Royal Marine convicted of Murder for shooting injured Afghan

[bodie]

I am backing those appealing for leniency for Sgt Alexander Wayne Blackman
pictured below


He has been convicted of Murder after he shot an injured Afghan insurgent.  He has also been named
and shamed today which is a further blow to his innocent family.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/royal-marine-convicted-of-murdering-afghan-insurgent-named-as-sgt-alexander-blackman-8985102.html

Sergeant Alexander Blackman killed the Taliban fighter after he was captured with a point blank shot into his chest. The death was recorded by the head camera of a fellow Marine.

Sergeant Blackman, of J Company, 42 Commando was seen and heard in the footage saying “shuffle off your mortal coil you c**ts, this is nothing you would not have done to us.”

The highly-experienced Non Commissioned Officer became the first British serviceman to be convicted of murder in the current Afghan war.

The anonymity order still stands over the identity of four other Marines who were arrested in connection with the killing. Two of them were acquitted in the court martial at Bulford, Wilshire, in which Sergeant Blackman, referred to until now as “Marine A” was found guilty.

Giving his ruling on the case the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, scathingly criticised the Ministry of Defence over the Marines in question being told about the court decision before it was made public today. Counsel for the Ministry of Defence offered “profound apology” for the leak, saying that senior officers revealed the decision due to the initial misunderstanding.

Lord Chief Justice warned that in future any such transgression may result in a jail sentence.

My question is should this man be treated as a 'murderer' in the same way that other murderers are?  His actions that day were wrong but how can we compare it to shootings between civilians?

He had a fifteen year exemplary career and was about to be promoted to Colour Sargent.  He had been in a situation whereby he had to walk past body parts of his own comrades that had been blown up and hung from trees as trophies.

Can you imagine doing a job where it is OK, no,   it is expected of you to kill your enemy whilst engaged in battle but then
suddenly switch when the gunfire stops? 

And what of the marine who recorded it all via the camera on his helmet?  If I were that marine that camera would never have seen the light of day again.  It would have been shot also. 

I see double standards here.  It was no more an act of murder than when we (the UK military) sank an Argentine Ship killing over 700 people which was out of the war zone.  If you are going to be a stickler for the rules then OK do it,  but do it across the board.   

[TheoK]

The cunts ordering UK and US soldiers there are the real murderers, but they never get any punishment.

[bodie]

Yes.  The MOD and the government are responsible for placing soldiers in combat situations where they have to watch their friends being blown apart and then witness their guts and entrails hung from trees like xmas decorations.  Then they throw the book at one man who flipped out.   

[Parts]

I am surprised the vid ever saw the light of day.  He snapped and lost it, being in the position he was in I can see it happening rather easily.    Was it wrong? yes,  was it murder? I don't think so.  He does deserve some form of discipline but not this, bad things happen in war zones for people on both sides unfortunately he is being used as an example to garner favor with the Afghans.   

[Pyraxis]

unfortunately he is being used as an example to garner favor with the Afghans.

  It's unjust. You can't apply civilian standards in a war zone.

[ZEGH8578]

Bodie - he did the choise to put himself in a situation where there will be body parts.
I can't wait for the day when people will understand that in war, there will be body parts.

If you go to war, understand the rools, and then shoot civilians, you will be treated like a murderer. Why change the rules?
In fact, most soldiers - going to war - understanding the rules perfectly - for then to shoot civilians, are never prosecuted or punished.

A civilian isn't just "a civilian" or "collateral damage" or "well, he was injured, so he was more like 50% human anyway" are all invalid arguments. Someones one and only life was ended. Why? Because some person from the UK wasn't satisfied with a normal day-to-day job, but had to do a job where you kill people, despite this being geopolitically unecesary (nobody is attacking his homeland. He has to defend nobody. He wants to, that's another matter, and his OWN responsability)

Edit, "insurgent" is a difficult word to define, and doesn't make the matter much better. In fact, had it been a uniformed Taliban combatant, it would have made no difference.

The worst about this is the absurdity of the backgrounds of it: People from far-away utopias invade little poverty-ravaged shitholes, and kill everyone there - and THEN complain that SOMETIMES they're punished for killing too much!?
The LEAST one could do is systematically punish every soldier who goes too far. Like I said, they have no business being there, and they're there cus they want to be.
We held on to german occupyers too, and executed heaps of them. Exact same. EXACT same, cus we didn't have holocaust etc in Norway, it was a relatively peaceful occupation, so in fact, probably even better conditions than todays Afghanistan - and we dealt out death penalties for various events of misconduct.

[bodie]

Zegh - I will reply to your points.  Been trying but am playing ninja warrior with my boy and the room is an obstacle course. When I reach computer the bloody klaxon goes.  I will post later when ninja is asleep.

[Lestat]

This wasn't some civillian. This was a bona fide insurgent, armed with an assault rifle and hand grenade.

