the reports read out at the CM! This is not a fluffy political debate! The guys were fighting for their lives and war is tough!

Agreed! This otherwise "good son of England", made an error of judgement. I'm pretty sure it could only happen in this country.....the self righteous and sanctimonious politicians that take us in to these crazy campaigns are morally bankrupt! Get our boys and girls to do their dirty work....then throw 'em under a bus!! Those who convicted this guy should hang their heads in shame. I'm so glad my son saw the light and left the army....we're a disgrace!:ugh:
MD

[sitigeltfel]

Am I missing something here?

Taking an overt political stance has always been forbidden/discouraged for active members of the armed forces.

Is there a political element to protesting about a perceived injustice?

[minigundiplomat]

Strongly agree with Heights Good.

I am surprised by the hyperbole around what is quite a clear case (he was filmed in the act, and admitting to a breach of the Geneva Convention).

This guy did his job! Would the Taliban fighter have survived?

Sgt Blackman is not God, or a doctor - whether or not the guy would have survived, it wasnt his call to make, a point he was clearly aware of during the act.

Plenty of guys had a hard tour, and many have stress related issues - but they operated under the bounds of international law. That's why the British Forces are respected the world over, and aren't in a peer group with Nigeria.

[Trim Stab]

And another in strong agreement with Height's Good.

This is a passage from a book about the Falklands War by an ex-Para (Tony Banks).

A terrified young soldier stood up with his hands in the air jabbering away in Spanish and obviously wanting to surrender. He looked like a teenager — a boy, much like ourselves.
He was pleading for his life. We looked at each other and hesitated. A brief argument broke out between us. Somebody shouted at us to follow orders: ‘Shoot him.’ Out of the darkness, another voice replied, ‘No, you shoot him.’
As the argument went on, the boy crumpled to his knees. Finally, somebody threw a tarpaulin over him, shot him, and finished him off with a bayonet. That was it. We moved on.

I suggest that if the Para who did that had been prosecuted, then Sgt Blackman might not be in jail today. Blackman's sentence will be a strong deterrent to any other British soldiers who kill an unarmed (and injured) prisoner.

[newt]

I bet plenty of other events went unreported and many more were not actioned even though they were known about! Why was this guy singled out for severe punishment? He is a soldier and they are all trained to kill! Fact. Why should anyone be surprised when in the heat of an engagement they actually kill the innocent either deliberately or by mistake?


Standing by for incoming fluffy rabbits and politically correct nonsense!!

[BEagle]

OK, just for you, newt:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/kaninchen%20babys_zpshhsq0bjn.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/kaninchen%20babys_zpshhsq0bjn.jpg.html)

However, I agree with you entirely!

[mopardave]

I am surprised by the hyperbole around what is quite a clear case (he was filmed in the act, and admitting to a breach of the Geneva Convention).


you're quite right.......but I can't imagine what was going through his mind.....what he'd seen and been through! The politicians treat members of the armed forces with contempt.......and at the same time expecting them to clear up the mess they've created. They come home damaged physically and mentally........and get more contempt heaped upon them from every direction. It may not have been AB's finest hour but I for one think there were extenuating circumstances.

Like I said.....I'm so glad my son got out! I'm not a pacifist.....far from it.......I'm just fiercely proud of our armed forces, who are asked to do a difficult job with one arm tied behind their backs.

Apologies for the rant.....time for a coffee!
MD :ok:

[minigundiplomat]

He is a soldier and they are all trained to kill! Fact.

Untrue - soldiers are trained to operate within Rules of Engagement. Killing is often a necessary part of the ROE, when justified, which this, legally, wasn't.

[Tourist]

minigun


There is a famous saying about walking a mile in someone's shoes.....


Unless you have, then get off your sanctimonious horse.:=

[Brian 48nav]

I suggest you read 'Quartered safe out here ' by George MacDonald Fraser, the author of the Flashman books.

It describes his time as an 18year old squaddie in Burma in 44/45 and what he thought of the killing of Japanese POWs and also what he thought of the 'fluffy bunny' types 50 years later who described the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan as a war crime.

Although a different campaign I believe his thoughts are still relevant.

[Old-Duffer]

I've forgotten the name of the Para Lee ???? who was jailed for shooting somebody in Northern Ireland. IIRC, the case hinged on whether the car into which he fired had passed the soldiers and was, therefore, not placing him and his comrades in mortal danger.

It is worth noting a few things here. During Confrontation with Indonesia 1963-66, no British Commonwealth serviceman, known to have been taken alive by the Indons, was ever seen alive again. Second, we do seem to cling to the moral high ground when we know that if a British serviceman were to be captured by ISIL, it is unlikely that they would be treated as POWs.

