Those opposing the trial of five Royal Marines for murder are railing against the democratic principles we hold dear, writes Michael Kelly
Supporters of civil rights and the rule of law must have been disturbed by the protests which took place in Edinburgh and other major UK cities on Sunday. The demonstrations, one of which attracted a few hundred people to Parliament Square, were in favour of the five Royal Marines who will appear in court next month to faces charges of murder. Some of 100,000 Facebook signatories have already expressed their support and the campaign continues to prevent the trial taking place.
The insidious feature of these demonstrations is that they are staged to object, not against a verdict in a concluded trial which they feel to have been unjust, but to the very fact that soldiers on active duty in Afghanistan should have been charged at all. This leads to the suspicion that many belonging to and close to powerful organisations like the armed forces believe that they should not be subject to the same laws or constraints as other members of society.
Very little of the evidence likely to be led at the trial has been made public as both the Ministry of Defence and the prosecuting authorities in England rightly refuse to disclose it, or to discuss details of an active case. However, it is known that the charges arise out of a video found by civilian police in the UK on one of the Marines’ computers. This allegedly shows the soldiers discussing what to do with a wounded terrorist held in Afghanistan last year. The engagement relates to a single insurgent with no civilians involved.
Given that the British army requires its soldiers to follow strict rules of engagement with the enemy – rules based on the various Geneva conventions – and as these rules are clear on what to do with anyone taken prisoner, it does appear that a discussion about what to do with a captured insurgent suggests there is a prima facie case to answer.
Those who oppose the upcoming trial appear to be arguing that the evidence should not even be tested. Their posters read “Justice for the 5”. But they seem determined to stop justice running its full course. Soldiers, they argue, have been put in a difficult situation in Afghanistan with insufficient support from our government. If these soldiers shot someone defined by the Ministry of Defence as an enemy then that is sufficient justification for their action. They are being prosecuted simply for doing their duty.
It is true that British soldiers in Afghanistan are in an almost impossible position. They are fighting a war that they know cannot be won. They see that politicians are desperately seeking an early way out. Putting themselves in danger, often at the hands of their local colleagues, seems an unnecessary risk with little prospect of reward. Again, people who volunteer for armed service know they will be required to kill. Their training teaches them to do it in the most efficient way. Little wonder that having suffered in stressful situations for months, their judgement can become distorted when their actions are generally interpreted in the most generous light.
However, and I trust this is something we all accept, if we are to fight wars truly to defend our democratic way of life, to prevent our society being violently disrupted by the infiltration of foreign trained fanatics, we must ensure that those democratic principles and adherence to the rule of law that those we fight scorn, are not sacrificed in the haze and hell of combat.
We have strong – though often anecdotal – evidence of atrocities committed by British soldiers in many recent conflicts, from the alleged shooting of Argentinean prisoners as the Falklands were retaken to the 26 killings here in the United Kingdom on Bloody Sunday by the Parachute Regiment. The former allegations have never come to court, although enquiries have been held. The facts about that day in 1972 were whitewashed by the Widgery tribunal and the truth only emerged in 2010. It is always difficult to establish exactly what occurred in incidents on the battlefield. Panic, fear, the need for instant reaction rather than cool reflection can distort memories.
In particular, the army authorities and their political bosses, no matter which army or what state, are always determined to make as little as possible about such isolated occurrences. They cite the difficulty of situations which we at home just cannot appreciate. In the main, these incidents are not pursued by the military authorities. In the few cases where they are, the strongest possible case is made for the soldiers. How many convictions of serving soldiers for these types of alleged offences can one recall? Even the few found guilty find themselves reinstated by the army. The systems work in favour of soldiers, not against them.
So, for the current case to get as far as it has suggests that justice demands that it be further investigated. When the evidence is paraded in court an independent jury can consider it and the public can assess whatever verdict it reaches in the light of the facts. A cover-up at this stage, which is what dropping the charges now would represent, would damage the justice system and the armed forces. It might be in the short-term interests of the accused, but it would deny them the opportunity of making their cases. If they did kill a man in custody, it is difficult to see how a guilty verdict could be avoided even if the broader circumstances surrounding the incident were to serve as mitigation. An acquittal might lead to greater protection from prosecution for soldiers on active duty. More broadly, the verdict might also require a revision of the code under which soldiers operate and the procedures under which they are led. Most importantly, it is essential that the UK is seen to follow and be anxious to enforce international law. Thus, the public interest arguments for this trial to proceed are strong. One must feel sympathy for the families involved who have lived in daily fear of their loved ones being killed. However, these feelings must be overridden by concern for the public good and for Britain’s reputation.