"I've just broken the Geneva convention"

[randlemarcus]

Carnage said:

He was a reservist, and had some other "speciality interests" on his computer too. I'm sure you'll draw the correct conclusion!

Worth pointing out that the specialist interests did not belong to Marine A, but to another bloke who had the film.

[ninja-lewis]

Driller said:

Not that I ever have but I challenge you to be placed in the middle if a firefight with bullets flying all around you, deafening noise and total mayhem, earth being thrown up from ordnance explosions, shouting, screams of panic and pain, maybe seeing a few mates cuts to shreds by guys on the other side trying to do the same to you, the adrenalin pumping, the fear, your heart beating so hard it feels like it's going to burst out your chest and then suddenly the shooting stops and there he is lying in front of you the bloke who blew up your mates and was trying to do the same to you.

It's far too easy to say what you said above.

From Judge Advocate General's sentencing remarks:

said:

This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a fire fight. Nor were you under any immediate threat – the video footage shows that you were in complete control of yourself, standing around for several minutes and not apparently worried that you might be at risk of attack by other insurgents. You treated that Afghan man with contempt and murdered him in cold blood.

While we acknowledge your personal circumstances and the immense pressure you were under, we note that thousands of other Service personnel have experienced the same or similar stresses. They exercised self discipline and acted properly and humanely; you did not.

[XCP]

Carnage said:

He was a reservist, and had some other "speciality interests" on his computer too. I'm sure you'll draw the correct conclusion!

Regardless. Still insane as far as I am concerned.

[98elise]

Driller said:

Symbolica said:

I take his point TBH. I think the Woolwich pair should be jailed for life - and I think exactly the same about the Marine that pulled the trigger.

Not that I ever have but I challenge you to be placed in the middle if a firefight with bullets flying all around you, deafening noise and total mayhem, earth being thrown up from ordnance explosions, shouting, screams of panic and pain, maybe seeing a few mates cuts to shreds by guys on the other side trying to do the same to you, the adrenalin pumping, the fear, your heart beating so hard it feels like it's going to burst out your chest and then suddenly the shooting stops and there he is lying in front of you the bloke who blew up your mates and was trying to do the same to you.

It's far too easy to say what you said above.

Most professional soldiers manage to do it without setting themselves up as executioner. The problem is its people like who have neither forces, or combat experience who shout the loudest about how unfair it is that we expect our forces to act properly and professionaly.

He decided he would coldly take someones life when they posed no threat. I person like that does not deserve to wear the uniform.

[Carnage]

randlemarcus said:

Worth pointing out that the specialist interests did not belong to Marine A, but to another bloke who had the film.

Indeed.

[Carnage]

randlemarcus said:

Worth pointing out that the specialist interests did not belong to Marine A, but to another bloke who had the film.

Indeed.

[V8 Fettler]

98elise said:

Driller said:

Symbolica said:

I take his point TBH. I think the Woolwich pair should be jailed for life - and I think exactly the same about the Marine that pulled the trigger.

Not that I ever have but I challenge you to be placed in the middle if a firefight with bullets flying all around you, deafening noise and total mayhem, earth being thrown up from ordnance explosions, shouting, screams of panic and pain, maybe seeing a few mates cuts to shreds by guys on the other side trying to do the same to you, the adrenalin pumping, the fear, your heart beating so hard it feels like it's going to burst out your chest and then suddenly the shooting stops and there he is lying in front of you the bloke who blew up your mates and was trying to do the same to you.

It's far too easy to say what you said above.

Most professional soldiers manage to do it without setting themselves up as executioner. The problem is its people like who have neither forces, or combat experience who shout the loudest about how unfair it is that we expect our forces to act properly and professionaly.

He decided he would coldly take someones life when they posed no threat. I person like that does not deserve to wear the uniform.

How was it decided that the enemy posed no threat?

[McWigglebum4th]

V8 Fettler said:

How was it decided that the enemy posed no threat?

I think he was quite holy

But not in the religious way

[Driller]

ninja-lewis said:

Driller said:

Not that I ever have but I challenge you to be placed in the middle if a firefight with bullets flying all around you, deafening noise and total mayhem, earth being thrown up from ordnance explosions, shouting, screams of panic and pain, maybe seeing a few mates cuts to shreds by guys on the other side trying to do the same to you, the adrenalin pumping, the fear, your heart beating so hard it feels like it's going to burst out your chest and then suddenly the shooting stops and there he is lying in front of you the bloke who blew up your mates and was trying to do the same to you.

It's far too easy to say what you said above.