O-D

[4mastacker]

O-D,

I think you mean this guy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Clegg

[ShotOne]

Where does the logic of that argument end, old duffer? Any time we encounter an enemy behaving unspeakably we have to copy him?

[handleturning]

Very sad story, but however you look at it he acted illegally. He was a soldier paid to do a job he was trained for. He can't be seen to get away with it.

[MAINJAFAD]

I've forgotten the name of the Para Lee ????

Clegg is the name you are looking for Old Duffer. He was convicted as it was a bullet from his rifle that killed one of the Joy riders in a stolen car that was hit by over 180 rounds during that engagement where almost every rule on the Yellow Card was broken. There was also the fact that the squad in question then beat up one of their own men to make it look like he had been hit by the car going past them which was the only justification available in the ROE for them to open fire. The RUC Officers on the patrol shopped them.

[A and C]

The Sgt Blackman should not have shot the guy however the situation that Sgt Blackman and his unit found them selfs in was such that murder is not an appropriate charge, to put it simply you can't impose the same rules for a battlefield as you can for the streets of London.

Those who try to impose the same standards are usually the lawyers who stand to make huge amounts of money from the leagal aid system, some of these lawyers have known for years that the cases they pursued were based on very poor evidence and had little chance of success but persue than they did at great cost to the public purse.

However to me the the pursue of these cases in the face the lack of evidence is a crime on two counts, first those who found them selfs wrongly accused had the case hanging over them day in day out for years while they should have been getting on with their lives and forgetting the horrors of war and secondly a lawyer who continues a case that he knows is far from sound is stealing from the leagal aid budget.

I understand that the govenment is looking into some of these cases to see if they can recover some of the leagal aid money that was taken, the govenment should also look at taking leagal action against some of these lawyers for the mental anguish that they imposed for years on servicemen who innocence lawyers had become fully aware of but continued the case dispite the evidence ( or lack of ).

[Toadstool]

Tourist

I think that perhaps you should visit those responsible for delivering military training in order that you can obtain refresher training with regard to the Geneva Convention and the LOAC. We receive this training every year, as does every one. Perhaps you were unavailable?

The fact that you sneer at MGD for being Lower Deck suggests to me that you either are or were Commissioned.

I would expect much more from you as a leader of men. How you you decide what laws to break and which standards to maintain. The sheer fact that you are completely ignorant of this suggests that you are unable to command or, more importantly, lead your subordinates.

If you can't maintain standards or uphold the law, how do you expect those who are under your command to do so?

I despair.

[Jimlad1]

I do feel here that many people are confused by what happened. He was not under attack, he was not at immediate risk and it was not an instantaneous 'heat of the moment' decision.

As I said on ARRSE, when I hear people state it wasn't murder, I ask why intentionally moving someone out of line of sight of the ISTAR cover so you can't be moved, then refusing to render first aid, then refusing to call for medical evacuation on the MERT, then shooting them in the chest and stating to your men that you broke the geneva convention isn't murder?

I've read the sentencing remarks, there is a great deal of fact that wasn't covered in the sensationalist tabloid coverage and paint an utterly damning indictment of his actions.

Mr Blackman (not Sgt anymore) is a convicted murderer who let the UK down with his actions. He was treated exceptionally lightly by the Courts Martial and the appeals court, and has the lightest possible sentence, which is more than he deserves in my opinion.

[melmothtw]

[QUOTE Those who try to impose the same standards are usually the lawyers who stand to make huge amounts of money from the leagal aid system, some of these lawyers have known for years that the cases they pursued were based on very poor evidence and had little chance of success but persue than they did at great cost to the public purse.[/QUOTE]

IIRC, he was tried and found guilty by a panel of his peers - all serving servicemen with recent combat experience in Afghanistan.

[mantog]

I understand the argument about him being under stress, things are different on the battlefield etc but would people still be keen to apply that leniency if a Taliban fighter had done this to a British soldier?

[Tourist]

I think that the Taliban would be of a mind to be lenient to him....:rolleyes:


Not that it is any way relevant....

[melmothtw]

I think that the Taliban would be of a mind to be lenient to him....:rolleyes:


Not that it is any way relevant....

I think it goes to the heart of the matter. Either we have the moral high ground, or we don't.

[The Nip]

Tourist,

'shoots a dying man,

He may have died from his injuries, he may not. It was not for Mr Blackman to decide.

[Tourist]

Nope, you are right.

I don't happen to think that treating men and their behaviour in a wartime like they are in a UK street when it comes to crimes is justice though.

