Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Isn't It Now Time That This Total Travesty Of Justice Was Corrected, And Sergeant Alexander Blackman Released Forthwith?
34 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
///Then as an ex-marine, you must be aware that laws regarding killing under the circumstances of this situation are still applied?///
Of course I am, and I lived by them, but as there is to all accounts a lot of information that was 'unavailable' at the trial, I'm not sure we know the true circumstances of this incident and the back story leading up to it.
It will be interesting to see what comes to light if/when the withheld information becomes public.
Prudie - "Andy you've got over-emotional with the injured dog analogy and also misunderstood the motives behind such an act IMO. Shooting an injured animal is done out of compassion and an aim to end suffering, it's never done for barbarism."
Call me 'over-emotional' if you wish, but I don't find that the notion of thinking of shooting a wounded human being comparable to killing an injured animal.
The soldier in question didn't shoot his Taliban counterpart to 'put him out of his misery' - he did it because he believed that he still represented a threat to life - and in a battle situation, that is a view with which I can entirely sympathise.
But to suggest that it was done in the same way that one dispatches an injured animal that is suffering, and going to die anyway - to shorten its pain - is frankly an unbelievable view to take in my opinion.
If you extrapolate that viewpoint, we could save the NHS millions by equipping paramedics with revolvers - if someone is injured, we can put them down. Job done.
Call me 'over-emotional' if you wish, but I don't find that the notion of thinking of shooting a wounded human being comparable to killing an injured animal.
The soldier in question didn't shoot his Taliban counterpart to 'put him out of his misery' - he did it because he believed that he still represented a threat to life - and in a battle situation, that is a view with which I can entirely sympathise.
But to suggest that it was done in the same way that one dispatches an injured animal that is suffering, and going to die anyway - to shorten its pain - is frankly an unbelievable view to take in my opinion.
If you extrapolate that viewpoint, we could save the NHS millions by equipping paramedics with revolvers - if someone is injured, we can put them down. Job done.
AH, you wrote
///The soldier in question shot the Taliban soldier because he believed he still might represent a threat to life///.
Why would he have done that when it states (twice) in AOG's Link that
///Blackman, 41, told his trial he believed the dying insurgent – wounded while trying to ambush a troop of Royal Marines – was already dead when he shot him.///
Baldric - "AH, you wrote
///The soldier in question shot the Taliban soldier because he believed he still might represent a threat to life///.
Why would he have done that when it states (twice) in AOG's Link that
///Blackman, 41, told his trial he believed the dying insurgent – wounded while trying to ambush a troop of Royal Marines – was already dead when he shot him./// "
Obviously I would not dream of speaking for Mr Blackman - I understood that he shot the Taliban soldier because he believed him to be a threat - and perhaps that would have presented a more reasonable explanation of his actions.
To have shot a man he believed to be dead suggests reaction under the extreme stress of battle.
But like all of us, I wasn't there, so I am simply putting forward my views as they occur to me.
I would once again reiterate that imprisoning a man for acting in such circumstances seems deeply unreasonable but - and once again I must stress where I can coming from - the laws regarding killing are in place, and it was judged that he had broken one or more of them, and that is why he is in prison.
///The soldier in question shot the Taliban soldier because he believed he still might represent a threat to life///.
Why would he have done that when it states (twice) in AOG's Link that
///Blackman, 41, told his trial he believed the dying insurgent – wounded while trying to ambush a troop of Royal Marines – was already dead when he shot him./// "
Obviously I would not dream of speaking for Mr Blackman - I understood that he shot the Taliban soldier because he believed him to be a threat - and perhaps that would have presented a more reasonable explanation of his actions.
To have shot a man he believed to be dead suggests reaction under the extreme stress of battle.
But like all of us, I wasn't there, so I am simply putting forward my views as they occur to me.
I would once again reiterate that imprisoning a man for acting in such circumstances seems deeply unreasonable but - and once again I must stress where I can coming from - the laws regarding killing are in place, and it was judged that he had broken one or more of them, and that is why he is in prison.
Baldric - "///To have shot a man he believed to be dead suggests reaction under the extreme stress of battle.///
Exactly, and I believe if the withheld/ redacted information detailing the pressure The Troop was under was available he would be a free man now."
I fully agree.
Coming from, as I always have, a belief that the law is a vital part of a civilised society, it benefits no-one, especially Sgt. Blackman, if chicanery and double dealing is going on to divert the proper process.
If this is proven to be the case, then the culprits should be prosecuted fully - because once again, that is the law in action.
Exactly, and I believe if the withheld/ redacted information detailing the pressure The Troop was under was available he would be a free man now."
I fully agree.
Coming from, as I always have, a belief that the law is a vital part of a civilised society, it benefits no-one, especially Sgt. Blackman, if chicanery and double dealing is going on to divert the proper process.
If this is proven to be the case, then the culprits should be prosecuted fully - because once again, that is the law in action.
Sgt Blackman, it appears, is the first serviceman to be convicted of murder on active service in a warlike situation. I think one important factor to bear in mind is that this matter was heard by way of a Court Martial. If the DM report is to be believed, among the features that may need examination:
- Vital evidence was withheld from his court martial in 2013;
- A high-flying colonel quit in disgust at being blocked from telling the truth at the hearing;
- The Ministry of Defence has plotted to cover up the internal report casting doubt on Blackman’s conviction.
There are many suspicious issues surrounding the report into this (which has been all but totally supressed due to “Data Protection” and “Operational” reasons). It must be open to debate whether Sgt Blackman received a fair trial. Courts Martial involve a number of procedures which would not be tolerated in a Crown Court and these may have led to some of the possible injustices mentioned above. In my humble opinion the most serious shortcoming of all in connection with these courts is the composition of the “jury”. In these courts the jury consists of a panel of up to seven selected service personnel (commissioned officers or senior NCOs all of whom must outrank the defendant). They are not selected at random and cannot properly be said to be a panel of the defendant’s peers.
If the nation trains soldiers, gives them guns and tells them to go and shoot people it cannot come as too much of a surprise if they do just that when under attack. Further than that, there should not be too many gasps of horror if occasionally an incident occurs which might not be quite so well received in the High Street on a Saturday afternoon. It is all very well m’Learned Friends gathering in their agreeable chambers in the Inns of Court discussing matters that happened six months earlier when a man under great pressure, fearful for the safety of himself and his colleagues, possibly made a mistake. There have been suggestions that Sgt Blackman has been “hung out to dry”. The best way to establish whether or not that is so is to disclose all the facts that are currently hidden under the redactors’ black ink. Best of all, since this alleged offence seems to have been judged in the same way that a murder outside the pub on a Saturday night would be, then do Sgt Blackman the courtesy of allowing him a proper trial in a Crown Court with a traditional jury.
- Vital evidence was withheld from his court martial in 2013;
- A high-flying colonel quit in disgust at being blocked from telling the truth at the hearing;
- The Ministry of Defence has plotted to cover up the internal report casting doubt on Blackman’s conviction.
There are many suspicious issues surrounding the report into this (which has been all but totally supressed due to “Data Protection” and “Operational” reasons). It must be open to debate whether Sgt Blackman received a fair trial. Courts Martial involve a number of procedures which would not be tolerated in a Crown Court and these may have led to some of the possible injustices mentioned above. In my humble opinion the most serious shortcoming of all in connection with these courts is the composition of the “jury”. In these courts the jury consists of a panel of up to seven selected service personnel (commissioned officers or senior NCOs all of whom must outrank the defendant). They are not selected at random and cannot properly be said to be a panel of the defendant’s peers.
If the nation trains soldiers, gives them guns and tells them to go and shoot people it cannot come as too much of a surprise if they do just that when under attack. Further than that, there should not be too many gasps of horror if occasionally an incident occurs which might not be quite so well received in the High Street on a Saturday afternoon. It is all very well m’Learned Friends gathering in their agreeable chambers in the Inns of Court discussing matters that happened six months earlier when a man under great pressure, fearful for the safety of himself and his colleagues, possibly made a mistake. There have been suggestions that Sgt Blackman has been “hung out to dry”. The best way to establish whether or not that is so is to disclose all the facts that are currently hidden under the redactors’ black ink. Best of all, since this alleged offence seems to have been judged in the same way that a murder outside the pub on a Saturday night would be, then do Sgt Blackman the courtesy of allowing him a proper trial in a Crown Court with a traditional jury.
It seems that nobody on here today is saying that Blackman is innocent, just that he was charged wrongly and convicted wrongly. There is doubt that he shot the man while he was custody. He said as much by his own words that were recorded by one of his colleagues.
Having said that, I agree that he has been treated somewhat more harshly by a Military Court, than he would have been under civil law. But that is for the Army to address.
Having said that, I agree that he has been treated somewhat more harshly by a Military Court, than he would have been under civil law. But that is for the Army to address.
This quote from the original report is part of a judgement concerning an application to lift a ban on identifying the Marines "Having removed his AK47, magazines and a grenade, [Marine A] caused him to be moved to a place where [Marine A] wanted to be out of sight of your operational Headquarters at Shazad so that, to quote what [Marine A] said: "PGSS can't see what we're doing to him". He was handled in a robust manner by those under [Marine A's] command, clearly causing him additional pain, and [Marine A] did nothing to stop them from treating him in that way. When out of view of the PGSS (Persistent Ground Surveillance System) [Marine A] failed to ensure he was given appropriate medical treatment quickly and then ordered those giving some first aid to stop. When [Marine A] was sure the Apache Helicopter was out of sight [Marine A] calmly discharged a 9mm round into his chest from close range. [Marine A's] suggestion that [he] thought the insurgent was dead when [he] discharged the firearm lacks any credibility and was clearly made up after [he] had been charged with murder in an effort to concoct a defence….. [Marine A] intended to kill him and that shot certainly hastened his death. He then told his patrol they were not to say anything about what had just happened and [he] acknowledged what [he] had done by saying that [he] had just broken the Geneva Convention. The tone and calmness of [his] voice as [he] commented after [he] had shot him were matter of fact and in that respect they were chilling."
Does that sound like the actions of a man under stress or a man who knew what he was doing was unlawful?
Does that sound like the actions of a man under stress or a man who knew what he was doing was unlawful?
Let justice be done even tho the Heavens fall
( Mansfield 1762 )
The judges are independent and no - there should NOT be intervention except rarely
https:/
( Mansfield 1762 )
The judges are independent and no - there should NOT be intervention except rarely
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.