The Right wingers who lurk in the shadier parts of our society - such as Parliament and the Daily Mail - are not known for supporting murderers. Usually. But then we have a soldier convicted of murder and suddenly the adherence to the rule of law goes out the window. And Life should most certainly not mean life....
We saw this with Corporal Lee Clegg. After a stolen car had scuttled through his checkpoint on a lane in Northern Ireland, Clegg fired at the retreating car and killed one of the kids inside. Knowing instantly that using lethal force against a car which posed no threat was wrong, Clegg pushed one of his squad to the floor and stamped on him, so that they could claim the car hit them.
Rightly, Clegg was convicted of murder. And the Tory dogs of war - fresh from Balaklava, I suspect - declared him a hero and campaigned hard on his behalf. In the event, Clegg served 2 years of a life sentence, returned to the Army and gained promotion. No lifetime firearms ban for him then, just every other lifer on licence...
And now I see an e-petition is floating around for another convicted soldier, Marine A. Some feel his conviction by a military court for murder is an outrage and he should be released. Possibly with a Mandelian parade (that's Nelson, not Peter...).
The undisputed facts of this case are not ambiguous. Two insurgents were taking pot shots at Marine A's base. An Apache helicopter gunship was summoned, and it shot the two desperados to pieces with its 20mm cannon. Marine A was sent out with his squad to check on the insurgents.
Marine A found the victim. He was grievously, probably mortally, wounded. He was disarmed. Marine A then dragged him out of direct sight of his base and shot him dead. He then turned to one of his squad who was wearing a helmet camera and declared that he'd just broken the Geneva Convention. In brief.... Marine A found a wounded enemy. He disarmed that enemy. He then killed that enemy.
A military court found him guilty of murder. On the face of the facts, not surprisingly. This was not in any heat of battle; it was not the result of some mental fuse being blown under the pressure of combat. It was cold blooded and deliberate killing of a wounded and disarmed prisoner. It would be difficult to imagine how any court could not condemn this act.
However, there are those on the Right (including the risible "Britain First" group) who are circulating an Epetition to free Marine A. They do not dispute any of the facts of the case. The sole basis of their cause seems to be that a British soldier is, by definition, a hero and must not be convicted of killing a terrorist scumbag.
Exchanges I've had in other forums only reinforce this attitude. Excuses made for Marine A include the fact that the enemy are brutal and not constrained by the rules of war. Both true.
However. We engage enemies, we send our forces, on the basis that they fundamentally threaten us and our values. To attempt to justify mistreatment of enemy combatants on the grounds that the enemy mistreats British prisoners is bizarre. The basis of our campaign is that we are better than them, that our values are better. To attempt to argue that we should act as badly as our enemies is to reduce us to the enemies level. Which would beg the question - what are we fighting for, exactly? The right to torture and murder enemy fighters?
I have every sympathy for our armed forces. But the uniform is not some cloak that endows superman status nor renders our troops invisible to the rules for the conduct of war. Soldiers who commit crimes should be - must be - held as accountable as any other citizen.
In the event, the Court of Appeal has reduced Marine A's sentence to a minimum term of 8 years. That is half the standard starting point for murder. For anyone else, murder with a firearm would result in a minimum term of over 30 years. In this framework, an 8 year minimum is a gift.
I hope that this does not lead to a repeat of the Lee Clegg episode - Tory MP's queuing up to denounce the conviction, the sole argument being childish flag-waving.
Those who proclaim an adherence to the rule of law do themselves no service by special pleading for murderous soldiers. Ignoring the monstrous hypocrisy of such pleading, it also creates its own dangers. For accepting, even arguing, that our troops should be entitled to act with the bestiality of our enemies extinguishes any moral reletavism and only hands propaganda to our enemies.