It must be tricky to keep your moral compass when war ruins any sense of right and wrong based on rules invented by men in ivory towers.

[melmothtw]

Those rules were invented to protect men on the battlefield. Whether or not the other side signed up to them is irrelevant, we did.

[Tourist]

No, if you wanted to protect men on the battlefield you would ban guns and bombs etc.

It was to reduce barbarism, not stop killing.

And no, it is not irrelevant if the other side signed up.
It might not make a legal difference, but it most assuredly makes a difference to the war fighting if each side has different constraints and rules.

[melmothtw]

No, if you wanted to protect men on the battlefield you would ban guns and bombs etc.

It was to reduce barbarism, not stop killing.

And no, it is not irrelevant if the other side signed up.
It might not make a legal difference, but it most assuredly makes a difference to the war fighting if each side has different constraints and rules.

Murdering wounded prisoners - that kind of barbarism?

[handleturning]

Tourist, have you really worn a uniform (outside of the bedroom)? If so, you're either playing devils advocate, or just a bloody fool with no comprehension of what ROE means, entails and represents.

[Two's in]

To answer the original question, attending a protest march whose sole purpose is to question the Military Justice system and the applicability of the Geneva Convention under which the crime was committed, is most surely a 'political' act and the MoD are will within their rights to place a ban on that activity. If you wanted democracy and free speech you should have joined CND, not the Military.

As for the regurgitation of the whole saga again, it was done to death the first time, and will be again. MGD did make the best comment;

That's why the British Forces are respected the world over, and aren't in a peer group with Nigeria.

It's hard to be a world power when you are behaving like a sociopathic banana republic.

[Chugalug2]

Are new recruits to HM Forces no longer taught about Military Law? I remember that I was issued with MAFL, the Manual of Air Force Law, and we were taken through every dog-eared page, every pasted in amendment. My overwhelming reaction to this incident as reported was that it could have taken its place in that book as one of the many examples of action contrary to military law alongside; the accused then threw down his rifle, saying "I shall no longer serve for you", or words to that effect.

We may empathise with Sgt Blackman, we may even feel that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with him, and that if we had stood in his boots we might well have done the same thing. If so we would have acted contrary to Military Law and should then have been prepared to take the same rap that he did.

Being a member of HM Forces brings great responsibility no matter where you are in the CoC. Let those responsibilities slide, no matter be yea high or low, and it becomes very very difficult to regain the lost ground. That was the whole point of that battered book.

[ShotOne]

Had this been an enemy combatant who had killed a British soldier under identical circumstances, however much pressure he'd been under, would we be rallying for, listening to or even tolerating these arguments?

[mmitch]

When the Daily Mail launched the original campaign it was over the conduct of the court martial. Neither the prosecution or defence lawyers mentioned the alternative of manslaughter. Also a senior officer was not allowed to give evidence on Sgt. Blackman's behalf. They raised over £800,000 for his defence and there is now a new defence team.
mmitch.

[Basil]

If British soldiers face Daesh will they adopt a 'no prisoners unless required for interrogation' policy?
I'd be happy to see that but doubt it will happen.

[bugged on the right]

No cameras, no phones, no laptops, not even an Etch a Sketch, no journalists, no prisoners, no witnesses.

[Bigbux]

No cameras, no phones, no laptops, not even an Etch a Sketch, no journalists, no prisoners, no witnesses.

The difference between "murder" and "lawful killing" is that the latter is carried out with the sanction of the State under specific, internationally-recognised conditions.

Killing someone outside of those conditions removes the act of killing from the protection that the State offers. Admitting that you recognise what you are doing is wrong hardly helps your defence and brings into question your judgement and fitness to carry out the job given to you.

I believe any appeal in this matter would depend on whether former Royal Marine Sgt Blackman's state of mind was correct. A positive outcome will pose many questions about how we can expect Service personnel to behave, and whether military discipline is worth a hill of beans.

Although I have made myself uniquely unpopular with some old friends on this matter by not joining in the "Free Sgt Blackman" campaign, it is worth noting that more recently, a single mum was given 2 1/2 years for targeting a paedophile, with whom she had no connection, and stabbing him to death with a knife she brought from home for that specific purpose.

Given that this is a legal issue, and the law seems to have some flexibility on the sentencing, for this reason and no other, I fully support the (mainly ex) Marines and Paras who turned out to lobby the issue. It is their right to do so.