From Judge Advocate General's sentencing remarks:

said:

This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a fire fight. Nor were you under any immediate threat – the video footage shows that you were in complete control of yourself, standing around for several minutes and not apparently worried that you might be at risk of attack by other insurgents. You treated that Afghan man with contempt and murdered him in cold blood.

While we acknowledge your personal circumstances and the immense pressure you were under, we note that thousands of other Service personnel have experienced the same or similar stresses. They exercised self discipline and acted properly and humanely; you did not.

Don't care, it still must be really hard to keep your cool.

98elise said:

Driller said:

Symbolica said:

I take his point TBH. I think the Woolwich pair should be jailed for life - and I think exactly the same about the Marine that pulled the trigger.

Not that I ever have but I challenge you to be placed in the middle if a firefight with bullets flying all around you, deafening noise and total mayhem, earth being thrown up from ordnance explosions, shouting, screams of panic and pain, maybe seeing a few mates cuts to shreds by guys on the other side trying to do the same to you, the adrenalin pumping, the fear, your heart beating so hard it feels like it's going to burst out your chest and then suddenly the shooting stops and there he is lying in front of you the bloke who blew up your mates and was trying to do the same to you.

It's far too easy to say what you said above.

Most professional soldiers manage to do it without setting themselves up as executioner. The problem is its people like who have neither forces, or combat experience who shout the loudest about how unfair it is that we expect our forces to act properly and professionaly.

He decided he would coldly take someones life when they posed no threat. I person like that does not deserve to wear the uniform.

Don't know about shouting the loudest but "properly and professionally" killing people in various horrible ways?

Is that the same as "blowing them up with dignity" and "cutting out their guts with machine gun fire with grace"?

Edited by Driller on Sunday 8th December 17:21

[markh1973]

V8 Fettler said:

98elise said:

Driller said:

Symbolica said:

I take his point TBH. I think the Woolwich pair should be jailed for life - and I think exactly the same about the Marine that pulled the trigger.

Not that I ever have but I challenge you to be placed in the middle if a firefight with bullets flying all around you, deafening noise and total mayhem, earth being thrown up from ordnance explosions, shouting, screams of panic and pain, maybe seeing a few mates cuts to shreds by guys on the other side trying to do the same to you, the adrenalin pumping, the fear, your heart beating so hard it feels like it's going to burst out your chest and then suddenly the shooting stops and there he is lying in front of you the bloke who blew up your mates and was trying to do the same to you.

It's far too easy to say what you said above.

Most professional soldiers manage to do it without setting themselves up as executioner. The problem is its people like who have neither forces, or combat experience who shout the loudest about how unfair it is that we expect our forces to act properly and professionaly.

He decided he would coldly take someones life when they posed no threat. I person like that does not deserve to wear the uniform.

How was it decided that the enemy posed no threat?

Well the video footage referred to by the Advocate General sounds like it shows a lack of threat.

[V8 Fettler]

markh1973 said:

V8 Fettler said:

98elise said:

Driller said:

Symbolica said:

I take his point TBH. I think the Woolwich pair should be jailed for life - and I think exactly the same about the Marine that pulled the trigger.

Not that I ever have but I challenge you to be placed in the middle if a firefight with bullets flying all around you, deafening noise and total mayhem, earth being thrown up from ordnance explosions, shouting, screams of panic and pain, maybe seeing a few mates cuts to shreds by guys on the other side trying to do the same to you, the adrenalin pumping, the fear, your heart beating so hard it feels like it's going to burst out your chest and then suddenly the shooting stops and there he is lying in front of you the bloke who blew up your mates and was trying to do the same to you.

It's far too easy to say what you said above.

Most professional soldiers manage to do it without setting themselves up as executioner. The problem is its people like who have neither forces, or combat experience who shout the loudest about how unfair it is that we expect our forces to act properly and professionaly.

He decided he would coldly take someones life when they posed no threat. I person like that does not deserve to wear the uniform.

How was it decided that the enemy posed no threat?

Well the video footage referred to by the Advocate General sounds like it shows a lack of threat.

Was the enemy strip searched to ensure that he didn't have any concealed explosives? If not, and if he was still breathing then he presented a potential threat. This must have covered in the trial?

[ninja-lewis]

Driller said:

Don't care, it still must be really hard to keep your cool.

This has nothing to do "keeping your cool". He knew what he was doing was wrong and he was in full control of himself.

Sergeant Blackman was a Royal Marine. The only standard that matters is the standard of the Royal Marines, that combination of Commando Spirit and Collective Group Values: Excellence, Integrity, Self-Discipline, Humility, Courage, Determination, Unselfishness and Cheerfulness. It is the fact that our servicemen and women are held to account by UK standards and laws and should frame their actions in that knowledge, which separates the British Armed Forces from those who would institute a "Commando Order".

