Royal Marine found guilty of Afghanistan murder

[Dr. Dwayne]

He has always said he thought the insurgent was dead, he had been hit by Apache fire. Desecrating an enemy's corpse is also against the Geneva Convention, hence the reference to it.

Too bad he didn't abide by the Convention, eh?

 

[Pexbo]

Too bad he didn't abide by the Convention, eh?

Indeed. It's the calculation that has me believe he's rightfully in jail. It wasn't some heat of the moment action. He decided to ignore international laws and decided judgement was his prerogative.

 

[Red Diva]

Too bad he didn't abide by the Convention, eh?

Well obviously

Indeed. It's the calculation that has me believe he's rightfully in jail. It wasn't some heat of the moment action. He decided to ignore international laws and decided judgement was his prerogative.

We'll have to see if the original murder conviction is overturned now the CCRC has referred the case back to the Courts Martial Appeal Court.

 

[Red Diva]

The murder conviction was quashed yesterday and substituted for one of Manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. The correct decision in my view. Sentencing will be handed down next week & given Al has already served 3 years he may be released very soon.

Say what you will about the Daily Mail, but if not for them highlighting the case and raising £804,000 through public donations the new defence team would not have been hired & the new evidence would not have come to light.

 

[Pexbo]

Sets a bit of a precedent doesn't it?

Murder in the stressful theatre of war = manslaughter.

 

[Baxter]

It couldn't have been any clearer that it was murder and to have it reduced is a disgrace.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

The murder conviction was quashed yesterday and substituted for one of Manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. The correct decision in my view. Sentencing will be handed down next week & given Al has already served 3 years he may be released very soon.

Say what you will about the Daily Mail, but if not for them highlighting the case and raising £804,000 through public donations the new defence team would not have been hired & the new evidence would not have come to light.

I'm guessing when this precedent is used to defend one of the bad guys for something they do to one of ours, the daily Mail will not be so happy.

With this ruling, they effectively suggest that there can be no war crimes any more, because soldiers cannot be held responsible for what they do.

 

[Kentonio]

The murder conviction was quashed yesterday and substituted for one of Manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. The correct decision in my view. Sentencing will be handed down next week & given Al has already served 3 years he may be released very soon.

Say what you will about the Daily Mail, but if not for them highlighting the case and raising £804,000 through public donations the new defence team would not have been hired & the new evidence would not have come to light.

There was new evidence other than 'he was under a lot of stress'?

 

[Red Diva]

I'm guessing when this precedent is used to defend one of the bad guys for something they do to one of ours, the daily Mail will not be so happy.

With this ruling, they effectively suggest that there can be no war crimes any more, because soldiers cannot be held responsible for what they do.

They are not saying that at all! They are saying that in Al's particular case preceding events over the 6 month tour and complete lack of support from Commanding Officers resulted in a mental illness and substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgment.

 

[Silva]

They are not saying that at all! They are saying that in Al's particular case preceding events over the 6 month tour and complete lack of support from Commanding Officers resulted in a mental illness and substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgment.

"I can't be held responsible for my actions, the Taliban has substandard mental health support."

 

[Red Diva]

It couldn't have been any clearer that it was murder and to have it reduced is a disgrace.

Well it obviously isn't clear it was murder. It was manslaughter as determined by the Appeal Judges, who heard ALL the evidence.

 

[berbatrick]

They are not saying that at all! They are saying that in Al's particular case preceding events over the 6 month tour and complete lack of support from Commanding Officers resulted in a mental illness and substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgment.

Has any action been taken against them then?

And seeing the tape, it seems fairly obvious he knew he was alive (shuffle off this mortal coil will not be used if you're merely destroying a corpse).

 

[Red Diva]

Has any action been taken against them then?

And seeing the tape, it seems fairly obvious he knew he was alive (shuffle off this mortal coil will not be used if you're merely destroying a corpse).

How do you know this for a fact? Who knows what anyone would say in that moment. It could very well have been the first well known quote that sprang to mind. Al always maintained he thought the insurgent was dead - he had been hit multiple times by fire from an Apache. It was the initial Courts Martial that maintained he was still alive...

