The cost of killing savage killers
20 March 2017
Last week’s reduction of the murder conviction of Royal Marine
Sergeant Alexander Blackman, currently in jail for shooting an injured
Taliban terrorist in Afghanistan in 2011, to manslaughter is of interest
to all countries faced with accountability issues. Five judges of the
Court Martial Appeal Court in London overturned the original judgment
against Blackman on grounds of ‘diminished responsibility’. They held
that Blackman had suffered from ‘quite exceptional stressors’.
Blackman’s
predicament typifies that of all military personnel, engaged in
battling savage terrorists the world over. Royal Marines were fighting
an elusive enemy in a hostile terrain, sown with mines, against
numerous odds when the alleged incident occurred. War is not a game of
football. Not even football matches are free from clashes though no one
risks his life therein. Blackman’s colleagues have said they did not
call for help to remove the injured enemy because they knew the Taliban
terrorists would target the vehicles carrying medics et al.
Battlefield excesses must, no doubt, be avoided, but those who champion
human rights from the refuge of five-star hotels may not understand
how the mind of a soldier, trapped in a slay-or-be-slain situation,
works.
It is only natural that the British public leapt to
Blackman’s defence and celebrated the reduction of his conviction. They
also raised funds for his appeal. They know, as the then British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown declared in 2009, soldiers like Blackman were
fighting in Afghanistan to ‘keep Britain’s streets safe’. The British
media, too, handled the issue in such a way that the scales were tilted
in favour of the incarcerated Royal Marine. They told the world his
side of the story and revealed the circumstances which had led to the
incident. Leading the campaign from the front, The Daily Mail took up
cudgels for Blackman; it has boasted that it was instrumental in having
his conviction downgraded to manslaughter on the basis of expert
opinion that he suffered from combat stress. If only the western media
acted likewise in handling allegations against the armed forces of
other countries as well!
In this country, too, anti-LTTE
groups, a few months ago, collected funds to help a soldier who was
ordered by courts to pay compensation to the family of a Tiger he had
shot dead while the victim was escaping from their custody. The
government has drawn heavy flak for cosponsoring a UNHRC resolution
which calls for a hybrid war crimes probe. What the situation will be
like in the event of a war crime investigation getting underway is not
difficult to imagine.
One may argue that Britain has set an
example by trying one of her elite commandos for a war crime. While
this argument holds water to a considerable extent the fact remains
that the overturning of Blackman’s conviction points to a serious lapse
on the part of a lower court and shows that the British judges hearing
war crimes cases are far from infallible. Initially, many thought it
was an open and shut case with Blackman being found guilty as charged.
Those who are calling for the participation of Commonwealth judges
including those from Britain in the war crimes tribunal to be set up
here ought to realise that their foreign gods, too, have feet of clay.
Meanwhile,
a question that has gone unasked is why the US, which is leading a
global human rights campaign hasn’t acted like the UK where the
execution of Osama bin Laden is concerned. Blackman was suffering from
combat stress. The US commandos who raided bin Laden’s hideout in 2011
were free from such problems, but they killed the unarmed terrorist
leader while the then US President Barack Obama, Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and all defence big guns were watching the operation
live at the White House. Since Obama could communicate with the troops
in action and was in control of the situation as the Commander-in-Chief,
shouldn’t he also be held accountable for the extrajudicial execution
of an unarmed terrorist?
No comments:
Post a Comment