Poppies and the "Heroes Industry" ?

[french frank]

But there are further, military, reasons why there should be no particular clemency, but rather that the sentence should be seen to be exemplary.... In battle it is important that there should be a degree of 'trust' operating between opponents.

Sometimes I feel we humans are flattering ourselves by describing certain kinds of behaviour as 'humane'. Thinking back to WWI and that famous 'Christmas Truce'"

'The truce is seen as a symbolic moment of peace and humanity amidst one of the most violent events of modern history.'

To come upon an injured enemy, help to make him comfortable and drink a mug a water is what we would call 'humane'. You'd be more likely to get such an act from a chimpanzee than from some human beings.

[amateur51]

Lighten up for God's sake. You're like a superannuated Morrissey (Morrissey's like a superannuated Morrissey these days!)

Sure thing, Red Rider

[Mr Pee]

In battle it is important that there should be a degree of 'trust' operating between opponents. If side x (which might be "us" or might be "them") finds themselves worsted in a skirmish, they may wish to surrender. They will only surrender if they have a reasonable expectation of being treated reasonably, ie treated along the lines of the current Geneva Conventions. If they have no trust that the other side will behave in this way they have no reason to behave reasonably : they may well emerge with white flags but subsequently fire upon their captors.

If the British Army is seen to be cavalier in these matters, the next time our opponents are worsted in a skirmish, they (our foes) will feel no reason to behave as we would hope them to behave.

Our opponents in this case have no compunction at slaughtering civilians, children, let alone soldiers, waving a white flag or not.

Marine A had seen the Taliban "decorate" trees with the body parts of his fallen comrades, as well as witnessing who knows what other atrocities. 23 members of his brigade were killed on the tour.

Nobody is suggesting that he get off scot-free. But this was not murder in the way that Lee Rigby was murdered. Or murder in the way that Peter Sutcliffe murdered. This was a combat situation, a serviceman who had witnessed horror beyond most of our imaginings, who in the heat of the moment made a serious error of judgement.

Some degree of leniency is appropriate.

[amateur51]

Our opponents in this case have no compunction at slaughtering civilians, children, let alone soldiers, waving a white flag or not.

Marine A had seen the Taliban "decorate" trees with the body parts of his fallen comrades, as well as witnessing who knows what other atrocities. 23 members of his brigade were killed on the tour.

Nobody is suggesting that he get off scot-free. But this was not murder in the way that Lee Rigby was murdered. Or murder in the way that Peter Sutcliffe murdered. This was a combat situation, a serviceman who had witnessed horror beyond most of our imaginings, who in the heat of the moment made a serious error of judgement.

Some degree of leniency is appropriate.

The Court Martial is being conducted presumably by people with extensive experience of these situations, who will have heard all the evidence. why not leave it to them to come to their verdict?

Marine A said to his colleagues that he had just broken The Geneva Convention in murdering the victim in this way. This suggests to me that he knew what he was doing. He also tried to mitigate when he had done by saying that what he had done was no worse that what the enemy have done to the British military. This sounds to me like an act of vengeance on a defenceless enemy soldier.

[eighthobstruction]

Sure thing, Red Rider

What only 2 types of people....phwhat !!....3.5 billion of one sort and 3.5 billion of another sort....Which sort does Paulo Di Canio belong to....

[Beef Oven!]

What only 2 types of people....phwhat !!....3.5 billion of one sort and 3.5 billion of another sort....Which sort does Paulo Di Canio belong to....

You leave Paulo out of this. He's a misunderstood genius. His time will come.

[Beef Oven!]

Sometimes I feel we humans are flattering ourselves by describing certain kinds of behaviour as 'humane'. Thinking back to WWI and that famous 'Christmas Truce'"

'The truce is seen as a symbolic moment of peace and humanity amidst one of the most violent events of modern history.'

To come upon an injured enemy, help to make him comfortable and drink a mug a water is what we would call 'humane'. You'd be more likely to get such an act from a chimpanzee than from some human beings.

