Royal Marine Found Guilty of Murder

Corvo

Royal Marine Guilty Of Murdering Afghan Fighter

A Royal Marine has been found guilty of murdering an Afghan fighter, who had been seriously wounded by an Apache attack helicopter.
A court martial in Bulford, Wiltshire, found that the serviceman - known only as Marine A - shot the insurgent, who was armed with an AK47, in the chest with a 9mm pistol in Helmand Province more than two years ago.
Two other Marines - referred to as Marines B and C - were acquitted.
All will remain anonymous until the court martial or a judge decides otherwise.
The three men had denied murdering the unknown captured Afghan national on or about September 15, 2011, contrary to Section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
But a seven-strong board, consisting of officers and non-commissioned officers, convicted Marine A following a two-week trial.
Marine A shot the Afghan national in the chest at close range before quoting a phrase from Shakespeare as the man convulsed and died in front of him.
"There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil, you ****. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us," Marine A told the insurgent.
He then turned to comrades and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."
The insurgent's body was left where he died and was later taken by locals, who erected a memorial in its place. No post-mortem was conducted.
The killing came to light as it was filmed by a camera mounted on the helmet of Marine B.
Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett ruled that the graphic video footage cannot be released, but agreed that the audio could be made public.
The video, which was played to the court, shows Marine A walking forward, bending down, and shooting the man at close range in the centre of his chest.

http://news.sky.com/story/1165881/royal-marine-guilty-of-murdering-afghan-fighter


Glad they have charged him with murder, and hopefully he will be made an example of to deter soldiers taking things into their own hands and creating their own laws, though I have no doubt that throughout the armed forces, things like this may happen regularly.

And quoting Shakespeare? Who is this guy?

Mod: On phone here so would you mind putting the text into quote boxes. Cheers

The Diabolical Monocle

"There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil, yooouu slaaaaaag"

Driveby Dogboy

Guy:Incognito

They obviously knew the camera was on one of their helmets so what was the guy thinking . Firstly shooting him and then admitting breaking the geneva convention?

Mr. Incognito

Brainwash kids to kill and them prosecute them for it.

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Geneva convention my hole.

All war is criminal imo.

Fratton Fred

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Brainwash kids to kill and them prosecute them for it.

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Geneva convention my hole.

All war is criminal imo.

And all possessions are theft.

rubadub

I thought someone had fallen down the stairs in the hotel in dun laoghaire or something!

Mr.Micro

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Brainwash kids to kill and them prosecute them for it.





All war is criminal imo.

Agree, but illegal killing is another matter.

Riddle101

Really smart guys filming the whole thing :rolleyes: But I suppose they did shoot themselves in the foot so one guys mistake is another ones gain.

suicide_circus

I blame computer games

the likes of mario kart and kirby's dreamland, sick shyte

wazky

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And all possessions are theft.

Putting the poor Afghan out of his misery sure?, should be awarded a medal really.

allthedoyles

Its a war against terror and the Royal Marines are trained to kill

Conmaicne Mara

Charged with murder for shooting a fella armed with an Ak47 who'd possibly supports the throwing of acid into the faces of school girls etc.

Bit much.

Karl Stein

I'm surprised they didn't call the 'Afghan Fighter' a 'terrorist'.

The soldier will do a few months and then probably get to pick up where he left off - I mean, it was only a brown foreigner he killed at the end of the day.

mewe

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Charged with murder for shooting a fella armed with an Ak47 who'd possibly supports the throwing of acid into the faces of school girls etc.

Bit much.

Cop on man. That post is ridiculous.

Piliger

Not very bright soldiers, sadly. Firstly they thought the Geneva Convention applies, which it doesn't. Secondly the presence of a camera.

I dearly hope this guy gets the minimum punishment possible. He is a soldier in a battle field, sent to war to kill or be killed. He should not have shot the terrorist murderer, but at the same time we cannot send these men into battle and expect their mentality not to be affected and for them to behave like it's a walk on a beach. If it were me, I hope I would have been smarter and I would certainly have considered the same action.

Billy86

Driveby Dogboy wrote: »

I'll take the original from Jeff Buckley's auld fella (who also died in his 20s)...

Conmaicne Mara

mewe wrote: »

Cop on man. That post is ridiculous.

Cop on yourself and live in the real world.

dirkmeister

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I'm surprised they didn't call the 'Afghan Fighter' a 'terrorist'.

The soldier will do a few months and then probably get to pick up where he left off - I mean, it was only a brown foreigner he killed at the end of the day.

Sky News said last night that the video wasn't released in case it could be used as "terrorist propaganda".

