Friday, 26 June 2015

Free Sergeant Blackman

War is different
   



Every day journalists assail us with stories of outrageous injustices. One day it’s a city trader that suffers misogyny in the form of her meagre bonus; the next a gay couple are denied a cake by bigoted Christian bakers; or the BBC axes an ageing woman presenter; or somebody says something hurtful about the latest transgender celebrity etc, etc… Each victim bathes in the limelight of their victimhood and accompanied by a phalanx of lawyers tearfully yet bravely returns to the fray to right the terrible wrong they have suffered.

What a wonderful time it is to be a victim in Britain. You can be Abu Qatada and despise Britain and its people, raise money for terror and advocate murder and you’ll still be gifted half a million pounds by the British taxpayer to fund your totally committed stellar legal team. And with the anti-Semitic weird beard in mind, is there a single lonely and forgotten victim left to worry about in our brave new Britain? After all if we are so generous as to lavish money and our finest legal minds on a foreign inciter of murder, who then is so hateful and despised that won’t we gather them to our caring bosom?

Well it turns out that if you’re not in one of the designated victim groups you could be Jesus Christ himself dangling from a cross and our caring liberal elites will only stop to test if you’re still alive with a handy spear. “Hmmm, he seems to be in some distress, that chap on the cross. But he is a man after all, and a Jew, and a Christian. The very trinity of evil! So that’s okay then. Just another oppressor getting a taste of his own medicine!”

Here’s the story of another (for progressives) trinity of evil. He’s also a man, and a soldier, and a patriot. In short a very untermensch to our caring liberal elite.
                    
Sergeant Blackman, who killed a badly wounded Taliban fighter, has now spent 18 months in prison. The judge who sentenced him to life with the stipulation that he serve at least 10 years did so in the full knowledge of compelling reasons for clemency and also blatantly lied when sentencing to justify the injustice of jailing him.

The judge at his court marshal, Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett, acknowledged Sergeant Blackman’s distinguished record but then again how could he not, it is entirely unblemished. In 14 years of service with the Royal Marines he undertook 6 operational tours and just days before the incident in question a report described him as a “strong team player” with “heaps of potential”. A later appraisal from the year of his arrest noted Blackman’s “tremendous professional knowledge and experience”.

The killing happened after a patrol led by Sergeant Blackman was sent out to look for enemy after an attack on their base had been repulsed. As they moved through a cornfield they came upon a badly wounded Taliban fighter. After chatting about what to do they took some steps to avoid observation and Blackman killed him with his sidearm.

Ugly, isn’t it? And wrong. But it did happen in war.

Consider the circumstances:

Mitigation of Stress

Sergeant Blackman killed the Taliban fighter at the end of a six month tour of duty in Afghanistan. The marines lived under constant threat of death in an isolated outpost in up to 50 degree heat. During that time 23 servicemen from 3 Commando had been killed and Blackman’s own unit witnessed the limbs of some of their dead hung from trees as Taliban trophies.

On top of all that Sergeant Blackman was still mourning the death of his father who had died just before his tour of duty began. The psychiatrist who prepared the pre-sentencing report noted that the Royal Marine’s “increasing paranoia” due to grief for his father.

At the same time that Sergeant Blackman was on trial in 2013 a mother, Natasha Sultan, who had killed her own baby was spared jail, because according to the judge she was in “a maelstrom of fatigue and mental disorder”.

Now I don’t want to underrate the torment this poor woman suffered at the hands of a six-week-old baby, but I do think that if the court system recognizes post natal depression as grounds for leniency that they might do the same thing for a soldier who has lived under the incomparably greater stress of a war zone for months.

Mitigation of the Nature of the Enemy

It does matter whether or not the enemy wears a uniform or poses as a civilian till he’s within range to kill. All our senior soldiers in their comments on the case of Sergeant Blackman pretended that there is no difference between fighting uniformed soldiers who adhere to the Geneva Convention and savages who only take prisoners in order to torture them to death. This pretence originates in the multicultural taboo on discriminating between cultures.

In war soldiers very quickly shed such dangerous rubbish and quite naturally they will be less inclined to take prisoners if the enemy doesn’t. This was clearly on Sergeant Blackman's mind when he said after he shot the Taliban: “There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil, you cunt. It’s nothing you wouldn’t do to us!”

Afghanistan is just about as dirty as wars get. But all war is murderous.