Murder is murder. Law is law. Being in public service does not, should not, result in a free pass to crime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Firstly may I just say that Your sentence was a joke, I sincerely hope that You sued for the breach of Your Human Rights for being held for so long. Alas whilst You were "Banged Up" I don't think You realise what has been going on in the real world. You have only got to look up ISIS on Utube and You will see for Yourself the attrocities that these people get up to. You will see a young boy cut in half and the crowds baying for him to die so that they can put him in a bag, You will see them holding up a young child by the hair just Her head and one arm and they are all laughing because She was not the right side of islam. These are the sort of people that Our soldiers are fighting. They Mutilated a Marine a few days before and hung His body parts in a tree to antagonise Our troops. Usually when a patrol comes across a body from 10 yards they put a couple of rounds in it to make sure they are not faking. This Marine found this insurgent (not a combatant) close to death, if You want to see what an Apache gunship can do with its chaingun checkout Utube. He had no chance of survival, He was not covered by the Geneva Convention, and Sgt Alex Blackman, after serving six tours of Afghanistan was suffering from a kind of PTSD. None of these were taken into account, and I guess that You didn't either before making Your Comments. I would suggest that You look further into this case, spend a bit of time looking at sites on the net, (There are plenty of them) and then see if You still feel as You do
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you taking the time to comment, although it is an error to assume I have limited knowledge of either terrorism issues or the case of Marine A.
DeleteYes, some of the people our troops are fighting commit horrible acts of barbarism, including on prisoners. And so what? Our forces are paid and trained to fight to uphold our values and our laws. Just because the enemy does horrible things does not give our troops free reign. If we act like our enemies then we are as bad as our enemies - in which case, just what is it we are fighting for...?
You raise two factual matters. All enemy combatants are covered in international law, no matter what you call them. It has been thus for over a century. Secondly, Marine A did not make any defence baseed on mental incapacity. His stress - not a full blown PTSD diagnosis - was raised in mitigation. That may explain why his sentence was 20 years shorter than the usual scale would have had it.
It's true people who have been involved in conflict often suffer from PTSD, and many end up inside. I know because I met them when I taught in prisons. But a trained killer can not carry on killing on civvy street and a soldier cannot kill someone in the manner in which Marine A did - or can he? I mean, where do you draw the line. There have to be rules in war as in everything else and as in other areas in life those rules will get broken. Maybe one could argue that Marine A finished him off to end his suffering but not having seen the footage on the 'net, this is only a hypothetical argument. It's a debate that will probably never reach its conclusion.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone really given consideration the video of Marine A has been tampered with. NO, I guess you haven't. I find it really strange NO autopsy or medical evidence was presented. MoD was not interested in justice but was so determined in getting a conviction no matter what the cost was. The conviction of Marine A is unsafe, unsound and miscarriage of justice. The other thing I need to point out, MoD knew Marine A was suffering extreme stress during deployment but did nothing. You know why they did nothing because he was in a remote location. For a start, this Marine never should have been deployed in the first place especially after the death of his much loved father. I believe Marine A was suffering PTSD prior to deployment to Afghanistan because you can develop what we call 'BELATED PTSD'. To make matters worse while deployed Marine A suffered extreme stress, night tremors, insomina and paranoia. Why was this ignored by MoD? You have to ask 'how many other soldiers are deployed with PTSD'. I think you will find a large number is deployed with PTSD because MoD pretends PTSD doesn't exist. So, I believe MoD has failed in it's 'duty of care' with Marine A. What we forget here PTSD is an extremely serious condition. You have 22 Veterans kill themselves per day in America, you have 9,000+ British Veterans Homeless due to PTSD, in Australia we have 5,000+ Veterans serving jail time due to PTSD. PTSD has been around well before W1 and you tell me MoD is still pretending it doesn't exist. It is really quiet shameful behaviour by MoD and your government.
