Tag Archives: Geneva Convention

Afghanistan, Britain, Defence, Government, Human Rights, Military

Anger as RAF airmen gloat over dead bodies of Taliban fighters…

RAF POLICE & MILITARY INVESTIGATION

Two British servicemen from the RAF Regiment have been withdrawn from the frontline in Afghanistan and returned to Britain. Damning photographs apparently showing airmen posing in a glorified manner next to the bloodstained body of a Taliban fighter are now being investigated after images were brought to the attention of the Military Police.

In one graphic picture, a grinning serviceman gives a thumbs-up as he crouches beside a body. Trails of blood, seemingly from the man’s wounds, can be seen beside him.

Other photographs show more bodies of insurgents and there are concerns that the images could be used for recruitment and propaganda by the Taliban in the months leading up to the withdrawal of UK forces from Afghanistan later this year.

Described by some as being grotesque, others have been quick in condemning the apparent ‘stupidity’ of the airmen which they say has handed the Taliban a tool to beat the remaining British troops with prior to their departure from this war-torn country.

The photographs were taken after a Taliban attack on the main British base at Camp Bastion in September 2012, while Prince Harry was deployed to fly Apache attack helicopters.

A group of 15 Taliban fighters wearing stolen US military uniforms crept towards the camp, which was ringed by a 30ft metal fence and barbed-wiring. They cut through the wire and destroyed aircraft situated on the ground inside the camp, vehicles and equipment.

A three-hour gun battle then raged involving 50 British troops, some of whom have been decorated for bravery. Two US Marines were killed and 16 troops – eight US and eight British – were injured. Of the 15 insurgents, 14 were killed and one captured.

It is two of these Taliban bodies and the actions of two members of the RAF Regiment that are now at the centre of the hugely sensitive inquiry. The airmen are from 51 Squadron RAF Regiment, currently based in Moray, Scotland.

The Ministry of Defence said the images came to its attention last month and that military police are now investigating.

Two of the photographs appear to show British airmen giving the thumbs-up but it is unclear whether it is the same man. Defence officials said there was no excuse for such behaviour. Contrary to all instructions, these appear to break military rules.

The RAF insists it has a ‘zero-tolerance policy’ on the mistreatment of deceased enemy personnel. The incident is now the subject of an ongoing RAF Police investigation.

A spokesperson for Amnesty International, said: ‘These pictures are appalling. They violate international humanitarian law standards, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the disrespectful and degrading treatment of the bodies of dead combatants.’

The photographs emerged following the conviction of Sergeant Alexander Blackman, a Royal Marine, for executing a seriously wounded Taliban prisoner. The 39-year-old shot the captive in the chest at close range with his 9mm pistol.

Controversially, Sergeant Blackman is serving a minimum of ten years in prison after becoming the first British serviceman to be found guilty of murder in a war zone since the Second World War.

Blackman killed the insurgent on September 15, 2011. Recordings from a helmet-mounted camera worn by a fellow Royal Marine captured the moments when Blackman shot the prisoner.

OPINION

The unedifying sight of a British airman doing the thumbs-up next to the dead corpse has understandably provoked widespread anger. For civilians the images offer an uncomfortable position between death and glee. Such actions fall short of the respect demanded in the articles of the Geneva Conventions for the bodies of enemy combatants.

Laid before you above are the events that transpired on the evening of September 14, 2012, in Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. 15 Taliban fighters dressed in US Army uniforms started their attack at 10pm, cutting through the perimeter wire of the base and opened fire with assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). The firefight that ensued lasted for several hours and, by the end of it, six RAF Harrier jets were burnt out and destroyed, two Marines were dead, and a dozen more British and American soldiers were injured. All but one of the Taliban fighters was dead.

The attack that night was, undoubtedly, one of the most shocking incidents of the Afghan war since deployment began in 2001. The attack revealed culpable security lapses in the running of the camp, and the RAF airmen instantly caught up in it must have been terrified yet exhilarated to be alive. It is apt to point out that many defending the base that evening were decorated for bravery.

