Marine A secures new hearing.
Discussion
Zoobeef said:
You are wrong, and the less people like you on the front line the better. It would make a difficult job much more difficult.
He's just a testoterone fuelled thug with a tendency to abuse those who disagree with him, as evinced by almost every single post he makes. Best ignored.When the best defence is, "You haven't been in the military", then you know there's not much of a counter-argument to support this chap.
Because not serving in the forces means it's impossible for people to understand that planning over a 5-minute period to kill someone is wrong and unlawful. The planning which included moving the victim out of sight of helicopters and an observation balloon, giving him false first-aid for show, switching (or attempting to) turn their equipment off and acknowledging it was unlawful etc.
A few pertinent quotes:
Because not serving in the forces means it's impossible for people to understand that planning over a 5-minute period to kill someone is wrong and unlawful. The planning which included moving the victim out of sight of helicopters and an observation balloon, giving him false first-aid for show, switching (or attempting to) turn their equipment off and acknowledging it was unlawful etc.
A few pertinent quotes:
Marine A said:
Right, get him closer in so PGSS {British observation balloon} can't see what we're doing to him.
Marine A said:
No, not in his head, 'cause that'll be f
king obvious.
king obvious.Marine A said:
There you are, shuffle off this mortal coil you .
.Marine A said:
Obviously, this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I've just broke the Geneva Convention.
La Liga said:
When the best defence is, "You haven't been in the military", then you know there's not much of a counter-argument to support this chap.
Because not serving in the forces means it's impossible for people to understand that planning over a 5-minute period to kill someone is wrong and unlawful. The planning which included moving the victim out of sight of helicopters and an observation balloon, giving him false first-aid for show, switching (or attempting to) turn their equipment off and acknowledging it was unlawful etc.
A few pertinent quotes:
Careful. Castroses will have you shot for resisting.Because not serving in the forces means it's impossible for people to understand that planning over a 5-minute period to kill someone is wrong and unlawful. The planning which included moving the victim out of sight of helicopters and an observation balloon, giving him false first-aid for show, switching (or attempting to) turn their equipment off and acknowledging it was unlawful etc.
A few pertinent quotes:
Marine A said:
Right, get him closer in so PGSS {British observation balloon} can't see what we're doing to him.
Marine A said:
No, not in his head, 'cause that'll be fking obvious.
king obvious.Marine A said:
There you are, shuffle off this mortal coil you .
.Marine A said:
Obviously, this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I've just broke the Geneva Convention.
I have had not read this thread from end to end and I have not served on the forces - but I have 2 sons in the army and both have been under fire in Afghanistan. One has no particular view about marine A but the other is appalled at what he did and is of the view that he's given other soldiers a very bad name. So (and I could well be wrong) it seems to me that he does not have too much support from fellow soldiers.
castroses said:
NinjaPower said:
La Liga said:
Castroses is certainly a bright one
He notes that a police officer was "sticking his nose in where it didn't belong".The officer was investigating a crime. I'm fairly sure "sticking your nose into peoples things" while investigating them for a crime is fairly normal practice.
.
eccles said:
castroses said:
NinjaPower said:
La Liga said:
Castroses is certainly a bright one
He notes that a police officer was "sticking his nose in where it didn't belong".The officer was investigating a crime. I'm fairly sure "sticking your nose into peoples things" while investigating them for a crime is fairly normal practice.
.
One day he will be arrested for killing someone and stuffing them in his boot but will please innocence because he was only stopped for having a brake light out. 'That's not why you stopped me! Be on your way nosey!'
castroses said:
'Someone being killed' ??
We are not talking about an innocent member of the public here. We are talking about an armed insurgent who moments earlier was trying to kill British troops AND who was apparently already mortally wounded.
Some perspective required here I think. If anything it was a mercy killing.
If he'd shot an armed insurgent then, depending on the ROE at the time, he'd have either been perfectly justified in his actions, or at least able to argue a decent case for them. What he actually did was shoot an unarmed wounded man, knowing that what he was doing was illegal.We are not talking about an innocent member of the public here. We are talking about an armed insurgent who moments earlier was trying to kill British troops AND who was apparently already mortally wounded.
Some perspective required here I think. If anything it was a mercy killing.
The reason the Army have (and deserve) the respect of the public is that they make every effort to keep their house in order & be seen to do so. Anyone prejudicing their good name is dealt with swiftly, fairly, but robustly.
There are other organisations that would benefit from following this example.
There are other organisations that would benefit from following this example.