What originally took him down wasn't some minor injury-this insurgent had been hit by a helicopters mounted heavy cannon.

The armorpiercing/high explosive rounds from those kinds of guns do not just leave a hole, they tear things to tiny pieces, fucking obliterate whatever they hit. Hell, these sorts of cannons aren't small-arms, but dirty great big 20-25mm autocannons. I'm surprised there was anything LEFT of this raghead in question that couldn't have been spread in a thin layer on crackers. The rounds from these, are capable of taking tanks down, let alone human beings or muslims.

The soldiers were heard debating weather to administer first aid or not. And didn't. Even if they had, I doubt the injuries would have been of the survivable kind. Putting a bullet in whatever was left after the chopper lived up to its nickname was probably quite a merciful act.

I don't see what the fuss is about. This was an enemy combatant that had been shot. In the theater of war, during an active engagement. A bullet is about the best he could have expected IMO.

Really, what the hades has it come to, when our armed forces are expected to first shoot to kill, and then if the enemy lies injured, then give him fucking CPR? I sure the hell wouldn't have. I'd have given this prick the double tap, no questions asked. And certainly none answered.

And that insurgent's grenade would have ended up strapped to that helmet cam, and let fly.

[bodie]

First I just got to say I am biased.  I spent 9 months in the army.  I couldn't hack it.  The authority I mean.  I was young and needed to display individuality which is not appreciated or required by the army.  I didn't like all that shouting either, and 6am 3 mile stretcher runs in the rain.  I still left with the utmost respect for the average squaddie.

Squaddie is a term of endearment.  Pawn is a lot closer to the truth

In civilian life we all know killing is wrong.  His situation is not the same.  He was under fire earlier in the day from the group the victim belonged to.  He was an enemy.  The sergeant in question is trained and paid to kill.    Where is the on/off button for killing mode on a soldier?

His actions were unquestionably wrong.   A Royal Marine has a code of conduct.  He should have given the victim medical assistance and called on his radio for transport to a medical facility.  He didn't do this.  He finished him off.  It doesn't really matter that he was very badly injured and unlikely to survive, which is the case, it matters that he wasn't treated with the respect Royal Marines are trained to administer to badly hurt persons, enemy or not.  It does matter.  It is out of order.
 
This sergeant had been on three tours of duty to Iraq and this was his second tour of duty in Afghanistan.  No doubt then he had walked past countless body parts of comrades.  Do you not think there is a cut off point?.  How many times would a person be able to do this without suffering some kind of mental trauma ?   Do you think the MOD know all this?  I do.  I think there have been many published and unpublished investigations into PTSD and mental health of soldiers.  I am certain they had the knowledge that the more they sent out Sgt Blackman the risk of this increased.   They keep reusing the Sgt Blackman's of this world.  Again.  Again.  Again.  The MOD have had to publicly condemn Sgt Blackman.  They normally quietly 'retire' them with a medical discharge.  Yes there have been many.  All dealt with internally.  A certain number of them are expected and the chance is increased the longer they serve.  The only difference here is  The Military Police were involved.  They are not trusted or liked by the rest of the military.  They do what it says on the tin - they police the military.

The marine with the helmet cam went back to barracks and downloaded his footage to his lap top to show the other soldiers.  This is common practice but not common knowledge.   It happens a lot and those in charge are well aware of it but encourage it as it 'improves morale'  What is the first rule of fight club - you don't talk about fight club.  Yes I was wrong when I assumed the cam wearer had 'grassed' his sarge.    The first rule of fight club wasn't broken.

The marine thought he had wiped the evidence when he traded his lap top for a better model.  He hadn't.  He also traded it with someone who was being investigated by the military police for a totally unrelated offence.  They seized his computer and quite by accident found the Sgt Blackman tapes.

That is the only reason this has been made public and this is why the top dogs at the MOD are feigning surprise and disgust.  They have to.  They do not really care about some insurgent getting killed.  They expect it.  They allow for it.  They usually deal with it.

Sgt Blackman is a pawn.  A pawn who was played too often and malfunctioned.  His political opinions are irrelevant and he is not up for negotiation about where he is posted.  He is paid to perform his duty whether it is on domestic soil or not.  He does as he is told by his superiors.  They have blood on their hands too.

There is a good argument for saying he is a criminal of war,  but equally then he is a casualty of war. 

His 15 years of exemplary service ought to count towards leniency.  The horrendous conditions he endured for long periods of time ought to count as mitigation.   He should never have been named and shamed like a common criminal.  This leaves his wife and kids as targets to Al Queida or some other militant islamic group.  Whatever you think of Sgt Blackman, i don't think anyone can say his family are guilty of anything.

[ZEGH8578]

I never bother anybody. Ever. Anywhere. But if I am cought with 1 stupid gram of hash, I am fined to the point of having to eat rice for 3 months.

