War Crime

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Those who have been following the case will not be all that surprised to see that a Royal Marine has today been found guilty of the murder of a wounded Taliban captive in Afghanistan. For obvious reasons the media have been careful to censor what was been broadcast, but from what we have seen the evidence of his guilt seems overwhelming - the convicted Marine is actually recorded admitting he has just violated the Geneva Convention.

Two other Royal Marines accompanying him at the time have been acquitted of all charges and returned to their units. They can perhaps consider themselves to be very fortunate young men tonight because had this trial been conducted in the jurisdiction of a civilian High Court, rather than under military Court Martial conditions, then they too may well have been convicted of a crime.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10436149/Royal-Marine-faces-life-in-jail-for-captive-execution.html

 

Now war crimes are as old as war itself and I have long felt that those who send young men off to war - all of us potentially - should bare at least a part of the moral responsibility for what subsequently ensues. History shows that when you 'let slip the dogs of war' then all kinds of dreadful stuff is inevitably going to happen on a battlefield I'm afraid. Surely when we brutalize our soldiers in combat then it should come as little surprise when some of them in turn behave in a exceptionally brutal manner - I must add that this level of inhumanity seems to come more readily to some rather than others.

 

So the question of war crime is a 'moral maze' then for in a sense war itself is nothing but a huge crime and how can we single out one act of savage violence from all the others? But while I can certainly feel some sympathy towards this marine, a man we sent to do a bloody tough job in near impossible conditions, in the final analysis I say we still do right when we hold our soldiers accountable for their actions.

 

Imagine if you will how we would feel had a wounded British soldier had been mercilessly executed by a Taliban fighter ...

[aintforever]

I feel sorry for the bloke who got sent down as I probably would have done the same thing in his situation.

 

They shouldn't be out there in the first place.

[View From The Top]

His only crime was getting caught IMHO.

 

That said, with the evidence before it, the jury could only find him guilty.

[Barry Sanchez]

It is an absolute maze, do we set the moral high ground and deflate the morale of the people out there or do we stand by our forces in a place they should not be?

[Toadhall Saint]

We will never beat the Taliban while we give them ready made martyrs. A war crime is a war crime not matter what "side" commits it. Makes you wonder how much goes undetected tho.

[badgerx16]

His only crime was getting caught IMHO.

 

That said, with the evidence before it, the jury could only find him guilty.

 

He only 'got caught' because his mate kept the camera video and 2 years later the Police found it on his home computer whilst investigating an unrelated incident. Why the f()ck would he have kept it ?

[Batman]

looks like he may only get 5 years

[cryoman1965]

looks like he may only get 5 years

 

And thats 5 too many.

[Antrimsaint]

I find some of the comments on here abhorent.

I dont care if he was a turban wearing fanatic. He was an enemy combatant wounded in war. The soldiers duty was to treat the soldier and take him as a prisoner of war.

Take off your jingoist glasses and realise this was also a man with family, aspirations defending his homeland from an occupying force.

He was murdered in cold blood.

 

It seems so easy for people to dismiss murder as a fact of life in war. It isnt and should not be treated as such, no matter what flag the murderer is carrying.

 

I hope they throw away the key. He brings shame to decent British forces and becomes a recruiting tool for fanatics. He should be ashamed to be a British soldier and should not be lauded as a hero.

[Antrimsaint]

I feel sorry for the bloke who got sent down as I probably would have done the same thing in his situation.

 

They shouldn't be out there in the first place.

 

Dickhead

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

When I listen to the audio tape of this awful incident it strikes me that all those fictional accounts of murder we are constantly surrounded with where the killer has a deeply damaged and/or atypical personality, a person who often suffers terrible stress as a consequence of their violence is in fact a gross misrepresentation of the real world.

Although they were clearly not under fire at the time, I don't know what these Marines went through before that fatal day. However, listen to how 'matter-of-fact' they apparently find killing to be, hear how easy and amusing they seem to find the experience ...

 

It seems to me that many perfectly ordinary Human Beings find the act of killing other Human Beings to be a remarkably casual business. No more serious a matter than a slaughterman might find killing a pig to be you might say. As far as I can tell many of these 'natural born killers' living among us seem to suffer from little (or no) sense of remorse or consequence for their actions afterwards.

Now I first glimpsed this dark truth about Human nature half a lifetime ago when as a adolescent I developed a interest in war, in particular Germany's long descent into barbarism under Nazi rule. I've learnt that war has much to teach us about ourselves, a 'theater' where all the many aspects of our Human nature are laid bare for all to see.

