Petition for Marine A.

[seagully]

The Taliban are not a uniformed military force, the uniformed military force of Afghanistan is the ANA. The Taliban also are not Private Military Contractors so they are not protected under the modern revision of the Geneva Conventions.

No the Taliban are what is classified as Mercenaries.
"Under Article 47 of Protocol I (Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts) it is stated in the first sentence "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war".

Killing a Mercenary is not a crime as they are not recognized as being a Combatants protected by the Geneva Conventions nor are they protected as Civilians.

That distinction would be for a tribunal to decide. Before that point, they should have been given the full protection of the Convention.

 

[chucky1973]

Sorry, but I cannot believe that British soldiers are denied the opportunity of 'shooting back' at enemies that are attacking them. The rules of engagement permit it.
Little point in being soldiers, if when under attack, you are not allowed to defend yourself. So think thats a bit theatrical.
Some rules were put into place to prevent civilians, of which there were many, being killed....

absolute truth, you had to wait for permission to fire back as the Taliban would fire from compounds and would have women and children in there with them. you would be pelted with mortars and gunfire and you literally had to wait for someone to make a judgement on whether the women and children would get hurt before given the orders. The Taliban were very clever and knew this so would always use children as "shields"

 

[paul & shark]

That distinction would be for a tribunal to decide. Before that point, they should have been given the full protection of the Convention.

I think our soilders hands are tied behind there back far to much as it is, we have sold this lad out massively.

At least we found out and convicted the killer of Jean Charles de Menezes eh.. oh no, that didnt happen

 

[daveinprague]

Fair enough, was thinking more of out in the field type engagements tbf..rather than compounds...

Yep, they use children as shields, but then again, we use drones, helicopter gunships etc, bombers....

 

[seagully]

I think our soilders hands are tied behind there back far to much as it is, we have sold this lad out massively.

At least we found out and convicted the killer of Jean Charles de Menezes eh.. oh no, that didnt happen

So you are suggesting that all prisoners should be shot out of hand then?

 

[Bob!]

The bloke he shot would not have thought twice about killing the solider if it was the other way round. I don't agree with what he done, but my nephew was part of K company at the same time as this incident and he said it was blooming awful at the time of the killing and all of them was on edge, they had lost a few men in the weeks leading up to the incident and ALL were in a bad place mentally because of the losses. For you to say you would never do the same is rubbish in my opinion because unless you are there and in those situations you don't know how you would react. My nephew said that even under attack they were not allowed to fire back until permission was given from above, this caused HUGE stress on a lot of marines who are trained to kill, but were not allowed too because of stupid rules agreed years ago. Unless you were there, I fail to see how you can make a comment like you have. for the record, 7 of my nephews company never returned including "fish" who was his room mate through training.

...and yet you/he still thinks what he did was ok?

 

[chucky1973]

...and yet you/he still thinks what he did was ok?

in my opening line is the answer.

I was painting a picture of what it was like there.

 

[itszamora]

I put this up to as I kind of wanted to hear the debate. As I am not sure what to think. I think you know my history. I have seen men do weird things under pressure. I was taught to fight terrorism with terrorism as was Marine A. probably. I also understand the criminal act thing. But there is no surgical war. War is not clean.

Taught to "fight terrorism with terrorism?" Really?

 

[severnside gull]

I think its difficult. I can understand the stress, but also understand that this was indeed a criminal act. I hope, this
was a very isolated incident. Think his sentence could be reduced somewhat, considering the local circumstances.
If the Taliban ever released a video of one of their combatants, shooting dead a wounded British soldier, there would be uproar.

pretty much sums it up for me.

I can empathise but in all honesty I cannot petition on his behalf.

 

[beorhthelm]

this isnt a matter for discussion in parliament, its not political. a soldier executed a prisioner, its for the courts to decide punishment, and they have done. Parliament is supposed to discuss and change the law. do we propose we should allow arbitary execution of enemy combatants? if so, put that forward as the petition to parliament.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Signed.

 

[Albumen]

First I've heard of this, but how can this not be murder?

A court martial board in Bulford, Wiltshire found the 39-year-old former Royal Marine guilty of murdering the insurgent who had been seriously injured in an attack by an Apache helicopter in Helmand more than two years ago.

Two other Marines were acquitted. Charges against a further two were previously discontinued.

Blackman, who denied murder, had 15 years' experience in the Royal Marines, having joined in 1998, and was in charge of Command Post Omar in Helmand during Operation Herrick 14 in 2011.

Before a video of the murder came to light, Blackman was being considered for promotion to Colour Sergeant.

He shot the unknown insurgent in the chest but said he believed the man was already dead and he was taking out his anger on a corpse. He has said he feels ashamed at his actions, describing them as "a stupid lack of self-control and lapse in judgement".

As the fighter lies on the floor convulsing and struggling for breath, Sgt Blackman tells him: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil you c***. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."

He then turned to his comrades and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."

 

[Simster]

Signed.

Genuinely surprised at you, here. All the other signees are known NSC thickets.

 

[paul & shark]

Genuinely surprised at you, here. All the other signees are known NSC thickets.

I am generally suprised that a person has over 35 thousand posts on a message board haha

 

[User removed 4]

We are supposed to be better than them, he should have been punished , however I feel that 10 years is unduly harsh.

 

[Fungus]

As the fighter lies on the floor convulsing and struggling for breath, Sgt Blackman tells him: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil you c***. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."

He then turned to his comrades and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."

Guilty. Murder. Who else are we going to be asked to exonerate on NSC?

 

[User removed 4]

He's a cold bloodied murderer and your an idiot.

Cold blooded ? You obviously don't know all the facts of this case, and because of this I conclude that YOU'RE the idiot.

 

[User removed 4]

None of this matters. He executed a wounded, defenceless human being in cold blood, and knew exactly what he was doing in the process. I know enough about myself to know I could never bring myself to do that.

Until you've been under fire, and seen comrades horribly wounded, I guarantee you don't.

 

[User removed 4]

Sorry, but I cannot believe that British soldiers are denied the opportunity of 'shooting back' at enemies that are attacking them. The rules of engagement permit it.
Little point in being soldiers, if when under attack, you are not allowed to defend yourself. So think thats a bit theatrical.
Some rules were put into place to prevent civilians, of which there were many, being killed....

Yet again you reveal your ignorance, you've obviously never heard of the ridiculous policy of courageous restraint.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-admits-courageous-restraint-must-change.html

 

[The Wizard]

How is the behaviour of your enemy a benchmark for how you behave? We are there to protect freedom, justice, and try to install some kind of democracy. You don't do that by executing your enemy, regardless of what they'd do to you in the same situation.

This, people who use that as a reason for why he should get away with what he did are foolish, I would however take into account the stresses he would have been under and like, 10 years may be a bit harsh but in the cold light of day, he is a murderer, he EXECUTED a defenceless human being, it was not an act of war in that the man who was killed was not firing at them at the time and thus you cannot excuse his actions, this is my opinion anyway I know this is a hotly debated matter mind so I expect to be flamed by at least one