Should my excellent behaviour otherwise in life count for something?
Maybe, but it doesn't. I allready know it doesn't, and when fined - I don't even bring it up. Nobody I know sympathizes with me either "but, he never hurt a fly otherwise! he is never drunk, never loud, never obnoxious!"

And yes, I realize that he is being punished in order to make a point. That is something that aggravates me for the opposite reason: The laws of war are broken as a routine, all the time = NATO troops behave like fucking vikings most of the time. We just don't know it.
WHEN we are made aware, which is every now and then, it becomes important to make a point.
The rest of the time, it is "allowed" it is "routine" etc. It really, really shouldn't be. And therefore I welcome the "made-example-of" ones just for spite almost - because it's better to punish 2-3 people, than to never punish anybody.

Who asked for that war? Osama bin Laden? The Taliban? The "insurgents"?

Lestat, what on EARTH is a "bona fide insurgent"?
'The page "Bona fide insurgent" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
For search help, please visit Help:Searching.'

An "insurgent" is a non-uniformed fighter. Guess who they are! They are fighting men! Who are they - if they aren't uniformed? They are CIVILIANS with guns. RESISTANCE, DADS, UNCLES, BROTHERS, GRANDDADS.
During WW2 Europe was FULL of "insurgents", FULL of them.
"Nonsense, European resistance was fine, and noble, and none of them had unibrows!"
They were ALL insurgents.
MY grandfather was an insurgent.
I'm sure many here have family who were insurgents and terrorists.

I'm sorry, I just have to be a devils advocate on this. Enough is enough, and to hell with words like "insurgent" or "collateral damage"
I obviously also agree that punishment should climb UP the chain of command, something it never does, which is of course unfair. But first priority should be to side with those shot in the face, not those lucky enough to enjoy bread and water for some years.

[bodie]

My initial post was made when they named him and virtually gave out his address.  Leaving his wife and kids as sitting ducks.  They are not guilty of anything.  Yet justice must be done.

There is a very real threat for their safety.  Only a few months ago sympathisers of the Taliban beheaded someone in front of TV cameras -  their reason - the Afghan war.

If we all lived by  "an eye for an eye"  there wouldn't be many of us left with any eyesight.  I am annoyed by the lack of consistency shown by all those in charge.  They allow anonymity for people like 'venables' who murdered James Bulger, just a baby.   

btw
You need to find somewhere safer to stash your hash

[ZEGH8578]

I get your sentiment, bodie. It is unfortunate for most involved.
I have also always sympathized with soldiers, since they are NOT the shot-callers. BUT!
I DO insist that a soldier MUST know:
1. I now fight for the sake of blood, NOT freedom. <---a soldier SHOULD understand what the background for his war is.
2. I may be killed, and there's no coming back from that.
3. There is a good likelyhood I will be maimed.
4. There is almost a guarantee I will suffer from ptsd, for the rest of my life.

These are facts researchable from home, at any time.
If a soldier thinks "I want to take an airplane, go to Afghanistan, and shoot people in the face" while at the same time neglect to even look up Afghanistan on wikipedia... Then they will have lost a lot, lot, of my understanding and sympathy. The truth is a LOT of soldiers fight wars for the excitement of it.
They cannot say that on tv, often they are _explicitly ordered not to_, and will say stuff like "I fight here cus i care about freedom and democracy and these poor people here etc" then why didn't you join "doctors without frontiers" or something?
No, cus you like guns.
I like guns too - I just want them to admit it: I'm here shooting afghans in the face, cus I love guns, explosions, I'm an insatiable adrenaline junkie, and let's face it - killing is raw manly fun.
Had they said this on tv - there woulda been mayhem.

There was a whole docu about this on Norwegian tv, and they showed Norwegian troops in afghanistan starting the day with viking-inspired battle-calls and stuff. Those people couldn't WAIT to start popping off some rounds, and HOPEFULLY kill an enemy. Enemy? Insurgent. Insurgent? Someone's dad. In someone's dad's own apartment.

*sigh*
But yeah...

I'm sick of this stupid war...

[TheoK]

This is the insane hypocrisy of the state: if you as a private citizen kill a school bully that made your life living hell or someone who raped a relative of yours or someone who ruined you economically etc etc, then you will get many years in jail. If you kill someone that the psychopathic pedophiles in the government and parliament decided is an "enemy of the state", who has done you personally no harm whatsoever, you will get rewarded - as long as you follow certain "rules" 

[bodie]

War is stupid.  Just lock the leaders in a room til sorted instead of wasting all those lives.

[Icequeen]

IMO this should have never seen the light of day.
But it leaked out, and shit runs downhill...so someone has to pay now.

You take any human being and drop them in a war zone, let them fight to survive...and they can not help but learn to hate the enemy they are fighting. Yet they are expected to rise above it all and remain impartial in the event of surrender or capture of someone that maybe moments earlier was shooting at them.

What would you do? How many could keep the rage in check?