Marine guilty of Afghanistan murder

[EnterpriseSovereign]

A Royal Marine has been found guilty by a military court of murdering an injured Afghan insurgent, in what the prosecution called "an execution".

The sergeant, known only as Marine A, faces a mandatory life term over the shooting of the unknown man while on patrol in Helmand Province, in 2011.

Two other marines were cleared.

Brigadier Bill Dunham, of the Royal Marines, said the murder - the first case of its kind - was "a truly shocking and appalling aberration".

There were tears from the marines' families as the verdicts were read at the Military Court Centre in Bulford, Wiltshire, on Friday.

Marine A, who will be sentenced on 6 December, was taken into custody, while the two other marines, known as B and C, are free to return to military service. An anonymity order granted last year to protect the men from possible reprisals remains in place.

'9mm pistol'

Marine B had inadvertently filmed the murder, which happened on 15 September 2011, on his helmet-mounted camera and the footage was shown to the court during the two-week trial.

It showed Marine A shooting the Afghan prisoner with a 9mm pistol, and saying: "There, shuffle off this mortal coil... It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."

He adds: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention," to which Marine B replies: "Yeah, roger mate."

On Thursday, a recording of a conversation between the marines in the moments surrounding the shooting was released by the judge.

He had previously rejected an application by the media to release the video footage, saying it could be used as propaganda against the UK military.

During the court martial, prosecutor David Perry told the court the murder was "not a killing in the heat and exercise of any armed conflict... it amounted to an execution".

Marine A told the court martial he had fired because of "poor judgement and lack of self-control", but said he had thought the insurgent was already dead.

Marines B and C were accused by the prosecution of being "party to the killing" and of having "encouraged and assisted" Marine A to commit the murder.

At the time of the killing, he was an experienced sergeant, while Marine C was the most junior of the three. Marine B was new to the Helmand base where marines A and C were based.

Marine A was convicted by a board of seven officers and non-commissioned officers.

Brig Dunham, deputy commandant general of the Royal Marines, said: "It is a matter of profound regret that, in this isolated incident, one marine failed to apply his training and discharge his responsibilities.

"What we have heard over the past two weeks is not consistent with the ethos, values and standards of the Royal Marines.
"It was a truly shocking and appalling aberration. It should not have happened and it should never happen again."

He said the Royal Marines would consider any impact from the case on the training given to its personnel.

Gen Sir Mike Jackson, a former head of the Army, urged people to keep "a sense of proportion" but said he was "saddened" by the case.

"I'm afraid whatever casualties the unit had taken, didn't change the law.

"It's not about whether the Taliban do or do not adhere to whatever set of rules, if any. It is about the standards which apply to the British armed forces which are drawn from the Geneva Convention."

He added: "The fact that a trial has taken place, I would argue upholds those standards."

Under attack

The murder took place after a patrol base in Helmand Province came under attack from small arms fire from two insurgents.

The Afghan prisoner was seriously injured by gunfire from an Apache helicopter sent to provide air support, and the marines found him in a field.

Marines footage The judge released stills from the footage but not the footage itself
In one conversation between Marine A and C about shooting the man, one serviceman is overheard asking "Anyone want to give first aid to this idiot?" before another replies loudly "Nope."

In another, Marine C was heard asking A if he should shoot the man in the head, but Marine A said that would be too "obvious".

Royal Military Police arrested the three marines in October 2012 after video footage was found on a serviceman's laptop by civilian police in the UK.

They first appeared at the Military Court Centre in Bulford in August, where they pleaded not guilty to murdering the Afghan national contrary to section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

Two further marines - D and E - had the charges against them dropped in February.

The case was the first time British forces have faced a murder charge in relation to the conflict in Afghanistan, said BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt.

Prof Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, said the Ministry of Defence needed to be transparent in cases such as this.

"The only thing the MoD can do is not try to hide in cases that look as bad as this, and they're going to have to accept that if we fight these wars, there will be cases that we are not very proud of," he said.

Source

[Siege]

This:

Royal Military Police arrested the three marines in October 2012 after video footage was found on a serviceman's laptop by civilian police in the UK.

is the bit that interests me the most. Clearly these marines have helmet cameras, presumably so their command can review their actions after the dust settles -- except that didn't happen here, or if it did then the review process failed. So how'd the footage end up on somebody else's laptop?

[Beowulf]

This:

Royal Military Police arrested the three marines in October 2012 after video footage was found on a serviceman's laptop by civilian police in the UK.

is the bit that interests me the most. Clearly these marines have helmet cameras, presumably so their command can review their actions after the dust settles -- except that didn't happen here, or if it did then the review process failed. So how'd the footage end up on somebody else's laptop?

Assumption of facts not in evidence. The helmet cam isn't necessarily so that command can review action after the fact. It could be the service member's privately owned cam (there's a long tradition of members bringing privately owned photographic equipment along on missions).

[Kitsune]

Gad. . .I posted on a military board. . .
"For shooting a Talib? At best that's a case of animal cruelty."

[EnterpriseSovereign]

What I'd like to know was whether the guy in question had actually surrendered or not, if he had it would be a more clear-cut case.

[Siege]

Assumption of facts not in evidence. The helmet cam isn't necessarily so that command can review action after the fact. It could be the service member's privately owned cam (there's a long tradition of members bringing privately owned photographic equipment along on missions).

I missed this earlier, but you are absolutely correct. I took it for granted and did not account for the possibility that it was his private camera; that in large part lets the Royal Marines off the hook. I still wonder how the footage ended up on somebody else's laptop for civilian police to find however. Marine B or someone who had access to his camera must have distributed it; I cannot personally fathom releasing footage that implicates myself in the breaking of the laws of war... Although I suppose people have done dafter things.

[Thanas]

What I'd like to know was whether the guy in question had actually surrendered or not, if he had it would be a more clear-cut case.

He was disarmed, wounded and clearly hors de combat.

A person is 'hors de combat' if:

(a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;
(b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or
(c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;
provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

************


What is more shocking is that the apache helicopter pilot knew what was going on and did nothing.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Interesting; I'm assuming in such situations the procedure would have been to take him prisoner instead?

If I recall correctly the marines waited until the Apache was out of visual range so the pilot wouldn't see what they were going to do. It does make you wonder whether more incidents like this routinely happen and are simply not reported

[Thanas]

Interesting; I'm assuming in such situations the procedure would have been to take him prisoner instead?

Usually. But the procedure for partisans hasn't really been codified. I am sure the British army has some procedure but I don't know what it is.

[Kitsune]

This might help a bit. . . .Similar Canadian case although in this case the officer was doing it as a mercy killing
http://canlii.org/en/ca/cm/doc/2010/201 ... mF1AAAAAAE

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I read that, it's weird that a charge of behaving in a "disgraceful manner" actually exists, but that aside (I'll go out on a limb and assume that's just the Canadian way of things), I'd always assumed that a charge had to be something more quantifiable rather than the relatively vague term, "disgraceful".

[Patroklos]

Ever hear of "conduct unbecoming" or "Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline"? Most militaries have several catch alls in their judicial codes.

[Beowulf]

You can't necessarily quantify every crime in advance, and military discipline requires weeding out the obviously bad apples, even if there isn't a specific regulation that says what they did was wrong. See article 134 of the UCMJ.