Substitute Marine A for Pilot A.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Substitute Marine A for Pilot A.
The subject will not go away. Mods feel free to delete as you require. But...
What will happen then in the following hypothetical scenario; In the future...
A mother pirate ship has been allegedly sending pirates out from herself offshore NE Africa, within international waters. They attack ships, with weapons but fail to capture one and withdraw to the mother ship. They are tracked by RN vessels and challenged. The Captain of one RN ship orders his Lynx Helicopter crew to attack the mother ship with Sea Skua. He does this based on the reason the pirates are a threat to himself and other cargo vessels in vicinity, they are armed with MANPAD to repel a helo board, they are heavily armed with small arms and would repel an RN RIB boarding team. They refuse to stop, they refuse to do anything except proceed towards their own coastline in escape.
If the Lynx Crew attacked and heavily damaged, set afire the mother ship, is or was this lawful?
What would happen then if the Lynx crew returns to the RN ship, it reloads arms and refuels and returns on task?
It then elects to re-attack the mother ship - aggressively so because the crew believe the ship still poses a threat, to themselves and others. Is that reasonable?
If they then proceed to totally destroy a ship, manned by pirates but now on fire, has began to lose power and control, is taking in water and looks to be on the point of surrender (arguably) - if they kill the pirates, if the ship is totally helpless, would that not also make the aircrew be culpable of a murder charge?
Apologies to real aircrew of any hue for my simplistic "fantasy fight" if you like - you will be groaning at my comic book simple scenario. But you could substitute a Lynx for an Apache following a damaged APV on the ground, you could substitute a fighter plane following a damaged enemy cargo aircraft in the air.
Is this all not really very, very important to HM Forces? (I cannot find on the internet any evidence worldwide of soldiers been CM'd anywhere in the world at the present time (with all the fighting that is occurring on the planet) for allegedly shooting a prisoner, or being challenged in court).(No doubt someone will correct me now).
Are we not about to totally dis-establish the idea of "engaging the enemy more closely" then, in applying law of the Geneva Convention?(Would it apply here)?
Or will the recent type of court decision only be applied ever be applied to the lower deck (that's rating and non officers to the RAF/Army) and SNCOs?
I cant debate, I'm in a different time and zone. Where I am incidentally, pirates roam and are an increasing menace, the RN defence is small - the civilian ships I see daily are increasingly heavily protected with razor wire and employ (whisper it, "armed men"). The poor ships crews are now practically prisoners on their own vessels - if they have a fire on their own ships they possibly will not even escape themselves, they are totally razor wired in, to keep them out. Think about it.
What will happen then in the following hypothetical scenario; In the future...
A mother pirate ship has been allegedly sending pirates out from herself offshore NE Africa, within international waters. They attack ships, with weapons but fail to capture one and withdraw to the mother ship. They are tracked by RN vessels and challenged. The Captain of one RN ship orders his Lynx Helicopter crew to attack the mother ship with Sea Skua. He does this based on the reason the pirates are a threat to himself and other cargo vessels in vicinity, they are armed with MANPAD to repel a helo board, they are heavily armed with small arms and would repel an RN RIB boarding team. They refuse to stop, they refuse to do anything except proceed towards their own coastline in escape.
If the Lynx Crew attacked and heavily damaged, set afire the mother ship, is or was this lawful?
What would happen then if the Lynx crew returns to the RN ship, it reloads arms and refuels and returns on task?
It then elects to re-attack the mother ship - aggressively so because the crew believe the ship still poses a threat, to themselves and others. Is that reasonable?
If they then proceed to totally destroy a ship, manned by pirates but now on fire, has began to lose power and control, is taking in water and looks to be on the point of surrender (arguably) - if they kill the pirates, if the ship is totally helpless, would that not also make the aircrew be culpable of a murder charge?
Apologies to real aircrew of any hue for my simplistic "fantasy fight" if you like - you will be groaning at my comic book simple scenario. But you could substitute a Lynx for an Apache following a damaged APV on the ground, you could substitute a fighter plane following a damaged enemy cargo aircraft in the air.
Is this all not really very, very important to HM Forces? (I cannot find on the internet any evidence worldwide of soldiers been CM'd anywhere in the world at the present time (with all the fighting that is occurring on the planet) for allegedly shooting a prisoner, or being challenged in court).(No doubt someone will correct me now).
Are we not about to totally dis-establish the idea of "engaging the enemy more closely" then, in applying law of the Geneva Convention?(Would it apply here)?
