Substitute Marine A for Pilot A.
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?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
If a wounded enemy is seen limping away then there's no clue whether it's a minor flesh wound or whether the clock is ticking on a fatal injury. Thus it is much, much easier for a defence of 'honest belief' or 'reasonable doubt' to be succesfully argued for a pilot who has reattacked after seeing his first attack cause injury than it is for a marine who has shot a wounded, submissive captive at point-blank range.
If the pilot has been able to keep eyes on the previously armed and hostile enemy then a re-attack could be legal.
If he is not carrying a weapon he might be an innocent bystander fleeing the scene or a combatant who has now been converted to the true faith.
A good case for using 2-seat Typhoons. Pilot-Weapons Operator in the front, lawyer in the back.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thinking about our law will lose our people time and possibly their lives.
In the future we will get close to the stage that service people in action/combat will have to think about the enemies potential action towards him and his own sides as well. Possibly in equal measure. Actually, that's already happening.
Very much like the police within the UK are now, one could possibly say. We will become increasingly risk averse, and potentially hamstrung in combat.
Okay - you win the argument about shooting injured potential prisoners.
I hope the judge can show a degree of compassion to his own side when he hands down the sentence.
Incidentally is anybody prepared to name the panel of the Court Martial? I'm interested in their service backgrounds, who they are. Or do they remain as anonymous as the rest of the trial? No named dead man, no named Marines and no named CM panel. (Is it a panel anyway)? Thought justice was about openness and fairness?
Very much like the police within the UK are now, one could possibly say. We will become increasingly risk averse, and potentially hamstrung in combat.
Okay - you win the argument about shooting injured potential prisoners.
I hope the judge can show a degree of compassion to his own side when he hands down the sentence.
Incidentally is anybody prepared to name the panel of the Court Martial? I'm interested in their service backgrounds, who they are. Or do they remain as anonymous as the rest of the trial? No named dead man, no named Marines and no named CM panel. (Is it a panel anyway)? Thought justice was about openness and fairness?
...Incidentally is anybody prepared to name the panel of the Court Martial? I'm interested in their service backgrounds, who they are. Or do they remain as anonymous as the rest of the trial? No named dead man, no named Marines and no named CM panel. (Is it a panel anyway)? Thought justice was about openness and fairness?
Similarly, if you have been following the case you should know that the names of the Judge Advocate, Prosecutor, and other counsel are all in the public domain. The CM took place in public and the media were present and reported it.
As for the names of the CM panel, why exactly do you ask? We dont expect the names of members of a civil jury, do we? I dont know the names but the ranks and service have been published - all RM or RN.
"I thought justice was about openness and fairness". With great respect you have put forward nothing to show that this CM hasnt been conducted openly and fairly.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just popped into this thread, as a bit of a 'thought chain' has been brewing in my head.
Just to set a but of a scenario: many people seem to think that what marine A did was wrong, but then many people would like him to get a small sentence for what he did. Do the masses feel sorry for him/feel what he did was correct OR could it be that the population are sick of politicians lying daily, and getting UK forces involved in wars that they see as totally unjust and not in the UK interest. If it is the latter then perhaps the public see our forces as the victim in all this no matter what they do.
I find this situation hard to deal with as the UK have routinely killed unarmed or wounded combatants in all wars up to the present, and it really is still the policy to do that in Afghanistan (but in tiny numbers compared to a WW2 bombing raid). The Brits still employ snipers and SF. If a sniper is looking at an enemy formation and can see: three soldier laying in guard positions; the enemy OC unarmed and having a cup of coffee; an unarmed enemy soldier having a bath or sat on a latrine or maybe even one asleep after being on guard, which are the best targets for him?
Its certainly not the ones laying on guard.
Maybe the issue with this whole news story is the publics disgust at what our politicians are doing, and their understanding of our rules of engagement, and only to a lesser extent as to what would be murder on UK soil.
During WW2 the UK fought for what it thought was good against evil, and to keep the axis forces from our shores. Do the population think that again today, and does the fact that Afghan immigration to the UK is rising steadily have any bearing on the view of the conflict.
Just to set a but of a scenario: many people seem to think that what marine A did was wrong, but then many people would like him to get a small sentence for what he did. Do the masses feel sorry for him/feel what he did was correct OR could it be that the population are sick of politicians lying daily, and getting UK forces involved in wars that they see as totally unjust and not in the UK interest. If it is the latter then perhaps the public see our forces as the victim in all this no matter what they do.
