ChatterBank21 mins ago
My Faith In Military Justice Is Feeling A Bit Stronger This Afternoon
47 Answers
Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman gets life with at least 10 years
http://
I was concerned we'd see a slap on the wrist but I think this sends a fairly strong message that this is not excusable behavior
You may all shout me down now
http://
I was concerned we'd see a slap on the wrist but I think this sends a fairly strong message that this is not excusable behavior
You may all shout me down now
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. 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.
I have never read such childish drivel as this case has brought up.
Blackman murdered a POW in cold blood. He was filmed doing it and he even admitted his own guilt by telling his fellow British soldiers that he had just broken the Geneva Convention. A court has found him guilty...what other verdict could have possibly have come to ?
Blackman murdered a POW in cold blood. He was filmed doing it and he even admitted his own guilt by telling his fellow British soldiers that he had just broken the Geneva Convention. A court has found him guilty...what other verdict could have possibly have come to ?
More than likely the sentence will be reduced on appeal if the British public has anything to do with it.
Unlike some on AnswerBank there is a great deal of support from the public for this soldier.
/// But yesterday his commanding officer pledged his ‘full support’ for his comrade, saying Blackman had been ‘tainted’ by experiences described as ‘hell on earth’. ///
/// Last night a huge wave of support was swelling for the first British serviceman to be convicted of murder on active service abroad since the Second World War. ///
Unlike some on AnswerBank there is a great deal of support from the public for this soldier.
/// But yesterday his commanding officer pledged his ‘full support’ for his comrade, saying Blackman had been ‘tainted’ by experiences described as ‘hell on earth’. ///
/// Last night a huge wave of support was swelling for the first British serviceman to be convicted of murder on active service abroad since the Second World War. ///
You're not alone.
I'm also perplexed at hwoever is pushing this agenda:
http://
I posted this link elsewhere a week or so ago, just after the Ian Watkins case I believe. How is it that 4 innocent men found Not Guilty ought to be named, yet 2 monsters who offered their infant children up for the most vile abuse imaginable are allowed to keep their anonymity?(and yes, I know it's to protect the children but it's still unfair, the children could have their surnames changed etc).
Mind-boggling.
I'm also perplexed at hwoever is pushing this agenda:
http://
I posted this link elsewhere a week or so ago, just after the Ian Watkins case I believe. How is it that 4 innocent men found Not Guilty ought to be named, yet 2 monsters who offered their infant children up for the most vile abuse imaginable are allowed to keep their anonymity?(and yes, I know it's to protect the children but it's still unfair, the children could have their surnames changed etc).
Mind-boggling.
Chilli, Baz and others.
I doubt very much that any of you were in the court when the verdict was given out, and nor was I, so perhaps it might be best to familiarise ourselves with what Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett actually said :::
He told Blackman that "he had disgraced the name of the British armed services and had put troops' lives at risk by his actions.
"This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a firefight," he said.
"Nor were you under any immediate threat - the video footage shows that you were in complete control of yourself, standing around for several minutes and not apparently worried that you might be at risk of attack by other insurgents."
Sounds pretty "in cold blood" to me, and to the Court Martial.
Blakett then went on to say :::
"This was your sixth operational tour and your second to Afghanistan in under 14 years of service," the judge said.
"We accept that you were affected by the constant pressure, ever present danger and fear of death or serious injury.
"This was enhanced by the reduction of available men in your command post so that you had to undertake more patrols yourself and place yourself and your men in danger more often.
"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.
"While we acknowledge your personal circumstances and the immense pressure you were under, we note that thousands of other service personnel have experienced the same or similar stresses.
"They exercised self-discipline and acted properly and humanely; you did not."
Fred has told us that the court consisted of a panel of 7 officers, including 3 Royal Marine Officers. They will have heard all the evidence that was presented in the Court Martial and it would seem to me that a very thorough job was done by all involved. So I have no reason to doubt that a verdict of murder was correct.
As you were not in court, I'm not sure why you think differently from those in the know ?
I doubt very much that any of you were in the court when the verdict was given out, and nor was I, so perhaps it might be best to familiarise ourselves with what Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett actually said :::
He told Blackman that "he had disgraced the name of the British armed services and had put troops' lives at risk by his actions.
"This was not an action taken in the heat of battle or immediately after you had been engaged in a firefight," he said.
"Nor were you under any immediate threat - the video footage shows that you were in complete control of yourself, standing around for several minutes and not apparently worried that you might be at risk of attack by other insurgents."