ReplyDeleteWe send soldiers like Marine A to fight the government's dirty little war. We aren't talking about fighting with pink fluffy pillows put Taliban extremist who skin you alive, cut you into bits to be left hanging in trees. Often soldiers are left hanging in a tree for hours to die in agony pleading for mercy to be killed. Wow, we sit in our arm-chairs or ivory towers and prejudging soldiers like Marine A. I guess you can't imagine yourself picking the soldiers bits out of a tree giving what is left to the family. No, I guess you can't imagine that because you sit in your ivory towers prejudging your soldiers.
I'll respond despite your patronising last paragraph. To suggest that us civilians don't have the right to comment and judge the actions of our troops is risible. Although it is worth noting that Marine A was convicted by a military court - I assume THEY are fit enough to judge in your world view?
DeleteThere was no suggestion that the helmetcam footage was doctored. Certainly not by Marine A or his defence team. I've worked in the field of reserching miscarriages of justice and find your suggestion plain odd. Equally with autopsy and medical reports. Since when are combatants given post mortems?! Especially when the person who killed them tried to cover it up....
As for PTSD. There has been no diagnosis for Marine A. Even if it was, it is no defence to murder. Our jails are full of ex forces suffering the mental effects of combat - it wasn't a defence for them either. It wasn't presented as a defence at trial. That the way the government treats such suffering troops is awful doesn't for one moment detract from the facts of what Marine A did.
You stress the brutality of the enemy. And so what? If we descend to their level, it undermines everything we are meant to be fighting for.
And yes, from my armchair I judge. I help pay soldiers wages. They fight for values I enjoy. If they fail, as a society we are all free to criticise. The alternative is a military off the leash. No; the military are under civilian control and civilians judge them. And as I've noted, Marine A was convicted by a Court Martial.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I can imagine the other side are now saying they kill our wounded soldiers in cold blood, we have to be as ruthless as them.
ReplyDeleteEither we have higher standards or we don't. If we have higher standards we have to live up to them. As Ben says if we don't then we are no better than the opposition. These people (Taliban, Al-queda(sp), Isis etc) are ruthless terrorists and need to be stopped, but war is not just gun fight it is a battle for the hearts & minds. You don't win hearts & minds by killing wounded enemy fighters in cold blood.
John, get off your high horse about 2 wrongs don't make a right. Are you for real? They torture and kill your soldiers and you make a statement like that. WAKE UP mate. You live in la la land. No extremist or terrorist gives a sh#t about your christian views. They will skin or behead you alive without a 2nd thought. Marine A was sent to do a job & he did it. War is not a pretty sight, it is brutal and deadly. Marine A was not walking down London drinking a cup of coffee. Also, this Taliban extremist was not unarmed. He had a grenade still on him. And trust me, it is very easy to pull the pin. If I was the enemy, I would have pulled the pin without a 2nd thought.
DeleteLets address the fact first. The enemy was found by Marine A's patrol grievously wounded. He was then disarmed. Do note that point. The enemy was disarmed.
DeleteObviously war isn't pretty. No one is suggesting otherwise. That our enemy commits awful acts against even prisoners is also a given. But - so what? We are fighting to defeat the enemy precisely because they have repulsive values and commit repulsive acts. If we act in the same way, it makes us as bad as them. So what would we be fighting for...?
There are laws in war precisely to attempt to reduce or limit its horror. In breaking these laws we reduce ourselves to the very barbarism we object to.
I note you don't dispute the facts of what Marine A did, by the way.
prisonerben, the enemy was NOT disarmed. I dispute the facts. Marine A did what he was trained to do. Marine A killed the enemy. It is okay for you to sit in your ivory and pre-judge this soldier. No autopsy or medical evidence was presented in Marine A's trial. You talk about barbarism. Really. Marine was NOT charged with breaking the Geneva Convention. If the government did NOT want your British soldiers to kill the enemy then why sent them to a brutal war zone.
DeleteThey found the enemy, grievously wounded. The patrol then disarmed him. This is accepted fact by all involved. Aft5er disarming him, he was taken out of sight of the base and killed. Again, undisputed.