Two of them, however, did something in bad taste, by posing victoriously next to an enemy corpse. Such folly has been compounded and made much worse as the images have appeared online, provoking outrage as the pictures could be used as a propaganda weapon against Western forces as they prepare to leave Afghanistan by the end of the year. A ‘selfie’ type culture which has now stemmed into the battlefield seems certain to be at the centre of the military police investigation, and how it ever came to pass publicly.

Opinions will vary as to the extent of the damage caused and what action should be taken. We should trust, though, that a sense of proportion is retained. Young men have found themselves in extreme danger given the perilous circumstances of the moment and were sent there at the behest of our government.

But the difficulty will be in a matter of interpretation. Whilst Camp Bastion is not Abu Ghraib, in which US guards pictured themselves degrading Iraqi prisoners, the British authorities seem likely to draw parallels. Having survived the attack the airmen clearly would have felt euphoric, but the reality of war – including the rogue emotions that accompany killing and survival – does not always chime with civilian sensitivities.

  • The images concerned will not be posted on this site.
Standard
Afghanistan, Britain, Government, Military, National Security

The court martial of a Royal Marine sergeant and two others…

VERDICTS

Society’s norms are cast adrift in a world of firefight and ambush, where air strikes leave disfigurement and random death in its wake. Protagonists could argue that society has no real business judging people who live and operate in a world of war-torn combat.

That is why it has been imperative that the Royal Marine Sergeant found guilty of murdering a wounded Afghan insurgent in September 2011 was tried in a court martial. Some may suggest the guilty verdict is an outrage; after all, there was no disagreement that the victim was an armed enemy combatant sworn to kill British soldiers if he could.

Others, too, may consider the not guilty verdicts of two other Royal Marines in the dock also appalling. The cleared two had been present at the killing, did not try to prevent it, and therefore, by the standards applied by most criminal courts, equally guilty – even though they did not pull the trigger. This kind of scenario, however, is one that never gets put before a civilian court.

Afghanistan was a war zone in which the participants – British soldiers and Afghan fundamentalists – were not only trying to kill each other but also, in the case of the Royal Marines, had lawful justification for doing so when in a firefight.

What is more, Helmand is a notorious battlefield where the Royal Marines’ enemies do not obligingly wear uniform. One moment they can be innocent and virtuous civilians, the next a lethal and devastating enemy intent on murdering soldiers, a juxtaposition that makes counter-insurgency operations especially difficult. Amid such severe brutality and death there is an altered morality.  Because the rules of engagement that soldiers operate under may result in a killing and may seem bizarre to some, this could also generate sympathy for the marines caught up in a situation that has become ever-more bitter.

Nevertheless, rules do exist for a very good reason. Morality may be altered, but it still exists. The code of the Geneva Convention, to which British armed forces have long subscribed, says that combat ends when the enemy either surrenders or is incapacitated to such an extent that fighting becomes impossible. Killing the enemy after either of these points has been reached becomes murder.

The court martial heard recordings of the conversation held by the Royal Marines at the time the Afghan insurgent was murdered. They show that the soldiers knew of the rules, especially the one convicted who was a sergeant in command of the others. In an attempt to vindicate himself the sergeant assumed the victim would not have respected the Geneva Convention and would have happily murdered the Royal Marines had he been in a position to do so. He claimed, which was also recorded, that he believed the man was dead before he shot him through the chest.

As the outcome of the court martial has shown this was rightly rejected. There is no justification at all. The Royal Marines were deployed to Afghanistan in a humanitarian cause which was to aid the removal and suppression of a Taleban regime which not only supported and facilitated killing and the terrorising of other nations including ours, but also brutalised their own people. The Afghan insurgent murdered by the Royal Marine sergeant is in complete violation of his rules of engagement. And he knew it.

Standard