[Junglydaz]

Several things erk me about this whole affair. During my 5 tours in KAF I was not allowed a camera on the flight line, and quite rightly so. Yet the fighting soldier is allowed to film anything and everything he pleases? Arguably, if his oppo hadnt filmed him, this would probably never have been raised as an issue, let alone a court case.

Also, why did his oppo keep the film when it was clear that there were possible implications with respect to Marine A's actions. Cheers mate!

The bottom line is clear. He did wrong, and admitted on camera that he had done wrong. Sofa-typers on here can argue all they like about his state of mind, but I suggest that a large proportion of us have absolutely no idea, either way, about what it is like being in that situation. Would I like to see him get off? Sure. However the Geneva Convention is what separates us from the uncivilised scum of the earth/battlefield, and we receive mandatory lectures every year on LoAC. Whether we should adhere to the Geneva Convention of the enemy doesn't is open for debate............

[Stanwell]

Two of the best posts on this thread so far. Thanks chaps.

As a former 'grunt' (albeit with two stripes at the time) on active service, I witnessed a couple of things that are NOT discussed outside of our circle.
While I in no way condone the Sergeant's actions, the clown that recorded the incident and showed it around will ultimately be answerable for such stupidity.

For my liking, there have been too many posts on here from people who have little or no experience of what it's like to spend months (or longer)
on the ground dealing with a fanatical, unprincipled and barbaric enemy.

The high moral ground is no good to you if you and your mates are dead.
The high moral ground is for those sipping chardonnay in the dining-room of 'The Club' and those tut-tutting over their morning newspaper and croissants.

[Rosevidney1]

Well said Stanwell. The Fireside Fusiliers and the Ante-room Artillery rarely if ever have actual combat experience although they are ready, willing and able to pontificate on every aspect of it. I shall never forget the first time I came under fire. That's when a chap grows up in a hurry!

[Courtney Mil]

I don't happen to think that treating men and their behaviour in a wartime like they are in a UK street when it comes to crimes is justice though.

It must be tricky to keep your moral compass when war ruins any sense of right and wrong based on rules invented by men in ivory towers.

I have to say that Tourist makes a very good point here. Whilst the British public (bless them and all their Daily Mail comments) should expect the highest standards of conduct, there are huge differences between being "out there" and being "back home".

To offer a personal example of how the threat of litigation (or prosecution or whatever) affects the 21st Century warfighter, I spent many enjoyable nights (every week or two) in a secret bunker not far from London as the fall guy responsible for shooting down rogue airliners in the case that they lost comms and deviated from their flight plan - in the wake of 911.

My brief was "If you order them to be shot down and they're found to have not been a threat, you'll go to prison. If you don't order them to be shot down and they end up being a threat, you'll go to prison."

[Training Risky]

My brief was "If you order them to be shot down and they're found to have not been a threat, you'll go to prison. If you don't order them to be shot down and they end up being a threat, you'll go to prison."

Sounds like a hoot in the NADOC! Shouldn't the duty minister take the hit if it goes wrong??

Anyway, if I hadn't been on holiday and terminal leave this week I would have been at the protest with bells on. Threats of disciplinary action be damned. I contributed £10 to Sergeant Blackman's fighting fund - best use of MoD money since we ordered billion pound apiece Mk3 Chinooks from the BAE a la carte menu....

I leave 16 years of regular RAF service (and 2 as a TA infantry bod) shaking my head in despair at the total mismanagement of our kit, ROE and strategic planning. The MoD and Army/RM CoC should be sacked then dropped onto Mount Sinjar without parachutes for the almost total abandonment of troops in Afghan patrol bases.

They say you never forget your first experience under fire: if I could have magically found the JAM tossers who were lobbing rockets at me and my team in Basra (2008-9), I might well have done what Sergeant Blackman RM did. As I never found them, it's not me in the dock. War is a dirty bloody fight - the geneva conventions belong in another era and will not solve the Daesh/AQ/Boko Haram crisis.

The British military legal system is insidiously open to pressure from above. When running an Orderly Room I was regularly leaned on to make an example of airmen charged by the scuffers. Pfffft.

Good luck Al.

[heights good]

If someone were to carry out a murder (it can't be an execution if its unlawful) in contravention to the laws of their country, their Services's Law, International Law. In addition if they made an attempt to ensure it was not seen by ISTAR, refused to treat someone who was injured (against several laws they had signed up to) and then shot them whilst quoting Shakespeare, looking them in the eye and admitting to breaking The Geneva Convention and telling everyone it never happened. Would and should they deserve and expect to go to jail?

Take emotion out of your decision and imagine that Mr Blackman was a Iranian Naval SNCO who happened to capture an injured Royal Navy boarding party Royal Marine who had strayed into Iranian waters, would you be saying "fair one, they were under a bit of stress?"