I find this situation hard to deal with as the UK have routinely killed unarmed or wounded combatants in all wars up to the present, and it really is still the policy to do that in Afghanistan (but in tiny numbers compared to a WW2 bombing raid). The Brits still employ snipers and SF. If a sniper is looking at an enemy formation and can see: three soldier laying in guard positions; the enemy OC unarmed and having a cup of coffee; an unarmed enemy soldier having a bath or sat on a latrine or maybe even one asleep after being on guard, which are the best targets for him?
Its certainly not the ones laying on guard.
Maybe the issue with this whole news story is the publics disgust at what our politicians are doing, and their understanding of our rules of engagement, and only to a lesser extent as to what would be murder on UK soil.
During WW2 the UK fought for what it thought was good against evil, and to keep the axis forces from our shores. Do the population think that again today, and does the fact that Afghan immigration to the UK is rising steadily have any bearing on the view of the conflict.
...I find this situation hard to deal with as the UK have routinely killed unarmed or wounded combatants in all wars up to the present, and it really is still the policy to do that in Afghanistan (but in tiny numbers compared to a WW2 bombing raid). The Brits still employ snipers and SF. If a sniper is looking at an enemy formation and can see: three soldier laying in guard positions; the enemy OC unarmed and having a cup of coffee; an unarmed enemy soldier having a bath or sat on a latrine or maybe even one asleep after being on guard, which are the best targets for him?
Its certainly not the ones laying on guard.
Its certainly not the ones laying on guard.
Whether someone is armed or not, and what with, may make a difference to the ROE applicable. It could also be an obvious factor (both in fact and in law) in deciding whether someone in civilian clothing is to be treated as a combatant or not.
But it makes not the slightest difference to the right to engage any of those enemy personnel in your scenario.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baffman
Your comment is pretty worrying to be honest.
Our current ROE's are pretty strict, and just as we don't shoot someone 'who has already' or 'will later' shoot someone we also dont have it written that someone who is having a bath, and is unarmed is a legit target (I take it you noted I said at least two target were unarmed).
Can you define what clearly makes someone an enemy combatant as you put it?
The baddies in afghan now can go from civvy to combatant and back twenty times per day under our ROE, and they don't even need to change clothing or move around. Maybe you have the magic answer that has eluded western forces for many decades in how to spot the difference between a civilian who is an insurgent (full time, part now, or just now and then), or just a civvy. Either way they can have the same clothes on, any may be carrying a weapon or not.
Your comment is pretty worrying to be honest.
Our current ROE's are pretty strict, and just as we don't shoot someone 'who has already' or 'will later' shoot someone we also dont have it written that someone who is having a bath, and is unarmed is a legit target (I take it you noted I said at least two target were unarmed).
Can you define what clearly makes someone an enemy combatant as you put it?
The baddies in afghan now can go from civvy to combatant and back twenty times per day under our ROE, and they don't even need to change clothing or move around. Maybe you have the magic answer that has eluded western forces for many decades in how to spot the difference between a civilian who is an insurgent (full time, part now, or just now and then), or just a civvy. Either way they can have the same clothes on, any may be carrying a weapon or not.
Barnstormer, I remind you that this is your scenario under discussion:
The LOAC is perfectly clear on that point, and is what I stated. We are talking about an organised enemy formation in a hypothetical theatre of war, identified as a belligerent enemy, because that is how you described it.
All that about "Afghan insurgents going from combatant and back twenty times a day" has nothing to do with the scenario you asked about and which I replied to.
ROE can be a different matter (while complying with LOAC) as my reply also made clear. I am sure you know that they are not usually published.
a sniper is looking at an enemy formation and can see: three soldier laying in guard positions; the enemy OC unarmed and having a cup of coffee; an unarmed enemy soldier having a bath or sat on a latrine or maybe even one asleep after being on guard,
All that about "Afghan insurgents going from combatant and back twenty times a day" has nothing to do with the scenario you asked about and which I replied to.
ROE can be a different matter (while complying with LOAC) as my reply also made clear. I am sure you know that they are not usually published.
Last edited by baffman; 18th Nov 2013 at 14:15. Reason: typo
Gentleman Aviator
And one guesses that such things have always happened 
Shakespeare reported that Henry V ordered the killing of prisoners (Henry V Act 4 Sc 8)
Which was in reprisal for what the Feelthy Froggies had done to our non-combatants, which (even then) was noted as being illegal, as related earlier in the same scene by Fluellen, the Welsh Lieutenant:
.... so it was only doing what they had done/would do to ours .....
Shakespeare reported that Henry V ordered the killing of prisoners (Henry V Act 4 Sc 8)
Besides, we'll cut the throats of those we have,
And not a man of them that we shall take
Shall taste our mercy. Go and tell them so.
