UKC

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/05/marine-a-legal-arguments-nam...

This is not good at all, in my opinion.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Not good they are named, or not good that they weren't named initially?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:





Why?

He is in no more danger, in fact probably less danger, than a pedophile who is named.

In reply to Trangia:

But his family could well be in danger. Or even just people with the same surname.

In reply to Trangia:

Paedophiles aren't asked by the state to put themselves in a position of danger.

jcm

In reply to tony:

Why?

He was found innocent wasn't he?

In reply to balmybaldwin:
No. Guilty of murder.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

What difference does that make? Whether or not he was in danger (and arguably he was not at the point when the crime took place) has no bearing on the crime.

In reply to knthrak1982:

Ah yes, I was getting confused with the other 2 that were cleared.

I can't see why he shouldn't be named...and I can't work out why him being a soldier would make the situation any different.

In reply to David Martin:

Cobblers. I'll believe this when I hear it from people who weren't in a firefight five minutes earlier.

jcm

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Because society expects soldiers to put themselves in a position where they might be killed for the common good. It behoves society to protect them in return.

How Judge Blackett feels able to say he doesn’t feel this soldier will be put in danger by naming him is beyond me. The truth is that he’s got no idea. The only way to find out is to try naming him and see if he in turn gets murdered by some Islamic nutter in twenty years’ time.

jcm

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Given the nature of the offence, there's a possibility of revenge killings against his family.

There's a certain tragic irony that this has happened at the same time as the trial of the two men who killed Lee Rigby - he was killed simply because he was a soldier, and the justification cited by the killers was that British soldiers were waging war on Muslims. It only takes one enraged extremist to take it into their head that a revenge killing is appropriate.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
But our society also expects our soldiers not to murder people or breach the conventions on human rights.

I'm sure he will be protected in Jail

In reply to balmybaldwin:

>But our society also expects our soldiers not to murder people or breach the conventions on human rights.

Of course. And when they do it punishes them. But there shouldn't be a second punishment whereby they have to live their whole lives in fear, to say nothing of their families, as tony points out.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I've always thought it was a similar position to the police. We give them more power and responsibility, and we offer them more support in doing their work, but at the same time we hold them to a higher standard of account if they abuse that power

In reply to tony:

But why doesn't this apply to all murderers? Most victims have families, friends etc who could equally decide that tehy want to exert some form of revenge.

Should we keep the perpetrators of the murder of Lee Rigby secret too incase some outraged brit wants to go and get revenge or is that different because the victim was on our side? Afterall, you can't deny that a huge number of people were that way minded at the time with all the EDF marches etc

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I believe soldiers should choose to put themselves in the firing line for the common good. I don't believe us being in Afghanistan is for the common good however.

Either way, whether rounds are in the air at this moment in time or whether they were shot at last month doesn't excuse them of crimes. Every other criminal lives a lifetime potentially fearing retribution. I see nothing special for this individual.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


I think it's question of probability or likelihood. Experience shows that most murders are not followed by revenge killings. BY contrast, extremists, by definition, will do extreme things, up to and including murder.


I don't agree that a huge number of people were that way minded after Lee Rigby was killed. If they had been, there would have been more revenge crimes committed than actually did take place. As it was, the crimes that did take place were untargetted acts against a range of victims, none of which had anything to do with the killing.

In reply to David Martin:

That's stupid. You can't expect society to work on the basis that soldiers all decide whether a given war is for the common good or not before they decide to take part. I don't think Afghanistan's a good idea, either, but that's not the fault of individual marines.

There’s a fundamental disconnect in your line of thinking, which seems to be ‘This war is wicked therefore those that we sent to wage it for us deserve all they get’.