More likely to get a mug of PG Tips off a Chimpanzee.

[eighthobstruction]

You leave Paulo out of this. He's a misunderstood genius. His time will come.

....Oh yes ....he definitely invented a new type of mysterious sign language....

[french frank]

who in the heat of the moment made a serious error of judgement

The evidence suggested that this was not 'in the heat of the moment' which implies something done without thinking about it, a reflex action. In this case the marines discussed in what part of the body it would be least suspicious to shoot the man (not in the head as that would be too obvious). Then they pretended to give first aid until the watching helicopter was out of sight. And plenty of time to think that this would be contrary to international law relating to war.

He will get more leniency than his victim anyway, which should satisfy those who are calling for leniency.

[Beef Oven!]

This was a combat situation, a serviceman who had witnessed horror beyond most of our imaginings, who in the heat of the moment made a serious error of judgement.

Some degree of leniency is appropriate.

Agreed. And the politicians that got our lads into this impossible situation must take the blame in general terms. Quite simply, none of it should be happening in the first place.

[ahinton]

Agreed. And the politicians that got our lads into this impossible situation must take the blame in general terms. Quite simply, none of it should be happening in the first place.

I do not agree about the leniency but agree wholeheartedly about the remainder of what you write here.

[Mr Pee]

Colonel Richard Kemp pretty much echoing what I said in post 213:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10442314/Marine-A-should-not-be-treated-like-a-common-criminal.html

[jean]

Also from the Telegraph:

SIR – As the only member of the general public to attend the trial of Marines A, B and C, I can offer a view not open to Boris Johnson and General Sir Nick Houghton.

While it may be legally correct for them to comment on the sentence to be awarded to Marine A, it is, nevertheless, objectionable that they should do so. The judge is perfectly capable of determining sentence without field marshals, politicians and public officials queuing up to add their “judicial” weight. Hearing the evidence is the only true way of assessing guilt, and having a view on the sentence.

I saw the video at least 10 times, and each time I learnt something more. Without seeing it and hearing the rest of the evidence in context, it is all too easy to add to the noise. Inside the court, the video added light, but outside the court it adds only heat. You must hear what the marines themselves say, as well as what the prosecution, defence and Judge Advocate say, before you can form a view.

Colonel John Wilson
Editor, British Army Review (2002-2011)

[ahinton]

Colonel Richard Kemp pretty much echoing what I said in post 213:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-criminal.html

OK, so let's unwrap this...

A Royal Marine convicted of murdering a wounded Taliban captive should not be treated as a common criminal, a former commander of British troops in Afghanistan has said.

The marine faces life in prison after being found guilty of the killing by a court martial, in what is believed to be the first case of its kind since at least the Second World War.

Col Richard Kemp said any sentencing should take into account the horrors the experienced sergeant, identified only as Marine A, had faced on the battlefield.
"Common" criminal? Excuse me, but how "common" is murder and what percentage of the British population commit it? Of course Marine A won't be treated as a "common criminal", any more than will any other convicted murderer; murder is, mercifully, an exceptional circumstance.

He said the crime, captured in harrowing film clips, was "despicable and inexcusable", but added “this is not a crime that is exactly comparable to cold blooded murder back home in Britain.”
The first part of this is surely beyond question; as to the second, however, does this mean that it was committed in Afghanistan, or my a serving member of the armed forces, or what? Were a police officer or member of the armed services to murder someone on British soil, would that not be "exactly comparable"?

The dangerous precedent that risks being set by the making of exceptions for any murderer other than in genuine extenuating circumstances is surely all too obvious.

Gary Streeter MP, whose South West Devon constituency covers many Royal Marines, said: "My own view is that it’s very hard for those of us who have never served to understand the pressures of the battlefield".

He said: "While no one can condone this, I am hopeful that the sentence will be given by those who do have battlefield experience and that they will take into account those battlefield pressures."