[Pontius Navigator]

HG, you make a good case, sad but never the less true.

I know we are talking 50 years on, but contrast the sentence awarded to Lt Calley after My Lai, and this one.

Ten years ago, two sentences of 10 and 3 years were awarded for prisonner abuse, so they were not a mile away from murder

[heights good]

Pontius, for a pre-meditated murder and an attempt to hide it he got off very lightly and if I was him I would be keeping quiet and just see my sentence out without rocking the boat. After all, beyond any doubt he is guilty of murder.

[Training Risky]

Attempting to compare Sgt Blackman's case with what a hypothetical Iranian may or may not do is naive. The two situations are apples and oranges. If the Iranians had been attacked repeatedly by a RM boarding party, who were not wearing any uniforms, hid amongst the population and committed other breaches of the 'rules' of war, the point may stand. But it doesn't.

Anyone who has actually been at the sharp end may know about TRiM studies and how shock/stress can manifest itself months/years after the event. This could have happened in this case, explaining the alleged pre-meditated nature of the killing. At worst it was manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, resulting in a suspended sentence, dismissal from the Service and psychiatric monitoring.

There is nothing quite as depressing as the unexpected knife in the back from those who purport to represent the UK military community.

Good luck with the appeal Al. At least Freddie Forsyth RAF (ret) and Capt Wales HCR support you.

[KenV]

On another thread I was asked what rights US citizens enjoy that UK citizens do not. I replied that essentially every right in the US Constitution is not a right in the UK. My reply was scorned and then I was banned from the thread. Nevertheless, below are two examples that illustrate my point:

The quotes below came from this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3290857/Fury-MoD-cowards-Soldiers-anger-military-chiefs-ban-serving-personnel-mass-rally-support-jailed-marine.html

"Some weeks ago, there was a debate in Parliament about this case. One MP, Sir Roger Gale, used a devastating phrase. He said (and I quote from Hansard): ‘It was not an ordinary court; it was a rigged court.’
As a member of Parliament, Sir Roger is allowed to say such things under parliamentary privilege. I cannot."

From the above it is clear that UK citizens have no free speech rights. Instead, free speech is a privilege granted by the government to its citizens, with some citizens having greater speech privileges than others, The government not only has the power to grant this privilege unevenly, it has the power to withdraw and/or limit that privilege at any time.

"One last thing: tomorrow at 11.30am, there is going to be an unofficial rally at College Green, opposite Parliament, organised word-of-mouth by ex-servicemen supporters on the internet, to demonstrate solidarity with the wrongly imprisoned Marine.
No big-wigs are behind it; indeed, the big-wigs are trying to stop it. The Metropolitan Police have refused to ban it."

The police have the power to ban such a rally, but in this case have refused to do so. However, the rally is banned to all service members. So like free speech, the right to peaceable assembly is a privilege granted by the government to its citizens, with some citizens having greater privileges than others, and with the government having the power to withdraw/limit that privilege at any time.

Basically, all the rights contained in the US Constitution are privileges in the UK that are granted by the government to its citizens. And unlike the US rights which are absolute and may not be infringed, the privileges in the UK can be granted unevenly and can be withdrawn and/or curtailed at any time for essentially any reason.

I'm NOT saying that either system is inherently "better" than the other. But they are undeniably VERY different.

[heights good]

Training Risky – I understand the emotive nature of this case and this is why it is so contentious. Please take emotion out of the equation and look at the facts of the case in relation to law; there is no defence that can justify the death of an enemy combatant being killed in cold blood by someone who knew better and should have been protecting the law of the land as part of the International Security and Assistance Force. The clue is in the name.

So to now address your points.

"Attempting to compare Sgt Blackman's case with what a hypothetical Iranian may or may not do is naive. The two situations are apples and oranges. If the Iranians had been attacked repeatedly by a RM boarding party, who were not wearing any uniforms, hid amongst the population and committed other breaches of the 'rules' of war, the point may stand. But it doesn't."

Okay, lets get back to apples then, I take from your statement above that you would be happy for the IRA to carry out the same act as Mr Blackman and be convicted of manslaughter. After all, for the disadvantaged Catholic youth from Belfast the circumstances were as you described above.