Or will the recent type of court decision only be applied ever be applied to the lower deck (that's rating and non officers to the RAF/Army) and SNCOs?
I cant debate, I'm in a different time and zone. Where I am incidentally, pirates roam and are an increasing menace, the RN defence is small - the civilian ships I see daily are increasingly heavily protected with razor wire and employ (whisper it, "armed men"). The poor ships crews are now practically prisoners on their own vessels - if they have a fire on their own ships they possibly will not even escape themselves, they are totally razor wired in, to keep them out. Think about it.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hangershuffle,
Any action taken by any of HM Forces in your hypothetical scenario would be taken within carefully scripted ROE agreed and authorized by the international community/UN. The commander of such forces authorizing use of lethal force would be well versed in those ROEs as would the crews. The answer to your question then needs to be addressed to what those ROEs would be. Open pursuit of those who have surrendered or are not in the immediate act of endangering life would be unlikely. Not really much different to the armed guard situation at most stns.
Any action taken by any of HM Forces in your hypothetical scenario would be taken within carefully scripted ROE agreed and authorized by the international community/UN. The commander of such forces authorizing use of lethal force would be well versed in those ROEs as would the crews. The answer to your question then needs to be addressed to what those ROEs would be. Open pursuit of those who have surrendered or are not in the immediate act of endangering life would be unlikely. Not really much different to the armed guard situation at most stns.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sounds completely ok to me, now if they are waving a white flag or standing in deck unarmed with their hands in the air then I would say the helo crew would be in violation to continue the attack.
as long as they are not openly surrending they are fair game
as long as they are not openly surrending they are fair game
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a great question hangarshuff and I'd treat the answers which follow with caution. Most people who have served in combat can give examples of ROEs which were NOT carefully scripted. The issue will be heightened for RPAS ops where every word and action is video recorded, especially where they are operated somewhere we're not formally at war with. I hope their pilots have good legal cover!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why go for for a situation like that?
Marine A apparently was in the wrong because the person he shot was no threat to him, and so shooting him is murder......or something like that.
So, how about a fictional Apache pilot who is above the effective range of an insurgents weapon in a country that could be Afghanistan. The insurgent is no threat at all to him, but he engages the aircrafts cannon. After round one the apache pilot will not be able to see the insurgent due to dust kick up. The insurgent may be hit and wounded, and may have dropped any weapon he had, but the cannon shells are still landing all around this unarmed and injured man. If a later round hits and kills the insurgent does that make the apache pilot (long range) or gunner (close in) guilty of murder?
The ROE's involved dictate whether its murder I suppose, or whether it's just killing an enemy combatant.
Edited to add: our current ROE's don't work and can't work IMHO. A squaddy seeing a baddy who has just beheaded, or blown up his best mate can't shoot the baddy once any weapon has been laid down. The same goes for an insurgent sniper, pop down your weapon and raise your dish dash and you are free to go. But if the sniper is behind a wall having a brew after killing a Brit he may be on the receiving end of a javelin or hellfire, even though he is unarmed.
I sometimes wonder if our ROE's might be a bit more warlike if they were written by the Taliban.
Marine A apparently was in the wrong because the person he shot was no threat to him, and so shooting him is murder......or something like that.
So, how about a fictional Apache pilot who is above the effective range of an insurgents weapon in a country that could be Afghanistan. The insurgent is no threat at all to him, but he engages the aircrafts cannon. After round one the apache pilot will not be able to see the insurgent due to dust kick up. The insurgent may be hit and wounded, and may have dropped any weapon he had, but the cannon shells are still landing all around this unarmed and injured man. If a later round hits and kills the insurgent does that make the apache pilot (long range) or gunner (close in) guilty of murder?
The ROE's involved dictate whether its murder I suppose, or whether it's just killing an enemy combatant.
Edited to add: our current ROE's don't work and can't work IMHO. A squaddy seeing a baddy who has just beheaded, or blown up his best mate can't shoot the baddy once any weapon has been laid down. The same goes for an insurgent sniper, pop down your weapon and raise your dish dash and you are free to go. But if the sniper is behind a wall having a brew after killing a Brit he may be on the receiving end of a javelin or hellfire, even though he is unarmed.
I sometimes wonder if our ROE's might be a bit more warlike if they were written by the Taliban.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Murder' only requires a single bullet.
In the fallout over Lee Clegg in NI, a military legal advisor gave a presentation in which he confirmed that 'homicide' does not exist in UK Law and that the operator was responsible for every bullet including a ricochet. This when SH were armed with GPMG, an Area Suppression weapon.
This makes urban warfare such as seen recently in A Kenya shopping centre an invitation to go to jail without passing go or collecting £200. Yet Nations of the world will have seen this happen and prepare for repetition.
The means to challenge these cases, be it Police or Military should be supported by those who task them. There is no way that any weapon from an aircraft can be used with the finite precision that the Law would like to believe is possible.
In the fallout over Lee Clegg in NI, a military legal advisor gave a presentation in which he confirmed that 'homicide' does not exist in UK Law and that the operator was responsible for every bullet including a ricochet. This when SH were armed with GPMG, an Area Suppression weapon.
This makes urban warfare such as seen recently in A Kenya shopping centre an invitation to go to jail without passing go or collecting £200. Yet Nations of the world will have seen this happen and prepare for repetition.
The means to challenge these cases, be it Police or Military should be supported by those who task them. There is no way that any weapon from an aircraft can be used with the finite precision that the Law would like to believe is possible.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This kinda puts it in perspective....
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac1_1379198032
Marine A, whilst I believe was utterly wrong in their actions, was right when he said it wasn't anything they wouldn't do to us.
It's a shame the video wasn't deleted when it was discovered.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac1_1379198032
Marine A, whilst I believe was utterly wrong in their actions, was right when he said it wasn't anything they wouldn't do to us.
It's a shame the video wasn't deleted when it was discovered.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil, that's terrible man! (I couldn't watch that film to the end, I'm just not cut for it - I admit it).
There's some good replies there especially yours TM.
Not even in the same level of risk or responsibility, years ago when I was doing the Ships Protection Organisation at Senior Rate Level, as well as repeat the usual list on the 3 JSP cards (orange, white and one other - I've forgotten) I gave our very young ships protection team a hypothetical question/scenario about what could happen (unlikely but never totally impossible given the political situation at that time) at our particular berth that day, and I asked them " Would you return fire here or perhaps here, if this happens"? To a man and women they all would have declined to open fire, or return fire - and stated the reasons why.
I remember being really surprised and even a little stunned.
Either I was too aggressive, or they were too risk averse, or simply didn't trust our own law to protect themselves in court. I don't know. Nothing seemed straightforward anymore.
I think somehow HM Forces are now about to go up from the thin end of the wedge, as regards being even more liable for follow up and prosecution. And it wont be confined to our fighting soldiers and marines. Law Firms will have been watching carefully the recent events, as will others.
Yes VR, in perspective.Someone could argue then, in the video above the gunner had no requirement to shoot some of those injured men, for a variety of valid reasons. Someone's going to argue that, eventually. That video could be poured over in court, looked at for hour after hour - every single second.
Anyway, I know its a cliché but I remain with nothing but high respect for all HM Forces. I'm just glad I'm now out.
There's some good replies there especially yours TM.
Not even in the same level of risk or responsibility, years ago when I was doing the Ships Protection Organisation at Senior Rate Level, as well as repeat the usual list on the 3 JSP cards (orange, white and one other - I've forgotten) I gave our very young ships protection team a hypothetical question/scenario about what could happen (unlikely but never totally impossible given the political situation at that time) at our particular berth that day, and I asked them " Would you return fire here or perhaps here, if this happens"? To a man and women they all would have declined to open fire, or return fire - and stated the reasons why.
I remember being really surprised and even a little stunned.
Either I was too aggressive, or they were too risk averse, or simply didn't trust our own law to protect themselves in court. I don't know. Nothing seemed straightforward anymore.
I think somehow HM Forces are now about to go up from the thin end of the wedge, as regards being even more liable for follow up and prosecution. And it wont be confined to our fighting soldiers and marines. Law Firms will have been watching carefully the recent events, as will others.
Yes VR, in perspective.Someone could argue then, in the video above the gunner had no requirement to shoot some of those injured men, for a variety of valid reasons. Someone's going to argue that, eventually. That video could be poured over in court, looked at for hour after hour - every single second.
Anyway, I know its a cliché but I remain with nothing but high respect for all HM Forces. I'm just glad I'm now out.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TomJoad
Just read your reply again. The bad guys win then? They are winning? Against us? Does this, would this not give them some tactical advantage, if they are savvy to our ROE?
It seems ridiculous.
Incidentally as I have mentioned the situation down here (my neck of the woods today) appears to be getting worse, even in the medium time I have been operating here.