Oliver Colvile MP, whose Plymouth constituency also holds many marines, said: "I have quite a lot of sympathy for him because I don’t know what mental pressure he might have come under."
Fair comments insofar as they can go; of course civilians, other than qualified and experienced psychotherapists who have worked with the police and/or armed services, are unlikely to have much idea of such things, but those who employ police and military staff do and it's up to them to ensure that such people are duly monitored, given all the support that they need and withdrawn from active service if problems are discovered.

But he said politicians should not try to influence the military justice system.
And the above is just one good reason why.

Col Kemp said: "The battlefield is a place of horror which can twist and warp the behaviour of otherwise decent human beings".

He said: "The responsibilities of a sergeant trying to close with the enemy and also keep his men alive are immense and the pressures greater than most of us will ever have to endure in the whole of our lives.

The cumulative effect of several intense and dangerous combat tours cannot help take their toll".
All the more reason, then, that those on the front line be properly monitored snd supported in such strained circumstances; that said, there are other professions where such strains might be different but no less profound. As to this assessment of "the batlefield" the question as to why Marine A and his colleagues were on this one in the first place comes inevitably to mind.

"Nor should we forget that Marine A volunteered, time and again, to put his own life on the line to protect us back at home. Yes, he should be severely punished for his actions, but, no, he should not be treated in the same way as a common criminal".
It should not be forgotten, to be sure, but the act that it needs remembering does not of itself make it an extenuating circumstance; Marine A did not only do this, he chose to put himself in that situation - no one forced him to take on that work. If he should be "severely punished" for his actions, he should be punished just as any other murderer should. As I've already stated, no murderer is a "common criminal" in any case.

He said: "We have to recognise that the Armed Forces have got to do things in their own way".
Up to a point - and within the laws of the country that funds their positions - but when that means that their personnel can expect to be treated differently to civilians under those laws, another dangerous precedent risks being set.

Marine A told the court martial he was ashamed of his actions and had thought the unnamed Taliban fighter was already dead when he shot him.

The film clips shown to the court show Marine A shoot the badly wounded man in the chest at point blank range with his 9mm pistol.
If his victim was already dead, why did he shoot him? If he shot him at point blank range, how come he would not have realised that he was not in fact already dead?

He then tolls [recte "tells"] the rest of his patrol to keep quiet, because he has just broken the Geneva Convention.
So he not only knew what he was doing before, during and after committing that murder but also recognised one of the most significant legal consequences of having done so; that doesn't sound much like a man acting entirely out of control, does it?

[ahinton]

Also from the Telegraph:

SIR – As the only member of the general public to attend the trial of Marines A, B and C, I can offer a view not open to Boris Johnson and General Sir Nick Houghton.

While it may be legally correct for them to comment on the sentence to be awarded to Marine A, it is, nevertheless, objectionable that they should do so. The judge is perfectly capable of determining sentence without field marshals, politicians and public officials queuing up to add their “judicial” weight. Hearing the evidence is the only true way of assessing guilt, and having a view on the sentence.

I saw the video at least 10 times, and each time I learnt something more. Without seeing it and hearing the rest of the evidence in context, it is all too easy to add to the noise. Inside the court, the video added light, but outside the court it adds only heat. You must hear what the marines themselves say, as well as what the prosecution, defence and Judge Advocate say, before you can form a view.

Colonel John Wilson
Editor, British Army Review (2002-2011)

That pragmatic viewpoint is to be applauded, especially coming as it does from another senior military officer who preperly seeks to prioritise the rule of law of the land that sponsors the actions of its armed forces. Having expertise born of long professional experience in the upper echelons of the armed services, whilst obviously helpful and to be respected for what it is, does not blind some of us to that fact that such high-ranking forces professionals are also at risk of having personal agendas that influence their opinions on matters such as this; the very fact that a number of them take quite different views surely serves only to emphasis this.