Marine sentence review?

[Amadeus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26965823

What's people's thoughts on this case being reviewed?

Whilst I support our troops, I do believe he was wrong and his sentence was right (arguably short).

[SIII]

What he did was wrong, but in that situation maybe it was the right thing to do?

What if a british soldier had been injured or killed whilst waiting for a helicopter to come in and evac' this guy? Leave him to die slowly? He had to make a quick decision for what he thought best for his troops in the field.

The mistake he made was not checking all camera's were off or memory cards wiped.

If rolls were reversed the taliban wouldn't just quickly shoot the prisoner, they would have cut his balls off and put them in his mouth and then hung bits of him from a tree!!!

Discharge from the military, but no prison sentence. Just my opinion.

[MattCollins]

What he did was wrong, but in that situation maybe it was the right thing to do?

What if a british soldier had been injured or killed whilst waiting for a helicopter to come in and evac' this guy? Leave him to die slowly? He had to make a quick decision for what he thought best for his troops in the field.

The mistake he made was not checking all camera's were off or memory cards wiped.

If rolls were reversed the taliban wouldn't just quickly shoot the prisoner, they would have cut his balls off and put them in his mouth and then hung bits of him from a tree!!!

That does not constitute a defence or even an excuse especially when taking the moral high ground in a conflict.

[SIII]

sod moral high ground. kill or be killed.

[MattCollins]

That was NOT a kill or be killed situation, but by any reasonable standard murder and going by recorded comments he knew it.

[SIII]

If they had hung around to save his life, they would have come under fire. They act like animals, treat them like animals.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap!

[The Guru]

I agree with SII.

You don't shoot people just so you can then give them medical attention. Marine A was just finishing the job off for the Apache.

His only error was having the video footage. Cameras should be banned.

[timwilky]

We can only adopt the morel high ground.

We know that at times, situations could require an on the ground decision and if they came under fire their priority is for themselves. but until such a situation, we demand they treat prisoners with respect (until such time as they are handed over to the CIA).

As an experienced senior NCO. This marine should know the basic rules. He knew what he did was wrong. End of.


His basic mistake. Not turning off his units cameras.

[Trev B]

Unless you have been in combat and engaged an enemy like he has,we cannot get a true measure of what and why he did what he did.We are judging him by OUR morals and in hind sight,and as it said at the end of the program,why haven't those that declared war and their mandarins been prosecuted,and also WHAT would you have done.I think warfare should start with the leaders of those places involved fight a duel(any weapon of choice), then the deputy leader takes on the winner etc until someone submits,war wouldn't last long then

[Amadeus]

So SII, Guru, are you saying that in a theater of war you believe that there is no such thing as murder?

[Biker Biggles]

Unless you have been in combat and engaged an enemy like he has,we cannot get a true measure of what and why he did what he did.We are judging him by OUR morals and in hind sight,and as it said at the end of the program,why haven't those that declared war and their mandarins been prosecuted,and also WHAT would you have done.I think warfare should start with the leaders of those places involved fight a duel(any weapon of choice), then the deputy leader takes on the winner etc until someone submits,war wouldn't last long then
.
Good point about unless you have been there and done it you are not a fit and proper person to pass judgement.These cases should be judged by their peers,genuine peers who know exactly what the situation is really like.The rest of us have no right to take the "moral highground" or any other ground for that matter

[Amadeus]

Did the people who defined the Geneva conventions not have such experience?

[Biker Biggles]

Did the people who defined the Geneva conventions not have such experience?

No idea.But the principle of judgement by ones peers is more important IMO than who was in Geneva in circa 1948

[Trev B]

The rules of warfare are written in books and kept in library's,the act of war is carried out in the field with bullets and bombs,2 totally different interpretations of the same thing!!!

[Bibio]

after this judgement i can see there being more body bags coming home as out troops will think twice before acting.

why are our troops even there?

[SvNewbie]

Shuffle off this mortal coil

...I just broke the Geneva convention

He knew what he was doing. He murdered someone because it was inconvenient to do otherwise. I just hope he knows that on appeal sentences can go up as well as down.

[21QUEST]

Sentence wasn't overly harsh for the crime he committed.

Of course his legal team is going to try 'by any means necessary' in an attempt to get a different outcome.

I don't have to have been in the 'same situation' to have an opinion...if we want to call it 'judging' , fine!... but his own words provides the necessary information for people to have an opinion.

