Should CDS be Dismissed?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,911 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
I wasn't talking about wounded, simply a full able bod, in the Gulf War when the SAS were well behind the lines with no comms Scud hunting, whistling up anything was not going to happen. Do you just leave him to alert everyone to your presence? tieing him up in the middle of nowhere and abandoning him will in itself be a death sentence,
tieing him up in the middle of nowhere and abandoning him will in itself be a death sentence,
Everytime someone serving is charged with something like this, a danger of lets have clemency and leniency gets called for, it means there then becomes no deterrent. If service personnel feel they will always get away with it then when do you stop ?
Would it be ok to shoot 1 unarmed person but two would be wrong or do you set the line at 3 or 4 etc ?
Accusations by local population that they are just a bunch of murderers becomes harder to counter when everybody knows a perpetrator will always get let off.
What then if someone shoots another member of a Unit, do you then charge someone with that but killing of a person under circumstances like this incident was ok a month before especially if same person ?.
CDS correct in highlighting official line and correct in reminding people that law must be upheld, not doing so allows people to make up their own rules when it suits themselves.
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
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Royal Marine has been CM'd and now found guilty in a (relatively new to many surprised people) manner that suits the current political, judicial and military zeitgeist - nothing less.
It will be the thin end of the wedge for good people remaining and serving within the military. In the future you can expect your VT, you voice recorders, your head-cams and everything else all to be forced from you in case of when the time arrives and suits a challenger.
I will go as far as to wager (if they don't even already exist) that because of the circumstance in which the vital evidence was gathered and presented in court (the film) - that in the future -independent officer-level lawyers will be likely to be attached to units on operations and one of their tasks will be to gather, record, collate and store all media as evidence (for use in court and that will roll one way or the other). I can see this coming a mile off, and then you will be all totally screwed. Mark my words.
edit to add - to be clear, you will have to work alongside a form of independent modern Commissar charged with holding the media for future use in an independent role in court. The Govt. will drive this upon you whether you like it or not.
It will be the thin end of the wedge for good people remaining and serving within the military. In the future you can expect your VT, you voice recorders, your head-cams and everything else all to be forced from you in case of when the time arrives and suits a challenger.
I will go as far as to wager (if they don't even already exist) that because of the circumstance in which the vital evidence was gathered and presented in court (the film) - that in the future -independent officer-level lawyers will be likely to be attached to units on operations and one of their tasks will be to gather, record, collate and store all media as evidence (for use in court and that will roll one way or the other). I can see this coming a mile off, and then you will be all totally screwed. Mark my words.
edit to add - to be clear, you will have to work alongside a form of independent modern Commissar charged with holding the media for future use in an independent role in court. The Govt. will drive this upon you whether you like it or not.
The Royal Marine has been CM'd and now found guilty in a (relatively new to many surprised people) manner that suits the current political, judicial and military zeitgeist - nothing less.
It will be the thin end of the wedge for good people remaining and serving within the military. In the future you can expect your VT, you voice recorders, your head-cams and everything else all to be forced from you in case of when the time arrives and suits a challenger.
I will go as far as to wager (if they don't even already exist) that because of the circumstance in which the vital evidence was gathered and presented in court (the film) - that in the future -independent officer-level lawyers will be likely to be attached to units on operations and one of their tasks will be to gather, record, collate and store all media as evidence (for use in court and that will roll one way or the other). I can see this coming a mile off, and then you will be all totally screwed. Mark my words.
It will be the thin end of the wedge for good people remaining and serving within the military. In the future you can expect your VT, you voice recorders, your head-cams and everything else all to be forced from you in case of when the time arrives and suits a challenger.
I will go as far as to wager (if they don't even already exist) that because of the circumstance in which the vital evidence was gathered and presented in court (the film) - that in the future -independent officer-level lawyers will be likely to be attached to units on operations and one of their tasks will be to gather, record, collate and store all media as evidence (for use in court and that will roll one way or the other). I can see this coming a mile off, and then you will be all totally screwed. Mark my words.
Reality is that it would show a battle from many different angles with lots of different pressures and a need to make decisions quickly.
Those who commit illegal acts will hate it because there is no place to hide nor should there be.
The Royal Marine has been CM'd and now found guilty in a (relatively new to many surprised people) manner that suits the current political, judicial and military zeitgeist - nothing less.
