Should CDS be Dismissed?
It was Jackson that was out of order rather than the CDS. As has been said before, he was trying (against typical BBC interrogation techniques of the "So what you are really saying is that...") to restate the importance of abiding by Military Law and of due punishment for breaking it.
You could hardly imagine a more glaring example of breaking it than from the evidence published in this case. Was I alone in wondering how the mundane soundtrack would have sounded if it was in German, and how creepily familiar?
You could hardly imagine a more glaring example of breaking it than from the evidence published in this case. Was I alone in wondering how the mundane soundtrack would have sounded if it was in German, and how creepily familiar?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Willard Whyte
We have already lost if we play by the rules of cricket.
S41
I would suggest that most of us posting here are no different to CDS (not in rank!) but in the very fact that we are giving opinions (?) that could be construed as possibly affecting the sentence on Marine A. Whatever we think, let us wait for the result of the CM and then, if we have to, start to complain about justice !!
When refering to servicemen not being above the law, it might have looked better if Sir Nicholas had said "we" rather than "they". Also, it's "heinous" not "henious". Still, he's only CDS.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: London
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Surrey Towers
The war in Afghanistan is not a fair war
The war in Afghanistan is not a fair war
One in which an equal number of equally equipped soldiers charge at each other? With swords and shields? From a line of trenches to another?
The Taliban show no regard for the GC, but nor do they have an AC-130 gunship or a LGB to eliminate their targets. They have no way of 'winning' a 'fair' war of honor.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London Town
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worth a read
Whilst it's easy to sit back and judge, maybe we should walk in his shoes a while..Well worth a read
The Royal Marine Murderer | Kevin Godlington
The Royal Marine Murderer | Kevin Godlington
Cunning Artificer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm rather pleased that my deliberately provocative topic has resulted in such a civilised discussion. However, I intervene to point out that if he had been prosecuted in a civilian court he would have faced a manslaughter charge and his defence lawyers would have made a case for him committing the offence while the balance of his mind was disturbed. Which is not exactly an appeal for clemency, it is a plea of mitigation.
Blacksheep - and the logic for that is.....? ISTR that the old MML calendar of offences included manslaughter, so if you are correct why was he not CMd for Manslaughter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One report I heard stated that having been found guilty, a mandatory life sentence would have to be given - anyone know if this is correct and if so, how many (or how few) years are likely to be served?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that this thread is about the CDS rather than Marine A, but I find it hard to condemn Marine A for his actions. Many of us are armchair warriors and we are all to ready to pass judgement on Marine A's actions without ever having been involved in the sort of bloody, screaming, adrenaline-fueled, dirty war that he was part of. The opposition are operating outside the Geneva convention, employing terrorist tactics and showing no regard for the lives of civilians or for the "rule of war" - including their treatment of prisoners. Marine A's rules of engagement mean that HE has to fight with one hand tied behind his back
If Marine A had been taken by the Taliban he would probably have suffered an unpleasant, slow death through the typical beheading (which isn't beheading as Anne Boleyn would know it but is usually a gruesome, slow sawing off of the head with a knife). When faced with a wounded Taliban fighter who had recently being trying to kill him and his colleagues, Marine A made an understandable choice. I suspect that I might have made a similar choice in those circumstances
His biggest mistake in my opinion was not switching off the helmet cam.
I will be interested to see what sentence is passed - murder means that he has no choice but to pass a life sentence. However, he must also consider all the mitigating circumstances.
If Marine A had been taken by the Taliban he would probably have suffered an unpleasant, slow death through the typical beheading (which isn't beheading as Anne Boleyn would know it but is usually a gruesome, slow sawing off of the head with a knife). When faced with a wounded Taliban fighter who had recently being trying to kill him and his colleagues, Marine A made an understandable choice. I suspect that I might have made a similar choice in those circumstances
His biggest mistake in my opinion was not switching off the helmet cam.
I will be interested to see what sentence is passed - murder means that he has no choice but to pass a life sentence. However, he must also consider all the mitigating circumstances.
Last edited by moggiee; 12th Nov 2013 at 16:35.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,912 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
Hypothetically speaking now
Say you have a squad of SAS operating behind the lines during a war, say Scud hunting and they are spotted by a patrol, during the brief engagement one surrenders and the rest are killed, what do they do with him, the obviously cannot take him along and leaving him behind means they will be compromised..
Similar when the Paras in the Falklands overrun the Argentine positions and were so far ahead of the rest of the Army, what do they do? It's ok saying take no prisoners before any action, but if you have troops trying to surrender which I believe they did, what do they do with them? They wouldn't have the strength to take them with them and watch them, equally leaving them in the trenches behind them with the amount of ordnance lying about means you now have a potential threat to your rear..
This incidentally makes interesting reading
The Royal Marine Murderer | Kevin Godlington
Say you have a squad of SAS operating behind the lines during a war, say Scud hunting and they are spotted by a patrol, during the brief engagement one surrenders and the rest are killed, what do they do with him, the obviously cannot take him along and leaving him behind means they will be compromised..