The difference between soldiers and the ordinary citizen is that there is presently, and appears likely to be for the foreseeable future, an unidentifiable crowd of politically and religiously driven nutters out there, whom we to a large extent created by society’s actions, who seem to think it amusing to murder a large range of unarmed people. I don’t like the sight of smug judges increasing the exposure of others to that danger in the name of vague aspirations like ‘open justice’, while prating about how there’s no evidence of increased danger arising from lifting anonymity, as if there possibly could be any ‘evidence’ about such a hypothesis.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think it's incredibly short-sighted to name the man.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: agreed. Bad news

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



I don't buy that line because we don't have conscription. People willingly join the armed forces in the full knowledge that they are very likely to be called upon to put themselves in danger. They are volunteers and for that reason I don't believe that if they commit murder they should be afforded special protection any more than any other murderer. I mentioned pedophiles because they as a group are particularly vulnerable to revenge killing . If the law going to grant anonymity to convicts it should be even handed or not at all

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Is "Open Justice" really a "Vague Aspiration"? I don't think so. I think it's a principle of common-law and worthy of upholding.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It is important that the families, friends and fellow countrymen of the man that was murdered see that justice is fully metered out and that we are not just another bunch of savages who only apply the law to other people.

He was found guilty. He should not have been and was not named until he was found guilty.

Marine A has put other soldiers at greater risk of being killed when captured. We have to somehow show that we do not condone in any way any kind of cover up.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

>It is important that the families, friends and fellow countrymen of the man that was murdered see that justice is fully metered out and that we are not just another bunch of savages who only apply the law to other people.

I don't think they read the Guardian much in Afghanistan.

jcm

In reply to DancingOnRock:

>Marine A has put other soldiers at greater risk of being killed when captured.

You reckon? Has the Taliban sent any prisoners back alive, do we know?

>We have to somehow show that we do not condone in any way any kind of cover up.

We have. By imprisoning him. It doesn't follow that we should expose him and his relatives to vigilante justice.

jcm

In reply to JMGLondon:

>I think it's a principle of common-law and worthy of upholding.

That's nice when it doesn't endanger you, of course.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It's the principal. He should not be given special protection due to his job, since that has no bearing on him being a convicted criminal.

In reply to Removed User:

>He should not be given special protection due to his job, since that has no bearing on him being a convicted criminal.

Utter bollocks. Of course it does. I have no idea what you think you're trying to say.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

You seem to be saying soldiers can be excused from taking any active moral stance on their reasons for deployment. That's a very convenient arrangement for states wanting to use their armed forces for less than legitimate reasons and one I oppose.

"Society" mighty just work a hell of a lot better if soldiers decided whether to take part in a conflict at the outset. I can guarantee you far fewer spurious wars while almost guaranteeing that should the UK ever be attacked directly every Tom, Dick and Harry would still be queuing to sign up.

The special allowances and permissive atmosphere in Iraq and Afghanistan (the behaviour of PMCs is widely available for viewing on youtube) is very likely responsible for thousands of civilian deaths and provides all the evidence the likes Adebolajo need to support their cause. Creating an environment of accountability will more likely make individuals like this marine think twice before performing executions. Do you really believe that this was an isolated case? That the one bit of video evidence discovered by pure chance represent the only incident of this type? I'm very doubtful.

As to a "difference between soldiers and the ordinary citizen"...there is none. A civilian in the UK is as likely to become a victim of terrorism or fundamentalists as a soldier. Making allowances for the behaviours this marine exhibited only puts everyone at risk.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

So being hyped up is an excuse for murder is it?!

In reply to JayPee630:


Don't be silly. Obviously the fact that the person you murder was trying to kill you five minutes before, that his mates are still out there trying to kill you, and that your duty apparently requires you to hang around, putting your life further at risk, out of concern for his well-being, is a mitigating factor, yes. That's not the same thing as an excuse, and neither by itself determines whether the punishment should be extended to include endangerment for life.

jcm

In reply to David Martin:

>A civilian in the UK is as likely to become a victim of terrorism or fundamentalists as a soldier.

Oh, yes?! You got any evidence for that? Isn't there a rather high-profile trial going on at the moment which would suggest otherwise? In any case, we aren't talking about soldiers in general. We're talking about a specific soldier convicted of murder.

As to the rest of your post, it's hard to know where to start. You think convicting our soldiers of murder isn't going to assist in 'creating a climate of accountability'?! The Taliban do that, do they?

