By Max Musson:
A military court martial at Bulford in Wiltshire is currently considering the fate of three Royal Marines accused of executing a Taliban prisoner in September 2011.
The alleged execution came to light last year when one of the accused was arrested in connection with crime committed in the UK and his lap-top computer was examined by police. A video of the incident recorded on the soldier’s helmet-camera was found on the lap-top and the matter was referred to military police.
The video has not been made public, although a sound recording taken from the video has, and it appears to depict soldiers, believed to be from 3 Commando Brigade, which served in Afghanistan between April and October 2011. The soldiers are alleged to be discussing the fate of a Taliban insurgent following a firefight in which the Taliban fighter had fired upon their unit before being strafed with cannon fire from a British Army helicopter gunship.
By all accounts it would appear that the Taliban fighter had been found still alive, but fatally wounded and unable to fight on, armed with an AK47 assault rifle and some hand grenades.
The soldiers are believed to have dragged their prisoner to a less exposed location during which there is banter between the soldiers with more than one individual suggesting they should finish the wounded man off.
One of the soldiers can be heard speaking on the radio, initially reporting that the prisoner is alive, but eventually reporting that he is dead. The sound quality of the recording is poor and it is difficult to make out what happened although the report of this incident on the daily Mail website states that in the video, Marine A is seen walking forward, bending down, and shooting the man at close range in the centre of his chest with a 9mm pistol.
In the closing seconds of the published recording, one of the soldiers can be heard saying, “obviously this does not go anywhere fella’s … I’ve just broken the Geneva Convention”.
Of the original seven Royal marines arrested in connection with this incident, charges appear to have been dropped against four of them and just three, referred to as Marines A, B and C, are still being prosecuted for murder.
A Facebook page has been set up by supporters of the Royal Marines charged with murder and to date more than 63,000 people have shown their support by ‘liking’ the page, and it is believed that this issue threatens to massively undermine morale in the British Army.
As in most recent overseas deployments, British soldiers have been required in Afghanistan to perform a peace keeping and anti-insurgent role, in which they are pitted against guerilla fighters who routinely flout the Geneva convention themselves and who are ruthless in butchering British soldiers when they have them at their mercy.
Our soldiers are not facing a regular enemy army that wears a uniform and which abides by the ‘rules of war’, and one might therefore question why our soldier’s rules of engagement continually require them to adhere to standards of conduct that place them at a disadvantage.
While we might hope that our soldiers will have sufficient self control to behave in a thoroughly righteous manner even in a battle zone, it is simply iniquitous to rigidly impose peacetime standards of conduct upon soldiers who are fighting a dirty war against vicious and murderous insurgents.
Even if it is established that the soldiers concerned did execute this prisoner unnecessarily, the charge against them should not be ‘murder’. It is not as though they shot an unarmed man who was innocently going about his business, at the very worst, they dispatched a man who was already fatally wounded, who was in plain clothes, armed, and who had moments before been attempting to kill them. Furthermore, this was a man who would have thought nothing of sawing their heads off with a rusty bread knife, and of posting a video of the same on Youtube, had he been given the chance.
This case should never have been dealt with in the way that it has:
Firstly, our army should not have been sent to Afghanistan, as no British interest is being served by having them there;
Secondly, the rules of engagement should not place British soldiers at a disadvantage when dealing with ruthless and merciless guerilla insurgents, and such insurgents should be dealt with summarily if the soldiers our politicians have placed in an otherwise invidious position deem it appropriate.
If we expect our young men and women to risk their lives in the defence of our nation, then we have a duty to defend them should they succumb to the temptation to deliver summary justice. Furthermore, we should not seek to judge them unless we have the courage to ‘walk in their shoes’ and we don’t see many liberal politicians out on patrol, night after night, risking their lives and seeing their friends cut down around them in Helmand Province.
By Max Musson © 2013
# # # #
Fran Waldron
- Edit
Aside from the fact the insurgent was the enemy, it is morally a case of kill (or be killed). That’s what one is duty bound to do when in combat and confronted with an enemy combatant.
Furthermore, the insurgent remained alive and was armed at the time of wounding even though his injuries were destined to be mortal. He, therefore, still posed a threat to the lives of these soldiers and, therefore, had to be finished off.
In reality, the solder or soldiers performed an act of mercy killing.
Steve
- Edit
I suppose this nonsense of putting soldiers in an impossible position is the logical companion to a fleeing terror suspect suing us & probably getting compensation.
This has happened before with Northern Ireland causing long term consequences including basically losing the war against the IRA.
I thought the “troubles” were probably a dry run for the mainland.
We’re being set up to lose against moslem terrorists.
Rob
- Edit
I took this from wikipedia:
“After World War II, during the Hostages Trial (or, officially, United States v. Wilhelm List, et al., 11 Tr. of War Crim. Bef. Nuremberg Mil. Trib. 1248 (1948)), the seventh of the Nuremberg Trials, the tribunal found that, on the question of partisans, according to the then-current laws of war (the Hague Convention No. IV from 1907), the partisan fighters in southeast Europe could not be considered lawful belligerents under Article 1 of said convention.[8] In relation to Wilhelm List, the tribunal stated:
We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans…[8]
The Geneva Conventions established new protocols, namely, according to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, francs-tireurs are entitled to prisoner-of-war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”
Therefore our soldier should not have been prosecuted let alone convicted for killing a partisan, who not wearing a military uniform or insignia, and part of a force which itself does not obey the rules of war.