 

[Untied]

The murder conviction was quashed yesterday and substituted for one of Manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. The correct decision in my view. Sentencing will be handed down next week & given Al has already served 3 years he may be released very soon.

Say what you will about the Daily Mail, but if not for them highlighting the case and raising £804,000 through public donations the new defence team would not have been hired & the new evidence would not have come to light.

Says everything about the daily mail that they would raise almost a million pounds to defend murderer and not a penny for refugees.

The question everyone should ask themselves is if the situation was reversed. If an enemy combatant executed a wounded and unarmed British soldier after previously stating not to shoot him in the head as that would be too obvious and then immediately telling his colleagues that his action "doesn't go anywhere" as he knows he has committed a war crime, would you be using the stress of war to justify that crime as manslaughter?

You may answer yes, to that in which case fine, we just disagree and you hold troops to much lower standards.

 

[Red Diva]

Says everything about the daily mail that they would raise almost a million pounds to defend murderer and not a penny for refugees.

The question everyone should ask themselves is if the situation was reversed. If an enemy combatant executed a wounded and unarmed British soldier after previously stating not to shoot him in the head as that would be too obvious and then immediately telling his colleagues that his action "doesn't go anywhere" as he knows he has committed a war crime, would you be using the stress of war to justify that crime as manslaughter?

You may answer yes, to that in which case fine, we just disagree and you hold troops to much lower standards.

He was armed! They had been in a firefight a few moments before.

 

[Red Diva]

Says everything about the daily mail that they would raise almost a million pounds to defend murderer and not a penny for refugees.

The question everyone should ask themselves is if the situation was reversed. If an enemy combatant executed a wounded and unarmed British soldier after previously stating not to shoot him in the head as that would be too obvious and then immediately telling his colleagues that his action "doesn't go anywhere" as he knows he has committed a war crime, would you be using the stress of war to justify that crime as manslaughter?

You may answer yes, to that in which case fine, we just disagree and you hold troops to much lower standards.

Al was mentally ill at the time!
I'm certainly not saying I condone the shooting whether the insurgent was already dead or wounded, but I can understand what stress those lads were under during Herrick 14, particularly Al who as the senior Marine at Command Post Omar had the responsibility for the well being of the young Marines under him. Omar was in the most dangerous square mile of Afghanistan, the top brass never visited or offered support and even refused to allow the Padre to visit because it was too dangerous.

 

[Kentonio]

He was armed! They had been in a firefight a few moments before.

No he wasn't, they disarmed him and moved him before he shot the guy.

Blackman ordered the Afghan to be moved out of sight of the British Persistent Ground Surveillance System, a camera on a balloon above British Forward Operating Base Shazad, Helmand, covering the area Blackman's patrol had been sent to. Video evidence played at the Marines' subsequent trial shows some of the patrol dragging the man across the field and then kicking him. Blackman ordered Marine B and C to stop administering first aid to the insurgent and eventually shot the man in the chest with a 9 mm pistol, saying: "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you cnut. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us." He then added: "I just broke the Geneva Convention."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Helmand_Province_incident#cite_note-BBC_One-17

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Helmand_Province_incident#cite_note-BBC_One-17

 

[noodlehair]

This kind of stuff must happen a lot more than anyone ever gets to find out about.

Some perfectly rational people crack under even mild levels of stress, so putting them in a warzone will always lead to atrocities.

It's a difficult one for me really. I don't disagree with the punishment at all but I think it's really hard to accurately judge the individual. Say if they've been there for a long period of time, seen colleagues shot, dead bodies paraded around. Subject to constant stress and fear of death...then they're presented with a prisoner/enemy/problem. Expecting morals to kick in over survival instincts/hatred/being fecking nuts, isn't always going to be realistic.

It doesn't make the action of killing a prisoner any less wrong, which is why it's difficult for me to have a strong view either way on it. Wars are shite, basically.

 

[noodlehair]

Al was mentally ill at the time!
I'm certainly not saying I condone the shooting whether the insurgent was already dead or wounded, but I can understand what stress those lads were under during Herrick 14, particularly Al who as the senior Marine at Command Post Omar had the responsibility for the well being of the young Marines under him. Omar was in the most dangerous square mile of Afghanistan, the top brass never visited or offered support and even refused to allow the Padre to visit because it was too dangerous.