Oh, every day, we all(even people who argue the 'have you been in same situation' point, form opinion on occurrences/situations which they have nothing to compare with, directly.... Show me someone who hasn't and I'd show you a hypocrite and a liar.
As I always say, humans actually, are naturally inherently hypocritical anyway...that's just the way it is.

[21QUEST]

He knew what he was doing. He murdered someone because it was inconvenient to do otherwise. I just hope he knows that on appeal sentences can go up as well as down.
Precisely!

[socommk23]

I would have done the same. Though id have made sure ni cameras or make it seem I was at least under threat. Simply cos I believe our soldiers have less rights than a benefits theif.

One 9mm round cost pennies. He saved tax payers money. Well untill it went to court.

Taliban would have done worse and answer to nothing.

Im fed up of our troops being cross examined like this.

You send a 30 million pound helicopter to kill someone......he doesnt die. So ge gets shot with a pistol to do a job a helicopter couldn't. And he gets life?

Its just wrong.

If he was injured by an apache 20mm cannon then his chances of survival arnt that good. To try and save him would be to prolong his agony. The marine done him a favour.

[21QUEST]

Yes, and yet we have all sorts of cases on going and pending in the Hague.
And decades later, people are being sort after and prosecuted for crimes apparently committed in the Major wars and various 'minor wars'. Why is that so? It's war, isn't it?

Not a question of what anyone(or I for that matter) would have done in the same situation.
I thought the first rule of committing a crime(which he fully admitted to on tape) , "Make sure you don't get caught" and if you do "better be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions"

He did commit a crime and unfortunately for him, got caught...

[Amadeus]

If everyone broke agreements,things would escalate/deteriorate pretty quickly.
Surely leading by example is a better way forward? Didn't see Mandela killing those who had wronged him - was that wrong or weak of him?

[Spank86]

So SII, Guru, are you saying that in a theater of war you believe that there is no such thing as murder?
no, murder is shooting a non combatant.


Surely leading by example is a better way forward? Didn't see Mandela killing those who had wronged him - was that wrong or weak of him?
Actually there's quite a lot of evidence that before he got his own way he (and his organization) was involved with the killings of quite a lot of people. None of which would be considered legal.

[Amadeus]

Actually there's quite a lot of evidence that before he got his own way he (and his organization) was involved with the killings of quite a lot of people. None of which would be considered legal.


I thought he'd suggested non-passive resistance but *thought* it was targeted at possessions, not people.

As for non-combatants, I'm not sure how that is defined. I don't think the Afghan was in a state to fight back so would that not mean he was a non-combatant? Or did he need to surrender (was he capable of surrender)? Were the soldiers in the great escape non-combatants?
Genuine question, not trying to antagonise.

[Spank86]

I thought he'd suggested non-passive resistance but *thought* it was targeted at possessions, not people.

As for non-combatants, I'm not sure how that is defined. I don't think the Afghan was in a state to fight back so would that not mean he was a non-combatant? Or did he need to surrender (was he capable of surrender)? Were the soldiers in the great escape non-combatants?
Genuine question, not trying to antagonise.

You don't become a non combatant just by dropping your gun after you fired it, non combatants are the ones ploughing fields, or taking their kids to school, the one's the helicopters normally shoot accidentally.

The soldiers in the great escape were not non combatants no, but then they weren't shot on sight (well some where but there's no problem with that), they were captured, became prisoners of war again, were loaded into vans taken off and shot.

There's a difference there in my mind.

With regards to surrender, the "laws of war" written by bigwigs far removed from battlefields say that its perfectly allowable to kill or maim all a guys mates then shout "i surrender" when the guy gets the drop on you and apparently he isn't supposed to shoot you.

Might want to try abracadabra instead.

[keith_d]

The Geneva convention rules were written when enemy soldiers wore uniforms and were bona fide (if not always willing) members of an army. Even in those days combatants in civvies were regarded as spies and shot, frequently without any pretence of a trial.

In Afganistan it's nothing like that clear cut. Our troops are fighting an enemy with no uniforms and no respect for rules of war, and we're expecting them to fight according to Hollywood rules with everything caught on camera. We seem to have forgotten that war is about killing the enemy, and it's nothing like what we see at the cinema.

Personally, I'm a little surprise that this is the only event like this that's come to light. But maybe other units had a bit more sense than to talk about it on camera.

[ethariel]

If you walk up to a woman, kids or someone who is genuinley not involved in the conflict then yes, it's plain murder.

Re-Trial? hell yes,

Should never have been prosecuted in the first place but as said above was foolish enough to be filmed and of course the bleeding heart liberals just have to have thier pound of flesh.

