"I've just broken the Geneva convention"

[V8 Fettler]

Randy Winkman said:

V8 Fettler said:

Is not one of the primary responsibilities of the UK legal system to avoid poor choices of words? At least, that's what lawyers tell me.

Do you think they affected the verdict?

The Judge's comments should reflect the facts of the case. On the information available it appears that someone decided that the enemy presented no threat even though he was armed, had recently presented a threat and was still breathing. There doesn't appear to be any logical process to support this decision.

[Zoobeef]

V8 Fettler said:

The Judge's comments should reflect the facts of the case. On the information available it appears that someone decided that the enemy presented no threat even though he was armed, had recently presented a threat and was still breathing. There doesn't appear to be any logical process to support this decision.

Do you even understand our current rules of engagement? We dont work under the shoot first ask later rules.

[wolf1]

V8 Fettler said:

wolf1 said:

V8 Fettler said:

How can it be possible to define that the enemy wasn't a threat when found? This being before removal of the AK47, magazines etc. On that point alone, the legal process is flawed.

The fact that they had disarmed him and then moved him elsewhere or did you miss that bit? Should he have had to make a range declaration that he had no live rounds or empty cases in his possession either?

Disarmed, moved out of sight, refused medical attention and then executed. Doesn't get much more premeditated than that.

Judge said "when you found him", i.e. before he was disarmed. Was the enemy still a potential threat when AK 47 etc was removed? Concealed explosives etc? Bizarre defence strategy.

He wasn't executed when they found him though was he!

He was disarmed (which by the way includes a body search for weapons, ammo and any intel etc as standard practice) So as a wounded combatant he posed no further immediate threat to the Marines.

They then moved him for whatever reason (still disarmed and he hadn't had chance to quickly pop to the local armory to buy a new AK etc)

The captive is now classified as a prisoner of war yet he was denied first aid (fair enough opinions may differ here but he's bleeding so at least stick a first field dressing over the hole as it makes the place look a bit of a mess) Another reason for keeping him alive is those with a better grasp on the bigger picture may want a nice chat with the chap and ask him some jolly nice questions about the talibans future plans etc.

So whilst he's lying/sitting there unarmed, bleeding and about as savage as a puppy he's summarily executed after a brief discussion on how they should finish him off etc.

Where in all that is the heat of battle or the 'whoops silly me I tripped over and my gun went off killing the prisoner, what a klutz I am'

Now patriotism aside you're coming off as either a troll or a touch dim. This isn't COD or a Hollywood blockbuster and plenty of serving and ex forces on here have pointed out that executing wounded unarmed prisoners is a bad thing.

[Digger]

V8 Fettler said:

Digger said:

I've read snippets but this was the first time I've read a half decent summary of the case. I'm sure most have read this but will leave this link here!


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/royal-marine-...

Article said:

Judge said

"This offence is unique and unprecedented in recent history."

Is the judge omnipotent? To be able to have full knowledge of all similar military actions in recent history?

Which part of a Court Martial (judged by his military peers) should we oppose?

[HaplessBoyLard]

croyde said:

Reminds me of the story about the snipers on the roof of a garrison that was being mortared. They couldn't see the attackers but the spotter was in sight with a big old walkie talkie calling the shots in with deadly accuracy.

The snipers could have had him but as he was unarmed they were not allowed to shoot. Feking ludicrous!

They had to keep calling higher up the command chain to get permission which was finally granted the next day after many were hurt in the attack.

I'm pretty sure that was in the book "Sniper One" by Dan Mills.

There was an assumption that someone had to be armed to be a legitimate target under ROE. A senior officer reminded them that a "dicker" didn't need a weapon to be a threat to their lives, and could be shot. Nowhere in the ROE does I say that legitimate targets have to be armed.

That's nothing like this case.

What this guy did was disarm a wounded man. At that point he no longer posed a threat. He was lying half dead on the floor, and was summarily executed.

It wasn't done in the heat of the moment. They were calm. They knew exactly what they were doing, and exactly what laws they were breaking. They even handily quoted it for you in the video.

I doubt many of us really care that this particular Talib is dead, but there are standards to be upheld and rules to be followed that come as part of the deal when you sign on the dotted line. They're drummed into every member of the forces from day one. Every time you deploy. Every time you do guard duty. All the bloody time. You see the stty videos so much that half the lads could probably quote them word for word.

The bloke was an idiot and deserves his punishment. They could have probably left him to die and nothing more would have happened, despite that being against the GC. The outcome would have been the same, without the 10 years inside.

[V8 Fettler]

Zoobeef said:

V8 Fettler said:

The Judge's comments should reflect the facts of the case. On the information available it appears that someone decided that the enemy presented no threat even though he was armed, had recently presented a threat and was still breathing. There doesn't appear to be any logical process to support this decision.

Do you even understand our current rules of engagement? We dont work under the shoot first ask later rules.