DeleteYou're quite right - he was charged and convicted of murder. It could arguably have been a charge of war crimes, but hey ho, he had a lucky day.
The Government is very happy for our troops to kill the enemy. As long as they do it according to the values and laws we are fighting to uphold.
And Marine A - nor any other member of the Forces - was trained to disarm wounded enemy, drag them out of sight, and kill them. Their training is precisely to NOT do such things.
I suggest you read quite a bit more on the case. You have obviously never served in a war zone situation or had a family member go to serve for Queen and Country. Our servicemen and women past and present deserve support from the Government and the country who send them whatever they do. A Royal Marine of 15 years service and 5 tours had a "moment of madness" I am sure you can relate to that. He was sent to a war zone by a Government who then betrayed him and his colleagues. He has lost his career, pension and all those benefits. The fact that he was found to be suffering from PTSD and the fact that no post mortem was ever done on this terrorist/insurgent/taliban smacks of wanting to "get" someone at some point. #Scapegoat and political decision. Your opinion is your opinion. Perhaps on one of your days when you have nothing to do go and visit the National Memorial Arboretum at Alrewas in Staffordshire and be enlightened as to what men and women in all walks of live have done to provide you with your freedom.
ReplyDeleteThey deserve support, they should not expect no consequences in the face of not only clear murder but a serious breach of international law. This was not only murder - it was a war crime. The fact that he was a soldier under stress is reflected in the relatively lenient sentence (10 year minimum term). Had he committed that act outside a war zone, he would be looking at 30 years (that is the starting point for murder with a firearm when the suspect is vulnerable as was the case here).
DeleteAnd anyone who is going to shout at me with all sorts of stuff about how the enemy behave can just save their keyboard strength. Because I don't care how people like the Taliban or Isis behave. I don't want to be associated with that kind of behaviour. I expect our citizens and our troops to be better. If they can't be, and commit clear crimes during the course of their duties, I expect them to be put on trial like anyone else.
Murder is murder and the law is the law.
The stupid thing is,the people defending this marine are often exactly the kind of people who would be clamouring for the death penalty in other murder cases. Sheer, bloody hypocrisy.
As for PTSD, I believe this soldier wasn't diagnosed with it but in any case, mental illness is a mitigating factor in crime, not a full defence (the days of a full defence for complete insanity are long gone).
Emer O'Farrell - twaddle.
Delete@Anon 11.15am I'm too busy to wrap myself in the flag.
DeleteI come from a military family. Don't presume to know my knowledge or experience, let alone that of my family or friends.
Your call that we support our forces "no matter what they do" is absurd, immoral and illegal. We can never support troops committing murder or war crimes. Such ideas come from bling flag-waving nationalism - and it is dangerous nonsense.
That Marine A had been put through the mental wringer through hios experiences may be a given. That is a far cry from being PTSD, and it is nowhere near enough to be a defence to murder. Not in a civil court, and not in a military one. Marine A did not present any defence of diminished capacity, though it was raised in mitigation. Hence a tariff of 10 years instead of the usual 30 years.
I note you don't dispute the facts of what Marine A did...?
@Anon2.13pm If you have something more coherent to actually address Emer's points with, we would love to read it.
