I think it was quite wrong to name him and put his family at increased risk. Their lives have been ruined and their future is now pretty bleak. He was no risk to the people of this country and so I also think 10 yrs minimum is about double a reasonable length compared with some of the absurdly low sentences that other criminals receive. Soldiers operating in that kind of stress, at high risk to their lives, in a war zone, are going to sometimes act in a way that we in our comfortable safe UK lives may find hard to accept or understand. I hope some rich good Samaritan looks after his family.
Probably, on balance, about right given the evidence published. And as a convicted criminal its right he should be named. hoping if nothing else they learn the lesson that combat equals turn your fucking camera, off! Because I for one think what he did was what I would have done given the same pressures and condiitions. Geezer could have had a grenade or anything primed. And he would have happily killed him with his last breath. but we are not without law. I don't want to know what goes on. I don't want to know what pressures and fears they feel. I don't want to stand face to face with some guy who wants to murder me for no reason. Nor do I want to make those choices. Right now I'm glad I'm not a judge
I am of the opinion that we can't argue with the sentence. Once you have been caught then you will get punished accordingly. My issue has been with the comments made by people that have no experience of these kinds of situations, making judgements on the moral character of the man involved. He did what he did and he ended up having to defend those actions in front of the law. That doesn't make him a monster but it also doesn't mean that he can expect to get away with it when he made a video of it. I also would have done the same as he did. Lesson for the chaps; helmet cam = bad idea.
Forgive me if I'm wrong here but I seem to recall from other threads that you're either a serving or former soldier or marine? Presumably if you are you've been in similar situations and didn't shoot the prisoner out of hand so to say you would have done the same strikes me as being a bit confusing. It also insults all the tens of thousands of other members of the forces put in that situation who didn't start killing people outside the rules of engagement. Fixed your last line as well.
Soldiers are supposed to murder people, that's what some of them are for. Murdering people = work. I didn't do it because I didn't have the moral fibre to do so, and I watched that man die a slow and painful death. I also, having had that experience, know that I would behave differently in the future. I am, fortunately, never going to find myself in that situation again. I'm an unarmed civilian now and let other people do the dirty work. It's an insult to no one. And you'll find that the majority of soldiers that have served in Afghanistan have never even heard a rifle fired in anger let alone pulled the trigger on their own weapon. I've been shot at more times than I can remember, had rounds pass inches from my head and feet. I was shot in the rifle in 2010 and I only fired 10 rounds of 5.56 and 1 of .308 in 12 months of duty out here with the army. So the people who deal with this level of violence are few and far between. Infanteers (including marines), close support arms and a few unlucky souls that have been caught in their bases. And medics that deal with the aftermath. I have no problem with you as an individual but I do have a problem with the idea that everything is black and white and that killing people isn't sometimes necessary. Having shown your obvious intellect in other threads, I'm certain we could have a debate on euthanasia and provide an argument and understanding for both sides regardless of your and my personal opinions on the matter. So why not in war? From what I understand, this case wasn't as straight forward as a case of euthanasia or self-defense and has been judged upon accordingly. But my argument is for the concept, not for the details of this particular story, that sometimes things happen because they need to. Not because the laws say that they should or should not.
Soldiers don't murder people, they are sanctioned by the government of the day to carry out their duties which may or may not include killing people, as long as those actions are carried out according to the rules of engagement then it is not legally murder. This case wasn't a situation where it could be dressed up as euthanasia or self protection, largely because of the way Sgt Blackman went about it, had he expressed any concern over hidden weapons he would have been right in the grey area where it could be justified, had he expressed any concern about the suffering or the prisoner he may have had a moral justification. He didn't do that either. I spent the thick end of 10 years as a soldier, the world situation at the time meant I didn't get to do much more than wait for the Russians to wander through West Germany so fortunately for me I never had to make that sort of decision but I hope if I had been in that situation I would have the good sense to know what was right.
Seems not many of us understand what war is about , including lots of soldiers then. So it may be that those that judge aren't qualified , regardless of what their lawbook may say.
Soldiers to face 11 more 'trials' over Iraq deaths - Telegraph A quote from the article Col Tim Collins, who led 1st Bn the Royal Irish Regiment during the Iraq invasion, said: “The Human Rights Act has a lot to answer for. It has turned into a bean feast for ambulance-chasing lawyers. They are trying to apply the rules that you would to a fairground, to Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.”
Col Collins is being rather slippery here. No UK soldier has been prosecuted for pulling the trigger in a battle, and there is no prospect of any soldier ever being prosecuted for that scenario. All the prosecutions, actual or in prospect, relate to prisoners - to allegedly torturing and/or killing unarmed detainees in British hands. Col Collins and others seem to be arguing that it is OK to kill prisoners, that allegations about killing prisoners should not be investigated, and soldiers who kill prisoners should not be prosecuted. They try to justify this by saying soldiers in a firefight should not be inhibited by worrying about legal considerations. The justification, obviously, does not support the argument. No British soldier has ever been taken to the International Criminal Court because the British legal system itself prosecutes proper cases. If we failed, or refused, to prosecute soldiers here, jurisdiction would consequently pass to the ICC. Is that what Col Collins wants to see?
What I am hearing from those who have direct experience is that in modern asymmetric warfare the lines between what constitutes a battle, a firefight, a contact and their aftermath are often blurred. I think there is a fine line between getting the job done and rigorously following policies and procedures. It seems that these days one will be given precedence over the other whilst the other remains the overall objective. This causes confusion.
There is ample scope for lines to be blurred during warfare. An example would be: is that insurgent with his hands in the air really surrendering or is he approaching to detonate a suicide-bomb? If the insurgent has been searched and found to be unarmed and unable to cause harm, and is otherwise helpless, and *then* is beaten/killed, is that a grey area? Some murkiness can be made to disappear if you can establish enough facts.
No, it is not a grey area and I don't recall anyone suggesting it is. I just don't think that throwing someone to the wolves when they overstep the line under very difficult circumstances is the way to go.
I don't think the chap in question was thrown to the wolves - I think he was prosecuted in accordance with the law. Now, if you want the law to be changed to allow soldiers to be able to legally kill prisoners of war, well ... get lobbying. You'll need to lobby the EU as well, obviously :wink:
I was a bootneck for 14 years and from my experience nothing has changed, the guy's are always having to get the job done with one hand basically tied behind their backs due to the" rules of engagement". Hope everything is still the same and the corp rallies round his family as regardless of your opinion re: marine A , his family should not suffer. Personally what goes on tour! stays on tour! (shit happens). keeping a copy as stated by other members very poor judgement . Now I'm a strawberry mivvy so what do I know. AC
So would that mean that something like My Lai would have just been shit that should stay on tour? My Lai Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Clearly this case isn't exactly comparable, but where do you want to draw the line? One death? Two? 10? 100?
But the EU would be little interested since this would not be their concern. The Council of Europe on the other hand would be very interested, if the UK proposed to withdraw from the 47 civilised nations of Europe.
I was being tongue-in-cheek concerning lobbying the EU, Pete - a nod to another active thread here concerning the EU. You don't always have to use a 23-tonne bulldozer to crack a walnut, you know :smile:
