(A guest article by Bemused from Bermondsey)
Marine A has been found guilty of murder.
He killed somebody using his weapon that was issued to him to kill the enemy.
He was in a firefight with his patrol with a number of the enemy – they were shooting at each other with the sole intention of killing.
After the Marines approached the area, they found an injured enemy and one Marine shot him dead.
He has been found guilty of murder and will be sentenced accordingly.
Was this right?
It’s a dichotomy.
On the one hand, he and his patrol were doing exactly as they were asked by rooting out the enemy and dealing with them accordingly. On the other, he shot an – an injured person.
What is the difference?
It was at close range…..If he’d got killed during the firefight, nothing would have been said. If he’d got a lucky shot of the injured enemy from a distance of say, 100 yards during the firefight then he wouldn’t be guilty of murder.
It was after the fight……No enemy surrendered so how can you know that the firefight is over? Would you be happy to see your enemy still holding a gun (or have one close by) whilst you approach or would you want to make sure none of your patrol has a chance of injury? How much compassion would you afford somebody that has just tried to kill you and your comrades?
He was wounded and in no position to fight back…….You know this and would take responsibility for anything that the enemy may have done? How badly was he injured, should he perhaps have been left to die instead or have diverted resources away from tending his own troops to deal with the enemy? Don’t forget that Marine A was trained to kill the enemy.
Our political masters (yes, they have forgotten that they are meant to work for us) sent our troops in to danger and gave them the weaponry and equipment that they thought fit to complete the task. This patrol was in the middle of a firefight, adrenalin pumping, not knowing what exactly was happening or what the outcome was to be. They did what their training taught them and they did it.
Was it murder then?
It seems to boil down to a strange argument that if the enemy had been killed in the firefight then no but as it was after the firefight then yes.
Before you criticise Marine A or his actions, ask yourself how you would react – you can’t back away as lives depend on it, answer now before it’s too late.
If you really, honestly don’t know then join the club.
I fear that we are asking our troops to do the impossible and that the consequences of getting the impossible wrong are either death, injury or prosecution.
Marine A, like the enemy, knew that they could either be killed, injured or neither is now looking at years in prison for doing his job, perhaps, as it was not in the manner that the politicians and some approved.
Bemused from Bermondsey (Guest Author)
England's England 