SharpshooterTom

The daily mail and British right are going nuts over this, sort of in denial and in a mantra "of our british boys can do no wrong" sort of thing.

Carlos Roca

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I'm surprised they didn't call the 'Afghan Fighter' a 'terrorist'.

The soldier will do a few months and then probably get to pick up where he left off - I mean, it was only a brown foreigner he killed at the end of the day.

You cynic.

wazky

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Cop on yourself and live in the real world.

Real world?, as in shooting a dying man at point blank range and quoting Shakespeare as you do it?, that sorta realism is it?

mewe

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Cop on yourself and live in the real world.

Thanks for the advice. Your previous post shows your reasoning is worth heeding.

Billy86

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

The daily mail and British right are going nuts over this, sort of in denial and in a mantra "of our british boys can do no wrong" sort of thing.

Also known as Joe Hart Syndrome. :pac:

Karl Stein

dirkmeister wrote: »

Sky News said last night that the video wasn't released in case it could be used as "terrorist propaganda".

Lol yeah, as if the sight of foreign troops in the desert isn't enough for these guys.

Corvo

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Charged with murder for shooting a fella armed with an Ak47 who'd possibly supports the throwing of acid into the faces of school girls etc.

Bit much.

There are Rules of Engagement, you can't just apply an opinion to the situation and say he was right. Though would we have done something similar in the same situation?

bilston

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

The daily mail and British right are going nuts over this, sort of in denial and in a mantra "of our british boys can do no wrong" sort of thing.

They are? I must have missed that.

cletus van damme

mewe wrote: »

Cop on man. That post is ridiculous.

not as ridiculous as assuming people should be well behaved on a battlefield.
like ffs they're trying to kill each other and then 2 mins later it's like "oh treat him with respect" It strikes me as a bit odd the powers that be get outraged when somebody goes off the reservation cos it's pretty much human nature.

that is the savagery of war.

Not to mention the Taliban are noted for treating their captive by the Geneva convention.

but hey ho - let throw rocks from our ivory tower.

I'm not saying it was right , but it's understandable and should be treated like that.

mewe

cletus van damme wrote: »

not as ridiculous as assuming people should be well behaved on a battlefield.
like ffs they're tryingt to kill each other and then 2 mins later it's like "oh treat him with respect" It strikes me as a bit odd the powers that be get outraged when somebody goes off the reservation cos it's pretty much human nature.

that is the savagery of war.

Not to mention the Taliban are noted for treating their captive by the Geneva convention.

but hey ho - let throw rocks from our ivory tower.

I'm not saying it was right , but it's understandable and should be treated like that.

Hold on a minute. Who assumed people should be well behaved on the battlefield? Not me.

I was simply calling that post ridiculous, which it was.

Mr.Micro

dirkmeister wrote: »

Sky News said last night that the video wasn't released in case it could be used as "terrorist propaganda".

Sky news has principles.......:D

I wish it would apply the same to much of the other biased cr*p it broadcasts as news?

LizT

Do you have a link to the article OP?

The Diabolical Monocle

Its kind of strange, cause I was looking at an Apache/Taliban video the other day and they had no bother at all with going back over their now heavily wounded enemies to finish them off separately and one by one.
(Taking their time about it too)

And I watched another where a high value target guy is running for it un-armed, dives into a ditch, gets shot in the back, sits there wounded, gets shot again, crumbles in a heap, and then a final shot to finish him.

There was no bravado or secretiveness about it, just methodically going about it, while openly communicating with others in control or on the ground.

How it differs I don't know.



Then there was one where they hit a bunch of them on a road with a missile, huge explosion, one guy left over making a frantic dash. Obviously unarmed, but they hang around and make sure to get him too.

Augmerson

Isn't killing people what the Army trains you for?

Corvo

LizT wrote: »

Do you have a link to the article OP?

Hi LizT,

Yes sorry, forgot to post.

http://news.sky.com/story/1165881/royal-marine-guilty-of-murdering-afghan-fighter

scudzilla

So what if he killed him, a few seconds earlier this guy was trying to kill them!!

He shouldn't have been charged, it was on a battlefield, kill or be killed and all that.

Billy86

scudzilla wrote: »

So what if he killed him, a few seconds earlier this guy was trying to kill them!!

He shouldn't have been charged, it was on a battlefield, kill or be killed and all that.

That's... not how the rules work.

Ciano35

One less terrorist to worry about tbh.

wazky

Ciano35 wrote: »

One less terrorist to worry about tbh.