I doubt very much it's an isolated case, no. there's lots we could be doing and announcing, that doesn't involve sacrificing individuals to promote your political aims.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Your replies are somewhat amusing because you don't usually see this kind of rabid soldier worship outside of the good ol' USA.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

He murdered someone. He should be treated exactly the same as anyone else in that position. Simple.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:






Our Soldiers fight all over the world it's not just the Taliban. However, I suspect that the Taliban get their information from all sorts of places.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


A single trial doesn't suggest anything. I don't have evidence for David's assertion either, however it is a fact that terrorists, at least since the IRA, tend to kill indiscriminately to in order to produce the largest collateral damage possible. From that it seems statistically likely that the average victim will be a civilian rather than a soldier.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Well, if it comes to that Marine A will be a civilian once he's released, and his family presumably already are.

It's hardly the point whether a given soldier is more likely to be murdered by terrorists than a given civilian, anyway.

jcm

In reply to Removed User:


Don't be such a fool. I despise soldiers, as it happens. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated fairly.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

We had 52 civilians die on 7/7, some 700 other casualties, with terrorism almost by definition likely to target soft civilian targets. And now we have one Lee Rigby. The death of one British drummer on UK soil hardly points to the military being at risk. Barracks aren't exactly prime targets and I expect Mr Blackman to live a long life with no shortage of folk patting him on the back and buying him his pints.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

You despise soldiers? That's a a very odd statement. All of them? Personally?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think those good,honest, hardworking members of the press who advocated so strongly to be able to name the marine, not at all in the interests of justice but in the interests of selling more newspapers, should consider why they might take that risk, however small, with someone elses life.

In reply to David Martin:

Well, going back a bit, we had however many bandsmen got blown up in Hyde Park. I don't know what proportion of the general population are soldiers, but I imagine those two incidents alone lead to them being over-represented among terrorist victims, even if we don't count various borderline overseas events.

But anyway the risk to the general population of soldiers and civilians is not the point, as I'm sure even you would see if you reflected for a moment.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think it would have been better to keep his name out of the public domain, for the sake of his family. I can imagine all sorts of ugliness that could arise from them becoming a target for retribution, even if it never gets past the hate mail stage.

If he gets imprisoned then I'd say that's as much justice as is needed. I don't see any benefit to society at large from putting his family into the arena too.

In reply to JayPee630:

Yes, that was a bit strong. I fear I allowed myself to be momentarily incensed by em-whatever's idiotic posting. I feel a general distaste for them as a class, let's say.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Me too, and I was one. I think they should just be treated exactly the same as anyone else. And since murderers get no anonymity, nor should he.

In reply to Removed User:


I seriously doubt that naming the marine will sell many papers or that anyone expects it to. I've seen his name and forgotten it already. Unless you know the guy his name is a matter of minimal interest. Journalists do, however, have an inbuilt suspicion of official secrecy. I suspect that the applications to name the guy were motivated by a)a kneejerk reaction 'because that's what we do in these cases' b) a genuine belief that to contain the powers of the state courts must act in public and allowing an unnamed person to be jailed for life, as he must be for murder, runs contrary to that principle even if he wants to be anonymous or c) they don't like being told what they may or may not print.
If extra copies are being printed tonight it's because editors know that weather stories and pictures of floods and fallen trees sell extras papers not marines, named or anonymous.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


So you do understand how most people feel about lawyers then...

In reply to JayPee630:


Even you must accept that this is an oversimplification of a complex topic. He murdered someone where there were significant extenuating circumstances and these are enough to justify a different approach to the case.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I think you are being a little naive.

In reply to JayPee630:


This isnt true though. There are various examples where murderers have either been kept anonymous or alternatively given new identities when released.

In reply to Removed User:


Hardly. I've sat in literally thousands of editorial conferences on daily papers (at a rough guess well upwards of 5,000) so I think I've a vague grasp of the thought processes. Believe me there's a hell of a lot more thought
going into the layout of the weather story than into naming this guy.

In reply to Removed User:


The principal is important but then so is his safety and perhaps more importantly, that of people connected to him but not to his crime.