The Second World War was the “good” war. The war that even most liberals accept was a regrettable necessity. It was also a war fought by mass civilian armies not cynical professional soldiers, but as Max Hastings details in his excellent Overlord,  “Both sides habitually shot snipers who were taken prisoner”. This was because sniping seemed somehow unfair and snipers themselves took no prisoners. But it wasn’t just the snipers. As Hastings goes on to say: “Among scores of Allied witnesses interviewed for this narrative, almost every one had direct knowledge or even experience of the shooting of German prisoners”. And the prisoners most likely to be shot were those who were thought to be doing the same, so: “Many British and American units shot SS prisoners routinely”.

Mitigation of Being Ours

In addition to the rational reasons for leniency there is the sentimental one that Sergeant Blackman is one of ours. He joined up to fight for us and for 15 years he did just that in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. If such a sentiment plays no part in the treatment of our soldiers, then we civilians no longer have the right to benefit from the patriotic sentiments of the soldiers who fight for us.

This sentiment incidentally was the main reason that most soldiers who crossed the line in past wars didn’t use to come before a court martial. Our leaders used to differentiate between ours and theirs, friends and enemies.

These days, it is the generals themselves who lead the baying liberal mob to prosecute their own men and show no mercy whatsoever to those convicted. In the words of head of Armed Forces, General Sir Nick Houghton, “murder is murder” and that showing clemency would “erode the moral ascendancy over our enemies”.
                  
As regards his precious “moral ascendancy,” which is supposed to be the pre-requisite to winning wars, he’s got it the wrong way round. All your average Afghan cares about is not, “Which side do I like?” but, “Who is going to win?”. And when the locals see western armies pussying around with their enemies, working out who is going to win is pretty simple.
  
Also, I haven’t noticed that the reputation of the Taliban (or ISIS) has suffered much from endless news reports of their atrocities. And that is particularly true when you consider the “noble Pashtun warrior” shtick that flows like diarrhea from some liberal keyboards.    
                                       
Mitigation of Self Interest

In the end though if the judge was indifferent to every other appeal to reason and sentiment, he should finally have considered our own self interest.

When Sergeant Blackman was hung out to dry on 6th December, 2013, what effect did he think such treatment would have on the future recruitment of gung ho young men to fight for us?

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

In his sentencing of Blackman, Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett said that he took some of the above mitigating circumstances into account:

“This was your sixth operational tour and your second to Afghanistan in under 14 years of service.

“We accept that you were affected by constant pressure, ever present danger and fear of death or personal injury.

“We also accept the psychiatric evidence presented today that when you killed the insurgent it was likely that you were suffering to some degree from combat stress disorder.”

But he was lying. How could he have taken any of these compelling reasons for clemency into account and then sentenced Sergeant Blackman to life as if he had committed the gory murder of a stranger on a peaceful London street?

The judge then told a another lie to further mask the injustice of the sentence: 

“Your actions have put at risk the lives of other British service personnel. You have provided ammunition to the terrorists whose propaganda portrays the British presence in Afghanistan as part of a war on Islam in which civilians are arbitrarily killed.”

So how exactly does the finishing off of a badly wounded Taliban fighter provide proof for the terrorists that we are killing civilians? And of course before the killing of this enemy combatant our soldiers felt quite confident of receiving all their rights under the Geneva Convention. In fact the chances of a British soldier surviving capture by the enemy were already zero and it’s simply a vicious lie to suggest the Blackman endangered his comrades. Perhaps the judge needed to ease his conscience at his betrayal of this loyal sergeant with  a disgusting slur.

Another vindictive twist of the knife was the judge’s assurance to Blackman that he would receive the same sort of protection from his fellow prisoners that sex offenders get. This is certainly necessary given that Muslims are over three times over-represented in our prisons. The irony is that Blackman  is just as surrounded by enemies in a British prison as he ever was in Afghanistan. Not of course his enemies but only by virtue of fighting for his country.

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

Forget the potato famine, Bloody Sunday or the treatment of gays in the 50s. They are all history. Right now the fate of Sergeant Blackman is the greatest reason to be ashamed of Britain.

A patriotic soldier with a distinguished record of service did something wrong in the terrible context of the stress of war. General Houghton must know he was mouthing mendacious liberal pieties when he justified the court martial sentence with the remark that “murder is murder”. It’s not. Not even in peaceful civil society. That’s why our courts often free women who have murdered their own children because of the mitigating factor of their post natal depression. So even in peaceful Britain murder is not murder. How much more is that true of a killing that takes place under the stress of a brutal war against a savage enemy?