He will probably get released in a couple years though...

scudzilla

Billy86 wrote: »

That's... not how the rules work.

i know EXACTLY how the ROE (Rules of Engagement) work and the Taliban don't recognize them in any way at all so fcuk 'em, if a marine nailed one of them, fair play to him

Billy86

scudzilla wrote: »

i know EXACTLY how the ROE (Rules of Engagement) work and the Taliban don't recognize them in any way at all so fcuk 'em, if a marine nailed one of them, fair play to him

Nope. Again, that's not how it works.

Conmaicne Mara

wazky wrote: »

Real world?, as in shooting a dying man at point blank range and quoting Shakespeare as you do it?, that sorta realism is it?

I never said he was bright. Yes, real world, you know, where this happens.

mewe wrote: »

Thanks for the advice. Your previous post shows your reasoning is worth heeding.

You're welcome.

Corvo wrote: »

There are Rules of Engagement, you can't just apply an opinion to the situation and say he was right. Though would we have done something similar in the same situation?

I said it was too much to charge him with murder. However, I have no problem with what he did.

scudzilla

Billy86 wrote: »

Nope. Again, that's not how it works.

The Rules of Engagement are fcuked.

Now this is a true story, a 6 man patrol in Hellmand Province came under attack by a very large force of Taliban (20+), no air support available etc, they held them off for maybe 30mins, then an Apache turns up and the taliban scarper

10 seconds after the Apache is spotted, one of the Taliban who had been attacking them, just walks off around a corner, he didn't have his gun on him, so under the RoE he can't be touched, he fcukin knew that and played the game, lived another day to kill again.

He was identified by all 6 of that patrol

Fratton Fred

wazky wrote: »

Putting the poor Afghan out of his misery sure?, should be awarded a medal really.

Why did you quote my post? What I wrote and what you wrote are completely unrelated.

Gee Bag

Piliger wrote: »

Not very bright soldiers, sadly. Firstly they thought the Geneva Convention applies, which it doesn't. Secondly the presence of a camera.

I dearly hope this guy gets the minimum punishment possible. He is a soldier in a battle field, sent to war to kill or be killed. He should not have shot the terrorist murderer, but at the same time we cannot send these men into battle and expect their mentality not to be affected and for them to behave like it's a walk on a beach. If it were me, I hope I would have been smarter and I would certainly have considered the same action.

Why do you think that the Geneva Convention does not apply?

Happyman42

Ciano35 wrote: »

One less terrorist to worry about tbh.

He should be put away for life alright.

darced

This post has been deleted.

OldRio

Let me get this right.
A soldier kills a wounded POW and gets found guilty of murder.
Yet on Bloody Sunday soldiers murder unarmed civilians and are free to walk the streets.
Strange old world.

Piliger

Gee Bag wrote: »

Why do you think that the Geneva Convention does not apply?

Because it's rules only apply in specific circumstances and they don't exist in a terrorist war or that which is going on in Afghanistan.

blaze1

Geneva convention only works when both sides play by the same set of rules.

So lets turn the tables, marine was wounded, surrounded and left with no option but to surrender. Maybe the taliban didn't kill him on the spot and brought marine A back to their cave. A few videos are filmed, death to the infidel, the usual. Then a week, a month, a year down the line they film themselves chopping his head off and put it on the net.

Ok, maybe the speech was a bit hollywood, but still how can the soldier who is doing his job be charged.

Gee Bag

Piliger wrote: »

Because it's rules only apply in specific circumstances and they don't exist in a terrorist war or that which is going on in Afghanistan.

Despite your brilliantly reasoned 'he's a terrorist' argument your talking complete balderdash....

After returning to the command post, Marine A told members of the patrol 'I f***** up, lads' and nothing was said to correct the view formed by senior officers that the insurgent had died from his wounds.
But in September last year, the Royal Military Police recovered a video clip showing the Afghan national being roughly manhandled across the field and launched an investigation.

Marines A, B and C were arrested on suspicion of alleged war crimes in contravention of Section 1 of the Geneva Convention. All three insisted the insurgent died from wounds sustained in the Apache attack.

Investigators later recovered a further clip, showing Marine A shooting the man in the chest. Marine A then admitted he fired his gun out of anger but insisted the insurgent was already dead.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2492816/Royal-Marine-convicted-murder-Taliban-insurgent-shot-chest-close-range--comrades-CLEARED.html

Piliger

Gee Bag wrote: »

Despite your brilliantly reasoned 'he's a terrorist' argument your talking complete balderdash....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2492816/Royal-Marine-convicted-murder-Taliban-insurgent-shot-chest-close-range--comrades-CLEARED.html

He was a terrorist killer and when you find yourself quoting the Mail .... :rolleyes: