Marines ‘murdered man live on camera’: Court martial sees graphic footage of ‘execution’ of injured Taliban fighter
The victim was left twitching and gasping for breath as the British servicemen, apprehensive that they might have been spotted, pretended to give him first aid
I know what some will say – he was a Taliban terrorist, they did what was right, let all of them get shot, etc. There, I’ve saved you the bother. Move along, there’s nothing to see.
BUT
Is this the sort of thing the British military is renowned for? Does this not reflect badly on our troops? Will this not cause problems because the Taliban are not complete fools, they do remember?
Had this been done by German troops we would all remember the terrible things the SS did, what happened in the concentration camps, the way the world believed that it was in the national psyche to treat prisoners badly. And it would be the same with Japanese troops as well.
Imagine you were talking to your grandfather
You: what did you do in the war, grandfather?
Grand: I executed an injured man, lad.
You: why?
How would you answer that question?
How would you feel if you were told that by your grandfather or, indeed, any relative?
The British military has had a reputation within Britain for being fair when the fighting is over (elsewhere though, some might remember things differently, like the Kenyan Mau Mau for example, or the Boer part of South Africa who know where concentration camps were first used) so this news reflects badly on our national standing.
Americans, in general, do not believe that the things regarded by others as a breech of military protocol done by their military in the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan were a bad thing (executions of injured on video, urinating on bodies on video, abusing prisoners to break the boredom for a camera, torture, long term detentions under duress), but these things (and more) are against the human rights agreed by the United Nations, and you cannot pick and choose who you allow to apply those rights to. Ok, so you know that the Taliban do not follow the human rights convention and would execute you in a heartbeat if the tables had been turned – but is that any reason to stoop to their level?
Ok, you discuss.
By: John Green - 7th December 2013 at 11:31
Re 478
Yes, you are right. Albeit led by the nose.
By: Creaking Door - 7th December 2013 at 11:30
This is for all the many specialists in ‘moral equivalence’. There was and for all I know still is, a military convention of the battlefield, rigorously enforced, that all armed combatants when apprehended and NOT IN UNIFORM were shot on sight.
So where are the courts-martial of all the British Troops that have disobeyed this ‘rigorously enforced’ convention?
(Of course, I cannot absolutely guarantee that these courts-martial haven’t taken place, but I think we’d probably have heard if they had!)
By: John Green - 7th December 2013 at 11:29
Re 477
Err, any gun totin’ individual who is dressed like any other civilian and is in the battle area. Or, to put it another way, anyone in the battle area dressed like any other of the multitude who is not wearing clothes that feature a camouflage pattern or colour and a shoulder flash bearing the legend: Royal Regiment of Taliban.
How’s that ?
By: Creaking Door - 7th December 2013 at 11:24
Instead of ‘know’ try ‘highly probable’ . That tightens it up a bit and doesn’t infer that you are privy to special information denied to the rest of us.
Well, if you’re having to resort to the ‘tightness’ of my language…..I must be getting somewhere! 😉
By: trumper - 7th December 2013 at 10:57
This is for all the many specialists in ‘moral equivalence’. There was and for all I know still is, a military convention of the battlefield, rigorously enforced, that all armed combatants when apprehended and NOT IN UNIFORM were shot on sight.
The reason for this draconian measure is obvious.
Then you have to ask what uniform,whose uniform ?.In some of these other countries their uniform MAY be civvies .
It wasn’t so many years ago there was a campaign to ban hoodies because they were deemed to be a “uniform” of such for muggers etc.I see they did do something similar
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4534903.stm along with that i would also ban Burkhas and veils they are uniforms of sorts.
By: John Green - 7th December 2013 at 10:14
This is for all the many specialists in ‘moral equivalence’. There was and for all I know still is, a military convention of the battlefield, rigorously enforced, that all armed combatants when apprehended and NOT IN UNIFORM were shot on sight.
The reason for this draconian measure is obvious.
By: John Green - 7th December 2013 at 10:07
Re 471
Instead of ‘know’ try ‘highly probable’ . That tightens it up a bit and doesn’t infer that you are privy to special information denied to the rest of us.
By: Lincoln 7 - 7th December 2013 at 09:42
Agree with you on that Gary.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: trumper - 7th December 2013 at 07:58
As stated ,if you down the road of prosecuting someone for killing someone in a foreign land then it has to work for both parties.
You either free the Marine and free the killers of Lee Rigby or you prosecute both parties.
By: bazv - 7th December 2013 at 07:46
I am not sure who is being accused of judgments from the living room. Me? I have judged no one.
Sorry not aimed at anybody personally…my bad english !…should have said ‘one cannot’
By: Creaking Door - 6th December 2013 at 23:41
How do you KNOW that ‘thousands of British troops haven’t resorted to killing defenceless Taliban?’ Perhaps just one? Or two? Or, half a dozen?
One? Certainly. Two? Probably. Half-a-dozen? Maybe. Thousands? No.
By: Creaking Door - 6th December 2013 at 23:32
While that is a great tagline for ‘Call-of-Duty: Black Ops’, I know that you don’t really believe that…
…if you do then Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale have committed no crime.
If there are ‘no rules’ in war then they really are fighting a ‘war’; a war they declare (or not), a war where they decide who the enemy is, a war they decide when it starts (and when it ends), a war where anybody, anywhere, anytime is a legitimate military target…
…and killing anybody, anywhere, anytime cannot be criticised, let alone, punished.
By: Lincoln 7 - 6th December 2013 at 21:35
In War, there is only ONE rule, that is…………………………There are NO rules.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: John Green - 6th December 2013 at 21:27
Re 462
CD.
You must own a more efficient broom than the rest of us for making such sweeping statements. How do you KNOW that ‘thousands of British troops haven’t resorted to killing defenceless Taliban ?’ Perhaps just one? Or two? Or, half a dozen?
In a country and in circumstances where the enemy dress, behave and are indistinguishable from the civilian population and where the males routinely carry arms what is the soldier, regardless of national origin, supposed to do ? Halt, who goes there? Friend or foe? That is now the stuff of comic books.
I do not know the answer. All that the soldier can do is to stay alert and suspicious at all times and never relax his guard. However to take up your point, I cannot imagine that British soldiers were able to give the benefit of the doubt ALL the time.
By: charliehunt - 6th December 2013 at 20:25
In a military trial who hears appeals? A military court of appeal?
By: Lincoln 7 - 6th December 2013 at 20:22
His Brief has stated that there will be an appeal against, (Also with what I agree with) his sentence, which I.M.H.O is excessive.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: charliehunt - 6th December 2013 at 20:14
Both but the trial was unavoidable but the murder was not.
By: Creaking Door - 6th December 2013 at 19:51
So the murder wasn’t ‘unpleasant or sordid’…..just the court case?
By: charliehunt - 6th December 2013 at 19:41
I am not sure who is being accused of judgments from the living room. Me? I have judged no one. The Court Martial has come to a judgement, which given the evidence, is no surprise. As to the parole condition I cannot make any comparison – do life sentences ever get less than 10 years before parole? I do not know. It has been an unpleasant and sordid business which could have been avoided if some idiot hadn’t failed to destroy the recording.
By: Creaking Door - 6th December 2013 at 19:23
…this country made him a killer and desensitised him to the act of killing by placing him in that sort of combat situation many times over…you cannot judge the man from the safety of your living room !
Does not this do something of a disservice to the thousands of British Troops that have fought in Afghanistan over twelve years and who haven’t resorted to killing defenceless Taliban?
(And I mean ‘defenceless’ in the case of this particular Taliban; he was unable to defend himself.)
Sign In
October 27, 2013 at 1:02 am