AnonymousJune 21, 2014 at 11:15 AM
I suggest you read quite a bit more on the case. You have obviously never served in a war zone situation or had a family member go to serve for Queen and Country. Our servicemen and women past and present deserve support from the Government and the country who send them whatever they do. A Royal Marine of 15 years service and 5 tours had a "moment of madness" I am sure you can relate to that. He was sent to a war zone by a Government who then betrayed him and his colleagues. He has lost his career, pension and all those benefits. The fact that he was found to be suffering from PTSD and the fact that no post mortem was ever done on this terrorist/insurgent/taliban smacks of wanting to "get" someone at some point. #Scapegoat and political decision. Your opinion is your opinion. Perhaps on one of your days when you have nothing to do go and visit the National Memorial Arboretum at Alrewas in Staffordshire and be enlightened as to what men and women in all walks of live have done to provide you with your freedom
Emer O'Farrell, you are a self-righteous key-board warrior. Nothing more or less. You sit behind your key board in your ivory tower pre-judging another soldier. I gather you never have served because of your arrogance, ignorance and inept ability to see what is going on in Iraq. ISIS is butchering and murdering 3000+ soldiers, women and children. Christians are getting burnt and many are gutted alive because of their beliefs. Marine A was NOT walking down London drinking a cup of coffee or hitting everyone with a pink fluffy pillow. Marine A was in the most dangerous part of Afghanistan were he witnessed the brutal murders of 23 soldiers. How would you like to pick up those pieces and send them home to mum and dad. No, you wouldn't have a clue mate. Instead, you are sitting in your ivory tower pre-judging on something you no nothing about. Mate, with that attitude you ain't welcome in Aussie. We respect our soldiers.
DeleteWell, that shows your true colours nicely. I'll leave your mindless abusive rant there for all to see and judge.
DeleteHery prisonerben, as if I am going to listen to a convicted murderer.
DeleteBecause the fact I committed a crime 34 years ago means I cant have a coherent thought? Can't cobble together a view? How silly of you.
DeleteAnd - not wishing to embarrass you - if you're not listening to me then why are you here, why did you read the blogpost and why do you keep returning? And not with any attempt at actually addressing any points being made, but solely to denigrate and abuse?
You won't respond, obviously. Cos you're not listening to me, remember?
Really? Well the law says different. The law says I am right and you are wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd a court of his military peers agrees.
DeleteReally, evidence was tampered with by MoD to get a conviction. NO autopsy or medical evidence was presented. Marine A was targeted by Mod. They wanted a conviction and it didn't matter how they were going to get it. MoD and Government are only interested in appeasing Muslim extremist. It had absolutely nothing to do with justice. It was politically motivated.
DeleteAnd that is the daftest conspiracy crap I've read today. Our Government sends troops to fight in Afghanistan....to appease Muslims?
DeleteGoodbye....
prisonerben, didn't you murder a 11 year old. I suggest you are using Marine A to promote your blog so you can write a book on your murderous behaviour.
DeleteYou are getting sillier and sillier. Just a quick Google shows my profile is what it is and its been that way long before Marine A. Daft.
DeleteLynda, ignoring the rudeness of your attack, you are aware that Marine A doesn't deny what he did aren't you? You are aware that there is video evidence of him joking about the fact that he committed a war crime? And that video evidence shows him shooting an unarmed, injured prisoner of war in the chest at point blank range? His original defence was not combat stress or PTSD but merely that he thought the prisoner was 'already dead'.
ReplyDeleteHey Emer O'Farrell, you are worried about rudiness of my attack, oh please. I have spent 30 years working with soldiers with PTSD and this is exactly how many behave. You have no idea what PTSD does to soldiers. The problems is PTSD was ignored by MoD and the judge. Nobody wants to discuss the condition because it is too frightening. The gover't doesn't want to pay compensation to it's soldiers. I mean you have 9000+ homeless Britain suffering PTSD! Let's keep pretending it doesn't exist.
DeleteYou keep insisting on what people do and don't know; always a silly mistake.
DeleteThis blogpost and discussion isn't about PTSD.
Marine A has not got a PTSD diagnosis and it wasn't offered as a defence by him. Only by you. Oddly, the Court Martial and Court of Appeal don't agree with you - and they fully appreciated the evidence.
You want it both ways. 1 - that Marine A didn't do anything wrong; and then 2 - if he did, it was PTSD's fault. Pick one and stick to it.
Oh no, I forgot. You're not listening to me. Ho hum....
