Marine A secures new hearing.

[blindspot]

'Just following orders' is no defence.

PDT spends a lot of time on Law of Armed Conflict. He knew what he was doing.

[Zoobeef]

By trying to pin blame on people higher up the chain of command you are basically insinuating that marines are unable to think for themselves. Yes you do as your told but everyone has a brain and knows the rules and right from wrong.

[donutsina911]

blindspot said:

'Just following orders' is no defence.

PDT spends a lot of time on Law of Armed Conflict. He knew what he was doing.

I didn't suggest it is and that he didn't. Merely that there is every chance that the relevant pages of JSP 383 were less pressing to Sgt Blackman than the direction given from up above and that the principle of Command responsibility calls into question the black and white nature of some of the posts so far..

[dai1983]

donutsina911 said:

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.

Edited by donutsina911 on Thursday 8th December 13:43

I was told this before I started my recruit training. After ten years (some of which has been spent under Army or Navy officers) I'd say it's a myth. The worst "do as I say" officers are those that have had Senior Corps Commisons.

I've had Braveheart style speeches from officers where we were told to "crush the enemy in his back yard". From our pre deployment training and pre-op briefs we also knew not to kill unarmed or injured Taliban. During such speeches we were also told not to do anything we would look back on with regret or guilt. If I had done as Marine A did then it would have likely haunted me for the rest of my days.

Personally I was always more of a "fix him up and ask him where his mates are so you can smash them too" kind of guy anyway.

Edited by dai1983 on Thursday 8th December 14:47

[anonymous-user]

That he's been so cautious to be out of sight of the balloon and helicopter implies he knew he was going to go well beyond what he knew was acceptable.

There are quite a few unknowns to us non-military people, but from what I've read above they strike me as more likely to be mitigation rather than detract from the actual offence.

[donutsina911]

La Liga said:

That he's been so cautious to be out of sight of the balloon and helicopter implies he knew he was going to go well beyond what he knew was acceptable.

There are quite a few unknowns to us non-military people, but from what I've read above they strike me as more likely to be mitigation rather than detract from the actual offence.

Agree, that it is only mitigation and central to sentencing , with the caveat that without knowing the unknowns of that day, it is entirely possible that those above him should be carrying some, if not all of the can.

[stitched]

I get that he knew he was doing wrong, really.
The people responsible for dropping atomic bombs on 2 civilian cities could of course keep him company in jail.
Oh hang on.

[donutsina911]

Zoobeef said:

By trying to pin blame on people higher up the chain of command you are basically insinuating that marines are unable to think for themselves. Yes you do as your told but everyone has a brain and knows the rules and right from wrong.

I've insinuated nothing of the sort. As per the quote from the Lt. Col, weak leadership allows weak morals for some personnel, in some circumstances. A combination of circumstances that are alien to most on here, alongside weak leadership and dubious orders may have played a part in this incident.

[audidoody]

Perhaps the naysayers here would be interested in the views of an ex-Army officer

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/patrick-benham-...

[yellowjack]

audidoody said:

Perhaps the naysayers here would be interested in the views of an ex-Army officer

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/patrick-benham-...

F-Secure, he say "harmful website blocked"...

No chance I'm reading that one, then.

[Zoobeef]

donutsina911 said:

I've insinuated nothing of the sort. As per the quote from the Lt. Col, weak leadership allows weak morals for some personnel, in some circumstances. A combination of circumstances that are alien to most on here, alongside weak leadership and dubious orders may have played a part in this incident.

When I said you I meant anybody that says that sort of thing. I would say if someone was swayed to murder by something as subtle as what the chain of command has hinted (when every other member of 42 CDO managed, and especially the other members of J Company (I still have a job)) then it's down to the individual and not the chain of command.

He fully deserves an appeal if some information wasn't presented as it's not fair convicting without it. But to say it was weak officers when every other man out there had the same officers is wrong.

[s2art]

yellowjack said:

audidoody said:

Perhaps the naysayers here would be interested in the views of an ex-Army officer

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/patrick-benham-...

F-Secure, he say "harmful website blocked"...

No chance I'm reading that one, then.

Conservativewoman harmful? Doubt it. Up-to-date McAfee doesnt flag it.

[dai1983]

audidoody said:

Perhaps the naysayers here would be interested in the views of an ex-Army officer

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/patrick-benham-...

