Background
In September 2011, 42 Commando, Royal Marines was engaged in fierce fighting in the Helmand province of Afghanistan. The area around the Shazad Patrol base where the incident occurred was described at the time as “the most dangerous square mile in the world”. After an attack by insurgents was repelled with 30mm gunfire from an Apache helicopter, acting Colour Sergeant Al Blackman led a patrol to assess the effect of the helicopter attack. Recorded unwittingly on a helmet camera, Sgt Blackman shot dead a very badly injured insurgent they found at the scene. He was tried by court-martial (before anonymity was removed he was referred to as “Marine A”) and convicted of murder in November 2013, sentenced to life imprisonment to serve 10 years, reduced to 8 years on appeal.
Sgt Blackman had been Afghanistan since March, had led multiple patrols and been in several firefights. Quite possibly he had developed mild Combat Stress Disorder, stating that he was “feeling a little paranoid, [that] insurgents were gunning for me personally”. Due to the remote nature of the operating base he had little regular contact with his command chain, who could have assessed his mental state. During this tour, 42 Cdo lost 7 men killed and 40 injured. The Taliban insurgents had committed atrocities against the civilian population and, taking no prisoners, had mutilated and tortured the bodies of soldiers they had killed. The case did not come to court until 2 years after the incident, making it hard to verify the mental state of Sgt Blackman at the time. Unusually for a murder trial, no body was found or identified.
The man
Joining the Royal Marines straight from school, Alexander Blackman had an outstanding record of service to his country. He had served for 15 yrs including 6 operational tours of duty in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. Until the incident came to light, his service in Afghanistan was described as ‘outstanding’ and he was expected to be promoted to full Colour Sergeant.
What is most admirable about experienced soldiers such as Sgt Blackman is not just physical strength and courage, but the fact they have to live with the horrors of war they have witnessed yet are willing to repeatedly go back and put themselves at risk again.
Guilty
What is not really in question is that Sgt Blackman broke rules he was fully aware of, killing an enemy combatant he could perhaps have taken prisoner. Furthermore he attempted to hide his actions and involve subordinates. His defence that he believed the man to be already dead does not stand up in the face of what he was recorded saying by the helmet cam. He has brought shame on the Royal Marines who have always tried to be magnanimous in victory. According to the rules of war we have submitted to, he is guilty of murder and it was right that he answer for his actions. What is much more subjective is the measure of the punishment handed out. Going to prison for a killing that took place in the heat of battle is harsh, although the Court of Appeal considered the many mitigating circumstances, there is considerable public anger at the 8 year sentence.
Justice?
Although he may have been tried by his ‘peers’ in a court-martial it is very easy for those of us sitting in the comfort and safety of our homes to pass an absolute judgment on a man’s actions under the pressure of combat. This is nothing like a common civilian murder committed on the streets in the UK and in this case even using the term “murder” is fraught with problems.
Soldiers are human and the brutal behavior of the Taliban undoubtedly made the battle feel personal – “kill or be killed”. Walking out from the compound, Sgt Blackman was either going to find active combatants, whom he was required to kill or wounded enemies he was obliged under a code of conduct to help. In many previous conflicts soldiers could sometimes see their enemies as people just like them, sent to do a job, even comrades in arms who they were relieved to capture and send off to be prisoners. The recent counter-insurgency operations are different. Fighting stateless insurgents who do not recognize any international law, have never heard of the Geneva convention and live by a code of medieval brutality is inevitably going to impact the behaviour of those sent to fight them.
This complex case puts an uncomfortable spotlight on how we treat and judge our service personnel. If we send them off to fight on our behalf in circumstances that are often horrific and beyond the understanding of those who have not been there, we must not then judge them by application of our civilian norms.
Many seasoned and respected soldiers who understand the pressures of combat have commented that in similar circumstances they might well have done the same as Sgt Blackman.
It does not make it right, but it would be very naive to believe this has not happened before when British troops have killed wounded or captured enemy soldiers in the heat of battle or its immediate aftermath, the difference now being recording technology such as the helmet camera. This explains why Sgt Blackman is the only serviceman convicted of “murder” on active service since WWII.
There are plenty of civilians who have never risked life and limb to serve their country and society, have committed violent crimes far from the heat of battle, yet have received shorter sentences.