 

But away from the hard truths of history and back into the comfortably safe world of fiction, my favorite film - Clint Eastwood's 1992 masterpiece 'Unforgiven' - is as you may know a work where the director is careful to ensure that actions are always shown to have consequences and that the act of killing changes a man fundamentally. That style of serious film making is how I personally prefer to see violence depicted in fiction. But I've come to think that maybe I'm wrong here and that the appallingly casual way younger filmmakers (such as Quentin Tarentino) portray deadly violence in their work actually represents a much truer depiction of how people are.

 

Truer perhaps, but not more edifying.

Edited 9 November, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Batman]

I find some of the comments on here abhorent.

I dont care if he was a turban wearing fanatic. He was an enemy combatant wounded in war. The soldiers duty was to treat the soldier and take him as a prisoner of war.

Take off your jingoist glasses and realise this was also a man with family, aspirations defending his homeland from an occupying force.

He was murdered in cold blood.

 

It seems so easy for people to dismiss murder as a fact of life in war. It isnt and should not be treated as such, no matter what flag the murderer is carrying.

 

I hope they throw away the key. He brings shame to decent British forces and becomes a recruiting tool for fanatics. He should be ashamed to be a British soldier and should not be lauded as a hero.

 

so easy to say that sat at home

could not imagine what goes through lads minds when they have people trying to kill them daily and they see bits of their mates hanging off trees as trophies

 

peopele (unfortunately) will crack

 

also, was the guy who was killed definitely from Afghanistan, like you state?

Edited 9 November, 2013 by Batman

[Whitey Grandad]

I find some of the comments on here abhorent.

I dont care if he was a turban wearing fanatic. He was an enemy combatant wounded in war. The soldiers duty was to treat the soldier and take him as a prisoner of war.

Take off your jingoist glasses and realise this was also a man with family, aspirations defending his homeland from an occupying force.

He was murdered in cold blood.

 

It seems so easy for people to dismiss murder as a fact of life in war. It isnt and should not be treated as such, no matter what flag the murderer is carrying.

 

I hope they throw away the key. He brings shame to decent British forces and becomes a recruiting tool for fanatics. He should be ashamed to be a British soldier and should not be lauded as a hero.

 

I'm sure that others will correct me if I'm wrong, but the Geneva Convention doesn't apply in this scenario?

[Antrimsaint]

so easy to say that sat at home

could not imagine what goes through lads minds when they have people trying to kill them daily and they see bits of their mates hanging off trees as trophies

 

peopele (unfortunately) will crack

 

also, was the guy who was killed definitely from Afghanistan, like you state?

 

Did it seem that these people had cracked? It was the matter of fact nature was the worry. I find it more worrying that" people sat at home" would have done the same in that situation. I am more concerned at the condoning of such actions that the fact it goes on.

Indeed the fact it does go on does not make it acceptable.

[solentstars]

Those who have been following the case will not be all that surprised to see that a Royal Marine has today been found guilty of the murder of a wounded Taliban captive in Afghanistan. For obvious reasons the media have been careful to censor what was been broadcast, but from what we have seen the evidence of his guilt seems overwhelming - the convicted Marine is actually recorded admitting he has just violated the Geneva Convention.

Two other Royal Marines accompanying him at the time have been acquitted of all charges and returned to their units. They can perhaps consider themselves to be very fortunate young men tonight because had this trial been conducted in the jurisdiction of a civilian High Court, rather than under military Court Martial conditions, then they too may well have been convicted of a crime.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10436149/Royal-Marine-faces-life-in-jail-for-captive-execution.html

 

Now war crimes are as old as war itself and I have long felt that those who send young men off to war - all of us potentially - should bare at least a part of the moral responsibility for what subsequently ensues. History shows that when you 'let slip the dogs of war' then all kinds of dreadful stuff is inevitably going to happen on a battlefield I'm afraid. Surely when we brutalize our soldiers in combat then it should come as little surprise when some of them in turn behave in a exceptionally brutal manner - I must add that this level of inhumanity seems to come more readily to some rather than others.

 

So the question of war crime is a 'moral maze' then for in a sense war itself is nothing but a huge crime and how can we single out one act of savage violence from all the others? But while I can certainly feel some sympathy towards this marine, a man we sent to do a bloody tough job in near impossible conditions, in the final analysis I say we still do right when we hold our soldiers accountable for their actions.

 

Imagine if you will how we would feel had a wounded British soldier had been mercilessly executed by a Taliban fighter ...

i used to work with a royal marine ,a great guy but he will tell you that they work to the highest standards they can,and he would say the guy did wrong and let down his fellow soldiers by being judge and jury and they tried to cover up for him. mind you i don,t think he deservers life and their may be circumstances like shell shock and maybe a lesser sentence should be applied.we have some of the best service personal in the world because of our discipline and can,t have a few loose cannons destroy that discipline.

[Joensuu]

Having cracked or not is not excusable for murder. 5 years is far, far too soft; a life sentence should be the starting point for sentencing.

[Whitey Grandad]

I wonder how many times this sort of thing happened during the Second World War?

[Toadhall Saint]

I wonder how many times this sort of thing happened during the Second World War?

 

Loads by the Axis - none by the Allies.

[Whitey Grandad]

Loads by the Axis - none by the Allies.

 

We both know that's not true.

[Toadhall Saint]

We both know that's not true.

 

Aye but it's never recognised as such

[View From The Top]

TBH, if it had been me, I'd have off'd him as well. I would have just made sure the helmet cams were off.

 

Terry doesn't fight by the rules of the GC so they shouldn't expect to have them come to their aid when they are up sh*t creek.

[Saint_clark]

I find some of the comments on here abhorent.

I dont care if he was a turban wearing fanatic. He was an enemy combatant wounded in war. The soldiers duty was to treat the soldier and take him as a prisoner of war.

Take off your jingoist glasses and realise this was also a man with family, aspirations defending his homeland from an occupying force.

He was murdered in cold blood.

 

It seems so easy for people to dismiss murder as a fact of life in war. It isnt and should not be treated as such, no matter what flag the murderer is carrying.

 

I hope they throw away the key. He brings shame to decent British forces and becomes a recruiting tool for fanatics. He should be ashamed to be a British soldier and should not be lauded as a hero.

 

Completely agree. Cannot believe people are defending him.

[badgerx16]

....I would have just made sure the helmet cams were off.

 

That's what he thought had happened.

[buctootim]

Terry doesn't fight by the rules of the GC so they shouldn't expect to have them come to their aid when they are up sh*t creek.

 

Aren't we out there because they're supposed to be violent oppressors of their own people. Im not sure how behaving the same as them gives us some moral superiority.

 

There is no right or fair solution really. Immediately before he was injured by the cobra the Taleban guy had been trying to kill the same troops who eventually finished him off. You can make a case for anywhere between 'life' and 'absolute discharge'. If he gets five years and serves three I guess that is as right and fair as any.

[OldNick]

I was under the impression that in the wars of the past anyone not wearing uniform and fighting against you were not part of the Geneva convention. The Taleban do not fight in uniform and so one minute look like an innocent farmer the next shoot you in the back. War brings out the worst in men.it is easy sitting back in our cosy world and judging but those soldiers face stress 24/7

[Bearsy]

I was under the impression that in the wars of the past anyone not wearing uniform and fighting against you were not part of the Geneva convention. The Taleban do not fight in uniform and so one minute look like an innocent farmer the next shoot you in the back. War brings out the worst in men.it is easy sitting back in our cosy world and judging but those soldiers face stress 24/7

 

I don't agree with doing wars at all, but if ur going to do them the whole concept of war "crimes" seems stupid. "Stop it! Ur killing them wrong!"

[OldNick]

I don't agree with doing wars at all, but if ur going to do them the whole concept of war "crimes" seems stupid. "Stop it! Ur killing them wrong!"

there should be certain civilised rules in war,for decency and the assassination of wounded person doesn't sit well, but if I had been subjected to the stress and anguish that the troops have we may also do some pretty awful things.

[View From The Top]

Aren't we out there because they're supposed to be violent oppressors of their own people.

 

No.

[aintforever]

I find some of the comments on here abhorent.

I dont care if he was a turban wearing fanatic. He was an enemy combatant wounded in war. The soldiers duty was to treat the soldier and take him as a prisoner of war.

Take off your jingoist glasses and realise this was also a man with family, aspirations defending his homeland from an occupying force.

He was murdered in cold blood.

 

It seems so easy for people to dismiss murder as a fact of life in war. It isnt and should not be treated as such, no matter what flag the murderer is carrying.

 

I hope they throw away the key. He brings shame to decent British forces and becomes a recruiting tool for fanatics. He should be ashamed to be a British soldier and should not be lauded as a hero.

 

It's not a traditional war though is it? If it was I would think it was out of order. Does the Geneva Convention even apply when the enemy are not in uniform, sneaking around pretending to be civilians, hiding behind women and kids, then blowing themselves up taking out civilians in the process?

 

If we send our boys out to fight guerrilla warfare in these sh!thole countries we shouldn't expect them to behave like Tommy from WW1, it's a different set of rules.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I was under the impression that in the wars of the past anyone not wearing uniform and fighting against you were not part of the Geneva convention. The Taleban do not fight in uniform and so one minute look like an innocent farmer the next shoot you in the back. War brings out the worst in men.it is easy sitting back in our cosy world and judging but those soldiers face stress 24/7

 

Combatants fighting undercover or out of uniform have often been subject to summery execution in the past, but so called 'Guerrilla' fighters do have Geneva Convention rights depending upon whether the armed conflict is international or internal.

 

Under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, a person fighting in irregular forces, such as the Taliban, is considered a lawful combatant in an international armed conflict provided that he fights under certain specified conditions. The importance of being a lawful combatant is twofold. First, if captured by opposing international forces (not by his government), he may not be prosecuted or punished for taking part in combat. Second, he must be treated as a prisoner of war under applicable international rules.

[OldNick]

Combatants fighting undercover or out of uniform have often been subject to summery execution in the past, but so called 'Guerrilla' fighters do have Geneva Convention rights depending upon whether the armed conflict is international or internal.

 

Under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, a person fighting in irregular forces, such as the Taliban, is considered a lawful combatant in an international armed conflict provided that he fights under certain specified conditions. The importance of being a lawful combatant is twofold. First, if captured by opposing international forces (not by his government), he may not be prosecuted or punished for taking part in combat. Second, he must be treated as a prisoner of war under applicable international rules.

As long as he fights under certain specified conditions, do we know what those conditions are?

[OldNick]

tommy from WWI also would have done some war crimes. Sometimes prisoners taken in combat by men behind the lines would have been killed as they would have been impossible to bring back. This is just one example. I have met many veterans over the years from both wars and 1 particular crime relayed to me about the Japanese made a real impression on me.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

tommy from WWI also would have done some war crimes. Sometimes prisoners taken in combat by men behind the lines would have been killed as they would have been impossible to bring back. This is just one example. I have met many veterans over the years from both wars and 1 particular crime relayed to me about the Japanese made a real impression on me.

 

As I understand it - and I'm no expert - according to the convention the guerrilla fighter should fight under a recognized chain-of-command. He should wear a military uniform (or at least some kind of emblem) that identifies him as a combatant. The fighter must also carry his weapon openly in order that he should not be confused with a civilian. Crucially he should 'obey the rules of war' as defined by custom and the convention.

 

In reality of course very few guerrilla groups have historically complied with those (highly unrealistic in practicable terms) set of rules. For instance, most guerrilla fighters are simply not in a position to accept EPW's - even if they desired to do so.

 

Therefore you could argue that the Royal Marine involved in this case did not actually violate the Geneva Convention because the Taliban do not technically fall within its provisions. However, this Marine was not charged with breaking the GC - he was charged with an offence under the provisions of UK military law.

Edited 9 November, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[OldNick]

As I understand it - and I'm no expert - according to the convention the guerrilla fighter should fight under a recognized chain-of-command. He should wear a military uniform (or at least some kind of emblem) that identifies him as a combatant. The fighter must also carry his weapon openly in order that he should not be confused with a civilian. Crucially he should 'obey the rules of war' as defined by custom and the convention.

 

In reality of course very few guerrilla groups have historically complied with those (highly unrealistic in practicable terms) set of rules. For instance, most guerrilla fighters have historically simply not in a position to accept EPW's - even if they desired to do so.

 

Therefore you could argue that the Royal Marine involved in this case did not actually violate the Geneva Convention because the Taliban do not technically fall within its provisions. However, this Marine was not charged with breaking the GC - he was charged with an offence under the provisions of UK military law.

thanks for your info. Iam not trying to defend murder but I can see why sometimes hideous offences do happen in war

[Jonnyboy]

TBH, if it had been me, I'd have off'd him as well. I would have just made sure the helmet cams were off.

 

Terry doesn't fight by the rules of the GC so they shouldn't expect to have them come to their aid when they are up sh*t creek.

 

Coward.

 

We're supposed to be "winning hearts and minds" out there.

 

They may use cowardly tactics but flinging in missiles from drones and helicopters and then going in murdering the wounded isn't exactly laudable. Certainly not braver.

 

I'm amazed the other two got off scot free as they were accomplices.

 

Makes me wonder what else is going on out there that is just brushed under the carpet? The MOD as usual makes sure to proclaim its a one off but those guys sounded mighty casual on the recording.

[Batman]

Coward.

 

We're supposed to be "winning hearts and minds" out there.

 

They may use cowardly tactics but flinging in missiles from drones and helicopters and then going in murdering the wounded isn't exactly laudable. Certainly not braver.

 

I'm amazed the other two got off scot free as they were accomplices.

 

Makes me wonder what else is going on out there that is just brushed under the carpet? The MOD as usual makes sure to proclaim its a one off but those guys sounded mighty casual on the recording.

 

no we are not

[buctootim]

no we are not

 

Yeah we are - otherwise the deaths are all for nothing.

[Batman]

Yeah we are - otherwise the deaths are all for nothing.

 

we are there to rid the taleban from power as much as possible and install (and assist) the new government with the ANA

[View From The Top]

Coward.

 

We're supposed to be "winning hearts and minds" out there.

 

They may use cowardly tactics but flinging in missiles from drones and helicopters and then going in murdering the wounded isn't exactly laudable. Certainly not braver.

 

I'm amazed the other two got off scot free as they were accomplices.

 

Makes me wonder what else is going on out there that is just brushed under the carpet? The MOD as usual makes sure to proclaim its a one off but those guys sounded mighty casual on the recording.

 

Realist and combat veteran.

[View From The Top]

Yeah we are - otherwise the deaths are all for nothing.

 

They have been.

[Jonnyboy]

we are there to rid the taleban from power as much as possible and install (and assist) the new government with the ANA

 

Why have we been negotiating with the Taliban for a ceasefire then?

[Batman]

Why have we been negotiating with the Taliban for a ceasefire then?

 

Yeah. We stop killing them. And they all but fuk off to a corner of the country

[buctootim]

Yeah. We stop killing them. And they all but fuk off to a corner of the country

 

Do you not see any news Jamie? They're being invited into the Government.

[Batman]

Do you not see any news Jamie? They're being invited into the Government.

 

a token gesture

[pap]

a token gesture

 

As token as letting extremists run Northern Ireland?

[Batman]

As token as letting extremists run Northern Ireland?

 

seems that way

then, the two are exactly a like

 

time to leave this thread, pap is here

[Viking Warrior]

War is war .it was wrong what he /they did . What was Tommy Taliban up to at the time . I don't hear that any comment about that. He had hand grenades on him. . He could easily have taken the lives of marines if they had tried to help him . Sounds like he was near to death when they went up close . Had mr Taliban have been evacuated and taken back to bastion and survived and returned back to the Taliban . It would only been a matter of time before he was laying Ied,s

 

Damned if you do damned if you don't . However it was wrong that the marine shot the poor soul .

 

I think it will be bad for marine b to return to his unit. He will find life very difficult in my opinion

[buctootim]

a token gesture

 

You should watch this interview with Karzai the outgoing Afghan President. Pretty frank.

 

http://bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24435776#TWEET914354

Edited 10 November, 2013 by buctootim

[pap]

seems that way

then, the two are exactly a like

 

time to leave this thread, pap is here

 

I'm starting to suspect it's because I've developed the most succinct way to neutralise your ill-thought through comments. That was a mere eight words.

 

For whatever reason, you choose to express yourself in the manner of someone who can't be arsed passing comment, but you pass comment with more frequency than many other people on here.

 

Could it be, that once again, you're shooting from the hip and getting your aim very wrong? Have you never heard of Afghanistan's wonderful tagline - the Graveyard of Empires? Which other groups would you suggest have the clout to form part of a lasting settlement in that country?

 

As the Kaiser Chiefs ask, could you tell me in three words or more?

Edited 10 November, 2013 by pap

[OldNick]

War is war .it was wrong what he /they did . What was Tommy Taliban up to at the time . I don't hear that any comment about that. He had hand grenades on him. . He could easily have taken the lives of marines if they had tried to help him . Sounds like he was near to death when they went up close . Had mr Taliban have been evacuated and taken back to bastion and survived and returned back to the Taliban . It would only been a matter of time before he was laying Ied,s

 

Damned if you do damned if you don't . However it was wrong that the marine shot the poor soul .

 

I think it will be bad for marine b to return to his unit. He will find life very difficult in my opinion

when you are facing people who really want to die as they believe they are going to a better place, you never know quite what they will do as they depart the world.