Hey Ben YOU are the MURDERER it is YOU that is SCUM! You took the life of an innocent little boy, a boy with his whole life to live or have you forgot that! I might not be educated but I know right from wrong, I know there is a massive difference between what you done and the Sergeants action. You know NOTHING of war because when you should have been serving you were locked up for a heinous crime. Karma is a bitch murderer
ReplyDeleteUm, we all know I committed murder. No need to shout.
ReplyDeleteThat you don't dispute a single fact of what Marine A was convicted of by a military court (remember?) and just spew out irrelevant abuse makes my point perfectly.
Are you sayinjg that only people who have been in war can comment? Because from what I can see this case isn't particularly complicated. No heat of battle. No blood-pumping. Just a wounded enemy taken around the corner and shot.
If you are going to support such crimes by our troops then you are arguing we should lower ourselves to the level of our enemies and hands them a huge propaganda victory. Well done. You are now a recruiter for terrorists.
If murder is murder and the law is the law, then surely all people convicted of such a crime should receive the same sentence. Whether it be life inprisonment, a fixed tern sentence or the Death Penalty. Why should different murders get different length tarrifs and serve different length sentences if murder is murder?
ReplyDeleteBecause although 'murder is murder', all are still different. All crimes (not just murder) are sentenced according to both guidelines and aggravating/mitigating factors.
DeleteIn fact, of course, in England/Wales there is only one sentence for murder and all who are guilty of the crime get the same sentence - Life. The differentiating factor is how much of that life sentence is served behind bars. Which is where the aggravating/mitigating factors come in. Aggravating factors could be murder with a firearm; murder with a high level of premeditation, the murder of a particularly vulnerable individual; murder with arson; murder with a sexual motive; etc. Mitigating factors could be youth; no intent to kill (intent to cause GBH only); provocation; mental illness; etc.
It would be a total affront to justice if a one-off domestic incident caused by a temporary but extreme loss of self control got the same prison time as - say - a brutal sexual killing of a child.
Because whilst the definition of murder remains constant, the actual details of each crime differ. There are exacerbating or mitigating factors that are taken into account during tariff setting.
ReplyDeleteJust as well, or Marine A would now have a minimum 30 years instead of 8 years.
Forgive me, now I'm a bit confused. Is your original post criticizing the sentence Marine A received or are you just having another pop at Tory MPs and Daily Mail Readers for campaigning for his early release?
DeletePop at those hypocrites who are the first to bang on about law and order....until it doesn't suit them.
DeleteI have no particular view on sentence, except to note it is exceptionally light.
But you seem to want to have your cake and eat it. On the one hand you say murder is murder, in which case surely every case should be treated the same and on the other hand you say (correct me, if I'm wrong I beleive you agree with the principle) that each case is different and should be treated accordingly. As for Marine A's sentence, I think politicians and journalists shoud butt out, whatever we think of his sentence justice should be done and seen to be done.
DeleteI don't think that is what is being said at all. No-one is claiming that all murders are the same. What is being said is that when a crime happens which fulfills the criteria for murder; you don't get a 'get out of jail free' card because you are a soldier. Of course few crimes are the same. This goes for robbery, assault, theft, etc. This is why there is discretion in sentencing
ReplyDeleteBut the difference between murder and other crimes is that the outcome is always the same. You can judge crimes such as robbery, assault, theft etc on the grounds of how much money was stolen, how much violence was used, whether a weapon was involved, the impact on the victim(s) etc. You cannot do this with a murder, one murder victim is just as dead as any other.
Delete@bigmacc You are obviously right. The outcome of any murder is identical to the victim. My views on sentencing and Life sentences is scattered about the blog. I quite understand your view but the current framework is what it is.
ReplyDeleteI reckon there are different types of murder:
ReplyDeleteSelf Defence - a battered partner snaps and kills to stop the mental & physical abuse
Breaking & Entering - a homeowner kills an intruder cos they fear for their life
The enemy broke into the army compound and posed a threat to the lives of the other soldiers. It was correct to charge the soldier for murder with a reduced sentence after appeal
ReplyDelete