Marine A secures new hearing.

[Cold]

Sgt Alexander Blackman has managed to convince the Courts Martial Appeal Court to hear his case for a second time. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has received enough new evidence to justify another look at the case that was based around the allegation of murdering an Afghan prisoner in 2011.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38225713

[anonymous-user]

From what I've read he's a murderer. I can't see how they can infer anything other than intent given what he was recorded as saying and doing. Perhaps they're looking at diminished responsibility once again to try and replace the conviction with manslaughter.

[anonymous-user]

I am all for cases like this being pushed as far as possible to establish a reliable precedent.


It's groundbreaking stuff and deserves every last ounce of effort.

[Pebbles167]

As said above, push the case to explore all avenues.

But ultimately this guy knowingly commited an act of murder, it was his decision and he's got to face the music. Doubt he'll get any leniency.

[e8_pack]

I haven't read much, but the guy was fired upon and he killed one of the insurgents at close range.

You put anyone in a kill or be killed situation, don't be surprised if they don't always act rationally.

I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.

[Lucas CAV]

e8_pack said:

I haven't read much, but the guy was fired upon and he killed one of the insurgents at close range.

You put anyone in a kill or be killed situation, don't be surprised if they don't always act rationally.

I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.

Well do read it.
It's nothing like you suggest.

[grumbledoak]

I'll happily defer to serving/ex-forces on this one, who seem to view it as letting the side down.

But I would slash his sentence; it isn't as if the insurgents adhere to the Geneva Convention.

[Rovinghawk]

He did wrong. We're supposed to be better than that.

It's that simple.

[anonymous-user]

Rovinghawk said:

He did wrong. We're supposed to be better than that.

It's that simple.

That sums it up for me.

[rscott]

grumbledoak said:

I'll happily defer to serving/ex-forces on this one, who seem to view it as letting the side down.

But I would slash his sentence; it isn't as if the insurgents adhere to the Geneva Convention.

I don't think they see it as letting the side down, rather as going beyond the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.
If we allow it to happen, we then lose the right to complain about any similar actions carried out by opposition forces.

[e8_pack]

rscott said:

grumbledoak said:

I'll happily defer to serving/ex-forces on this one, who seem to view it as letting the side down.

But I would slash his sentence; it isn't as if the insurgents adhere to the Geneva Convention.

I don't think they see it as letting the side down, rather as going beyond the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.
If we allow it to happen, we then lose the right to complain about any similar actions carried out by opposition forces.

Nope, it's pretty much universally accepted as letting the side down in forces circles.

Is very noble of you to suggest we will lose the right to complain. It's really doing us some good isn't it, complaining to the Taliban. Can you ask them politely to stop cutting people's heads off on TV please.

[audidoody]

Didn't the Taliban hang bits of his dead mates from nearby trees? I'd humbly suggest that would be enough to raise the pulse rate of someone holding a loaded pistol near to one of the perpetrators.

[Rovinghawk]

audidoody said:

Didn't the Taliban hang bits of his dead mates from nearby trees? I'd humbly suggest that would be enough to raise the pulse rate of someone holding a loaded pistol near to one of the perpetrators.

If we call them barbarians then we can't in the next breath say "well they do it, so why can't we?".

[Ayahuasca]

Executing wounded (or even not wounded) enemy has happened in every war since the war was invented.

Good job there were no helmet cams in WWII.

Even the movie Saving Private Ryan showed surrendering Germans executed. It is on record that Gen Patton dismissed any charges against his men who had killed surrendering concentration camp guards.

Not saying it is a good thing, but it is a real thing.

Problem is, this guy was dumb enough to video it and leave his superiors with no room to pretend it didn't happen.

Had he said later, 'I thought he had a grenade / pistol / knife he would not have faced charges.

[Zoobeef]

If all evidence was not disclosed at the original trial then he is fully entitled to an appeal.

Going by the evidence given at the original trial the punishment was justified.

[SplatSpeed]

NinjaPower said:

Rovinghawk said:

He did wrong. We're supposed to be better than that.

It's that simple.

That sums it up for me.

the guy was a enemy combatant in a war zone st happens!

still he has his 72 virgins now.

[rohrl]

e8_pack said:

I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.

What's the relevance of this?

ISIS are a notoriously brutal bunch of vicious murderers. It is absolutely imperative that we don't allow ourselves to sink anywhere near to their level. We have to hold ourselves to a much higher standard than them or otherwise we might as well all just give up on calling ourselves a civilised country.

Part of being a civilised country is that our armed forces are not allowed to murder prisoners of war willy-nilly and must be punished if they do so, however much we might sympathise with the individual and the pressures they were under, just as we must punish a father who murders his child's abuser or a householder who shoots an unarmed burglar in the back.

[Ayahuasca]

rohrl said:

e8_pack said:

I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.

What's the relevance of this?

ISIS are a notoriously brutal bunch of vicious murderers. It is absolutely imperative that we don't allow ourselves to sink anywhere near to their level. We have to hold ourselves to a much higher standard than them or otherwise we might as well all just give up on calling ourselves a civilised country.

Part of being a civilised country is that our armed forces are not allowed to murder prisoners of war willy-nilly and must be punished if they do so, however much we might sympathise with the individual and the pressures they were under, just as we must punish a father who murders his child's abuser or a householder who shoots an unarmed burglar in the back.

Where did you get 'prisoner of war' from? Had this guy surrendered? Had he handed over his weapons? Or was he feigning injury in order to lure our men into a suicide attack?

[MarshPhantom]

e8_pack said:

I haven't read much, but the guy was fired upon and he killed one of the insurgents at close range.

You put anyone in a kill or be killed situation, don't be surprised if they don't always act rationally.

I hope ISIS are court martialing their guys.

ISIS are a terrorist organization, this chap was in the British Army.

[HaplessBoyLard]

Ayahuasca said:

Where did you get 'prisoner of war' from? Had this guy surrendered? Had he handed over his weapons? Or was he feigning injury in order to lure our men into a suicide attack?

Pretending to be injured? You've never seen what an Apache 30mm round does to a human body, have you?

This guy ignored The Geneva Convention and his rules of engagement, both of which he is bound by.

If the enemy had been laying on the floor with an AK47 trying to shoot the Marines, then they'd have been within their rights to shoot him. Seen as they had a calm conversation about what they were about to do as they stood over him wounded on the ground, I'd say that probably wasn't the case.

It may well have been the humane thing to do, but the point is, the law doesn't allow you make that decision, and they were supposed to give first aid to the wounded enemy as per the GC.