Chances are it'll be largely forgotten within a year if nothing happens to raise his profile in the mean time. Time will tell whether the judgement was right I guess.

jk

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




Nope. I'm sure that there are quite a few murderers in our gaols who risk becoming the victim of a revenge attack. If there is a substantial threat to the family, they should be put into witness protection.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Fairy nuff. Accepting that you are right (and this is a little harder than you might think given that you are suggesting that journalists act outside of the motive to sell stories for the greater good of the world and that this is coming from someone who works in the industry) then the point still stand.

Why would you take the risk?

In reply to Removed User:

I'll hazard an answer - because journalists are by and large sanctimonious scum who lack any moral dimension in going about their work.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



As opposed to lawyers who regularly refuse work due to conflicts with their principles ...

In reply to Removed User:


Certainly the aim of the company is to sell newspapers (and advertising etc) and the sales departments are driven by that. However, like most employees, journalists are more focussed on their own little bit of the job and just want to find and tell stories. It's a bit like the bloke working on the 747 assembly. Does he go into work to 'sell more planes' or to build a jumbo? Most journalists are at a similar remove from the 'must sell papers' commercial imperative and the more high-minded types are very sniffy about 'commercial departments'.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I resent being called sanctimonious 'sanctimonious?'

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Yes. But unlikely in this case to be the "shopfloor" journalists who campaigned to name this guy.

In reply to Removed User:

You might be surprised how far up the food chain the 'shopfloor' attitude goes. I can honestly say I've never heard anyone say 'This is a bad idea but we'll do it because it will sell papers'. The only drive is for 'good stories', whatever your paper perceives those to be.
A much bigger source of commercial pressure was when advertising people would ask you to either run a crap story to please a big advertiser or, worse still, drop a story to avoid upsetting one. In such circumstances editors take great delight in flexing their independence and telling the advertisers to "F8ck off"
The only time 'selling papers' was a direct factor in anyone's thinking was in producing special sports supplements for big events which always used to put on copies.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

This may be changing. I know journalists who get a bonus for getting the "most read" online story.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I think your perception of your industry and the reallity might be a little out. The idea that journalism is somehow free from the constraints of commercial pressure seems a little too idealistic.

In reply to Removed User:




Well it is six years since I retired and life in publishing certainly has not got any easier but I was an editor-in-chief and as such pretty aware of the commercial pressures as well as all too familiar with long and acrimonious discussions over circulation figures. Even so, I can honestly say that the way we sought to improve sales was always by producing something we perhaps rather nebulously thought of as 'better papers'.
As I said higher up, nobody every said we'll run this rubbish story because it will sell papers.
Getting back to the original thread, I don't think anyone believes they will sell a single extra copy by naming the marine and indeed may lose a few sales because some people will, as on here, think it's a bad idea.
I suspect they did not think very long about the challenge to the anonymity order. It's just what papers do. And, let's not forget, the decision to name him ultimately was taken not by a journalist but a lawyer.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



...meaning?

In reply to Removed User:


Plus I suspect Islamist f*ckwits will be significantly more of a threat to the families of the convicted than the average fat EDL supporter is to the
families of Lee Rigby's killers.

In reply to csw:


Why doesn't that same justification get extended to his killers? Don't they have family too? The great unwashed have a nasty habit of taking vigilante action over here, and I can just imagine some perceiving a tacit nod and wink given the leniency that goes with those in uniform - our boys, fighting terrorism and all that.

In reply to Removed User:


Who are you talking about here? Michael Adebolajo or Alex Blackman?

If there are extenuating circumstances for one, why not the other? In the former's case he argues British soldiers are invading Muslim countries and killing people. Seems there is a fair bit of fact to that. In the later's case I don't think the extenuating circumstances were claimed other than to say he thought the individual was already dead....a claim somewhat at odds with the comments and behaviours that preceded and followed the execution.

Seems like there is one rule for us and another for everyone else.

In reply to David Martin:

I don't think that you and I are talking about the same person here. And in this reply:

Who are you talking about here? Michael Adebolajo or Alex Blackman?

If there are extenuating circumstances for one, why not the other?