It will be the thin end of the wedge for good people remaining and serving within the military. In the future you can expect your VT, you voice recorders, your head-cams and everything else all to be forced from you in case of when the time arrives and suits a challenger.
I will go as far as to wager (if they don't even already exist) that because of the circumstance in which the vital evidence was gathered and presented in court (the film) - that in the future -independent officer-level lawyers will be likely to be attached to units on operations and one of their tasks will be to gather, record, collate and store all media as evidence (for use in court and that will roll one way or the other). I can see this coming a mile off, and then you will be all totally screwed. Mark my words.
It will be the thin end of the wedge for good people remaining and serving within the military. In the future you can expect your VT, you voice recorders, your head-cams and everything else all to be forced from you in case of when the time arrives and suits a challenger.
I will go as far as to wager (if they don't even already exist) that because of the circumstance in which the vital evidence was gathered and presented in court (the film) - that in the future -independent officer-level lawyers will be likely to be attached to units on operations and one of their tasks will be to gather, record, collate and store all media as evidence (for use in court and that will roll one way or the other). I can see this coming a mile off, and then you will be all totally screwed. Mark my words.
Again, you seem to indicate that murder only occured because it was filmed and this film was inadvertedly released. So, if this dreadful incident hadn't been filmed, should there not have been a trial? And if the siezure of social media devices (OP MINIMISE anyone?) stops warcrimes being committed, what's the problem?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,911 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
Film and pictures can and do lie. It only shows what's happening from a very narrow viewpoint, just remember that. Look at Hillsborough, what was seen never showed the true picture.
I certainly agree with you Nutloose regarding Hillsborough.
On the question of the CDS, yes he may be correct in theory, but I would suggest, he is more interested in keeping his large pension in tact & looking for his seat in the Lords.
Surely the CDS, should have kept his trap shut untill the Court Martial was complete, including the sentance handed down. I just wonder whether, he was under pressure from others & took the cowards way out, insted of saying get lost & keeping mum until the trial was over.
Whatever the sentance, it will be tainted with political correctness & rightly or wrongly, most unfortunately, the convicted serviceman will be hung out to dry.
Anyway Mr Cameron will be happy, he can save money. I would think there will not be too many prospective service personnel ready to sign up in the near future & also a few who might consider, taking the Queens's shilling early.
On the question of the CDS, yes he may be correct in theory, but I would suggest, he is more interested in keeping his large pension in tact & looking for his seat in the Lords.
Surely the CDS, should have kept his trap shut untill the Court Martial was complete, including the sentance handed down. I just wonder whether, he was under pressure from others & took the cowards way out, insted of saying get lost & keeping mum until the trial was over.
Whatever the sentance, it will be tainted with political correctness & rightly or wrongly, most unfortunately, the convicted serviceman will be hung out to dry.
Anyway Mr Cameron will be happy, he can save money. I would think there will not be too many prospective service personnel ready to sign up in the near future & also a few who might consider, taking the Queens's shilling early.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two separate (yet related) issues being discussed and at times conflated/confused:
1. The public comments made by CDS.
2. The rights/wrongs of Marine A's conviction.
The comments made by CDS appear to me to be in response to those made by a variety of media outlets, ex-serving senior officers and the usual talking heads. I'm not suggesting that the topic is off limits for debate, far from it, they have every right to comment and engage in a debate. CDS appears to have been exercising the right of reply as the professional head of the Armed Services in order to address some of the issues raised by some less than well-informed comment.
As for Marine A, I wasn't at the CM so can only offer a judgement based on a careful reading of the media reportage - guilty as charged. The attitude of the insurgents to the Geneva Conventions, their actions or their status as combatants is irrelevant. It is our actions that are of importance (and which distinguish us as a disciplined military force) and his actions were legally and morally wrong. Talk of the fog of war, adreneline, unit losses, 5 months into the tour etc, whilst offering context, in no way excuse the murder of an individual who was no longer a threat.
Having served in close combat roles in Afghanistan for extended periods (I was in Helmand at the time of the incident) I fully undertand and appreciate both the specific and wider contexts within which the incident took place but I cannot accept that there is any justification for Marine A's complete failure of judgement, leadership and loss of moral compass. LOAC and ROE are meat and drink to a professional such as him (especially so as a highly-experienced SNCO) and his comments after the fact ref the Geneva Convention suggest that he knew exactly what he was doing. Murder is murder and I am personally and professionally disgusted by his actions.