I understand all that too, but Untied also has an equally valid point.

It's very difficult. I think the fact he immediately says he's just broken the Geneva Convention, does show he was thinking with at least a degree of logic at the time. He COULD have chosen not to do it, and he was aware of what it was he was doing. That doesn't make it manslaughter for me...but I wouldn't want to be a judge in this scenario.

 

[Kentonio]

This kind of stuff must happen a lot more than anyone ever gets to find out about.

Some perfectly rational people crack under even mild levels of stress, so putting them in a warzone will always lead to atrocities.

It's a difficult one for me really. I don't disagree with the punishment at all but I think it's really hard to accurately judge the individual. Say if they've been there for a long period of time, seen colleagues shot, dead bodies paraded around. Subject to constant stress and fear of death...then they're presented with a prisoner/enemy/problem. Expecting morals to kick in over survival instincts/hatred/being fecking nuts, isn't always going to be realistic.

It doesn't make the action of killing a prisoner any less wrong, which is why it's difficult for me to have a strong view either way on it. Wars are shite, basically.

Yeah basically. Wars have always been morally horrific, which is why countries always dished out the propaganda about good guys who don't do these nasty things but just kill enemy soldiers 'cleanly' by ripping their bodies apart with bombs or bullets.

But at the same time, there is a point to it. The vile shit (like this incident) always goes on in the background somewhere, but at least the majority of soldiers don't indulge in it because its established as being utterly wrong. Hopefully that makes the route back into real life a little easier for most of them, considering the vast baggage they already have to come home with.

 

[JustAFan]

This kind of stuff must happen a lot more than anyone ever gets to find out about.

Some perfectly rational people crack under even mild levels of stress, so putting them in a warzone will always lead to atrocities.

It's a difficult one for me really. I don't disagree with the punishment at all but I think it's really hard to accurately judge the individual. Say if they've been there for a long period of time, seen colleagues shot, dead bodies paraded around. Subject to constant stress and fear of death...then they're presented with a prisoner/enemy/problem. Expecting morals to kick in over survival instincts/hatred/being fecking nuts, isn't always going to be realistic.

It doesn't make the action of killing a prisoner any less wrong, which is why it's difficult for me to have a strong view either way on it. Wars are shite, basically.

One of the most famous, most horrifying pictures of the Vietnam War involves the shooting of a prisoner by a South Vietnamese General. The full story of that incident does give you pause to think about how you might react, and how as you say war is shite.

 

[Baxter]

Well it obviously isn't clear it was murder. It was manslaughter as determined by the Appeal Judges, who heard ALL the evidence.

He dragged the injured Taliban fighter away, mouthed off and shot him. He acknowledged he had committed a war crime and knew exactly what he was doing. I understand they're fighting in a war, but it's murder.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

He dragged the injured Taliban fighter away, mouthed off and shot him. He acknowledged he had committed a war crime and knew exactly what he was doing. I understand they're fighting in a war, but it's murder.

Wasn't the charge lessened in light of his psychological evaluation?

 

[Dobba]

I wonder if the Royal Marines will run with "Shuffle off this mortal coil you cnut" or "No, not in his head 'cause that'll be fecking obvious" as the tagline for their next recruitment campaign.

 

[Red Diva]

No he wasn't, they disarmed him and moved him before he shot the guy.

He had been armed and shooting at them then. What is your point about moving him? They were hardly going to stay on open ground where they were sitting ducks for any further insurgents. They always move injured and fatally wounded to cover and safety. Wiki proclaiming it was done deliberately to avoid PGSS is biased commentary to say the least.

 

[Red Diva]

I understand all that too, but Untied also has an equally valid point.

It's very difficult. I think the fact he immediately says he's just broken the Geneva Convention, does show he was thinking with at least a degree of logic at the time. He COULD have chosen not to do it, and he was aware of what it was he was doing. That doesn't make it manslaughter for me...but I wouldn't want to be a judge in this scenario.