Few really believe there was a media or political conspiracy behind the conviction, but undoubtedly government was satisfied by the result, as from an international perspective they could be seen to be doing the right thing. Thanks to pressure from the Guardian newspaper, Sgt Blackman was named like a common murderer for the benefit of a hungry media and not given the protection of anonymity that service personnel should normally have
Divided opinions
The case is complex and has divided opinion. On one side is the simplistic view that “He shot a terrorist, give him a medal” or the other over-judgmental extreme that believe “murder is murder – he got what he deserved”. Both views are incoherent in a case that is morally ambigious.
The Taliban, like Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and ISIL are mutant strains of the same thing. They may believe in a ‘Holy War’ to justify their actions, but however they dress it up, objectively they are killing, torturing and raping their way through swathes of the Middle East and Africa. People who think nothing of sending suicide bombers to blow themselves indiscriminately slaughtering anyone. Fighters who hide behind women and children and who torture, mutilate and kill anyone they consider an enemy, soldier or otherwise. How are we to deal with such an enemy?
Although it goes against natural instinct, by showing grace and mercy to those prisoners unable to threaten us after battle, we rise above our enemies and do not descend into the darkness. The Blackman case is about upholding the law and setting a framework that our forces must work in. If we turn a blind eye to soldiers to executing prisoners as they see fit, we become hypocrites, ignoring the international laws we helped create and signed up to whenever it suits us. We may also endanger other British personnel who become victims of retribution.
While these principles are sound we must recognize the difficulty they cause the men on the ground. Often the rules of engagement and the way we treat prisoners has hampered and even endangered our forces, very difficult to accept and act on when, like Sgt Blackman, it is your life on the line.
In the Blackman case we upheld important legal principles but failed to deal fairly with a man who risked his life for his country and made a lapse of judgement under enormous pressure.
Patronising liberal commentators who have never been near a battlefield have sneered at growing public support for Sgt Blackman, claiming this is just the view of plebeians who inhabit social media and don’t understand the finer legal points of the case. Nevertheless, once the basic facts have been filtered out from the story, a majority of ordinary people quickly sympathise with Sgt Blackman, instinctively feeling he is the victim of an injustice.
Government obviously takes the position that the judiciary is independent and they cannot interfere. However ministers do have the power to intervene to reduce a prison sentences.
A respected independent view on this case can be seen in this documentary made by Chris Terril. A film-maker who has won the green beret, he was actually risking his life filming the Royal Marines in action at the time of the incident.
Conclusion
There is no doubt the man is guilty under law and was thus convicted. What is unfair is the lack of weight given to the many mitigating factors when handing out a custodial sentence. The disgrace already suffered, together with a dishonourable discharge from the Royal Marines, the corps which he loved is surely punishment enough. We call on parliament to intervene and demonstrate that mercy and justice can be done.
Related articles
- E-Petition – The immediate release of Marine A
- Marine A sentence cut by two years as he loses appeal to have it quashed (Telegraph)
- 100 years since the first case of shell shock, it’s time to prioritise mental health (New Statesman)
- Report on conviction and the story of 42 Cdo on Herrick 14 (Plymouth Herald)
- Donate to Sgt Blackman’s (Marine A) Family
- Justice for Marine A (Campaign website)
- Justice for Marine A (Facebook Page)
Why would any one join the UK services after they do this to one of their own who was serving in one of the most stressful theatres of war ever with one hand tied behind his back like they all have. Its a disgrace.
Also on twitter @justiceforBigAl and Facebook http://www.facebook.com/justiceformarinea
The statement “the most dangerous square mile in the world” should tell you all you need to know about Sgt Blackmans case. The Insurgents (MORE than one) were attacking, and the Apache fired on them, presumably with the intention of killing the threat. In a remote, highly dangerous war zone with “little regular contact with his command chain”. Sgt Blackman was responsible for the lives of those under his command. Had he lingered to ‘patch up’ the insurgent who may have been ‘mortally’ wounded, was he not putting the patrol at risk. It’s been stated that this insurgent was NOT alone. Had Sgt Blackman’s patrol been surrounded and killed or captured by the others in the area, we could now be reading the headline, Royal Marine’s fatal mistake cost’s the lives of six young Commando’s. Sgt Blackman’s record show’s the kind of man he is, not some young gun’ho hothead, but a good, honest, dedicated soldier, sent to a ‘hell hole’. The most baffling aspect of this is – “His defence that he believed the man to be already dead does not stand up in the face of what he was recorded saying by the helmet cam”. Well, I’ve listened to the audio released by the court, (It’s on YouTube) and SIX times it is stated that the insurgent has ‘passed’ or is dead. I’m not sure why this is considered to ‘not stand up’. Add to that, the fact that no body was found, therefore, no post mortem was carried out, where is the proof that the insurgent didn’t succumb to actions of the Apache, or indeed the proof that Sgt Blackman’s shot in fact killed him?