Hosenbugler said:
Rovinghawk said:
Hosenbugler said:
p1stonhead said:
Shooting in a direction and accidently hitting someone you are not supposed to is a fk up.
Deliberately murdering someone point blank isnt a fk up. Its no different to any other murder. Possibly worse because they are professional killers who should know explicitly what they are capable of and who they shouldnt be killing.
You'd know of course, from your time as a frontline combat soldier. k up.Deliberately murdering someone point blank isnt a f
k up. Its no different to any other murder. Possibly worse because they are professional killers who should know explicitly what they are capable of and who they shouldnt be killing.I agree with what p1stonhead wrote. YMMV.
^^ pretty accurate.
True too that a lot of people claim that women shouldn't, or wouldn't be able to serve frontline, completely oblivious to the fact they have been doing so in Afghanistan for years.
If your role requires you to be in a danger area, that's where you'll be regardless of cap badge. A lot of service support arms troops were killed, whereas in a conventional war they'd not be up front fighting.
True too that a lot of people claim that women shouldn't, or wouldn't be able to serve frontline, completely oblivious to the fact they have been doing so in Afghanistan for years.
If your role requires you to be in a danger area, that's where you'll be regardless of cap badge. A lot of service support arms troops were killed, whereas in a conventional war they'd not be up front fighting.
eccles said:
So what exactly is OK in your strange world? You post a video of yourself up on youtube showing yourself speeding, plod comes to investigate and find videos of kiddy porn, according to you, plod should just ignore as it's nothing to do with what they were there for in the first place.
Have you hacked Castroses' hard drive?Pebbles167 said:
^^ pretty accurate.
True too that a lot of people claim that women shouldn't, or wouldn't be able to serve frontline, completely oblivious to the fact they have been doing so in Afghanistan for years.
If your role requires you to be in a danger area, that's where you'll be regardless of cap badge. A lot of service support arms troops were killed, whereas in a conventional war they'd not be up front fighting.
But then comes the question, as they can operate as well on the front line as men, why do men have to pass higher standards?True too that a lot of people claim that women shouldn't, or wouldn't be able to serve frontline, completely oblivious to the fact they have been doing so in Afghanistan for years.
If your role requires you to be in a danger area, that's where you'll be regardless of cap badge. A lot of service support arms troops were killed, whereas in a conventional war they'd not be up front fighting.
Zoobeef said:
But then comes the question, as they can operate as well on the front line as men, why do men have to pass higher standards?
Slightly OT, but when my sister was on a visit to West Point many years ago, they were shown the assault course, and told that "women did the short course". I gather her rage-propelled time (on the long course) was impressive 
Zoobeef said:
Pebbles167 said:
^^ pretty accurate.
True too that a lot of people claim that women shouldn't, or wouldn't be able to serve frontline, completely oblivious to the fact they have been doing so in Afghanistan for years.
If your role requires you to be in a danger area, that's where you'll be regardless of cap badge. A lot of service support arms troops were killed, whereas in a conventional war they'd not be up front fighting.
But then comes the question, as they can operate as well on the front line as men, why do men have to pass higher standards?True too that a lot of people claim that women shouldn't, or wouldn't be able to serve frontline, completely oblivious to the fact they have been doing so in Afghanistan for years.
If your role requires you to be in a danger area, that's where you'll be regardless of cap badge. A lot of service support arms troops were killed, whereas in a conventional war they'd not be up front fighting.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find a lot of women thought this unnecessary leniency mildly offensive.
I'm aware of a couple of instances when female soldiers in specialist roles have been carrying pretty much their own bodyweight in equipment, so having differing fitness requirements to get to that position is barking.
Of course nobody knows all the implications of carrying those kind of loads as we're not allowed to use such heavy loads in trials or training for health and safety reasons
Of course nobody knows all the implications of carrying those kind of loads as we're not allowed to use such heavy loads in trials or training for health and safety reasons
As with all these legal and military matters, it's more nuanced than simply saying he breached the Rules of Engagement and the Geneva Convention and therefore that a murder charge / conviction is right and proper. Without banging on about how civilians couldn't possibly understand, there is a grain of truth in this...
That he did breach both is quite clear from the evidence that has been made publicly available. That he was unable to live up to the Royal Marine's mantra for controlled aggression rather than unrestrained violence is equally clear. This is, after all, what Bootnecks claim separates them from their maroon beret brethren.
However, the devil is in the detail and those who have served in general, and those who have worked with Bootnecks in particular will appreciate the detail, not least around how the Royal Marine's chain of command operates and how it may have influenced that day's events. The 'hows', 'whys' and with 'what orders' are fundamental to the entire incident. And you simply can't make a judgement on him without that appreciation.