It's a combat zone over there, not a kindergarden or training ground.

[Bibio]

but it's not war it's peace keeping... war requires the approval of the Queen so rules of war engagement are not applicable.

the whole middle east/Afghan thing is blatant murder by the governments involved.

[ethariel]

Indeed, that's why I called it a 'Conflict Zone'

[21QUEST]

Rules of engagement do indeed apply in 'peace keeping missions' .

I find it interesting that some people are arguing about the validity of a crime having been committed, when even the perpetrator was heard and seen unequivocally acknowledging and admitting it .

Eta: Oh, and with regards to 'Liberals wanting/needing their pound of flesh' , isn't it also interesting that in another breath, some people like to accuse 'Liberals' for pushing the 'Human Rights Agenda' ...the same thing the defence is apparently using for the basis of their appeal.

[SIII]

Agree a crime was committed, but think the circumstances mean it should not be treated or judged the same as on civvy street. He is guilty and should be removed from the forces due to poor judgement, but should not be serving time in a civilian jail for a crime committed in an oversee's conflict.

[chris8886]

I would have thought he'll be in an army clink, which is nowhere near as 'pleasant' as a civvy one as far as I know.

[MisterTommyH]

Agree a crime was committed, but think the circumstances mean it should not be treated or judged the same as on civvy street. He is guilty and should be removed from the forces due to poor judgement, but should not be serving time in a civilian jail for a crime committed in an oversee's conflict.

This really gets my goat every time something like this is in the news. He's not being judged the same as on divvy street. He being judged by a military court martial. And he'll be doing time in the glass house.

The same thing with that SAS guy who brought an illegal weapon back to the UK. There may have been arguments about the details of the case, but most of the 'outrage' was based around 'how dare we try this person who has served for his country' - but not many seemed to grasp that he was tried by a court martial. By other military people, by their rules.

Serving your country does not entitle you to act as you wish. A dis-armed person is a dis-armed person, and from that point it becomes murder. We are all tried by our peers - if you sign into the military you sign that right away and are tried by your superiors.

[Amadeus]

Serving your country does not entitle you to act as you wish. A dis-armed person is a dis-armed person, and from that point it becomes murder. We are all tried by our peers - if you sign into the military you sign that right away and are tried by your superiors.


Indeed.

[SIII]

Serving your country does not entitle you to act as you wish. A dis-armed person is a dis-armed person, and from that point it becomes murder. We are all tried by our peers - if you sign into the military you sign that right away and are tried by your superiors.

I'll be he wishes he was never put in that situation, but he was and dealt with it in the way he thought best at that time. This was not a fight between rule obeying fighters, this was a fight between soldiers and terrorists. The taliban fighter picked up a weapon and tried to kill soldiers, and he got killed for it. Tough. Wether it was by a helicopter or by a pistol, I don't really care.

Not the same as the SAS with a weapon and 100's of rounds. That was thought out and planned. Bringing a weapon in as a momento is understandable, but 100's of rounds ? Why ?

I apologise for my inaccuracies in thinking he was jailed in a civvy jail, my mistake.

[SvNewbie]

This was not a fight between rule obeying fighters, this was a fight between soldiers and terrorists.

The cliche way of saying this is that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Frankly we are sending lads over to a country we have no legitimate reason to be in and then claiming anyone who opposes that is a terrorist or insurgent.

The people who fought against occupation during the great wars are given a much more pleasant title, the resistance movement. They certainly didn't wear uniforms.

Yes he did save us tax payers millions, he even possibly saved the lives of the soldiers under his command. But he still murdered someone in cold blood and had enough wearwithal to quote Shakespeare as he did so.

[BanannaMan]

Fighting a war while being politicly correct will only ensure your losing.

I think under the circumstances (or what we know of them) he did the right thing.
To leave behind a combatant who knows how many soldiers there are, what weapons they have and which direction they left in would be suicidal.

This type of thing happens all the time and the brass certainly know it.
This poor soldier will be made an example of to appease the media and the masses.
His mistake for not remembering the camera.


Don't be so quick to judge unless you've been in combat yourself.
Mix a ton of adrenaline with some real fear and add in self preservation to the mix and you'll be surprised at what you'd do to keep yourself alive,
And how you feel about the enemy after you've seen a few of your friends die or found their mutilated bodies.


Be glad you don't know all the horrors of war from the comfort of your home.
This one's really not that bad folks.


There are some things that don't need to be filmed.