The British military "attacked repeatedly", this was after the British Government 'invaded' NI (that's how it is viewed by the IRA). The official 100% attributable death toll is 156 unarmed civilians killed by the British Army/agencies (1969 - 2007) in numerous incidents such as Bloody Sunday, Gibraltar, Loughall etc. By various units of the British government i.e. Military Reaction Force (MRF), Army, Marines, RAF, RUC/PSNI, SAS/SBS, FRU, Special Branch, 14 Int etc. Several high profile incidents made the front page of the tabloids, just to ensure the whole UK knew that the government was "attacking repeatedly" e.g. Lee Clegg, Patrick McVeigh, Pat Finnucane, Glenanne Gang etc. etc.)

The British military/agencies "were not wearing uniforms" - SAS, SBS, 14 Int, Special Branch, MI5, MRF, FRU to name but a few.

The British military/agencies "committed other breaches of the 'rules' of war", namely - Internment, disregard of RoE (MRF, SF), collusion with Loyalists (Glennane Gang, Miami Showban Killings, Monaghan bombings), arming loyalists, allowing serious crimes to be committed by informers (STAKEKNIFE, Brian Nelson and the murder of Francisco Notarantonio), destroy evidence that would convict British military/agency personnel (Stevens Inquiry), illegal searches, destruction of property, beatings, torture, illegal surveillance etc.

You may find this link useful – www.SinnFein.com/ClosetRepublican/SignUp.htm

"Anyone who has actually been at the sharp end may know about TRiM studies and how shock/stress can manifest itself months/years after the event. This could have happened in this case, explaining the alleged pre-meditated nature of the killing. At worst it was manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, resulting in a suspended sentence, dismissal from the Service and psychiatric monitoring."

As a (just) current TRiM Team Leader and who has deployed enough times on ops (almost double figures now and just ~40 days short of a bar for my ACSM), I am more than aware of how “shock/stress can manifest itself months/years after the event”. I have seen (and delivered) more death, trauma and suffering than I will ever tell my wife and kids or will admit to myself if I am being honest. I have also seen a few friends leave the Service with PTSD. Please don’t assume you know others’ story.

As for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility please see the references below. The following are the grounds according to the CPS for diminished responsibility -

1. If the psychiatric reports recommend and justify it, and there are no contrary indications, he will make a hospital order.

2. Where a hospital order is not recommended, or is not appropriate, and the defendant constitutes a danger to the public for an unpredictable period of time, the right sentence will, in all probability, be one of life imprisonment.

3. In cases where the evidence indicates that the accused's responsibility for his acts was so grossly impaired that his degree of responsibility for them was minimal, then a lenient course will be open to the judge. Provided that there is no danger of repetition of violence, it will usually be possible to make such an order as will give the accused his freedom possibly with some supervision.

4. There will however be cases in which there is no proper basis for a hospital order, that in which the accused's degree of responsibility is not minimal. In such cases the judge should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which will depend on two factors: his assessment of the degree of the accused's responsibility his view as to the period of time, if any, which the accused will continue to be danger to the public.

Lets address each in turn -

1. Not relevant in this case as he was not in possession of a psychiatric report recommending diminished responsibility.

2. Not relevant in this case as he was not in possession of a psychiatric report recommending diminished responsibility and he is unlikely to repeat his act as he will never end up on a battlefield again.

3. Potentially relevant although I would argue that it doesn’t apply. Mr Blackman made several coherent, albeit flawed, decisions in the lead up to the shooting of the enemy combatant. He firstly asked for his lads to stop treating the casualty (clear breach of LOAC) which he knew as he was a SNCO and it is taught prior to deploying. He then decided to move the casualty out of view of the ISTAR balloon, thus implying he had thought about shooting the casualty at this point or at least didn’t want his lack of casualty treatment to be spotted, again this was a coherent and calculated decision. He then had the presence of mind to remember some Shakespeare to quote to his victim, again a coherent decision that took presence of mind. He then walked up to his victim and shot him at point blank range and killed him and admitted he had broken the Geneva Convention. His final coherent act was to tell his lads that “this obviously didn’t happen, right?” He then radioed in to say his victim had died. There was nothing about his actions that he had diminished responsibility for, it was a rational decision that he had numerous points whereby he could have stopped his course of action. He chose not to. His defence was that he thought the casualty had died, despite the video of the event clearly showing him being alive and Mr Blackman quoting Shakespeare that clearly shows he thought he was alive.

4. Potentially relevant – I would argue this is the case that applies to Mr Blackman for the reasons within point 3 above.

Be careful what you are wishing as Mr Blackman has gotten off lightly due to the mitigating circumstances surrounding the deployment. If you end up going down that route there is a risk that scenario 1 applies and a long stay in a hospital will ensue, more than likely longer than his current sentence which will be shorter due to good behaviour, which does take into account the circumstances of his deployment. It is worth remembering that he is in a Cat C Prison which is the lowest category that actually locks people up and is defined as for prisoners "who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape".