Maybe you're deliberately trying to provoke an angry response. But just on the off chance you're actually serious here, you wouldn't mind recounting Michael Adebolajo's extenuating circumstances would you? I'm having a hard time thinking of what they might be. Was he in a combat theatre at the time? How many of his friends had the British Army killed recently?

Please tell me you're making a joke here - or that I've missed something obvious....

In reply to David Martin:


Actually they don't.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

But plenty said we'll run this great story that might put a man and his family at risk because it will sell more papers.


If you say so. But as far as I know, selling the news is a commercial business. Perhaps you just weren't very good at it?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

That is a rather sweeping comment, any particular reason for your despising soldiers or do we just generally upset you?

In reply to David Martin:



I can't agree with your attempt to consider a member of HMF who "murdered" someone who had just been trying to kill him in a fire fight in a combat situation with someone who mows down and then beheads an unsuspecting individual in a busy London street as having the same extenuating circumstances.

For this discussion to work it requires you to be reasonable rather than taking an extreme position in order to maintain your point.


Clearly not

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Too tired to read whole thread sorry.

I was troubled by this whole court case and reporting on TV. However, I was fortunate to discuss it with a former Army Medic that did several tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. She explained that from day 1 in the army you are taught that the British Army must exercise "Courageous Restraint". In an "Actions on" situation, the people in the area may be enemy combatants one second and non-combatant the next and then back to combatant. You do not shoot / attack non-combatants. Every one from boy soldier to General has to do regular training and assessment to ensure that they know how to operate with "Courageous Restraint". I know there will be situations where this doesn't happen but in the main this is what sets the British Army apart from others.

Also the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been Conflicts not War. Soldiers fighting in Conflicts know that to kill a non-combatant is murder. In War I believe that it would be an Act of War but we haven't had that situation since Second World War.

As with most murders there are lots of regrettable aspects - the murderer usually has some "justification" or background that contributes to the event taking place but Marine A has committed a crime knowingly and must now pay the price. He may have put his family at risk, just like you or me driving the family up the motorway at 100 mph.

R

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The other thing that we should all bear in mind is that the field hospitals in Afghanistan are full of both British / Allied soldiers and Taliban / insurgent fighters. They will be lying in beds facing each other within hours of trying to kill each other.

In reply to Removed User:

Perhaps you just weren't very good at i

Maybe not. But good enough to retire ten years early with a newspaper of the year gong to hang on the wall. But maybe i was just lucky.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Touche!

Which paper?

In reply to RichT:

No one on this thread is arguing his innocence.

In reply to Removed User:

there is a reason why I don't use my given name on here you know

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

You are Roger Alton and I claim my £10.

Anyway, on a happier note I'm sure we can all agree that it's a credit to the British Army that it can produce murderers who quote Hamlet while in the act. You don't get that in every army. Those are the sort of murderers you want.

jcm

In reply to Removed User:

You yourself said "He murdered someone where there were significant extenuating circumstances and these are enough to justify a different approach to the case.".

What extenuating circumstances can there be for shifting an injured person so your actions can't be seen, denying that person medical attention, executing them, concealing the evidence, then lying when caught out?

If "its tough in Afghanistan" is extenuation then every soldier might as well conduct themselves as they please. Equally, some kids grow up in tough circumstances, abused by parents, cast aside by society, who then go on to lives of violent crime. Does the criminal justice system take those extenuating circumstances in to account? Do you excuse Moira Hindley on the basis of her background?

So, if you are going to grant extenuating circumstances to Blackman, you may as well apply them to Adebolajo, who quite clearly identifies with a vast body of people (fellow Muslims) who have had their countries invaded and bombed by British forces and decided to exact some revenge.

In reply to David Martin:

You could easily argue the balance of his mind was disturbed, the very short timespan between the murder and the firefight, PTSD...

> Equally, some kids grow up in tough circumstances, abused by parents, cast aside by society, who then go on to lives of violent crime. Does the criminal justice system take those extenuating circumstances in to account?

The justice system takes all that into account, every time. Some people get reduced sentences on what appear to be laughable excuses.