[Spank86]

I find it funny that there's no issue with a helicopter shooting a guy who poses "no direct threat" from so far away the guy can't even hear or see it.

In what way was he a combatant in that instance and where was his chance to surrender?

[Amadeus]

I find it funny that there's no issue with a helicopter shooting a guy who poses "no direct threat" from so far away the guy can't even hear or see it.

I don't think I've seen anything about what he was doing before the Apache shot (at) him.
I'm not sure it's relevant tho - when the RM got to him, he wasn't capable of much of a threat. Thus, murder.

It kind of scares me that a lot of people said that his mistake was having it filmed. If a burglar/rapist/paedo isn't caught, does that make it ok?

I do understand that adrenaline/fear comes into play, but the law as it is states that his action is murder. Whether the law is right or not is a different question, surely?

[Biker Biggles]

Fighting a war while being politicly correct will only ensure your losing.

I think under the circumstances (or what we know of them) he did the right thing.
To leave behind a combatant who knows how many soldiers there are, what weapons they have and which direction they left in would be suicidal.

This type of thing happens all the time and the brass certainly know it.
This poor soldier will be made an example of to appease the media and the masses.
His mistake for not remembering the camera.


Don't be so quick to judge unless you've been in combat yourself.
Mix a ton of adrenaline with some real fear and add in self preservation to the mix and you'll be surprised at what you'd do to keep yourself alive,
And how you feel about the enemy after you've seen a few of your friends die or found their mutilated bodies.


Be glad you don't know all the horrors of war from the comfort of your home.
This one's really not that bad folks.


There are some things that don't need to be filmed.

You got it bang on.

[TamSV]

I don't think I've seen anything about what he was doing before the Apache shot (at) him.
I'm not sure it's relevant tho - when the RM got to him, he wasn't capable of much of a threat. Thus, murder.

It kind of scares me that a lot of people said that his mistake was having it filmed. If a burglar/rapist/paedo isn't caught, does that make it ok?

I do understand that adrenaline/fear comes into play, but the law as it is states that his action is murder. Whether the law is right or not is a different question, surely?

Not a great comparison as there's no such thing as legitimate rape or child abuse.

In civilian life deliberately killing someone is always a crime. In military life it's only sometimes a crime. At other times it's well within the job description. There is a line between the two, but the closer you get to that line, the more blurred it becomes.

This guy clearly broke the law, and knew it.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the Marine but I think the law is right and it would be difficult to have rules that would make what he did OK.

What's left after that is sentencing and I think that should be reduced in this case. I understand the usual minimum of 15 years was reduced to 10 in this case. I might reduce that further in this particular case but I think the principle has to stand that what he did was wrong.

[Spank86]

I don't think I've seen anything about what he was doing before the Apache shot (at) him.

Id say that the chances of him having been doing anything that posed a threat to the apache pilot were pretty slim. the rules of war were not designed for modern combat.

As a general point plenty of Afghanis have been killed without ever knowing they were in a battle, killed from afar whilst posing no direct threat to anyone, hell you can't even ask the corpse if they were actually an insurgent or just a guy with a gun.


comes into play, but the law as it is states that his action is murder. Whether the law is right or not is a different question, surely?

I'm not sure it IS a different question.

[Amadeus]

I might reduce that further in this particular case but I think the principle has to stand that what he did was wrong.


Fair point about the poor comparison.

Out of interest, what would be your justification in reducing sentence?

[MisterTommyH]

this was a fight between soldiers and terrorists.

In the same way that a French Resistance picked up a weapon and fought an occupying force in their country....?

Personally I don't believe that the two conflicts are directly comparable, but both have a native fighting against foreign forces in their own country.

Fact is acts like this give away ANY legitimacy that may exist for the campain and they have to be punished. I have plenty of mates who have gone on to be in the forces. If one of them did this I wouldn't want to know them in the same way I wouldn't want to know someone who killed a child drink driving.

[TamSV]

Fair point about the poor comparison.

Out of interest, what would be your justification in reducing sentence?

For the same reasons the original sentence was reduced from the usual minimum. I think the particular circumstances warrant it.

A shorter sentence still serves justice, acts as a deterrent. Rehabilitation and future risk of re-offending don't seem to be an issue.

[SIII]

French resistance kill french people like the taliban kill Afghans ?

[Spank86]

French resistance kill french people like the taliban kill Afghans ?

Assuming you're not asking about the specific methods then... Yes.

Yes they did.



And if you want to go back further in the napoleonic (peninsular) war, the Spanish partisans killed Spanish collaborators (or afrancesados)