And as lefties are fond of saying, “We are all responsible”. Sergeant Blackman fought for us. He was betrayed by those in power who sent him to fight in the first place. But we also have failed Sergeant Blackman by forgetting his suffering and by not fighting for him as he fought for us.

Free Sergeant Blackman.


To follow me on Twitter click here

53 comments:

  1. Fantastic and brilliantly put. From a mother of a Royal Marine Killed in Action Afghanistan 2012

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. I wish I could say that time is the great healer, but it's not for a parent. Our country is worth fighting for but our leaders are the basest scum.

      Delete
    2. Our leaders are the basest scum? Such flattery is unwarranted and uncommonly charitable! In my opinion, if such a thing were possible, I would wish our leaders and elites a fate worse than eternal damnation in the deepest circles of hell!

      Delete
  2. Excellent piece. Sgt Blackman has been used as a political scapegoat to appease the enemy, in an attempt to look good on the international stage. With the spectacular failure of the Al Sweady enquiry, costing £32 million+, when 'British' lawyers obsessed with jailing British troops ignored the catalogue of baseless lies told by enemy captives in their desperation to get convictions. Our PC politicians and MOD were therefore even more desperate to show that they would jail a British Soldier and make themselves look good. Sgt Blackman IS that soldier..... shame on all those who send our troops to war, who are first in line to take credit for a glorious victory, yet who turn tail like the cowards they are, when things don't go according to their plans. #FreeMarineA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reading about the Al Sweady enquiry, I couldn't believe that we'd sunk so low. They send our men out, they tie their hands and watch them die, then they persecute them if they survive. Time for servicemen to go on strike, only of course they never would. They exploit their patriotism and despise them for it at the same time.

      Delete
  3. Fantastic piece! You speak for many of us. People are getting sick and tired of living under the leftwing liberal iron glove that says 'If you are not a minority, you don't matter'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are either left wing liberals or they have an Iron Glove. The two are mutually exclusive by definition.

      Delete
    2. Mr Anonymous. The "iron glove" is a metaphor so they can be the same thing.

      Delete
  4. this recalls the case of Lee Clegg who was originally jailed for life for shooting dead a passenger in a car that drove fast towards an army checkpoint in Northern Ireland. A year later the BBC screened a documentary alleging a covert plot to kill terror suspects This was one of the incidents used in the pro -IRA propaganda program .A few days later in a cynical move Clegg was charged. Eventually after massive public protest he was released and eventually cleared of all charges.
    As i have written before Enoch Powell predicted civil war - you can find him saying it on youtube.
    The civilian population is almost totally disarmed . Would the police and the army turn their guns on the English people if ordered by the Liberal Elite who have intentionally imported a hostile immigrant population.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point, David. It's been going on for years. But as you point out in that case there was massive public support and he was quietly released early. These days there seems to be a lot more public indifference. And maybe another difference. Senior military leaders used to lobby for the early release of their men. I don't think they do that anymore.

      As for your prediction of coming conflict, I agree again. Our leaders are really like chickens with their heads cut off. They see the metastasizing problem of Muslim immigrants but they can't do anything about it because they believe that it would be racist. The only weapon they have left is to throw centuries of the right to free speech out the window. That's why they jail people who warn about the supremecist nature of Islam just as much as they jail the Muslims terrorizing the rest of society.

      There must be an explosion. And as usual it will be mostly the innocent who get killed.


      Delete
    2. Well said John and David. We must also remember that those police who are armed routinely shoot to kill and take out the possibility of a fair trial which may be lost.
      I'm not too keen about guns being available as they are in the USA but that is a massive reason that 'insurgents' are not as free moving over there. There may come a time, and it pains me to say this, when the people of this country are allowed to be armed. This is rapidly becoming a different kind of war as it will happen on our own doorstep. No longer will we be able to send in the Para's to fix things in another country. This is our country and we don't know how to identify friend or foe any more.

      Delete
  5. I am all for the military getting a fair deal. Note I say a "Fair" deal not preferential deal. Anybody shooting an unarmed injured person would be charged and convicted. We are veterans not murderers. We complain when we are treated less favourably than everyone else yet expect to be treated better in this case. Sorry. Murder is murder and he is guilty of murder. That carries a mandatory life sentence. He has had his tariff set at 10 years. This shows that his service record was taken into consideration. SO are we asking to be treated fairly or preferentially. I suggest fairly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair treatment for our soldiers must mean taking the context into consideration just as they do with mothers wh kill their children or wives who murder violent husbands. Recognising the real and compelling mitigating circumstances of Sergeant Blackman's case is nothing more than fair.

