Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Curious...

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19918398

An insurgent, no civvies involved, how do you suppose this has came about?

And realistically, whats the chance of a conviction?!

Find the After Action Report BBC

I don't see how it's murder seeing as a civilian wasn't involved...am I just being dense?

Im with testify on this one 0_o

 Testify wrote:
I don't see how it's murder seeing as a civilian wasn't involved...am I just being dense?

Its highly likely that the insurgent was killed after surrendering/being captured.

Sounds like the insurgent "accidentally fell down a flight of stairs" with the wrong officer running the show.

Unfortunately because we're trying to win the hearts and minds and whatever other nonsense of the Afghans I'd say these guys might be neck deep on this one.

Palindrome wrote:

 Testify wrote:
I don't see how it's murder seeing as a civilian wasn't involved...am I just being dense?

Its highly likely that the insurgent was killed after surrendering/being captured.

Clearly we should have treated them as they treated us. Now where did I leave my saw?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Unfortunately because we're trying to win the hearts and minds and whatever other nonsense of the Afghans I'd say these guys might be neck deep on this one.

If they did killed a 'PoW' then they deserve to be made an example of. It goes completely against their training and it does immense political damage when it comes to light; thats not even considering the ethical issues.

"These arrests demonstrate the Department and the Armed Forces' determination to ensure UK personnel act in accordance with their rules of engagement and our standards.

Sounds like a RoE violation

Mattman154 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Testify wrote:
I don't see how it's murder seeing as a civilian wasn't involved...am I just being dense?

Its highly likely that the insurgent was killed after surrendering/being captured.

Clearly we should have treated them as they treated us. Now where did I leave my saw?

No, we're supposed to treat them Better than they treat us, because we're Supposed to be the good and moral ones.

 AduroT wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Testify wrote:
I don't see how it's murder seeing as a civilian wasn't involved...am I just being dense?

Its highly likely that the insurgent was killed after surrendering/being captured.

Clearly we should have treated them as they treated us. Now where did I leave my saw?

No, we're supposed to treat them Better than they treat us, because we're Supposed to be the good and moral ones.

Our enemies are so terrible we must go out and confront them, and, you know, be just like them.

Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Unfortunately because we're trying to win the hearts and minds and whatever other nonsense of the Afghans I'd say these guys might be neck deep on this one.

If they did killed a 'PoW' then they deserve to be made an example of. It goes completely against their training and it does immense political damage when it comes to light; thats not even considering the ethical issues.

Except that these Taliban guys have no mercy, to anyone, and will impersonate a friendly to get to you. Terrorists don't have rights unless they are given them by bleeding heart liberals who have a wooly idea of what it is like in Ganners.
Its not like an honourable foe you can share a cigarette with after they surrender, let alone a foe you can surrender to.

To make matters worse the fether may well have been a British passport holder, sadly a lot of them are. I would lose no sleep at all if scum like that disappeared on capture.

 Orlanth wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Unfortunately because we're trying to win the hearts and minds and whatever other nonsense of the Afghans I'd say these guys might be neck deep on this one.

If they did killed a 'PoW' then they deserve to be made an example of. It goes completely against their training and it does immense political damage when it comes to light; thats not even considering the ethical issues.

Except that these Taliban guys have no mercy, to anyone, and will impersonate a friendly to get to you. Terrorists don't have rights unless they are given them by bleeding heart liberals who have a wooly idea of what it is like in Ganners.
Its not like an honourable foe you can share a cigarette with after they surrender, let alone a foe you can surrender to.

To make matters worse the fether may well have been a British passport holder, sadly a lot of them are. I would lose no sleep at all if scum like that disappeared on capture.

These people are monsters who will kill you if they capture you! We should kill them all when we capture them!

 AduroT wrote:


These people are monsters who will kill you if they capture you! We should kill them all when we capture them!

There is a difference. You could surrender to Nazis or Viet Cong and have a good chance of being treated fairly. There is no surrender to Taliban.
They are on balance worse than Nazis.

It all depends on what this individual did, we haven't been told that. Some of them get up to some very sick stuff and a quiet death is not too good for them.

The only thing I can think of that would get them arrested if they killed a "insurgent" that was carrying a AK. If they opted him out for just carrying and not getting engaged by the guy then it de facto "murder"

"Charging a man with murder here was like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500"

Soldiers can very easily murder people in a theater of war. It depends on how/when/why the bad guy was killed.

If this guy killed was an insurgent then this case will make me mad. We had an incident like this in Canada, I recall a soldier being charged with murder for shooting a wounded taliban. One story I heard was that it was a mercy kill and the taliban wasn't expected to survive, I heard from one source he had been hit with a 50 caliber round.
The kid gloves around war irks me these days. You cannot tame war, no matter how many international laws or human rights you chain it up with. It will always be war and I wonder if the courts really understand that.
I miss the Dark Ages.

Then stop using the internet for a start.

You know the Dark Ages is a really poor term for the Middle Ages, Chivalry was in fact a thing... even if it didn't get practiced much XD

Mercy kills are illegal. We've already prosecuted I do believe 4 soldiers already for mercy killing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Then stop using the internet for a start.

I meant mostly in terms of they probably didn't have kid gloves back then.

All ISAF forces was still under McChrystal ROE last year. It was very restrictive. Seriously believe its a ROE violation. I highly doubt it was a thrill kill like our Chuckleheads from 5/2 Stryker

 Orlanth wrote:

Except that these Taliban guys have no mercy, to anyone.

irrelevant. Killing captured enemies is completely illegal.

I think that there is more to this than a simple RoE violation, given the nature of the charges and the number of marines arrested.

Palindrome wrote:

irrelevant. Killing captured enemies is completely illegal.

Actually it isn't. The International Law of War offers POW status only to lawful combatants, not illegal combatants. Terrorists/guerilla fighters can be executed in a war zone, within certain caveats. Those were not followed however if thge person was a terrorist rather than a civilian or lawful combatant the action doesn't count as a war crime.

The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949 (GCIII) of 1949 defines the requirements for a captive to be eligible for treatment as a POW. A lawful combatant is a person who commits belligerent acts, and, when captured, is treated as a POW. An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 and 5.

So if say Iran invaded in support of the Taliban, captured Iranian soldiers must be treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions. For illegal combatants national law applies. The Bush did not sign up to an agreement on prosecution of soldiers, Blair however did.

 Orlanth wrote:

Actually it isn't. The International Law of War offers POW status only to lawful combatants, not illegal combatants. Terrorists/guerilla fighters can be executed in a war zone, within certain caveats. Those were not followed however if thge person was a terrorist rather than a civilian or lawful combatant the action doesn't count as a war crime

UK servicemen are bound by UK law, the LoAC and host nation law (with certain caveats) no one can be executed in a warzone, in fact no one can be executed at all. You can kill the enemy using legitimate means but once they have surrendered or have otherwise come into your possession they gain significant rights. They are granted more rights if they are classed as PoW but that doesn't mean that 'unlawful combatants' have no rights at all.

Lets wait for more details first, I very much doubt that the Royal Marines would kill a man in captivity.

As I said, I put my notice in when I was in Kajaki because I was so angry and frustrated. We had to sit there and allow the Taliban to dig mines in and lay IEDs. We used to shoot them for it, then got the call one day about 6 weeks into the tour that it was against the ROE, and from that day forth, only warning shots were permitted unless they were a direct threat to life "at that immediate time"

Mine and IED use went through the roof, and a couple months later my friend Dave Marsh and the troop boss chippie Thornton were blown to bits.

I left shortly afterwards, and to say that I am bitter is an understatement.

Anyway, I can't see British soldiers murdering an unarmed man in cold blood. So lets wait and see, I will wager it is down to our ridiculously tight ROE and its a complex tale, rather than a full blown murder of a man in captivity. I absolutely despise the Taliban, but it takes a different kind of man than a soldier, to cold bloodedly execute an unarmed man, and this comes from a bloke that has personally captured and handled prisoners.

Im fine shooting an enemy combatant, I doubt Id have the nerve to shoot the unarmed guy sat cross legged on the floor of our compound who we just gave a bottle of water. Its something you need to experience first hand, but looking into a mans eyes from 5 feet away and then executing him is something I wouldn't want to do even If it WAS legal.

 mattyrm wrote:
Lets wait for more details first, I very much doubt that the Royal Marines would kill a man in captivity.

I admire your loyalty, but I think its a bit optimistic. Remember discipline is not what it used to be due to the wishy washy training doctrines. Soldiers in general (I cant speak for marines you are the only marine I 'talk' to) have such watered down training now that I would not be surprised if soldiers went over the edge, IIRC the drill sergeants cant even shout at the squaddies anymore in case it hurts their feelings, thats no way to prepare a man for battle.

 mattyrm wrote:

Mine and IED use went through the roof, and a couple months later my friend Dave Marsh and the troop boss chippie Thornton were blown to bits.

You mentioned this on a previous occasion, you have my sympathies.

 mattyrm wrote:

Anyway, I can't see British soldiers murdering an unarmed man in cold blood. So lets wait and see, I will wager it is down to our ridiculously tight ROE and its a complex tale, rather than a full blown murder of a man in captivity. I absolutely despise the Taliban, but it takes a different kind of man than a soldier, to cold bloodedly execute an unarmed man, and this comes from a bloke that has personally captured and handled prisoners.

That I can believe, a lot of officers now are up their own bottoms and no longer put the men first, many are dogmatised which is even worse. I heard of one soldier in Ganners being put on a charge by one of his own officers after he saw a local shaking the dust out of a carpet from an upstairs window, he shouted up 'cant you get it started'. The local got the joke, the officer didn't, considered it 'racist' and broke him on a disciplinary.
Might an officer like that fail to overlook an incident like a mercy killing of a wounded man or not giving an extra warning to an armed man or something else not by the book and get all officious, I hope not but I fear so. All we really know was that the 'victim' was not a civilian.I would not be surprised at all if he was one British raised, two very lippy, three transparently murderous and contemptuous and four demanding of his rights. It would take a patient man not to give him a hard time one way or another.



on the other hand

 Orlanth wrote:

 AduroT wrote:


These people are monsters who will kill you if they capture you! We should kill them all when we capture them!

There is a difference.

Yes, we've dropped hundreds of thousands of bombs and invaded two countries in a decade as well as fomented coups of democratically elected officials and backed murderous tyrants for half a century. We've jailed tens of thousands of them, sometimes for years, with a great many of those jailed being totally innocent. We've tortured our captives and sent them to be tortured out of our hands. Clearly we're on the side of angels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:


Anyway, I can't see British soldiers murdering an unarmed man in cold blood. So lets wait and see, I will wager it is down to our ridiculously tight ROE and its a complex tale, rather than a full blown murder of a man in captivity. I absolutely despise the Taliban, but it takes a different kind of man than a soldier, to cold bloodedly execute an unarmed man, and this comes from a bloke that has personally captured and handled prisoners.

Im fine shooting an enemy combatant, I doubt Id have the nerve to shoot the unarmed guy sat cross legged on the floor of our compound who we just gave a bottle of water. Its something you need to experience first hand, but looking into a mans eyes from 5 feet away and then executing him is something I wouldn't want to do even If it WAS legal.

American soldiers have done it more than a few times. I don't doubt you have the resolve to keep up honorable conduct in terrible situations, but not everyone does.

 Orlanth wrote:
IIRC the drill sergeants cant even shout at the squaddies anymore in case it hurts their feelings, thats no way to prepare a man for battle.

Haha really? Its nothing like that in Australia. That is just shocking if its accurate.

And I'm sure theres more to the story, we shouldn't jump to anything until we know.