What a knobber. If someone's injured and unable to formally surrender then they become protected.

Let's rape captured women and steal from dead bodies. It'll be fine as long as we win

[RizzoTheRat]

audidoody said:

Perhaps the naysayers here would be interested in the views of an ex-Army officer

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/patrick-benham-...

I'm assuming he left the army a long time ago and hasn't heard of COIN, PSO, etc?

[donutsina911]

RizzoTheRat said:

audidoody said:

Perhaps the naysayers here would be interested in the views of an ex-Army officer

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/patrick-benham-...

I'm assuming he left the army a long time ago and hasn't heard of COIN, PSO, etc?

Notwithstanding the fact that COIN doctrine has in many ways been discredited, not sure either are relevant to Sgt. Blackman and the shooting of a combatant in these circumstances?

[Pebbles167]

audidoody said:

Perhaps the naysayers here would be interested in the views of an ex-Army officer

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/patrick-benham-...

I do have sympathy for Blackman. We've all made a bloody stupid decision at some point, and his is going to cost him a good deal of his life.

He didn't aim to cause undue suffering, and perhaps he really was doing it with mercy in mind, but even so, this wasnt an animal, it was a human. He can't make that decision. Maybe he regretted the decision entirely afterwards.

Still, this ex army officer thinks he should be freed and the law adjusted. How could it be? There is literally nothing that could change without legalising murder in a combat zone. It would set a precedent, and this sort of thing would become more common. Also, it's completely unnecessary. They were not under fire, and the insurgent was out of action.

I agree that sometimes soldiers seem to get strung up for merely doing their job, in fact i know someone who was arrested for murder several times after serving in iraq, and each time cleared. That was a different scenario and ultimately if you've followed the rules the law will be on your side, which makes it even sadder that Blackman chose to blatantly disobey them.

Soldiers are trained for this and he knew the possible outcome of his actions, but perhaps didn't appreciate them until it all came down on top of him. He should have known better, and had some restraint.

st situation.

Edited by Pebbles167 on Thursday 8th December 15:44

[RizzoTheRat]

donutsina911 said:

RizzoTheRat said:

audidoody said:

Perhaps the naysayers here would be interested in the views of an ex-Army officer

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/patrick-benham-...

I'm assuming he left the army a long time ago and hasn't heard of COIN, PSO, etc?

Notwithstanding the fact that COIN doctrine has in many ways been discredited, not sure either are relevant to Sgt. Blackman and the shooting of a combatant in these circumstances?

I meant that article was wasn't really particularly relevant to Sgt Blackmans case as it was very much focused on the point of war being to kill the enemy, which is fair total war scenario, but isn't really the case in Afghanistan.

[blindspot]

donutsina911 said:

I didn't suggest it is and that he didn't. Merely that there is every chance that the relevant pages of JSP 383 were less pressing to Sgt Blackman than the direction given from up above and that the principle of Command responsibility calls into question the black and white nature of some of the posts so far..

That is exactly what you are saying, whether you understand it or not.

You repeated it in your reply. Direction from above is called what exactly?

Every soldier and marine know full well it is their duty to refuse unlawful orders. Executing wounded enemy combatants, having taken the trouble to drag them from an overwatched area and having a chuckle about breaking the Geneva convention is not only straight up murder, terribly un-British but also horribly counterproductive in a counter-insurgency environment.

And as for the idea that COIN is discredited - gibberish. Some doctrine was not useful, think inkblot, some was inappropriately applied.

[Ayahuasca]

Interesting to compare this to the case of Lee Clegg "Vauxhall Astra, Built by Robots, Driven by Joyriders, Stopped by 'A' Company".

He essentially (so they said) fired aimed shots from a 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle into the back of a car driving away from him, having failed to stop at a checkpoint that Clegg was guarding.

He was convicted of murder, but was subsequently cleared at a retrial, and continued his army career. This was a guy who was alleged to have shot, deliberately, aimed shots, at healthy, innocent, British citizens, and killed one of them.

I suspect that Sgt Blackman, who administred a coup de grace to a dying enemy combatant is paying the price for Islamic Battlefield Political Correctness (IBPC) following Abu Ghraib.

[XCP]

I don't see many similarities between the cases to be honest.