The ships I work with are becoming slowly and surely increasingly more defended but to the detrimental safety of their own civilian crews (an oxymoron?) when not under attack. There is now so much razor wire on some of them, around the living accommodation and leading up to the bridge, that in the event of a fire, a collision then the poor crews wont be able to escape, to make an escape via any external exit or stairwell. Its crazy to see.
But I concede any revision of the ROE, or revision of the Geneva Convention, could simply make the world an even more brutal place that it already is.
The bad guys are slowly winning. I thought it an irony that even in the event of his death that Afghan took the life of Marine A.
Just read your reply again. The bad guys win then? They are winning? Against us? Does this, would this not give them some tactical advantage, if they are savvy to our ROE?
It seems ridiculous.
Incidentally as I have mentioned the situation down here (my neck of the woods today) appears to be getting worse, even in the medium time I have been operating here.
The ships I work with are becoming slowly and surely increasingly more defended but to the detrimental safety of their own civilian crews (an oxymoron?) when not under attack. There is now so much razor wire on some of them, around the living accommodation and leading up to the bridge, that in the event of a fire, a collision then the poor crews wont be able to escape, to make an escape via any external exit or stairwell. Its crazy to see.
But I concede any revision of the ROE, or revision of the Geneva Convention, could simply make the world an even more brutal place that it already is.
The bad guys are slowly winning. I thought it an irony that even in the event of his death that Afghan took the life of Marine A.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The green card rules would be a good basis on which to answer.
Your mother ship approaches and performs a hostile act - you can retaliate.
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.
The mother ship perceives your hot pursuit as a hostile act and attacks - you can retaliate.
The mother ship is disabled, on fire, and sinking - if they continue to engage you can continue to return fire. If they surrender then you cannot continue to engage and, when safe to do so, render assistance and take their surrender.
In this case they should not engage.
Now the Belgrano is a different matter.
Your mother ship approaches and performs a hostile act - you can retaliate.
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.
The mother ship perceives your hot pursuit as a hostile act and attacks - you can retaliate.
The mother ship is disabled, on fire, and sinking - if they continue to engage you can continue to return fire. If they surrender then you cannot continue to engage and, when safe to do so, render assistance and take their surrender.
It then elects to re-attack the mother ship - aggressively so because the crew believe the ship still poses a threat, to themselves and others. Is that reasonable?
Now the Belgrano is a different matter.
Marine A, whilst I believe was utterly wrong in their actions, was right when
he said it wasn't anything they wouldn't do to us.
I have to say I'm a little troubled by people trying to mitigate this murder because the perperator has seen and experienced terrible things. That's war, unfortunately. We dont similarly excuse the murderous actions of German soldiers in WW2, who also would have seen their comrades brutally killed and maimed by partisans.
I sense the reason folks are doing so know has less to do with the legality, or even morality of the case, and more to do with the fact that the accused is British.
Last edited by melmothtw; 12th Nov 2013 at 15:25.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure that is the conclusion I would draw Hangershuffle.
Does knowledge of your enemies ROEs give you a tactical advantage - of course it does. Should you use the constrictions of your enemies ROEs against them - of course you should! If the Taliban do not do that then they are idiots - and they are not that.
Look, there should be no surprises here, but I must admit having some surprise at the questions being asked wrt legitimacy of pursuing the enemy when they are no longer in the game. As for understanding the pressure of the heat of the moment - yes we understand that, armchair warrior or not. But it does not justify murder nor should it. Consider - it would be a poor defence for the murderers of Lee Rigby to ask "judge me after having walked a mile in my shoe". No, we have the highest respect for our soldiers, sailers and airmen because we hold them to the highest of standards. Does that automatically mean that the bad guys win, no I don't think it does as it has not in the past. If the bad guys ultimately win in Afghanistan perhaps it will be for altogether different reasons. However, if we abandon the conventions that keep us true such as GC and ROEs for expediency then we certainly loose.
How about the pilots of remote ac that take out cars on public roads in countries not at war. Ok, they may be after one 'baddy' however are the other passengers/drivers murdered?
Interesting discussion but the obvious difference is that in one case you have a helpless wounded insurgent who is at your mercy and under your control, and in the other case you have no non-violent means of detaining the hostile personnel and removing the threat.
However much sympathy one might have, you can't justify a murder committed at close range on the ground by going on about the difficulties of aircraft or ships in engaging the enemy.
However much sympathy one might have, you can't justify a murder committed at close range on the ground by going on about the difficulties of aircraft or ships in engaging the enemy.