      Delete
    2. What I'd like to know is who snitched?..and why?..Cant believe it was a Royal, so who?

      Delete
    3. I was wondering about that too. You never know these days

      Delete
    4. No one actually snitched. The RM who had the head cam on patrol that day downloaded the footage to his own computer when he came home. A year after the incident (a whole year where that footage was unsecured and in the public domain), the police in the UK went to his home on an unrelated matter and took his laptop. It was there that they found the footage which they then passed onto the Military Police. The other point, on the edited 'Court released head cam footage' which is available to watch on YouTube, Al Blackman states six times on that day that the insurgent was dead. The complete unedited footage remains unreleased to the public, which begs the question, is Al simply guilty of desecrating a corpse, which would also break the Geneva Convention? Judge Blackett stated that Al had made up the defence of the insurgent being dead, ONLY when he was arrested (a whole year later), yet he can clearly be heard stating, several times it on the very day the incident happened. It just does not add up.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the info. I had forgotten the circumstances of the footage coming to light. Thanks for the additional info about the unedited footage too.

      Delete
    6. So anonymous u say fair deal if you delve a little futrher you will find the injured person was injured by an appache helicopter because the said injured person had attacked the royal marine hero's troop so to sit on your nice comfy sofa watching soaps and then judge is shockingly wrong ! Id love to hear your opinion on david camerons attack and murder of two british citizens who might have been planning attacks .

      Delete
  6. Great article sir...will be sharing it.
    You skewer the liberal hypocrisies that throw rose petals at grieving widows feet-yet shill for the UN/EU/BBC/quisling liberals when the cameras are gone and the graveside is emptied.
    An utter disgrace that this man is still in prison for doing nothing wrong at all-apart from keep a camera running, as he did his job for us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, sir. As you say, an utter disgrace. The only hope we have is the disinfectant of light ie publicity. Progressives scatter like vampires at dawn when their dark deeds are exposed.

      Delete
  7. John Moloney,
    I got posted your page via a friend on Facebook. I am currently writing about Sergeant Alexander Blackman. I have to say your article is really good. I am almost finished just a few more pages. What you said is very true!

    ReplyDelete
  8. An accomplished piece of writing which proffers a compelling argument for a re-trial and our brother's subsequent release.
    Did he murder the enemy fighter? Yes, it seems that he did and in Law there is only one possible sentence for such a crime when a guilty verdict is returned.
    Should the verdict have been guilty? Absolutely not!
    The facts speak for themselves - combat and domestic stress MUST have influenced his actions and therefore provided ample mitigation for a fair verdict.
    I'm afraid that politics got in the way of this.
    A brave man and a fine Marine - braver and better than I was, that's for sure.
    Well written John.


    Forgetting all of the disdain for the Liberalists

    ReplyDelete
  9. Has One World Government already arrived? The decision makers in Britain could be exchanged for the ones in the U. S. and one wouldn't notice!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For example the case of Sergeant Evan Vela who was ordered to shoot an unarmed spotter and is now doing a 10 year stretch.

      Delete
  10. This is an articulate and compelling piece. There are references to valid sources. It exposes what the initiate already know about men fighting other men in war. The argument in very convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This backs up my own thinking. There was no doubt that he killed the Taliban fighter; the video evidence was damning in that respect. The question was always how much the mitigating factors should have been taken into account during sentencing.

    When the murderers of defenceless children get less than 10 years and someone under constant threat gets life, there is something seriously wrong. The problem for Alex Blackman was that he was sentenced shortly after Lee Rigby's killers who got a similar sentence. Entirely political.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As far as I can see, he was doing him a favour, he arranged for him to meet his promised bunch of virgins sooner, and still with his tackle intact, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what they want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must say I do find it pretty difficult to work up any sympathy for the Taliban fighter.