And not a man of them that we shall take
Shall taste our mercy. Go and tell them so.
Kill the poys and the luggage! 'tis expressly
against the law of arms: 'tis as arrant a piece of
knavery, mark you now, as can be offer't; in your
conscience, now, is it not?
against the law of arms: 'tis as arrant a piece of
knavery, mark you now, as can be offer't; in your
conscience, now, is it not?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royal Marine named.
The Royal Marine has been named by a judge.Just now - I heard his name on the radio. Not going to repeat it. I thought this would happen from the start, and even argued for it, but in retrospect think its not so much a mistake but simply another poke in the eye from the establishment to the non commissioned ranks.
In fact I actually no longer know what to think about this.
Was justice served?
In fact I actually no longer know what to think about this.
Was justice served?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arguably, it could be open season on his family now, as far as Abul the Dull's concerned.
We ask blokes to do beastly things in crappy places and, now and again, some stuff up. So we can now punish them twice; once by the penal system and again from any passing fatwa. I do think we owe some protection for the ones that, for whatever reason, stuff up. OK, it wouldn't take the investigative brain of tabloid hack to find the identity but there would always be that element of doubt. This way, we broadcast a positive, authenicated Ident to the entire universe. Well done; support your local Serviceman.
We ask blokes to do beastly things in crappy places and, now and again, some stuff up. So we can now punish them twice; once by the penal system and again from any passing fatwa. I do think we owe some protection for the ones that, for whatever reason, stuff up. OK, it wouldn't take the investigative brain of tabloid hack to find the identity but there would always be that element of doubt. This way, we broadcast a positive, authenicated Ident to the entire universe. Well done; support your local Serviceman.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I listened to the "Moral Maze" programme on Radio 4 last night, where this topic was discussed with a cross section of "thinking people", including the viewpoint of a lawyer who specialises in this sort of case (but not on the side of the servicemen - only the "victims"). I was amazed by the lack of empathy for Marine A across the board, especially as by their own admission none of the participants has been within a thousand miles of a combat zone - unless you include proximity to NI, but without actually being there.
I've only been involved in conflict as an aviator, but that is a world different from being an infantry soldier on the ground, in constant peril from any number of unidentifiable enemies. So I can't judge what happens to men in these situations - and neither can the talking heads on radio - after prolonged contact with an enemy who does not fight by rules that civilised countries employ. We know the details of losses from the unit involved, and the subsequent barbaric flaunting of mutilated remains of the dead comrades of those involved.
This is not to excuse any actions, but should help to give an understanding of causal factors leading to those actions. "Walk a mile in my boots"; I wouldn't even dare to put on those boots, let alone do so continuously for several years/deployments in hostile environments. But at least I can try to understand; something that seems to sadly lacking of the establishment.
The trial currently being conducted over the Woolwich murder serves as a reminder of the mentality of those whom our deployed forces have to face every day. I wonder what the outcome of that trial will be in comparison to the sentence that will be handed down to Marine A.
Now, to add further calumny to the man, his fanily (and those of the other Marines, who were acquitted) will be exposed to the potential dangers from UK resident like-minded zealots facing our troops in foreign **** holes.
What a moral dichotomy betweem applying "law" and "justice", especially by people who have little knowledge and no understanding of what military operations entail for the individuals involved.
It would be fair to say that my sympathy lies with the servicemen; but let the punishment be tempered by a big dose of empathy. And, although it's probably too late now, do not extend the punishment to families of those servicemen by exposing them in public.
Mister B
I've only been involved in conflict as an aviator, but that is a world different from being an infantry soldier on the ground, in constant peril from any number of unidentifiable enemies. So I can't judge what happens to men in these situations - and neither can the talking heads on radio - after prolonged contact with an enemy who does not fight by rules that civilised countries employ. We know the details of losses from the unit involved, and the subsequent barbaric flaunting of mutilated remains of the dead comrades of those involved.
This is not to excuse any actions, but should help to give an understanding of causal factors leading to those actions. "Walk a mile in my boots"; I wouldn't even dare to put on those boots, let alone do so continuously for several years/deployments in hostile environments. But at least I can try to understand; something that seems to sadly lacking of the establishment.
The trial currently being conducted over the Woolwich murder serves as a reminder of the mentality of those whom our deployed forces have to face every day. I wonder what the outcome of that trial will be in comparison to the sentence that will be handed down to Marine A.
Now, to add further calumny to the man, his fanily (and those of the other Marines, who were acquitted) will be exposed to the potential dangers from UK resident like-minded zealots facing our troops in foreign **** holes.