Clearly, the enemy must have shot first, otherwise the Apache would not have shot him.

[V8 Fettler]

wolf1 said:

V8 Fettler said:

wolf1 said:

V8 Fettler said:

How can it be possible to define that the enemy wasn't a threat when found? This being before removal of the AK47, magazines etc. On that point alone, the legal process is flawed.

The fact that they had disarmed him and then moved him elsewhere or did you miss that bit? Should he have had to make a range declaration that he had no live rounds or empty cases in his possession either?

Disarmed, moved out of sight, refused medical attention and then executed. Doesn't get much more premeditated than that.

Judge said "when you found him", i.e. before he was disarmed. Was the enemy still a potential threat when AK 47 etc was removed? Concealed explosives etc? Bizarre defence strategy.

He wasn't executed when they found him though was he!

He was disarmed (which by the way includes a body search for weapons, ammo and any intel etc as standard practice) So as a wounded combatant he posed no further immediate threat to the Marines.

They then moved him for whatever reason (still disarmed and he hadn't had chance to quickly pop to the local armory to buy a new AK etc)

The captive is now classified as a prisoner of war yet he was denied first aid (fair enough opinions may differ here but he's bleeding so at least stick a first field dressing over the hole as it makes the place look a bit of a mess) Another reason for keeping him alive is those with a better grasp on the bigger picture may want a nice chat with the chap and ask him some jolly nice questions about the talibans future plans etc.

So whilst he's lying/sitting there unarmed, bleeding and about as savage as a puppy he's summarily executed after a brief discussion on how they should finish him off etc.

Where in all that is the heat of battle or the 'whoops silly me I tripped over and my gun went off killing the prisoner, what a klutz I am'

Now patriotism aside you're coming off as either a troll or a touch dim. This isn't COD or a Hollywood blockbuster and plenty of serving and ex forces on here have pointed out that executing wounded unarmed prisoners is a bad thing.

So was the enemy was found first by other NATO ground troops, disarmed and then found again by Blackman and his team? Or did Blackman find the enemy with AK47, hand grenade etc, therefore the enemy was potentially a threat?

Troll or a touch dim? Not at all, merely questioning the legal process and attempting to counter the belief that war is not a dirty business. Executing wounded and possibly unarmed prisoners has been a fact of war for centuries, including by the West in recent years; Anzio, Sicily, and the Canadians' battles with the SS in Normandy as examples.

What is COD? Hollywood blockbuster? What has Hollywood got to do with fighting irregular forces in Afghanistan?

I appreciate that the current rules of engagement are intended to win over the local population. Unfortunately, hearts and minds doesn't work

Edit: I've been told that COD = Call of Duty, a video game. Laughable.

Edited by V8 Fettler on Monday 9th December 08:06

[V8 Fettler]

Digger said:

V8 Fettler said:

Digger said:

I've read snippets but this was the first time I've read a half decent summary of the case. I'm sure most have read this but will leave this link here!


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/royal-marine-...

Article said:

Judge said

"This offence is unique and unprecedented in recent history."

Is the judge omnipotent? To be able to have full knowledge of all similar military actions in recent history?

Which part of a Court Martial (judged by his military peers) should we oppose?

You can oppose who and what you like, free(ish) country etc. I'm intrigued at the concept of an omnipotent. all-seeing judge, although his statement "This offence is unique and unprecedented in recent history." must surely have been mis-reported (?)

[HaplessBoyLard]

V8 Fettler said:

I appreciate that the current rules of engagement are intended to win over the local population. Unfortunately, hearts and minds doesn't work

No. They aren't.

Behaviour or practices adopted by troops may be altered in such a way that it helps the troops win over the local population.

ROE are written in such a way that any actual combat is conducted within the law.

Quite different things, and a failure on both counts. That's one of the reasons it's so damaging. If news like this gets back to the people we're trying to win over it just makes life for those troops out there that little bit more difficult and dangerous.

[audidoody]

"Executing wounded and possibly unarmed prisoners has been a fact of war for centuries"



Indeed. But it has always been regarded as a crime. And if you got caught at it by the other side you'd quickly join the prisoners you'd offed. (see Nuremberg Trials).

[audidoody]

Possibly the judge meant:

"This offence is unique and unprecedented in the Royal Marines' recent history."

[Digger]

V8 Fettler said:

Digger said:

V8 Fettler said:

Digger said:

I've read snippets but this was the first time I've read a half decent summary of the case. I'm sure most have read this but will leave this link here!


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/royal-marine-...

Article said:

Judge said

"This offence is unique and unprecedented in recent history."

Is the judge omnipotent? To be able to have full knowledge of all similar military actions in recent history?

Which part of a Court Martial (judged by his military peers) should we oppose?

You can oppose who and what you like, free(ish) country etc. I'm intrigued at the concept of an omnipotent. all-seeing judge, although his statement "This offence is unique and unprecedented in recent history." must surely have been mis-reported (?)