      Delete
  13. The sooner a revoultion starts againts islam in the west the better..lets end this now

    ReplyDelete
  14. What an absolute load of rubbish. Moloney you have clearly never heard of the law of armed conflict, rules of engagement and the Geneva convention. We don't put prisoners out of their misery what ever their injuries, we don't drag them out of site, shoot them then get our subordinates to cover up a breach that was admitted. If the judge was so wrong, why was a mandatory life sentence commuted to 10 years?
    It doesn't matter what happened in WW2, what they might/would do to us. That was not on trial.
    He wasn't betrayed by anyone. He betrayed himself, the reputation of the Royal Marines and the British armed forces. He acted as a recruiting tool for the Taliban.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you are an idiot, simple as that - a moron.
      obviously you know nothing about war, the circumstances, you're so naive it's beyond belief. what were supposed to do? risk their life and many other soldiers trying to revive that body, medevac it?? wasting precious resources?? brittish soldiers could be at risk becuase the chinook would be flying for that pakistani terrorist??
      that body was dragged other rough terrain - no sound from the terrorist - not a single moan and in recording you can hear soldiers' breathing under heavy load
      during trial all unidentifiable sound were attributed to the terrorist - wtf?
      that body was just twitching, no chances for anybody to survive such wounds to the chest as that terrorist got
      Al is a hero

      Delete
    2. If you actually read the piece you'll see very clearly that I say that Sergeant Blackman killed the Taliban fighter and that it was wrong to do so. My point is very simply that there are very compelling grounds for clemency. This is not the My Lai massacre of civilians. If you think that a wife murdering a violent husband is mitigation. If you think that post natal depression is mitigation in the case of a mother killing her baby then Sergeant Blackman's case has mitigation in spades. Just the most trivial of the mitigating factors the of the Marines fighting in 50 degree heat is significant.

      He betrayed himself, yes. The reputation of the British armed forces no. That was irretrievably lost in our retreat from Basra. An impossible mission, inadequate forces, sub-standard weapons, lawyer hamstrung officers, they all played a part. But the fact remains that we were forced to leave. Either you have a reputation as a battle winning force or you are nothing and may as well go picking flowers like the Dutch army.

      Delete
    3. To the first reply, if you read up on the case you would know there was a lull in the fighting. We frequently picked up injured civilians and fighters because they are a good source of intelligence. You might want to look that up, clearly you lack it. How do you know they body was twitching? The full footage hasn't been released, and in what way shape or form is it Blackman right to say that the guy dies? It isnt. He has a responsibility under the GC and LOAC to ensure his safety. Under the ROE he shouldn't fire upon him. I don't care if you say they don't follow the GC because that is completely irrelevant, we do, and our soldiers obey them or they are punished. Maybe if you had a real clue you would know that.
      John, no he didn't kill him, he murdered him. Killing him would be shooting him in a firefight or in an air strike. Blackman dragged him out of site, and shot an unarmed injured man then got his mate to cover it up. He knew exactly what he was doing. That is murder.
      PTSD was dismissed after a full evaluation. If he claimed that it would have been murder by reason of insanity and he would have been locked up in definate in broadmoor.
      Our exit from iraq and Afghan was because Labour sent us in there with no exit plan, no idea of what we were to achieve - afghan went from defeating the taliban/finding bin Laden to a war on drugs, building up their military, education, infrastructure and a dozen other things in a country that doesn't even get on with the tribe in the next village let alone Kabul or Washington/London.
      Sub standard weapons? The British soldier is now the best equipped it has been for decades. Yes we went in the unprepared but that was because it wasn't anticipated.
      Lawyer hamstrung officers? Really? No just ones that obey the law.

      Delete
    4. We'll just have to agree to disagree then, Mr Anonymous

      Delete
  15. karen chambers28 June 2015 at 12:31

    I totally agree, I am only a mum of a royal marine and may have had no combat training. But he is not denying he shot a wounded Taliban that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the amount of prison time he has got. I am glad he took out the rubbish one less suicide bomber or gunman to be used against us, after all the trouble all these terrorists are causing one less has to be a good thing. if you look at other crimes I do think the judge was over harsh in what he handed down two years would have been enough and being kicked out of the forces has probably hit him harder then any prison term ever will. As a mum I would kill all and sundry if it was to save my family and I would have probably done the same as Al to make sure another future threat was eradicated can only tell the truth as I see it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. as I've said elsewhere in respect of a terrorist..............."a wounded rabid dog is still a rabid dog,and should be put down"
    although I served 12yrs in the Regulars including a tour in NI (part of which was spent on an EOD Team) and Gulf War 91 then with 3yrs TA,i was never put in the same stressful situation as those who have had to fight these scumbags.
    Sgt Blackman was sentenced to appease the chattering classes such as cherie & tony b'liar.
    Sgt Blackman has My Full Support and I look forward to his release asap.
    ps; well written with valid points.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not just to appease the chattering classes unless by chattering classes you mean our whole establishment. They actually believe this stuff. They believe what they're shovelling is rose petals

