"The Very British Affair of Marine A" Topic

"On Sept. 15, 2011, Royal Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman shot and killed a wounded Taliban insurgent while on operations in the Nad-e-Ali district of Helmand. The incident was filmed on a helmet camera of one his fellow marines. The video recorded how the marines moved the body of the Taliban fighter to a covert location, where he was dispatched by Blackman. Having shot the fighter, Blackman turned to his colleagues, warning them: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention." One of the marines replied: "Yeah, roger mate." The video-recording was subsequently discovered by the British Royal Military Police and on the basis of it, Blackman and two other marines were prosecuted by court martial in Britain. During his trial, Blackman was allowed anonymity and went under the pseudonym "Marine A." While Blackman's colleagues, Marines B and C, were acquitted, he was sentenced to ten years for murder on Dec. 6, 2013. He was sent to serve his time in a civilian prison (Colchester — the military prison in the United Kingdom — cannot hold inmates for this long). Last week, this sentence was commuted to manslaughter when, on appeal, the court accepted mitigating evidence about Blackman's psychological condition. Blackman will be released before Easter.

The commutation of Blackman's sentence and his early release have been a cause for celebration among his supporters. Since Blackman's arrest, a vociferous movement, "Justice for Marine A," has protested against the judicial proceedings. Although they do not deny wrongdoing, Blackman's supporters have opposed his criminal prosecution. For them, the death of the Taliban fighter was a tragic incident caused by the pressures of an intense tour in which a number of Blackman's comrades had been killed or wounded. In this situation, they claim that the application of normal legal standards to Blackman was prima facie unjust.

Frederick Forsyth, the best-selling novelist, has been an important figure here. As a supporter of the Justice for Marine A movement, he has been an advocate for Blackman's release and the quashing of his sentence. Indeed, Forsyth has argued that the prosecution of Blackman amounts to a personal betrayal of a combat soldier by the Ministry of Defense. In a recent article in response to the commutation of Blackman's sentence, Forsyth described the prosecution as "a shambles and a glaring miscarriage of justice." Reading the transcript of the court martial, Forsyth condemned "the limitations of the never-been-in-combat establishment." Of course, Forsyth and Justice for Marine A do not explicitly claim that Blackman is innocent. By his own admission, he is not. However, in line with Justice for Marine A, Forsyth implies strongly that given the operational conditions, Blackman should not have been tried and should never have been given a custodial sentence…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

While at times it is frustrating we (western democracies) are bound by the rule of law and must always be so. The minute we give in to the same methods as our enemies we become no better than our enemies and then why brother fighting them. As painful as it may be I truly believe we must always maintain the moral high ground.

As for the legalities on manslaughter versus murder that is for the courts to decide and it appears to me that they did weigh all the evidence and make an appropriate ruling.

I'm glad he got off, because if the shoe was on the other foot he just would have been killed out right or had his head cut off. And after having fought these animals myself I'm sick of hearing take the moral high ground especially concerning animals that kill women, children and anyone they consider a legitimate target.

Perhaps, if he'd had a legal aid, or lawyer at his elbow, he'd have made a different decision in the heat of battle, when the adrenaline was really pumping.

Clearly, we need to send more lawyers to the front lines to "help" our troops deal calmly and rationally with the jihadis we are combatting.

I think the lawyers should be place in front of the soldiers, so they have a clear and unobstructed view, and if it is acceptable for the soldiers to then shoot the enemy, they can then move to the rear to permit clean shots at that time.

If we shot prisoners out of hand, how'd we be able to tell who the good guys are?

I understand how folks can feel the same way as Irish Marine however it is, I believe, wrong at any time to kill an enemy who is no longer able to fight. In order to truly win these conflicts we must be unquestionably ferocious in combat but magnaminus in victory. The second an enemy combatant is no longer able to fight back a Marine (or soldier) ceases to be judge, jury and executioner. There are no exceptions. I have seen first hand the effects of the barbarity of some of our enemies but I know that we are better than they are without question and it is our duty (and our honor) to uphold the morals which sets us apart.

how'd we be able to tell who the good guys are?

Believe me, reading this thread I have no trouble in telling who the Good Guys are. And the Bad.

+1 Private Matter

Yeah, just tons of Japs taken as POWs in WW2 by US Marines, guess they were wrong as well.

Irish Marine is correct here. Surrendering & surrendered Japanese were murdered by Americans in WW2.

Killing prisoners happens in any war. Those who do it are murderers and are bereft of military honour. Or as Irish marine accurately puts it,

wrong as well.

link

First, I am lucky never served there did NI in my time. But from what I have read the big issue was he admitted to breaking the Geneva Convention on camera to junior ranks, then attempted to cover it up by ordering them to wipe incident from their cameras memories. If he had just shot the man then shouted at the young soldier for failing to see the man move towards his gun, then never have been an issue

I was going to continue with this but why bother please go on and live in your fantasy world. The real fight happens every day against these people, if you choose to think of them as such. What do you do when you do capture them; POW camp, jail? And for how long till the war ends. The only way to fight a gutter fight is to get into the gutter and fight.

As usual, Irishmarine, you walk away once you're outargued.

I don't think I'll bother with you in future.

What gunnerphil said. It was a moment of madness on his part, admitting to breaking the Geneva Convention on film. That said this happened in or shortly after an fight and I don't believe anything said or done in such conditions should necessarily be regarded as premeditated (the conditions for returning a verdict of murder). Attempting to hide the evidence didn't help his case sadly.

Luckily common sense prevailed.

willlucv – I actually agree with you that I would have trouble considering it premeditated provided the prosecution didn't have evidence of this being part of a pattern of behavior. I fully belief that prosecution is an absolute must in these cases for the reasons I outlined above. It is responsibility for the law to be applied fairly, accurately and without prejudice.

I discussed this case with a former USMC Staff Judge Advocate who has experience in the Afghanistan not in line with some REMF sitting back in the Pentagon. Based upon the facts presented in the article if accurate and correct, it is his opinion that there are several charges that should've been laid out had he been dealing with the case apart from the actual death of the insurgent including obstruction and conduct unbecoming (mostly due to after the shooting comments and actions). His mental state did needed to be considered in the prosecution of his case and the Marine SJA says he would not have sought first degree murder charges but rather a lessor level.

No matter how you look at this it is still a sad story.