Well he had broken the Geneva Convention, desecrating a corpse is against the Convention.

 

[Dobba]

He had been armed and shooting at them then. What is your point about moving him? They were hardly going to stay on open ground where they were sitting ducks for any further insurgents. They always move injured and fatally wounded to cover and safety. Wiki proclaiming it was done deliberately to avoid PGSS is biased commentary to say the least.

Right, get him closer in so PGSS {British observation balloon} can't see what we're doing to him.

That is the trouble with quoting the person in question, it is always biased.

 

[Red Diva]

That is the trouble with quoting the person in question, it is always biased.

Al's former commanding officer, Colonel Oliver Lee, regarded as one of the military’s most promising high-flyers, quit his career in disgust after being snubbed when he tried to give mitigating evidence in favour of Blackman.

Colonel Lee accused the military hierarchy of deliberately withholding details of crucial operational failings leading up to the incident.

When he resigned, he told his superiors: ‘Sgt Blackman’s investigation, court martial and sentencing authority remain unaware to this day of the wider context within which he was being commanded when he acted as he did.

‘My attempts to bring proper transparency to this process were denied by the chain of command. Sgt Blackman was therefore sentenced by an authority blind to facts that offered serious mitigation on his behalf.

‘The cause of this is a failure of moral courage by the chain of command.’

 

[Kentonio]

Al's former commanding officer, Colonel Oliver Lee, regarded as one of the military’s most promising high-flyers, quit his career in disgust after being snubbed when he tried to give mitigating evidence in favour of Blackman.

Colonel Lee accused the military hierarchy of deliberately withholding details of crucial operational failings leading up to the incident.

When he resigned, he told his superiors: ‘Sgt Blackman’s investigation, court martial and sentencing authority remain unaware to this day of the wider context within which he was being commanded when he acted as he did.

‘My attempts to bring proper transparency to this process were denied by the chain of command. Sgt Blackman was therefore sentenced by an authority blind to facts that offered serious mitigation on his behalf.

‘The cause of this is a failure of moral courage by the chain of command.’

What are these mitigating circumstances? Really, what could they be? Had his officers ordered him to execute prisoners? Because if not, there is no mitigation for what he did. He executed an unarmed wounded man in cold blood, after ordering medics not to provide treatment. If he was from any other nation on earth, the same people defending him would be up in arms about how no British squaddie would ever act like that.

 

[Dobba]

Al's former commanding officer, Colonel Oliver Lee, regarded as one of the military’s most promising high-flyers, quit his career in disgust after being snubbed when he tried to give mitigating evidence in favour of Blackman.

Colonel Lee accused the military hierarchy of deliberately withholding details of crucial operational failings leading up to the incident.

When he resigned, he told his superiors: ‘Sgt Blackman’s investigation, court martial and sentencing authority remain unaware to this day of the wider context within which he was being commanded when he acted as he did.

‘My attempts to bring proper transparency to this process were denied by the chain of command. Sgt Blackman was therefore sentenced by an authority blind to facts that offered serious mitigation on his behalf.

‘The cause of this is a failure of moral courage by the chain of command.’

So your evidence is, as admitted by the people you name, unknown?

And you claim other sources as being 'biased commentary'?

 

[Will Absolute]

This kind of stuff must happen a lot more than anyone ever gets to find out about.

Some perfectly rational people crack under even mild levels of stress, so putting them in a warzone will always lead to atrocities.

It's a difficult one for me really. I don't disagree with the punishment at all but I think it's really hard to accurately judge the individual. Say if they've been there for a long period of time, seen colleagues shot, dead bodies paraded around. Subject to constant stress and fear of death...then they're presented with a prisoner/enemy/problem. Expecting morals to kick in over survival instincts/hatred/being fecking nuts, isn't always going to be realistic.

It doesn't make the action of killing a prisoner any less wrong, which is why it's difficult for me to have a strong view either way on it. Wars are shite, basically.

More or less. Send people to Hell and they'll behave like devils.

 

[Red Diva]

So your evidence is, as admitted by the people you name, unknown?

And you claim other sources as being 'biased commentary'?

Sorry I'm not following you, my evidence for what?