Do you accept the decision of the Court Martial?

If not, why not?

[V8 Fettler]

HaplessBoyLard said:

V8 Fettler said:

I appreciate that the current rules of engagement are intended to win over the local population. Unfortunately, hearts and minds doesn't work

No. They aren't.

Behaviour or practices adopted by troops may be altered in such a way that it helps the troops win over the local population.

ROE are written in such a way that any actual combat is conducted within the law.

Quite different things, and a failure on both counts. That's one of the reasons it's so damaging. If news like this gets back to the people we're trying to win over it just makes life for those troops out there that little bit more difficult and dangerous.

The formulation of NATO's ROE is influenced a variety of factors (it says here in NATO's ROE). I recognise that the British ROE vary from the US ROE (a situation which is a nonsense in itself).

The effectiveness of the British forces is reduced by the "MoD placing greater importance on winning over civilians by not killing innocent people than it is to eliminate every potential insurgent." It doesn't work, particularly in Afghanistan. The West had an opportunity to build a stable Afghanistan following the retreat of the Red Army, but we didn't.

[V8 Fettler]

audidoody said:

Possibly the judge meant:

"This offence is unique and unprecedented in the Royal Marines' recent history."

I don't know what he meant, but I can read what is reported in the press. Hopefully, someone will clarify.

[V8 Fettler]

audidoody said:

"Executing wounded and possibly unarmed prisoners has been a fact of war for centuries"



Indeed. But it has always been regarded as a crime. And if you got caught at it by the other side you'd quickly join the prisoners you'd offed. (see Nuremberg Trials).

The courts generally regard it as a crime committed by the defeated forces. The ferocious fighting between the Canadians and the SS in Normandy did indeed arise from retaliation. It is a myth that WW2 in the west was some form of gentlemen's combat fought between gentlemen, Anzio was reported to be every bit as nasty as Stalingrad, albeit on a smaller scale.

[V8 Fettler]

Digger said:

V8 Fettler said:

Digger said:

V8 Fettler said:

Digger said:

I've read snippets but this was the first time I've read a half decent summary of the case. I'm sure most have read this but will leave this link here!


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/royal-marine-...

Article said:

Judge said

"This offence is unique and unprecedented in recent history."

Is the judge omnipotent? To be able to have full knowledge of all similar military actions in recent history?

Which part of a Court Martial (judged by his military peers) should we oppose?

You can oppose who and what you like, free(ish) country etc. I'm intrigued at the concept of an omnipotent. all-seeing judge, although his statement "This offence is unique and unprecedented in recent history." must surely have been mis-reported (?)

Do you accept the decision of the Court Martial?

If not, why not?

Strange question. The court's decision is not binding on me, therefore I don't have to accept or dispute the decision. Although - as the years/decades go by - one learns to distrust by default most organisations (including the legal system) on the grounds of demonstrable incompetency alone.

[paranoid airbag]

Driller said:

Poppycock. I'm sorry you simply cannot use words like that and talk about "standards" in the context of killing people.

They were in a fight and both trying to kill each other and one of 'em got popped. That's it. I think it's all bullst and a waste of life but talking about standards or whatever in the context of killing people is pure hypocrisy.

Yes you can. Remember the point of sending an army in is not to kill people. It is to achieve control over an area. Killing is usually a necessary part of that (if it wasn't you'd be doing something other than sending in soldiers), but it is not the aim.

Killing when it is not necessary to do so is therefore a failing of professionalism.

[Vipers]

paranoid airbag said:

Killing when it is not necessary to do so is therefore a failing of professionalism.

I wonder how you would cope seeing your comrades being killed, their limbs hung up as trophies, easy to say sitting at home and say things "Failing of professionalism" and some bloody judge saying they insurgents should be treated with dignity and humanity.

They and others should get their assets out there and give it a go. Oh by the way lads, we are sorry your mates were killed, but you chaps did a good job treating insurgents with dignity, and here is your P45, close the door after you.

[TheFungle]

Vipers said:

I wonder how you would cope seeing your comrades being killed, their limbs hung up as trophies, easy to say sitting at home and say things "Failing of professionalism" and some bloody judge saying they insurgents should be treated with dignity and humanity.

They and others should get their assets out there and give it a go. Oh by the way lads, we are sorry your mates were killed, but you chaps did a good job treating insurgents with dignity, and here is your P45, close the door after you.

So you think it's acceptable that he murdered an unarmed captive?

[Zoobeef]

Vipers said:

I wonder how you would cope seeing your comrades being killed, their limbs hung up as trophies, easy to say sitting at home and say things "Failing of professionalism" and some bloody judge saying they insurgents should be treated with dignity and humanity.

They and others should get their assets out there and give it a go. Oh by the way lads, we are sorry your mates were killed, but you chaps did a good job treating insurgents with dignity, and here is your P45, close the door after you.

I managed not to resort to murder