Substitute Marine A for Pilot A.

[500N]

baffman

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

[Easy Street]

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

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

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

[baffman]

baffman

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

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

[500N]

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

Ah, that is what I maybe missed.

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

[baffman]

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

Ah, that is what I maybe missed.

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

Is that what happened?

[500N]

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

I don't know how far gone he was.

Too many iffffssss !

[baffman]

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

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

I don't know how far gone he was.

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

Too many iffffssss !

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

[500N]

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

[Hangarshuffle]

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

[Wander00]

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

[500N]

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

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

[Basil]

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

I'd say that a retreating enemy should be pursued, engaged and destroyed on the basis that you will now have no further trouble from that unit.

[barnstormer1968]

Baffman

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

[Hangarshuffle]

Articulate reasoned article in the Mail on Sunday-shock

PETER HITCHENS: Marine 'A' is going to jail - but the guilt is all Blair's | Mail Online

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

[baffman]

Baffman

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

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

[baffman]

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

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

[Toadstool]

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

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

[Canadian Break]

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

[Hangarshuffle]

Im afraid we have shot wounded captives, many times.

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

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

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

Yep only the scummy Mail but largely pretty true.

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

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

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

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

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

[Hangarshuffle]

We aint that civilised, just pretend to be.

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