“There is nothing quite as depressing as the unexpected knife in the back from those who purport to represent the UK military community.”

I will flip this straight back at you, by supporting Mr Blackman and fighting for his innocence you are endangering the lives of every other Serviceman who deploys. The rumour amongst enemy forces will be that we have a no survivor’s policy which is shared by the full military. This will make the enemy fight even harder if they believe they will die regardless of the LOAC. It is difficult to invade a country and preach about democracy and then shoot people in cold blood; that is NOT democracy in any form.

“Good luck with the appeal Al. At least Freddie Forsyth RAF (ret) and Capt Wales HCR support you.”

For the record, Capt Wales has not given his support, a “friend close to the Prince” said that he was frustrated and would like to give his support. Got to love the Daily Mail and the gutter press.

To that end I would like to announce that Prince Charles is “keen to host a week long LGBT event and carnival at Sandringham, but unfortunately ‘Royal Charles’ is not allowed to openly support this”

Reference

Manslaughter Diminished Responsibility: Sentencing Manual: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/manslaughter_diminished_responsibility/)

p.s. For the record, as a human I do feel for Mr Blackman as he was doing a tough job in tough circumstances. I think all things being considered he has gotten off very lightly in comparison, look at Pontous Navigator's last post. That being said, the law was broken on so many levels and there was a huge cover up and several layers of deception and Mr Blackman deserves what he received.

[Training Risky]

Training Risky – I understand the emotive nature of this case and this is why it is so contentious. Please take emotion out of the equation and look at the facts of the case in relation to law; there is no defence that can justify the death of an enemy combatant being killed in cold blood by someone who knew better

Heights Good - there is a defence to be made that his state of mind prevented Sergeant Blackman from knowing better and made him depart from following English law, LOAC and IHL. This was not properly considered by the SIB, the Prosecuting Authority, or the Courts Martial. It is part of the facts of the case which the new appeal hinges on. It is the defence used by battered wives who bottled the stress up over years. Using more deadly force than appropriate is the same defence used by householders with no criminal record who departed from the legal limit of reasonable force:

Father of stabbed burglar says householders can defend home - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8596938/Father-of-stabbed-burglar-says-householders-can-defend-home.html)

and should have been protecting the law of the land as part of the International Security and Assistance Force. The clue is in the name.

That is semantics. Going by the name alone, the ISAF name and mission calls for policemen, teachers and doctors. Why are we not sending British police officers to streets of Helmand to arrest nasty men? Why don't they want the job...? The reality is very different to the aspiration of legal purists.

Okay, lets get back to apples then, I take from your statement above that you would be happy for the IRA to carry out the same act as Mr Blackman and be convicted of manslaughter. After all, for the disadvantaged Catholic youth from Belfast the circumstances were as you described above.

No, please don't assume that. The IRA are a criminal enemy under British jurisdiction and get prosecuted whenever they kill British troops, within the constraints/handcuffs of the Good Friday Agreement. An IRA gunman in Ulster is not in the same legal or moral position as Sergeant Blackman was. Like the Taliban et al, the IRA choose not to operate within the constraint of law, whereas Sergeant Blackman had to. The court decided that he absolutely stepped outside the law and the appeal will try to show that the court was wrong.

The British military "attacked repeatedly", this was after the British Government 'invaded' NI (that's how it is viewed by the IRA). The official 100% attributable death toll is 156 unarmed civilians killed by the British Army/agencies (1969 - 2007) in numerous incidents such as Bloody Sunday, Gibraltar, Loughall etc. By various units of the British government i.e. Military Reaction Force (MRF), Army, Marines, RAF, RUC/PSNI, SAS/SBS, FRU, Special Branch, 14 Int etc. Several high profile incidents made the front page of the tabloids, just to ensure the whole UK knew that the government was "attacking repeatedly" e.g. Lee Clegg, Patrick McVeigh, Pat Finnucane, Glenanne Gang etc. etc.)

The British military/agencies "were not wearing uniforms" - SAS, SBS, 14 Int, Special Branch, MI5, MRF, FRU to name but a few.

The British military/agencies "committed other breaches of the 'rules' of war", namely - Internment, disregard of RoE (MRF, SF), collusion with Loyalists (Glennane Gang, Miami Showban Killings, Monaghan bombings), arming loyalists, allowing serious crimes to be committed by informers (STAKEKNIFE, Brian Nelson and the murder of Francisco Notarantonio), destroy evidence that would convict British military/agency personnel (Stevens Inquiry), illegal searches, destruction of property, beatings, torture, illegal surveillance etc.