Thanks for your comments @HelenW.
While there is great sympathy for Sgt Blackman who should not be in prison, claims that the conviction should be overturned undermine the credibility of the campaign to free him, due to mitigating circumstances. Convicted and upheld on appeal, it is a legally sound judgement that would be almost impossible to overturn. Why shoot a man who is already dead?, why say to a man who is already dead “Shuffle of this mortal coil…” ? and why try to conceal your actions from the battlefield surveillance cameras?
NavyLookout by deliberately and vindictively publicly naming and shaming Marine A, you have condemned his young family forever. This family is getting hundreds of death threats per week. The families life is a living hell.. The family is distraught and struggling to come to terms with the appalling treatment by your government. Is this what you call justice? What have they done to the military. Does a family member have to be murdered before your government will consider protection. Which soldier family is your government going to target next for their political agenda because it has absolutely nothing to do with justice.
You know, Judge Blackett considers Marine A no better than a paedophile as he is being condemned and treated like one. This Marine will never get released as your government, justice system and MoD are vindictive.. Your justice system only protects paedophiles, convicted terrorist/extremist but you can’t be bothered to protect your own soldiers or their family. MoD, his own corp hierarchy and the government must be enjoying endangering this family as they are considered NO better than 2nd class citizens. You tell us this is legally sound. I think NOT.
Just to be clear this site is independent and has nothing to do with the MoD (or the Judiciary) and do certainly do not represent or agree with all their views.
We have not named Marine A!! His name is in the public domain (and is on every site supporting his case) thanks to a judicial decision to satisfy the media – something which can’t be undone but we agree is grossly unfair. We also fully agree the affect on him and his family are an appalling injustice.
Don’t shoot the messanger.
This Marine’s treatment by MoD, gover’t and his own marine corp is utterly disgraceful. There are a number of failures with this case.
1. Both MoD/Maj Gen (involved in prosecuting Marine A) discussed their view point on Marine A in a vindictive and biased manner with the media prior to any sentencing. This is a very serious breach in sub-judice rule of law. We all know Marine A did not get a fair trial’. To say this conviction is sound is a load of garbage. *Breach sub-judice rule: http://globalmjreform.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/weaknesses-of-uk-military-justice.html. * https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.out-law.com%2Fpage-9742&h=xAQF3lF55
2. I question the validity of the cam video. The video is of poor quality and I question the tampering of this video as it has passed through many hands. I DO NOT believe in coincidences. I have listened to the tape carefully. Marine A tells us 6 times he thought this Taliban Insurgent was dead. There are sections in the tape that is silent and seems like parts of it has been edited. I believe somebody has tampered with this video just to get a conviction.
The other problem I have is the Coroner saying Taliban Insurgent was alive. What I find extremely interesting, no autopsy was completed, no medical evidence was presented and the Taliban Insurgent was NOT identified. Hmmm, very interesting.
NavyLookout the conviction is unsound and a utter disgrace. Someone has tampered with the video. Explain why NO autopsy or NO medical evidence was presented at the trial. This video is of poor quality. You WILL NOT convince me otherwise. This conviction was politically motivated and you damn well know it. * http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/09/28/the-last-survivor/
3. PTSD. This condition has been around well before WW1. There is no excuse for the ignorance of this condition. You have ‘Failed in your Duty of Care’ A……. Marine A lost his father and was quite distressed over it. Why was this NOT picked up? PTSD is triggered by an incident, situation or death of a family member. It can effect anyone, at any time. I believe Marine A had developed what we called ‘Belated PTSD’ prior to his 6th deployment. ……. B…… During his 6th deployment, Marine A was suffering from severe nightmares, insomnia, flashbacks etc. This was of course ignored throughout his deployment by his seniors. Through MoD’s arrogance and ignorance, it is costing soldiers dearly. You can’t pretend to keep covering this up. I have worked with PTSD for 20+ years. A soldiers will say they are fine, appear to behave normally and suddenly take their own life. If Marine A commits suicide in his cell, I hope you better have a damn good excuse. Take this as a WARNING, if you don’t think this can happen you are kidding yourself.
