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.