> So, if you are going to grant extenuating circumstances to Blackman, you may as well apply them to Adebolajo, who quite clearly identifies with a vast body of people (fellow Muslims) who have had their countries invaded and bombed by British forces and decided to exact some revenge.

Random British bloke, no geographical, family or other connection with countries 1000s of miles away other than having the same imaginary friend as some of the inhabitants. Not exactly a great defence is it? (Insanity might fly though). I may as well go butcher the chap who owns my local Chinese because the Red Army are oppressing Christians in some province in China.

Now if the British Army was bombing Greenwich, hanging Adebolajo's mate's body parts from the trees and Lee Rigby had been blatting away at him just before the murder then you might have a point.

In reply to Ridge:
10 years minimum.....harsh in my view, i feel for the bloke and his family..

In reply to abr1966:

Same here, but it's about what I was expecting. I don't forsee any issues with parole, I expect he'll be a model prisoner.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The obvious question would be where would YOU draw the line?

Theres a case where an american slipped out of his base late at night and into an afhgan village. He then proceeded to kill 15? men, women and children mostly asleep in there beds. I believe his defence is combat stress. Is this acceptable?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I actually agree with you.. it's not fair on his family..

It sounds like he got a fair sentence.. 10 years.. obviusly taking into account mitigating circumstances, those on FB saying half it.. or even release him as a hero.. just incredible, what he did was so fundamentally wrong there was no other verdict.

However saying his name risks the families, and him, I expect he will get released in 10-15 years and will now probably need another identity.

In reply to DogmaLook2:

> The obvious question would be where would YOU draw the line?

Surely the point is, where does the law draw the line? The point of a legal system is it applies checks and balances to people's visceral reactions. On a personal level, the marine shooting the taliban chap doesn't really register on my give-a-stuffometer. However, I recognise we need to operate within the bounds of the law, so accept the court's judgement on his guilt.

> Theres a case where an american slipped out of his base late at night and into an afhgan village. He then proceeded to kill 15? men, women and children mostly asleep in there beds. I believe his defence is combat stress. Is this acceptable?

I'd say not, and I'd hope the law would agree.

In reply to abr1966:

Exactly Andy and I disagree strongly with him being named for the safety of his family. That patrol have had a brain fart but the blurt that had the evidence on his laptop beggars belief...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Coming to this a bit late - sorry - but you do mean 'people who WERE in a firefight five minutes earlier'?

In reply to Ian Black:


Agreed.....there needs to be a look at some old fashioned discipline here! No such things as head cams in my time but if there was there would have been no chance of taking a copy of what was on it...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Nice rhetoric. You did actually follow the trial evidence? In what way does your quoted 'obviously' fit the circumstances of the murder?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




Well, John, you could stop sticking rabid posts on here and maybe take some time to just look at the actual casualty profiles of terrorist attacks in the UK and compare them to the number of forces personnel killed by such attacks. (I think we need to except Northern Ireland, though).

In reply to Removed User:


And you also perhaps need to revisit the evidence presented to the trial before a myth develops of a 'Rourke's Drift' stylee heroic last stand against marauding hordes of terrorists.

In reply to andyathome:

Nobody is trying to insinuate that this patrol was on anything other than a routine patrol where upon it came across enemy combatants. Nothing heroic just day to day business in the Helmand province. My understanding is that after a contact they found the afghan casualty with severe wounds. The decision was made to put a round into the said casualty. Probably not the right decision but in my opinion the worst decision that day was not to have a head cam amnesty, once back in the patrol base

In reply to mugglewump:

Oh yes they are.

'Obviously the fact that the person you murder was trying to kill you five minutes before, that his mates are still out there trying to kill you, and that your duty apparently requires you to hang around, putting your life further at risk, out of concern for his well-being, is a mitigating factor, yes'.

'I can't agree with your attempt to consider a member of HMF who "murdered" someone who had just been trying to kill him in a fire fight in a combat situation'.

Doesn't really describe the situation, does it?

Oh. And...'The decision was made to put a round into the said casualty. Probably not the right decision but in my opinion the worst decision that day was not to have a head cam amnesty, once back in the patrol base' would appear to condone what has been decided was murder? If no-one sees it it's OK? You inhabit a different planet to me I'm afraid.