* PTSD: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-03/julia-baird-talks-with-the-abcs-kumi-taguchi-about/5789918
* http://www.abc.net.au/interactives/ptsd/
* http://www.canberratimes.com.au/interactive/2014/the-silent-war/
4. By identifying this Marine to the public, the WHOLE family are living in fear of death threats every day from extremist/convicted terrorist. The amount of death threats they get per week is unforgivable. The family have to live in constant fear. What amazes me, convicted terrorist have been released into the British community with their identities hidden. For example, 7 convicted terrorist who were involved in the London bombing in 2005 have been released in 2013 with their identities hidden. John Thuo, 27 was responsible for butchering or beheading 400 villagers in Nairobi. This gentleman has been granted asylum in Britain for 3 years.
So a question I would like to ask you, WHAT HOPE DOES THIS FAMILY HAVE? The family has NO hope in hell. This family is living in hell but I guess you don’t give a sh#t, do you. This treatment of this family is unforgivable and nothing you say will convince me otherwise.
This conviction is politically motivated, it has nothing to do with justice.
lets be clear here. He was NOT tried by a jury of his peers.
Owing to the anomaly,y that Royal Marines (essentially seaborne Infantry Soldiers ) are technically Royal Navy Sailors he was tried by a jury of Naval Officers which included a nominal marine officer.
Point 1. All of the jury (board) were commissioned officers with no experience at all as platoon sergeant (Marine A’s job/role).
Point 2. None of them had served as Non-Commissioned Officers , with the pressures inherent in that role (I have and I know).
Point 3. Most of them had NEVER served as infantry (Job Def. “To close with the enemy and kill them”).
Point 4. None of them had ever been involved in so much as a firefight, yet alone close quarters combat.
A jury (board) of his peers would have consisted of Royal marine and Infantry NCO’s – as is the case in the USA I believe, where notably not one NCO has been convicted for similar actions.
Al’s family really appreciate all of the amazing support shown to them by people all across the world, including numerous commentators who use websites and blogs to comment on his case. However, I’m sure you can understand how frustrating it is when authors comment with authority on respectable sites when they do not know Al, his family or, importantly, the facts of the case. I completely appreciate you keeping his case in the public arena and the general support shown by your comments, but so many of your statements are inaccurate. Please be careful that you don’t report opinion as fact when you haven’t had access to the facts but have the power to influence many others. Thank you again for your support.
While we do not know the family, all content in this article is based on facts derived from the mainstream media reports (many of which are linked to from the Justice for Marine A website) AND the detailed court record of the trial and appeal case. If there significant inaccuracies or if you have “new” or additional facts that are not in the public domain then please email us or comment here.
As an ex serving soldier i have trouble understanding the actions of our superior officers actions knowing the level of mental stress in ordinary serving personel never mind our eliete troops…..does our top brass and our deplorable press organisations do they remember woolwich and the actions of that scumbag adebelageo and his coward accomplice in the killing and disrespectfull way they killed an undefenceable lee rigby…..i was trained at 17 training regt and depot and if i had been on gaurd duty on that fatefull dark day i would have personally without any doubt placed a 5.56mm in each of there subnormal heads….instead we the tax payer are being charged accumulitively in our taxes to keep them in a nice comfy prison cell fed watered heated and all the benifits that go with that….our powers that be should bow there heads and be totally ashamed of there selfs…..yet again our over streched forces sh*t on from above….did not see any of the prosecution serving in multiple front line combat zones….not one of them fit enough to lace marine A’s boots…..im glad im not a serving member of our hard working overstreached poorly equipped and seriously under payed loyal serving personel anymore…..#DISGRACEFULL
https://carlosmalleum.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/since-when-did-we-demand-that-the-pointy-bayonet-of-our-democracies-should-become-policemans-blunt-truncheon/