Max Musson
- Edit
I am reminded of a TV programme that I watched to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the D-Day Landings, in which a number of veterans who took part in that event were interviewed.
.
An individual who was a sergeant in the US Marines stated that American soldiers were instructed that for the first 48 hours they were not to take prisoners. I.e they were instructed to shoot any German soldiers who surrendered.
.
It is interesting that when it is expedient for the political elite to implement a policy of shooting captured enemy combatants, such a policy is completely overlooked by the moralists, but when an individual soldier makes a very similar decision off his own bat, he runs the risk of prosecution.
ConnalOakesHolt
- Edit
Surely the Geneva Convention(s) should only apply when the forces engaged in conflict both or all agree to their terms. When they do not, as in the case with the Taliban in Afghanistan, it is hardly a convention and calling it so is a misnomer.
That aside, it is hoped that in future any further incidents like this are not recorded, to be later used as evidence of breaches of the convention by the bloody clueless who make a living by sitting in judgement upon combat situations which they themselves will not enter, but are more than happy to send others into. I speak of the politicians here not the military tribunal, who obviously will have a clue and therefore , hopfully will show some compassion and leniency when dealung with this unfortunate occurence.
Steve
- Edit
Well if soldiers are to be held to account for what they do, then it’s only fair that politicians are as well, rather than the increasing reward for failure as happens now.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
The fact that the insurgent wasn’t wearing uniform rather clinches it. No case to answer! However, I ‘d take issue with Max about the murder of uniformed German soldiers by the Americans during the D Day landings.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Mike, I am simply repeating what I saw a US veteran state during his televised interview.
Steve
- Edit
A version of that was shown is “Saving Private Ryan”?
Stefan
- Edit
I have heard similar things but whether they happened I don’t know.
In one sense it makes sense as the first 48 hours were critical & the Allies wouldn’t have the resources for prisoners especially if they had to retreat.
All had to be directed at moving forward & gaining ground.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Just to elucidate my previous comment… Although the heat of war puts our people to the ultimate test, we still must at least try to acquit ourselves with honour. Opposition to the barbaric shooting by the Americans of German prisoners in cold blood can’t be dismissed as some sort of prissy moralising. This is especially true in view of the engineered hate campaign against Germany and the subsequent Nuremberg show trail.
MsBridgfit
- Edit
The legitimacy of the Nuremberg Show trials were a bit like a Cocker Spaniel giving first prize to another cocker Spaniel at a dog show ……..if that makes any sense. Hang on let me see if I have got that right.
ConnalOakesHolt
- Edit
I think it was the American Pitbull along with the Siberian Husky and the Shih Tzuh that had it in for the German Shepheard, the St.Bernard said he couldn’t give a Pug but the Great Dane disagreed.
Richard
- Edit
I heard BBC radio 5 Live in a news bulletin today, refer to the incident as the murder of an “Afghan civilian”.
baby serpent
- Edit
if our rulers thought they could have done any better they should have hauled their assets into the firing line and we could have laughed at their certain demise.
after all, the enemy don’t have access to the rules of clickey baa.
Robert Wakely
- Edit
I take another view entirely and question the need for a Geneva Convention at all. The Convention always implied war between civilized Western nations, where there might be some glimmer of hope that mercy could be shown in war. That situation no longer exists.
Recent and future wars have, and will, be fought against barbaric peoples who observe no rules. Under those circumstances a Geneva Convention only ties our hands, not theirs. Let’s get rid of it.
New kinds of war requires new rules, and the Geneva Convention should be dumped along with the plethora of other UN rules that are ruining our civilization.
Steve
- Edit
I think it will be kept & adhered to precisely for the effect that it has on our ability to fight war against such people.
We are being set up to lose.
Stefan
- Edit
Yes in many ways things are set up to fail & to blow back on us at great expense.
All the better to ruin us.
frederickdixon
- Edit
What was the advice that Kipling gave to soldiers wounded in Afghanistan and in danger of falling into cruel hands? Something about “roll on your rifle and pull the trigger”. Yet we always have to be so bloody precious!
Thomas a'Becket
- Edit
It’s Tommy this and Tommy that don’t shoot this and don’t shoot that!
When are the war criminals among our nation’s leaders going to stand trial for their crimes against the Afghan Nation?
This young royal marine commando has just become another political pawn in a very deadly game, orchestrated by Zionists and global big business.
LEMMYHEAD
- Edit
In the good old days when the police were made up of ex-services personnel it would have been ignored.
Steve
- Edit
That’s why such people have been quietly purged.
Guest
- Edit
I thought that because of Guantanamo Bay (GITMO), the Taliban and other assorted Muslim riff raff had been declared “unlawful combatants”. This means, as with GITMO, this soldier could not have contravened the Geneva convention.
If this (the Geneva convention) formed any part of the prosecution, then a mistrial may have occurred.
Stefan
- Edit
I went to the Sgt Blackman protest at Westminster & wish more civilians had attended to show support.
If there is protest for this hopefully more of us will attend.