Marine killer deserves clemency

Originally Posted by Osem

Yes a conviction has happened and the argument is now about whether there are mitigating circumstances which I believe there are.

In this case I don't think there is that much. The only mitigating circumstance is that he is at war but if that was used as a valid migration that it is carte blanche for all members of the armed forces in the battle field. This specific case seems to be quite clear cut, it was recorded, the guy was evidently no threat anymore, the shooter vocalised sentiments that he knew he was breaking the law and that there would be consequences if he was caught.

If such a clear case of executing a wounded enemy still merits an exemption then where would the line actually be?

As for comparing troops with terrorists, certainly one 'member' did and yesterday, and in a comment (removed before I had time to respond to it) you made a comment (in response to one of my posts) which, in the brief time it was visible to me, gave me the distinct impression that, given what had happened, you felt our forces could be classed as little better than terrorists. Maybe had you not deleted that post I'd have had the time to form a different, more accurate, impression of what you wrote or maybe not...

I said that we were not as we have such rules. The important thing is to abide by them because they're what separate us from the terrorists. If he still start abiding by their rules ("There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us.") then we've lost something important.

[Pierre]

Yes, he's guilty. of something.

The insurgent had been shot by an Apache helicopter, I'd be suprised if he would have lived much longer, and the marine probably did him a favour.

In the circumstances I think a suspended sentence would be sufficient.

Whoever found this footage, should have just wiped it.

If anyone should be in front of the judge it should be Blair, Brown and Cameron.

[SMG]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

It's not clemency it's called mitigation and it's used in court all the time, bet this chap ends up being used as a scape goat so we can show the Afghan's how civilised we are. Help torture a baby to death and be out in five years, kill some scumbag that was trying to kill you moments earlier and get sold down the river by the government that sent you there, what a country.

---------- Post added at 01:52 ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 ----------



Considering the allies jailed Germans for shooting prisoners I say your examples aren't helping your argument.

I completely agree, however, there is no argument, I`m simply trying to inform people about war. My reference to the 50 is probably the most remembered. Depending on the circumstances some prisoners were executed simply because there were no facilities or manpower to hold them prisoner. There are examples where troops have saved the lives of the enemy, instead of terminating it. War is a completely different world to the one we live in.

Originally Posted by SMG

I completely agree, however, there is no argument, I`m simply trying to inform people about war. My reference to the 50 is probably the most remembered. Depending on the circumstances some prisoners were executed simply because there were no facilities or manpower to hold them prisoner. There are examples where troops have saved the lives of the enemy, instead of terminating it. War is a completely different world to the one we live in.

But these laws are set by the military aren't they? It was a military court and investigation from my understanding.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

I said that we were not as we have such rules. The important thing is to abide by them because they're what separate us from the terrorists. If he still start abiding by their rules ("There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us.") then we've lost something important.

Why remove that comment then? It's hardly contentious...

My understanding of what you'd written was that defending this incident made us 'not much better' than the terrorists and I've heard a few people saying the same. To those who do think that and still can't see the difference, I would say it's this: our forces clearly try very hard to have different standards from those of the terrorists and rightly so. In this case one individual acted in this manner for reasons we can only guess at. It was one breach, not official policy, not rules of engagement or common occurrence and it wasn't done indiscriminately simply because the guy was of a different religion. It was done because he was an enemy who'd earlier been attacking our troops and for one reason or another one of our soldiers decided he'd had enough and finished him off. That was wrong and the name given to the crime may still be murder but it doesn't put the solider in question on anywhere the same level as the terrorist and his actions clearly don't represent the vast majority.

There is obviously no carte blanche to act in this manner and the fact that a prosecution has resulted is the best possible proof of that. Mitigation whether strong or weak doesn't alter that fact.

[SMG]

Originally Posted by Damien

But these laws are set by the military aren't they? It was a military court and investigation from my understanding.

This guy was caught. Video & audio. He will be convicted. I`m just saying these things do happen, sometimes due to fear, sometimes due to training, sometimes its made clear that you should not take prisoners, sometimes it just plain murder, but it does happen. Different people will have different opinions.

None of us will ever know because we were not there at the time. We don't know what had happened previously, had this guy had just lost some colleagues, what was his mindset at the time.

Unless he is booby trapped, a dead insurgent is no threat, a wounded one is. All British forces operate under Queens regulations, an endless list of them, all superseded by a small list of exceptions, determined by operational & task requirements. This is why SF can operate freely, they "Murder" people all the time, in the national interest.

I`m not saying Marine A was under such orders, just that incidents like this do happen, if sanctioned, OK, if not, take your chance.

Originally Posted by SMG

This guy was caught. Video & audio. He will be convicted. I`m just saying these things do happen, sometimes due to fear, sometimes due to training, sometimes its made clear that you should not take prisoners, sometimes it just plain murder, but it does happen. Different people will have different opinions.

None of us will ever know because we were not there at the time. We don't know what had happened previously, had this guy had just lost some colleagues, what was his mindset at the time.