It is illogical (and a bit obscene, but I see what point you are trying to make) to equate the speculated and alleged actions of covert UK SF operators in a British city with actual insurgents and illegal combatants in Afghanistan! The 'breaches' you allude to were made in support of a legitimate COIN campaign to protect civilians, but you won't find that at your Sinn Fein link. There is a world of legal and moral difference between SF in NI and the Taliban, who are in a different country and context.

As a (just) current TRiM Team Leader and who has deployed enough times on ops (almost double figures now and just ~40 days short of a bar for my ACSM), I am more than aware of how “shock/stress can manifest itself months/years after the event”. I have seen (and delivered) more death, trauma and suffering than I will ever tell my wife and kids or will admit to myself if I am being honest. I have also seen a few friends leave the Service with PTSD. Please don’t assume you know others’ story.

As for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility please see the references below. The following are the grounds according to the CPS for diminished responsibility.

Trimmed your post for brevity. I know what the CPS says are grounds for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, but courts can apply those guidelines at will. It is completely subjective how the courts martial, you and I think the guidelines should be applied. There was a long period lasting a couple of years between the killing of the insurgent and Sgt Blackman’s arrest in the UK. To my knowledge he was a normal bloke recovering from ops, possibly not quite in need of psychiatric monitoring. But to answer the SPA’s desire to prosecute someone, I argue that manslaughter could have been a more appropriate charge considering the demonstrated lack of danger to the public, and the operational conditions he was under.

As an air weapons Targeteer who has seen at first hand how named individuals are put on target lists and cleared for prosecution ‘in cold blood’ (in your emotive words), even when not actively engaged in hostilities, I am astounded how people can be so squeamish when it comes to troops doing the same in the flesh. But that is a different argument, and not one that will ever change the enshrinement of the GC and LOAC in our laws or ROE. Maybe that will change if the crisis in Syria/Libya gets even worse?

Be careful what you are wishing as Mr Blackman has gotten off lightly due to the mitigating circumstances surrounding the deployment. If you end up going down that route there is a risk that scenario 1 applies and a long stay in a hospital will ensue, more than likely longer than his current sentence which will be shorter due to good behaviour, which does take into account the circumstances of his deployment. It is worth remembering that he is in a Cat C Prison which is the lowest category that actually locks people up and is defined as for prisoners "who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape".

If I, and the groundswell of public support, get what is wished for, Sgt Blackman won’t spend any more time in any prison or hospital, as his unjust conviction for murder should be quashed as it is unsafe. I am merely saying that manslaughter and psychiatric observation was possibly the least worst deal the court could have given him. The best would have been not guilty.

I will flip this straight back at you, by supporting Mr Blackman and fighting for his innocence you are endangering the lives of every other Serviceman who deploys. The rumour amongst enemy forces will be that we have a no survivor’s policy which is shared by the full military. This will make the enemy fight even harder if they believe they will die regardless of the LOAC. It is difficult to invade a country and preach about democracy and then shoot people in cold blood; that is NOT democracy in any form.

I’ll take that risk thanks, I took the risk right up until I left. It hasn’t been a policy of the RAF to not fight the enemy because they may not follow the rules. I don’t think this case will ever change the prisoner handling policy of our current enemies. Do you? They will continue to murder at will. As for preaching democracy to Afghanistan, that was a total waste of time and effort as (outside of Kabul) the country en masse did not want it.

For the record, Capt Wales has not given his support, a “friend close to the Prince” said that he was frustrated and would like to give his support. Got to love the Daily Mail and the gutter press.

To that end I would like to announce that Prince Charles is “keen to host a week long LGBT event and carnival at Sandringham, but unfortunately ‘Royal Charles’ is not allowed to openly support this”

On the balance of probabilities, what is more likely, a serving Royal who publically works for Service charities and has flown an AH on ops is ‘frustrated’ over this case and would like to go public but can’t? I know where I would bet a tenner! As for Charles, based on his love for minorities and cosmic meditation, I would actually give credence to that announcement.

p.s. For the record, as a human I do feel for Mr Blackman as he was doing a tough job in tough circumstances. I think all things being considered he has gotten off very lightly in comparison, look at Pontous Navigator's last post. That being said, the law was broken on so many levels and there was a huge cover up and several layers of deception and Mr Blackman deserves what he received.

So yes, we all know what the links to law actually say. The appeal will be about whether that law was accurately applied. What you call a cover up and deception, normal people call loyalty, practicality and getting the job done in the face of laws not fit for purpose.