Sergeant Blackman knew that. By failing to uphold that standard, Blackman has brought shame upon himself and his corps. He has abused the trust placed in him by his country, his fellow marines and not least those he led that day.

We should all be angry that the good work and high price paid by this country have been tarnished by his actions.

V8 Fettler said:

How was it decided that the enemy posed no threat?

Sentencing Remarks said:

He had been seriously wounded having been engaged lawfully by an Apache Helicopter and when you found him he was no longer a threat. Having removed his AK47, magazines and a grenade, you caused him to be moved to a place where you wanted to be out of sight of your operational Headquarters at Shazad so that, to quote what you said: “PGSS can’t see what we’re doing to him”. He was handled in a robust manner by those under your command, clearly causing him additional pain, and you did nothing to stop them from treating him in that way. When out of view of the PGSS (Persistent Ground Surveillance System) you failed to ensure he was given appropriate medical treatment quickly and then ordered those giving some first aid to stop. When you were sure the Apache Helicopter was out of sight you calmly discharged a 9mm round into his chest from close range.

[V8 Fettler]

ninja-lewis said:

V8 Fettler said:

How was it decided that the enemy posed no threat?

Sentencing Remarks said:

He had been seriously wounded having been engaged lawfully by an Apache Helicopter and when you found him he was no longer a threat. Having removed his AK47, magazines and a grenade, you caused him to be moved to a place where you wanted to be out of sight of your operational Headquarters at Shazad so that, to quote what you said: “PGSS can’t see what we’re doing to him”. He was handled in a robust manner by those under your command, clearly causing him additional pain, and you did nothing to stop them from treating him in that way. When out of view of the PGSS (Persistent Ground Surveillance System) you failed to ensure he was given appropriate medical treatment quickly and then ordered those giving some first aid to stop. When you were sure the Apache Helicopter was out of sight you calmly discharged a 9mm round into his chest from close range.

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.

[wolf1]

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 dissarmed 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 possesion either?

Dissarmed, moved out of sight, refused medical attention and then excecuted. Dowsn't get much more premeditated than that.

[Randy Winkman]

V8 Fettler said:

ninja-lewis said:

V8 Fettler said:

How was it decided that the enemy posed no threat?

Sentencing Remarks said:

He had been seriously wounded having been engaged lawfully by an Apache Helicopter and when you found him he was no longer a threat. Having removed his AK47, magazines and a grenade, you caused him to be moved to a place where you wanted to be out of sight of your operational Headquarters at Shazad so that, to quote what you said: “PGSS can’t see what we’re doing to him”. He was handled in a robust manner by those under your command, clearly causing him additional pain, and you did nothing to stop them from treating him in that way. When out of view of the PGSS (Persistent Ground Surveillance System) you failed to ensure he was given appropriate medical treatment quickly and then ordered those giving some first aid to stop. When you were sure the Apache Helicopter was out of sight you calmly discharged a 9mm round into his chest from close range.

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.

That simply looks like a poor choice of words, rather than a flawed process.

[V8 Fettler]

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 dissarmed 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 possesion either?

Dissarmed, moved out of sight, refused medical attention and then excecuted. Dowsn'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.

[V8 Fettler]

Randy Winkman said:

V8 Fettler said:

ninja-lewis said:

V8 Fettler said:

How was it decided that the enemy posed no threat?

Sentencing Remarks said:

He had been seriously wounded having been engaged lawfully by an Apache Helicopter and when you found him he was no longer a threat. Having removed his AK47, magazines and a grenade, you caused him to be moved to a place where you wanted to be out of sight of your operational Headquarters at Shazad so that, to quote what you said: “PGSS can’t see what we’re doing to him”. He was handled in a robust manner by those under your command, clearly causing him additional pain, and you did nothing to stop them from treating him in that way. When out of view of the PGSS (Persistent Ground Surveillance System) you failed to ensure he was given appropriate medical treatment quickly and then ordered those giving some first aid to stop. When you were sure the Apache Helicopter was out of sight you calmly discharged a 9mm round into his chest from close range.

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.

That simply looks like a poor choice of words, rather than a flawed process.

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.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

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.

Are you managing to keep a good grip on all of those straws?

[V8 Fettler]

Symbolica said:

V8 Fettler said:

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.

Are you managing to keep a good grip on all of those straws?

Merely pointing out how easy it is to cast doubt and undermine the prosecution case.

[10 Pence Short]

The court, that heard all the evidence, found that the soldiers had not just been in the heat of battle and that the prone Afghan posed no threat.

Obviously the judge in this case lacked the amazing clarity of some on here who can second guess what the soldiers faced and are also experts in military procedure and psychology to boot.