Unless he is booby trapped, a dead insurgent is no threat, a wounded one is. All British forces operate under Queens regulations, an endless list of them, all superseded by a small list of exceptions, determined by operational & task requirements. This is why SF can operate freely, they "Murder" people all the time, in the national interest.

I`m not saying Marine A was under such orders, just that incidents like this do happen, if sanctioned, OK, if not, take your chance.

this was none of those

We do know because he says on video what he was doing he deliberately and knowingly broke the geneva convention what happened leading upto this is irrelevant. He is a professional soldier. TBH the attitudes of ex squaddies here are not strengthening my faith in the armed services but degrading it

Its called bang to rights

[SMG]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

this was none of those

We do know because he says on video what he was doing he deliberately and knowingly broke the geneva convention what happened leading upto this is irrelevant. He is a professional soldier. TBH the attitudes of ex squaddies here are not strengthening my faith in the armed services but degrading it

Its called bang to rights

Yes. But, there could be mitigating circumstances. My point is, we just don't know.

Originally Posted by SMG

Yes. But, there could be mitigating circumstances. My point is, we just don't know.

the court would have .....

Originally Posted by Osem

Why remove that comment then? It's hardly contentious...

Because I thought you were making a slightly different statement to what you did when I reread it. I thought you were dismissive of the notion that we follow a different set of rules when in fact you were proud of it. My post didn't add anything other than reinforcing what you said.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------

Originally Posted by SMG

This guy was caught. Video & audio. He will be convicted. I`m just saying these things do happen, sometimes due to fear, sometimes due to training, sometimes its made clear that you should not take prisoners, sometimes it just plain murder, but it does happen. Different people will have different opinions.

None of us will ever know because we were not there at the time. We don't know what had happened previously, had this guy had just lost some colleagues, what was his mindset at the time.

Unless he is booby trapped, a dead insurgent is no threat, a wounded one is. All British forces operate under Queens regulations, an endless list of them, all superseded by a small list of exceptions, determined by operational & task requirements. This is why SF can operate freely, they "Murder" people all the time, in the national interest.

I`m not saying Marine A was under such orders, just that incidents like this do happen, if sanctioned, OK, if not, take your chance.

But the video was shown the court and they clearly were sure of what happened and convicted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...execution.html

The victim, who has never been identified, had joined an attack on a British patrol base and was badly wounded by a burst of 30mm cannon fire from an Apache helicopter gunship called in to repel the assault.

A small patrol, led by Marine A, was sent out to look for casualties and found him in the middle of a field, badly wounded, armed with an AK-47, two magazines and a grenade.

After berating the barely conscious man, the patrol drag him to the edge of the field with Marine A saying “Get him closer in so [a surveillance balloon] can’t see what we’re doing to him.”

When Marine A asks for volunteers to perform first aid, the patrol members all decline, and Marine C says instead: “I’ll put one in his head, if you want”.
Marine A replies: “No not in his head, cause that’ll be f****** obvious.

The Marines then declare that the man is dead and report the news back by radio before Marine A shoots him with his 9mm pistol after apparently having made sure the Apache helicopter has moved away.

However a pathologist told the trial that the man was clearly alive when he was shot and could be seen moving beforehand.

We can't see the video as it was deemed to inflammatory by the judge who thought it would aid terrorism and put more troops in danger. A gift for terrorist propaganda. However that does seem pretty shocking. The court was clearly convinced this was done intentionally and the man posed no threat. There was a level of calculation to it by moving him out of sight and asking for the silence of his fellow marines.

[SMG]

The courts have seen the evidence & ruled, on this occasion it was recorded, if it hadn't been, we probably wouldn't even hear about it, but we on this Forum can not make a judgement about something without the facts.

A Court Martial uses Military rules & regs, which can differ from a civvy court. It uses Queens Regulations, & some offences still carry the Death Penalty.

Even though the case has been heard, we may never know the full facts.

Originally Posted by SMG

The courts have seen the evidence & ruled, on this occasion it was recorded, if it hadn't been, we probably wouldn't even hear about it, but we on this Forum can not make a judgement about something without the facts.

A Court Martial uses Military rules & regs, which can differ from a civvy court. It uses Queens Regulations, & some offences still carry the Death Penalty.

Even though the case has been heard, we may never know the full facts.

surely the only fact you need is the guilty verdict?

[SMG]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

surely the only fact you need is the guilty verdict?

No, I would want to know if it was premeditated or a spur of the moment decision, knowing the facts of the case would reflect the punishment.

Originally Posted by SMG

No, I would want to know if it was premeditated or a spur of the moment decision, knowing the facts of the case would reflect the punishment.

and that to is down to the military court. You can not have it both ways. You can not say only soldiers who have experience can judge this then say you are not happy because a military court has passed a judgement you do not agree with

You I assume are a civvie now ?and therefore you do not need to know

Originally Posted by SMG

No, I would want to know if it was premeditated or a spur of the moment decision, knowing the facts of the case would reflect the punishment.

Well moving him out of sight of witnesses seems to show a degree of premeditation?