MB
1. The public comments made by CDS.
2. The rights/wrongs of Marine A's conviction.
The comments made by CDS appear to me to be in response to those made by a variety of media outlets, ex-serving senior officers and the usual talking heads. I'm not suggesting that the topic is off limits for debate, far from it, they have every right to comment and engage in a debate. CDS appears to have been exercising the right of reply as the professional head of the Armed Services in order to address some of the issues raised by some less than well-informed comment.
As for Marine A, I wasn't at the CM so can only offer a judgement based on a careful reading of the media reportage - guilty as charged. The attitude of the insurgents to the Geneva Conventions, their actions or their status as combatants is irrelevant. It is our actions that are of importance (and which distinguish us as a disciplined military force) and his actions were legally and morally wrong. Talk of the fog of war, adreneline, unit losses, 5 months into the tour etc, whilst offering context, in no way excuse the murder of an individual who was no longer a threat.
Having served in close combat roles in Afghanistan for extended periods (I was in Helmand at the time of the incident) I fully undertand and appreciate both the specific and wider contexts within which the incident took place but I cannot accept that there is any justification for Marine A's complete failure of judgement, leadership and loss of moral compass. LOAC and ROE are meat and drink to a professional such as him (especially so as a highly-experienced SNCO) and his comments after the fact ref the Geneva Convention suggest that he knew exactly what he was doing. Murder is murder and I am personally and professionally disgusted by his actions.
MB
kaikohe,
On what evidence do you suggest that CDS:
'is more interested in keeping his large pension in tact & looking for his seat in the Lords'
rather than, as Mahogany Bomber puts it,
'have been exercising the right of reply as the professional head of the Armed Services in order to address some of the issues raised by some less than well-informed comment.'
Do you know CDS such that you think such a personal slur is warranted? Or are you simply exercising your right in a free society to uninformed criticism and half-arsed cynicism? If the latter, crack on...
On what evidence do you suggest that CDS:
'is more interested in keeping his large pension in tact & looking for his seat in the Lords'
rather than, as Mahogany Bomber puts it,
'have been exercising the right of reply as the professional head of the Armed Services in order to address some of the issues raised by some less than well-informed comment.'
Do you know CDS such that you think such a personal slur is warranted? Or are you simply exercising your right in a free society to uninformed criticism and half-arsed cynicism? If the latter, crack on...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now what was the question? Should CDS be Dismissed? No. but should STFU till the sentence is given and not try to influence it.
Were the findings correct...definately not.
Would I have done the same......probably but was never in that situation....I was just a navigator dropping nuclear bombs on civilians (legally apparently).
War is sh1te, not a game to be played according to a set of rules only one side follows. The moral high ground is an expensive myth. The only murderer(s) in this sad case is/are the politicians who sent our armed forces into that shambles.
Was the Marine wrong in his actions....yes he showed poor judgement in shooting and expressing his concerns and filming the debacle.
These are my opinions based only on what I have read.
Were the findings correct...definately not.
Would I have done the same......probably but was never in that situation....I was just a navigator dropping nuclear bombs on civilians (legally apparently).
War is sh1te, not a game to be played according to a set of rules only one side follows. The moral high ground is an expensive myth. The only murderer(s) in this sad case is/are the politicians who sent our armed forces into that shambles.
Was the Marine wrong in his actions....yes he showed poor judgement in shooting and expressing his concerns and filming the debacle.
These are my opinions based only on what I have read.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its just that the general public are ....confused by our military. HM Forces fight by their own rules and yet the enemy appear not to answer to anyone's.
We appear to punish our own failures and they do not. They punish (even in their own publicly filmed ends..) only our failures.
We appear to be losing and they appear to be slowly and now irrevocably winning. What a waste of our blood and lovely treasure - that's where our rules got us.
No one here in GB will give a wrap about the Royal Marine in 6 months (weeks) time-stand-fast his friends and family).
Zeitgeist= the Govt and political classes have already decided the war is long lost and they move on. Tossing the Royal over their shoulders they exit....and who will care about our rules then?
If snipers were shot out of hand by our men in way back then, why were the (our) killers not brought to justice in 1945? Were we a worse society for this failure? I think not. Was our queasiness then quickly quelled by the black and white film of Ravensbruck and the other camps?
Final pissed up thought before I slumber off, safe in the knowledge that somewhere out there rough men guard me (although who guards them, they may reason?).
The RM patrol, they would have had to have dragged the mortally wounded enemy to some relative safety. Summoned support - medical aid? And what was that? A helicopter>? An AFV equipped for medical aid? And put further British or allied lives at risk in the recovery? Was this ever brought up in trial? The further risk to some mothers son? Perhaps this crossed the RMs mind as he fired?As someone in line said (aircrew) " take a life to save a life"?
I'm sorry for confusing the thread MB, I am spent and tired of argument. Goodnight.
We appear to punish our own failures and they do not. They punish (even in their own publicly filmed ends..) only our failures.
We appear to be losing and they appear to be slowly and now irrevocably winning. What a waste of our blood and lovely treasure - that's where our rules got us.
No one here in GB will give a wrap about the Royal Marine in 6 months (weeks) time-stand-fast his friends and family).
Zeitgeist= the Govt and political classes have already decided the war is long lost and they move on. Tossing the Royal over their shoulders they exit....and who will care about our rules then?
If snipers were shot out of hand by our men in way back then, why were the (our) killers not brought to justice in 1945? Were we a worse society for this failure? I think not. Was our queasiness then quickly quelled by the black and white film of Ravensbruck and the other camps?
Final pissed up thought before I slumber off, safe in the knowledge that somewhere out there rough men guard me (although who guards them, they may reason?).
The RM patrol, they would have had to have dragged the mortally wounded enemy to some relative safety. Summoned support - medical aid? And what was that? A helicopter>? An AFV equipped for medical aid? And put further British or allied lives at risk in the recovery? Was this ever brought up in trial? The further risk to some mothers son? Perhaps this crossed the RMs mind as he fired?As someone in line said (aircrew) " take a life to save a life"?
I'm sorry for confusing the thread MB, I am spent and tired of argument. Goodnight.
Thanks for the two replies to my earlier posting,
All I would say is, no I do not personally know the CDS, but I do think, he should have kept quiet, untill the Court Martial was completely finished, that includes any sentance impossed on the defendent.
My own personal feeling, is that it is quite likely that, a great deaL of pressure has been applied from the very top. My thoughts only & no slur intended, but I was in the Forces in the day, when very Senior Officers, stood by their men & women through thick & thin. Yes give them hell in private, but at least appear to support them in public. Finally one of you mentioned a skin colour, I most certainly did not.
All I would say is, no I do not personally know the CDS, but I do think, he should have kept quiet, untill the Court Martial was completely finished, that includes any sentance impossed on the defendent.
My own personal feeling, is that it is quite likely that, a great deaL of pressure has been applied from the very top. My thoughts only & no slur intended, but I was in the Forces in the day, when very Senior Officers, stood by their men & women through thick & thin. Yes give them hell in private, but at least appear to support them in public. Finally one of you mentioned a skin colour, I most certainly did not.
Last edited by kaikohe76; 15th Nov 2013 at 23:11.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romeo Oscar Golf,
The Law of Armed Conflict is exactly that, whether our enemies abide by it is of no consequence, and it is a topic of mandatory training both on an annual basis and prior to deployment. Equally, I was required to ensure that me and my personnel were refreshed on ROE on a monthly basis. That's the current reality and I wouldn't have it any other way. I've had to watch unarmed insurgents digging in an IED and not been able to engage due to the absence of an immediate threat. I wasn't particularly happy but equally I recognised the legal, moral and military boundaries of the situation I found myself in. What may or may not have happened in previous conflicts does not inform the debate, we live in the here and now and fight as we must, not as we might.
MB
The Law of Armed Conflict is exactly that, whether our enemies abide by it is of no consequence, and it is a topic of mandatory training both on an annual basis and prior to deployment. Equally, I was required to ensure that me and my personnel were refreshed on ROE on a monthly basis. That's the current reality and I wouldn't have it any other way. I've had to watch unarmed insurgents digging in an IED and not been able to engage due to the absence of an immediate threat. I wasn't particularly happy but equally I recognised the legal, moral and military boundaries of the situation I found myself in. What may or may not have happened in previous conflicts does not inform the debate, we live in the here and now and fight as we must, not as we might.
MB
MB is correct in pointing out that there are two issues here; I will confine my post to CDS' remarks.
It is worth remembering that CDS commented in response to direct questions from a reputable and perceptive journalist in the course of a live televised politics programme and, crucially, after a verdict had been delivered on Marine A by a properly constituted Court presided over by an appropriately trained and legally competent Judge Advocate.
What message would CDS have sent to serving personnel if he had prevaricated, or chosen to answer a different question as the politicians are wont to do? Instead he stated that Marine A's behaviour was unacceptable as it breached not only the law but the principles on which we conduct our military business in this country (I paraphrase).
He also said that it would be wrong for anyone in authority to attempt to influence the juducial process by way of special pleading. He was correct - to do so would be seen as effectively excusing Marine A and,by extension, giving the nod for others to act similarly. I agree with CDS on this one. We may understand why Marine A acted as he did, we may even have some sympathy for him but we must not, and cannot, condone his actions. If we condone this event it can only lead to greater atrocities. We are better than that.
It is worth remembering that CDS commented in response to direct questions from a reputable and perceptive journalist in the course of a live televised politics programme and, crucially, after a verdict had been delivered on Marine A by a properly constituted Court presided over by an appropriately trained and legally competent Judge Advocate.
What message would CDS have sent to serving personnel if he had prevaricated, or chosen to answer a different question as the politicians are wont to do? Instead he stated that Marine A's behaviour was unacceptable as it breached not only the law but the principles on which we conduct our military business in this country (I paraphrase).
He also said that it would be wrong for anyone in authority to attempt to influence the juducial process by way of special pleading. He was correct - to do so would be seen as effectively excusing Marine A and,by extension, giving the nod for others to act similarly. I agree with CDS on this one. We may understand why Marine A acted as he did, we may even have some sympathy for him but we must not, and cannot, condone his actions. If we condone this event it can only lead to greater atrocities. We are better than that.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can find no disagreement with the 2 previous Posts. If Sgt A later wishes to play the psycho card, great; he may well qualify. I originally thought that pleading extenuating circumstance (was that the point Gen Julian was making?) would be a fair argument. I was wrong, though. The spotlight is now on our military conduct and it must be seen to be just and honourable. If it's not, we are buggered on several planes and several levels.
What happens the next time we are in an a "symetrical" conflict and the opposition has the chance to give up or surrender their wounded? Would they think twice and crack on with pointless loss on both sides with the worry that they might be slotted anyway? A quick refresher on the writings of Sun Tzu might be enlightening.
On the original point of this Thread, why should CDS be dismissed for doing his job?
What happens the next time we are in an a "symetrical" conflict and the opposition has the chance to give up or surrender their wounded? Would they think twice and crack on with pointless loss on both sides with the worry that they might be slotted anyway? A quick refresher on the writings of Sun Tzu might be enlightening.
On the original point of this Thread, why should CDS be dismissed for doing his job?
I've had to watch unarmed insurgents digging in an IED and not been able to engage due to the absence of an immediate threat.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My penny's worth,
Do I be believe CDS should of buttoned his lip until after the legal process has been completed - yes I do?
Do I believe the pace, pitch, tone and content of the (heard) audio (re this case) damming enough to warrant an appropriate sentence - yes I do?
Would I, if the opportunity arose, share a beer with Marine A - yes I would?
S4G
Do I be believe CDS should of buttoned his lip until after the legal process has been completed - yes I do?
Do I believe the pace, pitch, tone and content of the (heard) audio (re this case) damming enough to warrant an appropriate sentence - yes I do?
Would I, if the opportunity arose, share a beer with Marine A - yes I would?
S4G
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the lecture MB. You think perhaps I didn't know that?
I gave my opinion, I happen to think the present thinking is wrong.
.
I'm not sure where you learned your debating skills but to discount history and indeed new ideas and only deal with the here and now is limiting to say the least.
I gave my opinion, I happen to think the present thinking is wrong.
What may or may not have happened in previous conflicts does not inform the debate, we live in the here and now and fight as we must, not as we might
I'm not sure where you learned your debating skills but to discount history and indeed new ideas and only deal with the here and now is limiting to say the least.