Should CDS be Dismissed?

[Blacksheep]

... well should he?

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

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

[Trim Stab]

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

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

[Wander00]

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

[Hangarshuffle]

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

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

Lets not react to what he did not say

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

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

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

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

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

[Wander00]

I cannot see how anyone could disagree with that view.

[dervish]

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

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

[Basil]

should receive the harshest possible sentence.

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

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

[Wander00]

Basil - IMHO guilty of both, in spades

[Wrathmonk]

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

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

[CoffmanStarter]

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

CDS BBC Marr Show Interview

[Pontius Navigator]

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

[Surrey Towers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.change.org/petitions/cour...share_petition

[Just This Once...]

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

Utter drivel.

[Archimedes]

The transcript of the interview is here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TomJoad]

Originally Posted by Surrey Towers;8146463

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

[URL

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

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

[Yozzer]

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

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

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

[1.3VStall]

To answer the question that this thread poses: yes!

[Squirrel 41]

Originally Posted by Surrey Towers

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Surrey Towers

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

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

S41

[cornish-stormrider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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