Similar when the Paras in the Falklands overrun the Argentine positions and were so far ahead of the rest of the Army, what do they do? It's ok saying take no prisoners before any action, but if you have troops trying to surrender which I believe they did, what do they do with them? They wouldn't have the strength to take them with them and watch them, equally leaving them in the trenches behind them with the amount of ordnance lying about means you now have a potential threat to your rear..
This incidentally makes interesting reading
The Royal Marine Murderer | Kevin Godlington
I think that there are several themes conflating here - whether CDS should have spoke, whether there should be clemency for Marine A and whether the 'normal' IHL/LOAC should apply in this case.
I think it is to recall the undisputed facts in the case. The patrol was not in contact when they found the alleged insurgent, who appears to have been injured as a result of fire from an Attack Helicopter. The nature of his injuries (which were probably mortal) meant that the victim clearly posed no further risk; they denied him first aid and then dragged him under cover so what followed could not be readily picked up by the myriad of ISR platforms in the area, apart, of course, from Helmet Cam. He was then unlawfuly killed - murdered - when his status was that of a protected person.
- What the Taliban would do in a reciprocal situation is irrelevant. By not playing by the rules, this Marine has delivered a propaganda coupe to the Taliban.
- The crime here was not that it was 'unfortunately' caught on camera; the crime here was murder, unequivocal murder. Wrong under any circumstances.
- There has been a lot of speculation that this prosecution was politically motivated. Unlikely, but if so, why?
- Should there be clemency? An experienced SNCO, albeit under a degree of stress, calmly deciding to murder a person who should have been protected. The Sgt knew what he was doing was wrong and knew the penalty of being discovered, thus implying he had hoped to get away with it. A great example n'est pas?
- The recordings show that this was not a 'spur of the moment' decision by Sgt A; the eventual murder of an injured man was discussed or c 6 minutes.
- If clemency was granted or the case not taken to CM for 'political reasons' (most, most unlikely) - what message would this give both within the forces and without? That murder is OK...outwith LOAC, UK domestic law (which Sgt A is also subject to) and Good Order and Discipline?
- In spite of well publicised US cases of gung-ho activity by AH crews, those familiar with the use of lethal force in Afghanistan know that it is a matter of last resort, apart from the usual Art 51 inherent right of self defence. Just because others have done it - and comments columns in the papers are full of historical cases - doesn't lessen the severity. Murder does not cease to be murder because of customary practise.
- The question that the Services (and the Royal Marines in particular) have to ask, is how can an otherwise professional, experienced leader (and a RM Sgt is ordinarily primus inter pares) cast aside his training and morals and murder a man in cold blood?
Oh dear, cue the 'you weren't there, you don't understand' crap. I have in my career made ready once with a pistol (and heavily out-gunned) during an otherwise forgotten event in teh Balkans. If there had been a fire-fight rather than a particularly embarrasing stand-off, would I have gone around and 'offed' the injured survivors, having first taken steps to conceal my intentions? No, and I hope there are no current and former SP here that would advocate murder of 'protected' persons who no longer posed a threat.
I think it is to recall the undisputed facts in the case. The patrol was not in contact when they found the alleged insurgent, who appears to have been injured as a result of fire from an Attack Helicopter. The nature of his injuries (which were probably mortal) meant that the victim clearly posed no further risk; they denied him first aid and then dragged him under cover so what followed could not be readily picked up by the myriad of ISR platforms in the area, apart, of course, from Helmet Cam. He was then unlawfuly killed - murdered - when his status was that of a protected person.
- What the Taliban would do in a reciprocal situation is irrelevant. By not playing by the rules, this Marine has delivered a propaganda coupe to the Taliban.
- The crime here was not that it was 'unfortunately' caught on camera; the crime here was murder, unequivocal murder. Wrong under any circumstances.
- There has been a lot of speculation that this prosecution was politically motivated. Unlikely, but if so, why?
- Should there be clemency? An experienced SNCO, albeit under a degree of stress, calmly deciding to murder a person who should have been protected. The Sgt knew what he was doing was wrong and knew the penalty of being discovered, thus implying he had hoped to get away with it. A great example n'est pas?
- The recordings show that this was not a 'spur of the moment' decision by Sgt A; the eventual murder of an injured man was discussed or c 6 minutes.
- If clemency was granted or the case not taken to CM for 'political reasons' (most, most unlikely) - what message would this give both within the forces and without? That murder is OK...outwith LOAC, UK domestic law (which Sgt A is also subject to) and Good Order and Discipline?
- In spite of well publicised US cases of gung-ho activity by AH crews, those familiar with the use of lethal force in Afghanistan know that it is a matter of last resort, apart from the usual Art 51 inherent right of self defence. Just because others have done it - and comments columns in the papers are full of historical cases - doesn't lessen the severity. Murder does not cease to be murder because of customary practise.
- The question that the Services (and the Royal Marines in particular) have to ask, is how can an otherwise professional, experienced leader (and a RM Sgt is ordinarily primus inter pares) cast aside his training and morals and murder a man in cold blood?