      Delete
  17. With all these terrible acts of terrorism since #marineA was jailed.....including the murders of almost 31 people in Tunisia,the sentencing of this Royal Marine with 15 years and 6 tours and impeccable service for Queen and Country is simply an injustice. Scapegoat by the very country that sent him to these perilous places. Geneva Convention? Taliban terrorists certainly do not abide by it. And for all those that say he broke it, he did not. He was not charged with breaking it. Unarmed prisoner? load of tosh, rabid terrorist scum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was unarmed because he had been searched. We don't shoot unarmed prisoners. We are better than them.

      Delete
  18. An expat scot in CANADA28 June 2015 at 15:02

    This is a great article, every responsible Brit should be up in arms, there are many questions that could be asked regarding the incident, RM Blackman is being made a scapegoat for all those Generals who don't have the guts to stand up for their Squadies, it's time John Q Public sorted them out by writing to the Brit newspapers, and showing the photos of what all these Hero's had to put up with from all those terrorists, and send these meally mouthed Generals into the front line and see how they do, but remember send lots of under ware for them, they'll need lots of changes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's just the point. If every responsible Brit was up in arms they'd arrange Blackman's release in the blink of an eye. People need to be reminded of the story.

      Delete
  19. Brilliant article and written only hours before 30 something British holidaymakers were slaughtered by an ISIS inspired terrorist, as they sunbathed, casts further scepticism on the situation and injustice meted out on "One of our own".

    ReplyDelete
  20. No soldier is fighting for us, They do it for the elite, those who don't care about us... Well, they even harm us. Patriotic and soldier can't be put together... It's a contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well your comment shows that you've never been in,I joined up to protect My country and All those that live there Not just those with money/power.
      I joined up through a sense of pride in, and, duty to, a country that gave my grandparents a safe place to live,a country that looked after me.

      Delete
  21. Father of RM killed in Afghanistan29 June 2015 at 06:39

    There are some great points in this article, some glaring absences and too many emotional comments that undermine the great points.

    Based on what was presented to the public, this was murder. They came across the guy, took him out of sight of the helicopter and discussed treatment or not and then he was shot. In those circumstance (and the comments after), it was for the defence to prove a body was shot and not a dying insurgent.

    The judiciary is independent of the govt - just look at how hard it was to extradite the Abus - Q'ttada and Hamza, so JB was not "following orders"

    The Geneva Convention wasn't mentioned by the prosecution.

    General Blackett? From the Navy? Judge Advocate General, agreed, but not General.

    In any case having been found guilty by the board (not just Jeff Blackett), of murder, a life sentence is the mandatory sentence, with a starting tariff set at 15 years for "simple" murder - complex starts 25/30. SO JAG rules out cpmplex/vilent murder and starts with the mandatory lower tariff. Takes into account the "leadership" responsibility (which might add a year or two) then takes off for mitigation. Remember Al pleaded NOT GUILTY, so the offence is by definition treated more seriously that had he pleaded guilty, or offered a different defence - so his defence team, which the JAG did suggest should be changed, offered poor advice. 10 years, was reduced to 8 on appeal. Even so I think this was on the harsh side, but the law was served - mitigation was taken into account.

    If he wanted the same result safely, he could have decided treatment was too dangerous and formed all round defence while the guy bled out - painfully.

    Clearly Al broke the ROE - and my son didn't die to allow us to break the ROE so that we lost the moral authority to be conducting operations.

    However, the even more guilty lot are the politicians and the senior military who failed to follow the first principle of war - selection and maintenance of the aim - as it say about, getting Al Qaeda, became removing taliban, destroying poppies, building army, imposing democracy.... that was not maintaining the aim - and all after diverting focus on an illegal war in Iraq.

    So, AL was guilty, IMHO, the sentence is harsh, but within legal bounds, he wasn't hung out to dry over this incident - but our forces and particularly the injured and bereaved have been hung out by the govt 2003-10

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thank you for taking the time to detail your objections.

    Your argument is very cogently expressed but the weakness lies in your admission that Sgt Blackman would have faced no charge at all had he merely allowed the Taliban fighter to bleed out, as you say painfully. Another way would have been to hose down the Taliban upon spotting him. This illustrates that the stark difference between shooting somebody dead on the streets of Britain and finishing off an enemy in war. It was wrong and the British Army holds itself to higher standards but it is not murder as the word is commonly understood. We were perhaps more civilised as a people a couple of generations ago but also more subtle and pragmatic. That is why such cases did not even come to light in former wars. In short, in the context of such a barbarous war I think you are holding our soldiers to an impossible standard.

    I agree totally with you about the lack of a clear and achieveable war aim in Afghanistan.

    As regards the Iraq war I don't believe that it was an illegal war. It was worse than that. It was a mistake.

    I've corrected the "General Blackett" to Judge Advocate General. Silly mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Father of RM killed in Afghanistan29 June 2015 at 10:29

    You miss the point entirely, which is why the "Al is not guilty argument is flawed" (while the reduce the sentence one needs him to admit his guilt). Indeed had he hosed him down on spotting that would be fine, had he made an assessment it was too dangerous to treat that was fine, BUT he shot him. Therefore he was judged by his actions which were not of the standard expected by the Corps, nor in keeping with the ROE, which spelled out the actions he was allowed to take. SO Finishing off someone after 6 minutes of conscious thought and debate, is in many ways worse that an instant reaction in the UK. I do not hold our servicemen to an impossible standard - but he needs to account for his actions. by saying not guilty, he is not accepting the inevitable conclusions of the video (as released to the public) - it is the only rational conclusion. By definition that requires a life sentence and a tariff set by the judge, so the only debate is the length of the tariff and as AB doesn't acknowledge his actions (as murder) that sentence will be higher than a guilty plea.

    As for the Iraq War II - that is was illegal is far worse than a mistake - a mistake is an error of judgement - illegal is just that. Mistake - well he got it wrong - illegal, send Bliar to prison.

    As for General/JAG being a mistake - indeed - at least it wasn't illegal! You might also change the suggestion that the JAG "lied" he did not - he clearly considered mitigating factors else the tariff would have been 15 years or more. As for putting others at risk - again, not a lie an opinion that could be debated (like burning the Koran put lives at risk because of the backlash). I tend to side with the JAG on this - does that make your supposition it didn't a lie? No. ergo nor was his opinion. However, accusing the JAG of being a liar, could be considered somewhat libellous - that is illegal (as in civil law not criminal) and not a mistake - dare I suggest you at least say what you want in a way that is no more than a mistake and definitely not illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  24. With respect you miss my point entirely. I do not say that Sgt Blackman is not guilty. The post clearly outlines the circumstances of the killing. The points I make all concern the very compelling reasons for clemency.

    The Iraq war was not illegal? Parliament voted for it just like the Second World War. I agree that Blair is a totally unscrupulous liar, but that's not unique in politicians. Paradoxically given the unpopularity Blair suffered from his own party for backing George Bush a very good case could be made that he took the decision based on a strong conviction. And also your use of Bliar in this context could also be viewed as libelous. Though I don't think any conceivable British jury would convict you on that one!

    I take your point about my accusation that the JAG lied when he said he took the mitigating factors into account. Perhaps I should have used your own formulation that he was "harsh" or "bloody harsh". It comes to the same thing for Sgt Blackman. He gets to languish in prison for years for a mistake made in the context of very strong mitigating factors. As for his suggestion that Blackman's actions increased the dangers faced by fellow British soldiers I think that is ridiculous for the reasons I outlined above and a species of lie.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Father of RM killed in Afghanistan29 June 2015 at 13:07

    They are please for clemency that are largely irrelevant when the plea was not guilty - 6 minutes contemplation is enough for premeditation, which is why the "harsh" sentence will stick. Glad you acknowledge the "lie" issue. Bliar is of course a typo! I would never Blie about that:) That Parliament votes something (especially when "sexed up") does not make it legal. It was never anything more than regime change Blair as good as admitted that, which is illegal under the UN constitution. The attorney general was saying it was illegal - but by all accounts was leant on and CDS was saying it was illegal, until the attorney general was leant on.