With the possible exception of the Paras, the Royal Marines have an entirely unique officer cadre/ other ranks interaction to any other force - from training through to deployment, the relationship is one where there is normally genuine respect rather than a begrudging following of rank. If a Royal Marine officer gives an order, sets a tone or guides the direction of an operation, it's followed for more than reasons of hierarchy alone. There is no doubt that Sgt Blackman's actions would have been heavily influenced by his chain of command, alongside the obvious extreme operational environment they faced day in, day out. Not least of all seeing mates genitals strung up in trees.
Whilst as a Senior NCO he was hardly wet behind the ears, as a rough and ready guide to the chain of command, he will have had a Troop Commander (first appointment out of Lympstone in all likelihood), a Company Commander (Major) and the Commando Commanding Officer (Lt Col). At the very least, the framing of that deployment's tone, tempo and moral compass would have had three command inputs - each with a different take on how to achieve success. And that framing would have evolved or regressed as the tour progressed.
Do we know what orders Sgt Blackman's Troop Commander had given that morning? Was it 'stick to the ROE and come back alive' or was it ' no Taliban leave this enclave alive'? Or was it both. Did the CO tacitly give carte blanche to act in the manner Sgt Blackman acted by virtue of his pre-deployment brief or was Sgt Blackman acting out of kilter with the directions given by his senior officers.
If it is the latter, then in my humble opinion, the manslaughter conviction is entirely sound (subject to his state of mind being present and correct). If his actions were influenced by the orders or words of those up above, then it is they who should carry the can. I suspect that he was merely the sharp end representation of the Commando's psyche at the time and that the blame lies squarely higher up the food chain.
TL:DR - A quote from Lt Col Oliver Lee RM
‘Quite simply, inadequate officers provide the most common explanation for ethical failure.’
That he did breach both is quite clear from the evidence that has been made publicly available. That he was unable to live up to the Royal Marine's mantra for controlled aggression rather than unrestrained violence is equally clear. This is, after all, what Bootnecks claim separates them from their maroon beret brethren.
However, the devil is in the detail and those who have served in general, and those who have worked with Bootnecks in particular will appreciate the detail, not least around how the Royal Marine's chain of command operates and how it may have influenced that day's events. The 'hows', 'whys' and with 'what orders' are fundamental to the entire incident. And you simply can't make a judgement on him without that appreciation.
With the possible exception of the Paras, the Royal Marines have an entirely unique officer cadre/ other ranks interaction to any other force - from training through to deployment, the relationship is one where there is normally genuine respect rather than a begrudging following of rank. If a Royal Marine officer gives an order, sets a tone or guides the direction of an operation, it's followed for more than reasons of hierarchy alone. There is no doubt that Sgt Blackman's actions would have been heavily influenced by his chain of command, alongside the obvious extreme operational environment they faced day in, day out. Not least of all seeing mates genitals strung up in trees.
Whilst as a Senior NCO he was hardly wet behind the ears, as a rough and ready guide to the chain of command, he will have had a Troop Commander (first appointment out of Lympstone in all likelihood), a Company Commander (Major) and the Commando Commanding Officer (Lt Col). At the very least, the framing of that deployment's tone, tempo and moral compass would have had three command inputs - each with a different take on how to achieve success. And that framing would have evolved or regressed as the tour progressed.
Do we know what orders Sgt Blackman's Troop Commander had given that morning? Was it 'stick to the ROE and come back alive' or was it ' no Taliban leave this enclave alive'? Or was it both. Did the CO tacitly give carte blanche to act in the manner Sgt Blackman acted by virtue of his pre-deployment brief or was Sgt Blackman acting out of kilter with the directions given by his senior officers.
If it is the latter, then in my humble opinion, the manslaughter conviction is entirely sound (subject to his state of mind being present and correct). If his actions were influenced by the orders or words of those up above, then it is they who should carry the can. I suspect that he was merely the sharp end representation of the Commando's psyche at the time and that the blame lies squarely higher up the food chain.
TL:DR - A quote from Lt Col Oliver Lee RM
‘Quite simply, inadequate officers provide the most common explanation for ethical failure.’
Edited by donutsina911 on Thursday 8th December 13:43
It is well known within the Corps that Ollie Lee felt that both the Company commander and CO should have been sanctioned, and that the CO's tone set the overall tone. In other words, with that CO in charge, something like this was likely to happen.
Knowing the CO that was in charge at the time, I can understand Lee's sentiment.
Knowing the CO that was in charge at the time, I can understand Lee's sentiment.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff