Royal Marine found guilty of Afghanistan murder

[rednev]

A Royal Marine has been found guilty by a military court of murdering an injured Afghan insurgent, in what the prosecution called "an execution".

The sergeant, known only as Marine A, faces a mandatory life term over the shooting of the unknown man while on patrol in Helmand Province, in 2011.

Two other marines were cleared.

Brigadier Bill Dunham, of the Royal Marines, said the murder - the first case of its kind - was "a truly shocking and appalling aberration".

There were tears from the marines' families as the verdicts were read at the Military Court Centre in Bulford, Wiltshire, on Friday.

Marine A, who will be sentenced on 6 December, was taken into custody, while the two other marines, known as B and C, are free to return to military service. An anonymity order granted last year to protect the men from possible reprisals remains in place.

Marine B had inadvertently filmed the murder, which happened on 15 September 2011, on his helmet-mounted camera and the footage was shown to the court during the two-week trial.

It showed Marine A shooting the Afghan prisoner with a 9mm pistol, and saying: "There, shuffle off this mortal coil... It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."

He adds: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention," to which Marine B replies: "Yeah, roger mate."

On Thursday, a recording of a conversation between the marines in the moments surrounding the shooting was released by the judge.

He had previously rejected an application by the media to release the video footage, saying it could be used as propaganda against the UK military.

During the court martial, prosecutor David Perry told the court the murder was "not a killing in the heat and exercise of any armed conflict... it amounted to an execution".

Marine A told the court martial he had fired because of "poor judgement and lack of self-control", but said he had thought the insurgent was already dead.

Marines B and C were accused by the prosecution of being "party to the killing" and of having "encouraged and assisted" Marine A to commit the murder.

At the time of the killing, he was an experienced sergeant, while Marine C was the most junior of the three. Marine B was new to the Helmand base where marines A and C were based.

Marine A was convicted by a board of seven officers and non-commissioned officers.

Brig Dunham, deputy commandant general of the Royal Marines, said: "It is a matter of profound regret that, in this isolated incident, one marine failed to apply his training and discharge his responsibilities.

"What we have heard over the past two weeks is not consistent with the ethos, values and standards of the Royal Marines.

"It was a truly shocking and appalling aberration. It should not have happened and it should never happen again."

He said the Royal Marines would consider any impact from the case on the training given to its personnel.

Gen Sir Mike Jackson, a former head of the Army, urged people to keep "a sense of proportion" but said he was "saddened" by the case.

"I'm afraid whatever casualties the unit had taken, didn't change the law.

"It's not about whether the Taliban do or do not adhere to whatever set of rules, if any. It is about the standards which apply to the British armed forces which are drawn from the Geneva Convention."

He added: "The fact that a trial has taken place, I would argue upholds those standards."

The murder took place after a patrol base in Helmand Province came under attack from small arms fire from two insurgents.

The Afghan prisoner was seriously injured by gunfire from an Apache helicopter sent to provide air support, and the marines found him in a field.

In one conversation between Marine A and C about shooting the man, one serviceman is overheard asking "Anyone want to give first aid to this idiot?" before another replies loudly "Nope."
In another, Marine C was heard asking A if he should shoot the man in the head, but Marine A said that would be too "obvious".

Royal Military Police arrested the three marines in October 2012 after video footage was found on a serviceman's laptop by civilian police in the UK.

They first appeared at the Military Court Centre in Bulford in August, where they pleaded not guilty to murdering the Afghan national contrary to section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
Two further marines - D and E - had the charges against them dropped in February.

The case was the first time British forces have faced a murder charge in relation to the conflict in Afghanistan, said BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt.

Prof Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, said the Ministry of Defence needed to be transparent in cases such as this.

"The only thing the MoD can do is not try to hide in cases that look as bad as this, and they're going to have to accept that if we fight these wars, there will be cases that we are not very proud of," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24870699

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

We had fun with this story in the newbies today but no one thought to post a concise account of what happened. Right result.

 

[rednev]

I'm surprised by the reaction to this. Before the trial started there were campaigns to stop the trial from even taking place, and now that a guilty verdict has been reached, there seems to be a reaction of disbelief and injustice that a serving member of the military has been found guilty of murdering a member of the Taliban. As if his status, and the status of the victim, should result in immunity. If you look at some of the top rated comments on some of the major news sites, the soldier is being called a hero.

Either we have the Geneva Convention or we don't. Given that we do and that it is quite clearly unlawful to harm an injured captive in this way, let alone kill him, I don't see how anyone can object to the prosecution given the facts of the case. The rule of law obviously needs to be impartial, and it can't apply to one side and not the other. For someone to consider the conduct of the Marine to be justified, they must surely have to consider the conduct of a Taliban fighter, if the roles were reversed, killing a captured Marine in this way to be lawfully justified. Very few would, of course.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I'm surprised by the reaction to this. Before the trial started there were campaigns to stop the trial from even taking place, and now that a guilty verdict has been reached, there seems to be a reaction of disbelief and injustice that a serving member of the military has been found guilty of murdering a member of the Taliban. As if his status, and the status of the victim, should result in immunity. If you look at some of the top rated comments on some of the major news sites, the soldier is being called a hero.

Either we have the Geneva Convention or we don't. Given that we do and that it is quite clearly unlawful to harm an injured captive in this way, let alone kill him, I don't see how anyone can object to the prosecution given the facts of the case. The rule of law obviously needs to be impartial, and it can't apply to one side and not the other. For someone to consider the conduct of the Marine to be justified, they must surely have to consider the conduct of a Taliban fighter, if the roles were reversed, killing a captured Marine in this way to be lawfully justified. Although clearly this is not the case.

Yeah it's hard to fathom. It's a theatre of war and all that but there have been rules of engagement for centuries, well before the Geneva convention. Oddly enough, adhering to them give those armies that do some moral high ground. Prosecuting those who violate it is the only right answer.

 

[DOTA]

We had fun with this story in the newbies today but no one thought to post a concise account of what happened. Right result.

Yep.

Heard the verdict, today. I think it's right that the guy who pulled the trigger has been treated harshly. I don't think those who failed to stop him from doing so deserve anything like that he does, though.

 

[The Don]

Brigadier Bill Dunham, of the Royal Marines, said the murder - the first case of its kind - was "a truly shocking and appalling aberration".

 

[Marching]

Yeah it's hard to fathom. It's a theatre of war and all that but there have been rules of engagement for centuries, well before the Geneva convention. Oddly enough, adhering to them give those armies that do some moral high ground. Prosecuting those who violate it is the only right answer.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what these soldiers are living with day after day for months on end. It's right the soldier was prosecuted but I hope they don't go overboared with his sentence.

 

[holyland red]

Either we have the Geneva Convention or we don't. Given that we do and that it is quite clearly unlawful to harm an injured captive in this way, let alone kill him, I don't see how anyone can object to the prosecution given the facts of the case. The rule of law obviously needs to be impartial, and it can't apply to one side and not the other. For someone to consider the conduct of the Marine to be justified, they must surely have to consider the conduct of a Taliban fighter, if the roles were reversed, killing a captured Marine in this way to be lawfully justified. Very few would, of course.

I agree with that, but in the sense that the Geneva Convention is being abused by head-severing, civilian-blowing savages. With all due respect, the Geneva Convention is there to define rules for wars between two combating armies, and even then they are tough to implement. When you have one side which isn't an army, and isn't accountable for any wrong-doing (as seen in UN corridors), then matters get much more tricky.

 

[Sultan]

However bad an enemy, whatever the levels of hatred we have against these people we just cannot implement our own version of justice, pass sentences and carry out executions. The rules of engagement are there for a reason. The guy was injured, and posed no threat. Capture him, and let laws implement his fate.

Upholding these values is what differentiates us from those people.

 

[Eyepopper]

Not defending what the soldier did but is it true that their regiment had lost 7 during that your and that the Taliban had left the limbs of dead soliders hanging from trees on display.

I'd imagine a lot of that sort of stuff happens during wars, if you don't like it you really should be protesting the war rather than the actions of someone in an incredibly stressful scenario, whose had to see the arms and legs of his dead friends hanging in trees.

 

[Pexbo]

It's the right decision in my eyes.

We are supposed to be over there for a war on terrorism. To liberate the country of its draconian evils and educate them into a more peaceful and correct way of living and treating other human beings.

How the feck are you supposed to convey that message when a member of your force can't show enough self control to bring in an injured and subdued member of the opposite for the fair trial they rightfully deserve thanks to the constitution you are fighting to protect?

 

[Devil_forever]

I agree with that, but in the sense that the Geneva Convention is being abused by head-severing, civilian-blowing savages. With all due respect, the Geneva Convention is there to define rules for wars between two combating armies, and even then they are tough to implement. When you have one side which isn't an army, and isn't accountable for any wrong-doing (as seen in UN corridors), then matters get much more tricky.

Whether the enemy is an army or abides by the genera convention doesn't make a difference, the solider carrying out the execution is part of an army and knew damn well he was carrying out a murder, hence he himself mentions the geneva conventions in the video. Mind you I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that you'd be trying to defend his actions.

 

[That'sHernandez]

Not defending what the soldier did but is it true that their regiment had lost 7 during that your and that the Taliban had left the limbs of dead soliders hanging from trees on display.

I'd imagine a lot of that sort of stuff happens during wars, if you don't like it you really should be protesting the war rather than the actions of someone in an incredibly stressful scenario, whose had to see the arms and legs of his dead friends hanging in trees.

I understand what he did and to some extent, why he did it. It was a ridiculously stupid thing to do, even under that amount of stress and pressure and it most certainly does not make it right and he deserves to be given a life sentence.

My opinion is the same as Sultan's.

 

[africanspur]

It is interesting that people would try to justify or find reason for what the soldier has done (while of course saying that they're not justifying it) and yet the same courtesy is not extended to the other side.

By now, I'm not even sure how much of the Taliban fighting force are the original extremist savages and how much are people who've signed up to the best fighting force in the country because they don't like to see their country occupied or because they've seen family members/ friends etc killed by NATO forces.

 

[That'sHernandez]

I'm surprised by the reaction to this. Before the trial started there were campaigns to stop the trial from even taking place, and now that a guilty verdict has been reached, there seems to be a reaction of disbelief and injustice that a serving member of the military has been found guilty of murdering a member of the Taliban. As if his status, and the status of the victim, should result in immunity. If you look at some of the top rated comments on some of the major news sites, the soldier is being called a hero.

Either we have the Geneva Convention or we don't. Given that we do and that it is quite clearly unlawful to harm an injured captive in this way, let alone kill him, I don't see how anyone can object to the prosecution given the facts of the case. The rule of law obviously needs to be impartial, and it can't apply to one side and not the other. For someone to consider the conduct of the Marine to be justified, they must surely have to consider the conduct of a Taliban fighter, if the roles were reversed, killing a captured Marine in this way to be lawfully justified. Very few would, of course.

It can and it should. Our soldiers are judged by our own standards and we should always judge ourselves based upon our own standards. It's no good saying "Well the Afghans do it, so why can't we?"

 

[711]

What stands out for me is that the MOD and the legal system have done the right thing.
I doubt this would have been done in many other countries.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

Maybe they learned from bloody Sunday and the aftermath. Disgraceful from the soldier and he is rightly getting his dues. His name should be made public now too, no need or right for anonymity.

 

[jojojo]

The situation in the region for the troops fighting there may have been desperate and pushed some of them to their emotional breaking points, but this stood outside the immediate heat of battle. He knew what he was doing as his Geneva convention remark illustrated, it's good that it came to trial.

Maybe they learned from bloody Sunday and the aftermath. Disgraceful from the soldier and he is rightly getting his dues. His name should be made public now too, no need or right for anonymity.

Unfortunately his anonymity may need to be protected for his family's sake.

 

[711]

Unfortunately his anonymity may need to be protected for his family's sake.

Well considering the MOD have done the right thing in prosecution, if they now say they have assessed risk to the family and they request anonymity then I would tend to believe them. I don't know if they can legally do that though, even if they want to.

 

[holyland red]

Whether the enemy is an army or abides by the genera convention doesn't make a difference, the solider carrying out the execution is part of an army and knew damn well he was carrying out a murder, hence he himself mentions the geneva conventions in the video. Mind you I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that you'd be trying to defend his actions.

I don't care if you're suprised or not. The Geneva Convention is outdated, and is being used by folks who disregard human rights and are counting on the support of Western liberal turds whatever atrocities they themselves carry out.

The soldier deserves punishment for being an idiot, going on record sounding like Rambo.

 

[holyland red]

It is interesting that people would try to justify or find reason for what the soldier has done (while of course saying that they're not justifying it) and yet the same courtesy is not extended to the other side.

By now, I'm not even sure how much of the Taliban fighting force are the original extremist savages and how much are people who've signed up to the best fighting force in the country because they don't like to see their country occupied or because they've seen family members/ friends etc killed by NATO forces.

Fair comment. The British army doesn't have a reason to be there in the first place.

 

[holyland red]

The situation in the region for the troops fighting there may have been desperate and pushed some of them to their emotional breaking points, but this stood outside the immediate heat of battle. He knew what he was doing as his Geneva convention remark illustrated, it's good that it came to trial.



Unfortunately his anonymity may need to be protected for his family's sake.

Protection fron whom? They did nothing wrong. They live in the UK, don't they?

 

[Irwinwastheking]

Sorry, but he has no more right to anonymity than any other convicted murderer in my mind.

 

[711]

Sorry, but he has no more right to anonymity than any other convicted murderer in my mind.

Yeah, I'm coming round to that view myself.

 

[Marching]

However bad an enemy, whatever the levels of hatred we have against these people we just cannot implement our own version of justice, pass sentences and carry out executions. The rules of engagement are there for a reason. The guy was injured, and posed no threat. Capture him, and let laws implement his fate.

Upholding these values is what differentiates us from those people.

Easily said from a distance.

 

[TheReligion]

Protection fron whom? They did nothing wrong. They live in the UK, don't they?

Protection from the likes of those who killed Lee Rigby perhaps? They would be a clear target for extremists.

 

[nimic]

Easily said from a distance.

What does this reply even mean, though? Do you think he had the right to unilaterally decide to execute a prisoner? If not, I don't see what about Sultan's post is so controversial.

 

[Marching]

What does this reply even mean, though? Do you think he had the right to unilaterally decide to execute a prisoner? If not, I don't see what about Sultan's post is so controversial.

I've already said it was the correct decision to prosecute this soldier but I think it's all to easy to judge their actions from the safety of our computer screens. I am not surprised they make errors of judgement when you consider the pressures they work under against an enemy who have never heard of the GC and rules of engagement...not to mention the horrors they see on a daily basis.

 

[Kag]

I could be wrong, but won't this kind of thing happen very often, only this guy was unlucky in that his comrade had the entire thing on video?

I agree with the verdict, and with those on here that say our forces should be above this kind of behaviour in their attempts to combat terrorism, but the whole "it was a truly shocking and appalling aberration" thing seems a little, over the top?

 

[nimic]

I've already said it was the correct decision to prosecute this soldier but I think it's all to easy to judge their actions from the safety of our computer screens. I am not surprised they make errors of judgement when you consider the pressures they work under against an enemy who have never heard of the GC and rules of engagement...not to mention the horrors they see on a daily basis.

Yes, but the vast majority of soldiers still manage to get through such situations without "errors of judgement" such as executing unarmed and wounded prisoners. This is not as vile as the tragic cases where entire families of civilians have been butchered, but it is still vile. It could perhaps be argued that part of the blame needs to be put in the entire military system, which puts people under immense pressure without providing adequate mental health support, but at the end of the day individuals still have responsibility for their own actions.

This wasn't even a clear cut "terrorist", not that it should make a difference, though obviously it will. This was someone who had fired at a military base, and been adequately dealt with. A foreign military base in your own country is something I consider a valid target. This was a prisoner of war.

 

[Sultan]

I've already said it was the correct decision to prosecute this soldier but I think it's all to easy to judge their actions from the safety of our computer screens. I am not surprised they make errors of judgement when you consider the pressures they work under against an enemy who have never heard of the GC and rules of engagement...not to mention the horrors they see on a daily basis.

Easily said from a distance.

I understand where you're coming from, and so does our political and military institutions. Our lack of understanding of these situations is exactly why cases such as these are dealt by a military court, and not civilian. People who are like minded and have experience of working under such pressures.

 

[Eyepopper]

I've already said it was the correct decision to prosecute this soldier but I think it's all to easy to judge their actions from the safety of our computer screens. I am not surprised they make errors of judgement when you consider the pressures they work under against an enemy who have never heard of the GC and rules of engagement...not to mention the horrors they see on a daily basis.

I see where you're coming from Marching, a part of me feels the same but having thought about it more I've changed my mind. They are paid professional soliders, trained and paid for the job they do. That might not make it any easier but it does mean they are accountable for their actions.

If we changed the details of the story - say to a solider raping someone - context wouldn't come into it, and while the circumstances are extenuating they're not an excuse for to bypass the Genova Convention.

I'd imagine a certain amount of this has gone on in every war since the dawn of time, and despite what they might say, I'd imagine the MOD don't really give too much of shit.

 

[Marching]

I see where you're coming from Marching, a part of me feels the same but having thought about it more I've changed my mind. They are paid professional soliders, trained and paid for the job they do. That might not make it any easier but it does mean they are accountable for their actions.

If we changed the details of the story - say to a solider raping someone - context wouldn't come into it, and while the circumstances are extenuating they're not an excuse for to bypass the Genova Convention.

I'd imagine a certain amount of this has gone on in every war since the dawn of time, and despite what they might say, I'd imagine the MOD don't really give too much of shit.

I am not saying this soldier should not be punished for his actions or that we should ignore the Geneva Convention. We will have to agree to disagree Tops as I think it is all too simple to say because we train and pay these soldiers then they are beyond making errors of judgement. No amount of money or training prepares them for the horrors they face on a daily basis against a cowardly, hidden enemy who NEVER take into account the Geneva Convention.

 

[Eyepopper]

Error in judgement is one thing Marching, and i agree with you, but cold bloodily killing a prisoner goes beyond poor judgement IMO.

 

[oates]

I can see what Marching is saying. Never having been a soldier myself facing what any soldier faces or what this particular marine has gone through I feel distinctly under-qualified to judge him. Although he states in the video that he's just gone against the Convention something has clearly caused this experienced NCO to lose the plot. I'm fully in agreement that what he's done should not go out as a message to others in our armed forces that they should forget why they are out there, part of which is to help bring the freedoms we enjoy to people who've been treated as cheap lives for centuries. Clearly others who understand the nature of what has gone on should bring justice to the whole situation. Personally I'd hope he's not treated overly harshly.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

A cowardly hidden enemy hiding in their caves from the brave warriors in their B52 bombers. Give me a break.

 

[Arruda]

A cowardly hidden enemy hiding in their caves from the brave warriors in their B52 bombers. Give me a break.

Insane indeed.

"A patrol base under small arms fire from two insurgents". Insurgents who were mowed down by an Apache. Cowardice doesn't come into this, it's a stupid assessment by Marching. Disorganized and poorly equipped half-arsed armed forces fighting against some of the most technologically and tactically advanced military in the world. They fight an invading country with what they have, which isn't much.

Unfortunate that atrocities are committed from either side, war is nasty, but they happen in both sides and certainly the western armed forces aren't the only ones fighting under extreme duress and fear. They have better support though, a dominating presence, better resources, it is also asked of them to give the example and act as professionally as possible. Certainly this isn't something most soldiers would do, I want to believe in that, so if that dude did it, it's his fault, and he should pay for it.

 

[Marching]

Don't see many British soldiers hiding in B52's. Or laying cowardly booby trap bombs and setting off suicide bombs.

 

[Arruda]

Don't see many British soldiers hiding in B52's. Or laying cowardly booby trap bombs and setting off suicide bombs.

That's a ridiculous comparison, and I edited my post to elaborate on why I think that.

War isn't about courage or cowardice anyway. Otherwise why didn't the brave British sent two soldiers equipped with small arms to fight them off in brave duel-style fashion?

 

[holyland red]

Protection from the likes of those who killed Lee Rigby perhaps? They would be a clear target for extremists.

Well, poor Rigby didn't kill anyone did he?