    SO the facts are (from publicly released records) - He spent 6 minutes debating what to do and moving the vic out of site. He then fired a round into the vic and warned the patrol of his wrong doing. It comes to light (and given the police often outsource the investigation of laptops (I know have done it), the vid is in the public domain. There has to be a charge CPS not govt. It goes to Court Martial - independent of govt - and he pleads not guilty, when the public record clearly suggests that is a nonsensical plea. Therefore the court is by definition going to be harsher than otherwise. The mandatory sentence is passed with a tariff, that does show mitigation - the only real debate is whether it shows enough, but it is legal and within Julian Thompson's 5-10 yr bracket (I would have though 5 would suffice) - then reduced on appeal.

    No Govt involvement - poor defence strategy, advised to change defence - I mean come on. There is only one person responsible, no one else pulled the trigger - the vid - why was that not destroyed (why was it allowed out when SOPs banned them - overall poor drills.

    Get that this is not a govt conspiracy - earlier incompetence and Blying, (blook at that typo!) yes, but not an after the event conspiracy. One that is accepted, let get on with a rational course to get the harshness reduced, but accept it the outcome as inevitable - just the length of incarceration is up for debate.....

    ... and remember I say this as someone with pretty good cause to be angry over the whole Afghan thing. Can I say I wouldn't have done the same - no, but a sincerely hope I wouldn't have....

    ReplyDelete
  26. I appreciate the good nature with which you have made your criticisms. I’m normally accustomed to brainless vitriol from those who disagree with me.

    First off, I agree with you that Sgt Blackman should have pleaded guilty. It may have got him a slightly reduced sentence. But have you considered why he didn’t? You mentioned in your first comment that one of the weaknesses of my post was that it is emotional. You are right it is, and so was Blackman’s response to the charge against him. Here is a man who has loyally served his country for 15 years and because he served in the Royal Marines that means he got the toughest assignments, like the one he had in Afghanistan where he and his colleagues performed the military equivalent of fly paper. They were there to entice the enemy out so that they could be killed. He did just that and had an unblemished record. We know it is entirely unblemished because if they had anything on him which they could have used in court they no doubt would have. So after all blood, sweat, trauma and loss plod comes knocking on the door. It turns out that one of the enemy wasn’t killed according to the ROE. And suddenly all that service counts for nothing. So he pleaded not guilty.

    You well know army service is different. As you admit yourself you may have done exactly the same thing as Sgt Blackman. The reason I wrote the post was that I knew that in his place I almost certainly would have done the same thing.

    You also say that parliament voting for something does not make it legal. In fact nothing else does. Surely you don’t think that war is only legal if we can bribe the French, Russians and Chinese as well as anybody else who happens to be on the Security Council that year to approve your war? Yes the case was sexed up. That’s how Liebour, sorry typo, pushed everything through. Everything was sexed up. And yet the good old British people voted them back in twice. That’s our system. That’s what made it legal. By the by I’m no fan of Camoron, sorry, Cameron either as just my previous post proves.

    I also agree with you that there was no conspiracy. There didn’t need to be. Among our leaders in every field there is now a mindset, the worldview of progressive liberals (also in my last post).

    I didn’t mention your son. You clearly argued on the basis of reason, so that’s how I responded. What is the condolence of a stranger worth that knows neither you nor your son? Thank you once again. As outlined above I consider much of what you said valid and well informed.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Father of RM killed in Afghanistan29 June 2015 at 23:39

    Brainless criticisms and even worse brainless posts (and your is not, just emotional) come from those with not enough intelligence to understand more than one concept at a time.

    Yes I have spent much time wondering why he didn't plead guilty in light of the damning video. Either an impressive gamble to take the case to ECHR to overturn Courts Martial, get to 12 members of a jury and get sympathy and acquittal on appeal. The gamble didn't pay off, along with poor advice from his team, which the JAG advised him to change. And given the 6 minutes of rational thought debate and action, this was not killing it was murder.

    Yes, I say I may have done the same - I hope not. Many most who were there DID NOT act the same way and it is our ability to act in accordance with the law/ROE that distinguishes us from the likes of the taliban and gives us the moral right to abhor their actions. His actions undermined this

    Of course Parliament doesn't make something legal. Look at the number of times a UK law (a law rather than a vote) has been ruled illegal by the courts of UK, let alone EU.

    I mention my son for no other reason that to show that many would expect me to say he is innocent - rational thought does not work that way - nor does the law - the application law is rational, not emotional, evven when the law is an ass.

    So, if we want AB out and I do sooner rather than later (ie 5 not 8 years) then the process to go about it needs to be rational and not emotional. Your argument is entirely emotionally driven and will not work. End of!

    ReplyDelete