What a moral dichotomy betweem applying "law" and "justice", especially by people who have little knowledge and no understanding of what military operations entail for the individuals involved.
It would be fair to say that my sympathy lies with the servicemen; but let the punishment be tempered by a big dose of empathy. And, although it's probably too late now, do not extend the punishment to families of those servicemen by exposing them in public.
Mister B
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BBC News internet site:
A Royal Marine who murdered an injured insurgent in Afghanistan has been named as Sergeant Alexander Blackman.
Three senior judges sitting at the High Court in London lifted an anonymity order which prevented him from being identified.
Arguments made forBlackman and other marines in the case suggested their lives would be at"real and immediate" risk if their names were released.
But the judges upheld a decision to name him and two others.
On 8 November a court martial board found Blackman guilty of murdering a man in Helmand Province more than two years ago.
There's more, and a picture, but I don't feel inclined to add any more.
A sad day for common sense and natural justice.
Mister B
A Royal Marine who murdered an injured insurgent in Afghanistan has been named as Sergeant Alexander Blackman.
Three senior judges sitting at the High Court in London lifted an anonymity order which prevented him from being identified.
Arguments made forBlackman and other marines in the case suggested their lives would be at"real and immediate" risk if their names were released.
But the judges upheld a decision to name him and two others.
On 8 November a court martial board found Blackman guilty of murdering a man in Helmand Province more than two years ago.
There's more, and a picture, but I don't feel inclined to add any more.
A sad day for common sense and natural justice.
Mister B
Last edited by HTB; 5th Dec 2013 at 13:33. Reason: format text copy and paste
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps HTB's logic here is that the 'Justice' system seems to have fed the Marines to the lions; by which I mean their identities, having now been publicly revealed, leave them and their families wide open to attacks of retribution by all sorts of empathisers to the Afghan who was killed. Many might believe that you reap what you sow on this occasion but it's worthwhile reminding all that the very same 'Justice' system has [in the past] subsequently protected the identity of the Soham murderers and such like.
I wonder what treatment the involved service families will get from all of this. They are innocent and deserve protection at the very least.
I wonder what treatment the involved service families will get from all of this. They are innocent and deserve protection at the very least.
Justice was served (I believe) by the finding of the Court (not something that I would care to enter into, to be honest). However, as has already been said, justice(?) has now condemned several other (and inoccent people) to potential death! Sounds awful, does it not, but that is what has happened! Where is our Prime Minister and his so-called "Military Covenant" now? Words fail me!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Just been watching clips on You Tube where Armed Taliban Troops are being attacked by Appache Gunships.. Some can be seen after the first attack staggering or crawling away.. Obviously injured, yet they are re-attacked by cannon or even missile fire!
Can't really see that that's any different to what Soldier A did! Just that he was a bit closer; ie on the ground!
If any harm should come to Soldier A's family then The high court judges should be open targets too!
The High court Judges Names Are ???
Lord Thomas is one..
Can't really see that that's any different to what Soldier A did! Just that he was a bit closer; ie on the ground!
If any harm should come to Soldier A's family then The high court judges should be open targets too!
The High court Judges Names Are ???
Lord Thomas is one..
Last edited by Out Of Trim; 5th Dec 2013 at 23:28.
HTP
I to listened to this program and was appalled at the views and sentiments of the "contributors". If I am right I understand that the identities of the two marines that had the charges dropped have been withheld to protect them and theirs from retribution, whilst the the names of marine A and the two who were acquitted have been released. Where is the logic in that. I wonder what the state of morale is in the marine corps this evening,
I to listened to this program and was appalled at the views and sentiments of the "contributors". If I am right I understand that the identities of the two marines that had the charges dropped have been withheld to protect them and theirs from retribution, whilst the the names of marine A and the two who were acquitted have been released. Where is the logic in that. I wonder what the state of morale is in the marine corps this evening,
OOT
there is a huge difference. The Taliban who are attacked by AH may actually be stunned and uninjured as has happened in the past. The fact that they are crawling or staggering away from the attack has no bearing as to the extent of their injuries. Even if they are injured, if they get away then they could still be a threat, in which case they remain a valid target for a re-attack.
there is a huge difference. The Taliban who are attacked by AH may actually be stunned and uninjured as has happened in the past. The fact that they are crawling or staggering away from the attack has no bearing as to the extent of their injuries. Even if they are injured, if they get away then they could still be a threat, in which case they remain a valid target for a re-attack.
Last edited by Toadstool; 6th Dec 2013 at 00:43.