In reply to andyathome:

I think if you read the whole thread and the other longer thread about the facts there was a general consensus and agreement that he was well out of order but a range of opinion regarding mitigating circumstances......from some also who have served in combat. They may not have been engaged at the time but being on the ground in Helmand is effectively to be under constant threat and staying in one position for any length of time massively increases ones risk.

In reply to abr1966:

Actually I have bothered to read the whole thread now.

'Well out of order' = 'convicted of murder'. Agreed?

'A range of opinion regarding mitigating circumstances'. Considered by the judge and rejected as a defence.

And if 'staying in one position for any length of time massively increases ones (sic) risk' why did they elect to do just that so 'they' could kill an ineffective enemy?

In reply to mugglewump:


Shocking...

It was a cold blooded execution. It wasn't put him out of his misery.. or 'what can we do here'.. or no question they were risking their lives being there. They even discussed evacuating him..

Remember they were so close to base they were insight of camera's, hence why the dragged him into the field..

Of course there were mitigating circumstances but ten years is lucky for me.. he possibly should have got a lot more. However I'm more shocked in a way by comments like yours which seem to think such actions were just mere mistakes.. no unlawful acts.

One muppet on the book was going on about it being a 'kill or be killed situation'..

In reply to abr1966:


So you'd prefer that all this wasn't revealed? No court martial, no one knows, no accountability?

I'm sure you take comfort in the fact that most of what goes on does stay off camera and as a result we do literally get away with murder. Certainly Blackman would have gotten away with that if not for the sheer bad luck and coincidence of the footage being stumbled across.

In reply to andyathome:



Clearly


I was referring to this in sentencing not as a defence.

why did they elect to do just that so 'they' could kill an ineffective enemy?

Do you know how long they were there for? I suspect you don't....being non mobile in combat does massively increase risk!

In reply to David Martin:



My comments on discipline related to the fact that with greater discipline all helmet cams and their cotent would be the property exclusively of the service and not for individual soldiers.....thus contributing to very high standards of conduct.....which in my experience is the case.

In reply to abr1966:




Well. Actually. You need to go to the trial evidence for how long they were there discussing it on camera. I wasn't present.

'Non mobile in combat does massively increase risk'. I'm sure it does. Here come's the Rourke's Drift defence again......

Does it massively similarly increase your risk if you are dragging a shredded human into cover, whilst NOT under any form of attack, so you can put a bullet or three into him?

In reply to andyathome:

As I've said before I'm not defending the guy....he has been tried and sentenced. But it's a messy business and being out on patrol every day can alter your judgement of where a line is.

In reply to abr1966:
I don't quite follow you. Yes, his fellow marine probably shouldn't have had the footage on his laptop (I'm assuming there is some legal requirement). But in the context of what has taken place, I find it perverse that this indiscretion, of all things, is worthy of comment.

A crime took place, the Geneva convention was contravened, an injured combatant was denied due medical attention, his execution and evidence of it was concealed, the marines colluded in keeping it secret, in court Blackman blatantly lied to explain his actions, etc. etc.

Put together, the fact that a minor regulation or sop was broken is hardly the issue.

As I have said before, rules of war are in my mind pretty ridiculous. But we claim to abide by them and as a result bang on about how we are therefore better than "them" and stand on a morally higher ground. These actions blow that out of the water, are clearly the tip of the iceberg, and many (be they in the services or civilian) seem to have extreme difficulty finding much opprobrium for the marine - his actions more excused than categorically denounced.

In reply to abr1966:






Don't bother explaining as most on here regard someone tutting at them to be conflict and an act of aggression. Let them get back to their computer war games from the comfort of their armchairs. You could post on here til xmas next year and they still wouldn't quite grasp it.

In reply to abr1966:
On a lighter note Andy, what will he do with his going ashore gear(stockings, sussies, and wig)when he's in the slammer

In reply to Ian Black:

Ian....they'll go down well in the slammer! Shame it was a booty as you'd put money on it being a grunt.....