Oh dear, cue the 'you weren't there, you don't understand' crap. I have in my career made ready once with a pistol (and heavily out-gunned) during an otherwise forgotten event in teh Balkans. If there had been a fire-fight rather than a particularly embarrasing stand-off, would I have gone around and 'offed' the injured survivors, having first taken steps to conceal my intentions? No, and I hope there are no current and former SP here that would advocate murder of 'protected' persons who no longer posed a threat.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not intend to make a stance for or against the CDS or for or against Marine 'A' but I can see that some questions for my post were deserved.
However, I am going to express an opinion once again regarding the Geneva Convention (GC) and its worth and the worth of the court martial in going headlong into a murder trial rather than one of manslaughter as under our laws. mogiee in a well thought out post probably has it better in perspective than I have.
The fact is that the CDS does not, even as head of the arrmed forces, have the right to offer opinions or suggest what the board should hand down as a sentence after a verdict finds the accused guilty. Even if he thinks it is right it must be morally wrong. That Marine 'A' is to be sentenced for murder is IMHO iffy even though it is clear that he dispatched one of the enemy.
As for the GC I find its purpose in these circumstances and in others in the past entirely hypocritical. How can our guys be subjected to it when so many other illegal forces probably don't even know it exists. As mogiee says we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.
This then raises the question about the GC and what should be done. Who convenes its meetings to decide any changes that are needed? Why haven't sensible changes been applied to counter the above? Is it out of date and time for the United Nations and the world to deal with it?
It needs addressing instead of just saying it is there and we must obey.
I feel very uncomfortable about what lies ahead for Marine 'A' regarding his sentence. Any sentence should, in my view, be a softer one than some, like the CDS, advocate fits the crime. That is my opinion and counts for nothing. The CDS with his utterings gave the distinct impression that someone in his position can 'propose' by inference that the full force of the law be bought down upon Marine 'A' - that is blatantly wrong.
However, I am going to express an opinion once again regarding the Geneva Convention (GC) and its worth and the worth of the court martial in going headlong into a murder trial rather than one of manslaughter as under our laws. mogiee in a well thought out post probably has it better in perspective than I have.
The fact is that the CDS does not, even as head of the arrmed forces, have the right to offer opinions or suggest what the board should hand down as a sentence after a verdict finds the accused guilty. Even if he thinks it is right it must be morally wrong. That Marine 'A' is to be sentenced for murder is IMHO iffy even though it is clear that he dispatched one of the enemy.
As for the GC I find its purpose in these circumstances and in others in the past entirely hypocritical. How can our guys be subjected to it when so many other illegal forces probably don't even know it exists. As mogiee says we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.
This then raises the question about the GC and what should be done. Who convenes its meetings to decide any changes that are needed? Why haven't sensible changes been applied to counter the above? Is it out of date and time for the United Nations and the world to deal with it?
It needs addressing instead of just saying it is there and we must obey.
I feel very uncomfortable about what lies ahead for Marine 'A' regarding his sentence. Any sentence should, in my view, be a softer one than some, like the CDS, advocate fits the crime. That is my opinion and counts for nothing. The CDS with his utterings gave the distinct impression that someone in his position can 'propose' by inference that the full force of the law be bought down upon Marine 'A' - that is blatantly wrong.
If Marine A hadn't boasted immediately after the execution "I just broke the Geneva Convention - obviously this goes no further lads" then his defence might have been able to argue for mitigating circumstances. However, Marine A's boast made it clear that he knew full well that what he was doing was wrong, and also hints at a degree of pre-meditation. I don't think he will get much leniency in sentencing.
Having said that, he will get parole at first attempt as he is clearly not a danger to society at large, so I suspect he will do about ten years in the clink and then be on licence for the rest of his life sentence. He will still be young enough to able to rebuild his life afterwards.
Having said that, he will get parole at first attempt as he is clearly not a danger to society at large, so I suspect he will do about ten years in the clink and then be on licence for the rest of his life sentence. He will still be young enough to able to rebuild his life afterwards.
Surrey Towers:
So you would happily sanction a service person dragging an injured enemy combatant out of view and murdering him, because 'they' don't play by the rules? Read my above for the sequence of events.
Furthermore CDS has every right and authority to discuss the handling of sentences 'in cases such as this'; he certainly should not be dismissed for discussing a case where the sentence is critical as a deterrence to maintaining good order and discipline.
So you would happily sanction a service person dragging an injured enemy combatant out of view and murdering him, because 'they' don't play by the rules? Read my above for the sequence of events.
Furthermore CDS has every right and authority to discuss the handling of sentences 'in cases such as this'; he certainly should not be dismissed for discussing a case where the sentence is critical as a deterrence to maintaining good order and discipline.
Whenurhappy:
Agreed.
Nutloose:
In your hypothetical example, the LRRP patrol SOP for dealing with injured enemy was the same as for dealing with your own injured - treat casualty, signal position back to HQ, then carry on with mission.
Agreed.
Nutloose:
In your hypothetical example, the LRRP patrol SOP for dealing with injured enemy was the same as for dealing with your own injured - treat casualty, signal position back to HQ, then carry on with mission.