 

[Tarrou]

Sorry I'm not following you, my evidence for what?

why you don't think it was murder, presumably

 

[Classical Mechanic]

What are these mitigating circumstances? Really, what could they be? Had his officers ordered him to execute prisoners? Because if not, there is no mitigation for what he did. He executed an unarmed wounded man in cold blood, after ordering medics not to provide treatment. If he was from any other nation on earth, the same people defending him would be up in arms about how no British squaddie would ever act like that.

I have not followed the case closely but isn't the new sentence based on the soldier in question psychiatric reports that were not used as evidence in the original trial? The mitigating circumstance being that his mental illness was significant enough for him to be judged to have diminished responsibility for his actions.

 

[Red Diva]

why you don't think it was murder, presumably

Well I am the first to admit I have a bias. My son was a Royal Marine, I have friends who lost their sons, others whose sons or husbands suffered life changing injuries. I know the mental state some of those lads were in when they returned from tours, one friend's son took his own life. Do you know how the MOD ascertained their state of mind after a tour? They took them to Cyprus for 48hours (if they were lucky).

All that being said after hearing all the evidence over the last 3 years I believe that Al was mentally ill at the time of the incident and therefore guilty of manslaughter but not murder.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

They are not saying that at all! They are saying that in Al's particular case preceding events over the 6 month tour and complete lack of support from Commanding Officers resulted in a mental illness and substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgment.

Utter bollox, he's done in a wrong un, I'm not upset about that, you can't fight a war with kid gloves. But 'mental illness and lack of support', is a load of old tosh, can we at least be honest. The lad's killed his foe, who killed his mates, to get even. He was unlucky to get found out.

This really is the post truth era.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

It's a difficult one for me really. I don't disagree with the punishment at all but I think it's really hard to accurately judge the individual. Say if they've been there for a long period of time, seen colleagues shot, dead bodies paraded around. Subject to constant stress and fear of death...then they're presented with a prisoner/enemy/problem. Expecting morals to kick in over survival instincts/hatred/being fecking nuts, isn't always going to be realistic.

It doesn't make the action of killing a prisoner any less wrong, which is why it's difficult for me to have a strong view either way on it. Wars are shite, basically.

By this logic you can rationalise any crime due to having 'a hard life'. Which is ultimately a get out clause.

 

[Silva]

By this logic you can rationalise any crime due to having 'a hard life'. Which is ultimately a get out clause.

You can rationalise most crimes though. Exposure to lead making people violent, for example. PTSD making people unpredictable, some people just being born with psychopathy etc, etc. That's why the police looks for motives in crimes and the criminal is often someone known to the victim. Random acts of violence are pretty rare.

 

[Red Diva]

Utter bollox, he's done in a wrong un, I'm not upset about that, you can't fight a war with kid gloves. But 'mental illness and lack of support', is a load of old tosh, can we at least be honest. The lad's killed his foe, who killed his mates, to get even. He was unlucky to get found out.

This really is the post truth era.

You really are clueless to what it was like out there. This wasn't a game of COD they were playing.
Their lives were on the line every minute of every day they were out on patrol. Try spending 6 months walking through a minefield with your mates, being engaged in firefights for good measure, throw in searing heat, lack of sleep, severe under manning, then come back and tell me it's utter bollox.

 

[Red Diva]

This kind of stuff must happen a lot more than anyone ever gets to find out about.

Some perfectly rational people crack under even mild levels of stress, so putting them in a warzone will always lead to atrocities.

It's a difficult one for me really. I don't disagree with the punishment at all but I think it's really hard to accurately judge the individual. Say if they've been there for a long period of time, seen colleagues shot, dead bodies paraded around. Subject to constant stress and fear of death...then they're presented with a prisoner/enemy/problem. Expecting morals to kick in over survival instincts/hatred/being fecking nuts, isn't always going to be realistic.

It doesn't make the action of killing a prisoner any less wrong, which is why it's difficult for me to have a strong view either way on it. Wars are shite, basically.

This is so true. At least someone "gets it" and you're right it doesn't make it any less wrong, more understandable, but still wrong, but back in "normality" Al knows this.