Sounds pretty "in cold blood" to me, and to the Court Martial.
Blakett then went on to say :::
"This was your sixth operational tour and your second to Afghanistan in under 14 years of service," the judge said.
"We accept that you were affected by the constant pressure, ever present danger and fear of death or serious injury.
"This was enhanced by the reduction of available men in your command post so that you had to undertake more patrols yourself and place yourself and your men in danger more often.
"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.
"While we acknowledge your personal circumstances and the immense pressure you were under, we note that thousands of other service personnel have experienced the same or similar stresses.
"They exercised self-discipline and acted properly and humanely; you did not."
Fred has told us that the court consisted of a panel of 7 officers, including 3 Royal Marine Officers. They will have heard all the evidence that was presented in the Court Martial and it would seem to me that a very thorough job was done by all involved. So I have no reason to doubt that a verdict of murder was correct.
As you were not in court, I'm not sure why you think differently from those in the know ?
This man got a lighter sentence; at least five years shorter than it would have been otherwise, precisely because he was being tried by officers. They brought their experience of combat and the conditions to bear. A civilian court would have undoubtedly have sentenced him to 15 years minimum, the 'low tariff', for murder. He might well have got more, because of the aggravating factors in the evidence and those alluded to by the J A G in his sentencing remarks.
That's the problem though Fred. I've attended 4 Courts Martial and the over riding memory of each is that the defendant is never tried by his peers, only his superiors.
I'm also mindful that this is the same Judge Blackett who presides of IRB cases of serious foul play.
Some of his judgements are head-scratchcingly perplexing and I often wonder if he has actually viewed the same incident as everyone else.
I'm also mindful that this is the same Judge Blackett who presides of IRB cases of serious foul play.
Some of his judgements are head-scratchcingly perplexing and I often wonder if he has actually viewed the same incident as everyone else.
The panel of Judges have exactly the empathy and insight that you say is needed, to understand this case Chilli and they expressed some sympathy, as can be seen from Blakett's comments when passing judgement.
But they still gave the sentence of 10 years. I am still not sure why you choose to gainsay the opinion and verdict of these experienced and qualified people ?
One daft person on here has suggested that far from being charged with murder, Blackman should have given a medal !
But they still gave the sentence of 10 years. I am still not sure why you choose to gainsay the opinion and verdict of these experienced and qualified people ?
One daft person on here has suggested that far from being charged with murder, Blackman should have given a medal !
tha was me ...you scared to name names
I'll say it again..he should have got a medal...he made sure that he couldnt go on to murder or hurt any british or other allied military out there.
there is obviously an agenda, because when the MOD wants to hide things its pretty damn good at it, and I'd like to know who decided to make sure the public got hold of this leading to the imprisonmnet of this soldier
I'll say it again..he should have got a medal...he made sure that he couldnt go on to murder or hurt any british or other allied military out there.
there is obviously an agenda, because when the MOD wants to hide things its pretty damn good at it, and I'd like to know who decided to make sure the public got hold of this leading to the imprisonmnet of this soldier
Unfortunately,or fortunately, AOG, a 'huge wave 'of public support won 't affect the appeal, which will be dismissed in about 10 minutes, at a rough guess. A military court has reduced the sentence because it found mitigation in the man's service and circumstances at the time and his mental state. That being so, it cannot be argued that they did not take due account of those matters.
Do you think the huge wave of public support is for his not being charged with murder in the first place or for him not being sentenced to 10 years minimum? If the latter, what sentence do you think he should have got and what do you think the huge wave thinks appropriate ? It's interesting to know what people think on such matters, as distinct from what judges and lawyers think.
Do you think the huge wave of public support is for his not being charged with murder in the first place or for him not being sentenced to 10 years minimum? If the latter, what sentence do you think he should have got and what do you think the huge wave thinks appropriate ? It's interesting to know what people think on such matters, as distinct from what judges and lawyers think.
I agree, ludwig. It there is scope for amending the sentence (eg for good behaviour) then something like the American formulation of "10 years to life" would be fine. The deliberate lack of transparency is a fraud on the public.
However, nobody on this thread has after all suggested that this man really should serve a life sentence (let alone that he should face execution). Perhaps AB hardliners are softening as the Christmas season approaches.
However, nobody on this thread has after all suggested that this man really should serve a life sentence (let alone that he should face execution). Perhaps AB hardliners are softening as the Christmas season approaches.
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.