Here is an in-depth discussion of War and Justice: The Case of Marine A, exploring the background, the legal and moral issues, the documentary’s narrative, and its broader significance.
Introduction: What Is War and Justice: The Case of Marine A?
War and Justice: The Case of Marine A is a 2022 documentary produced by Two Rivers Media and Uppercut Films, directed by Stephen Bennett, that deeply examines one of the most controversial incidents involving British forces in Afghanistan during the war. The subject is Alexander Blackman, a former Royal Marine who, in September 2011 in Helmand Province, shot and killed a wounded Taliban insurgent. At the time of his trial, he was referred to only as “Marine A” — a pseudonym used for anonymity during legal proceedings.
The film is both legal and psychological, blending interviews, never-before-seen combat footage (including helmet‑cam) and analysis of how war, rules, and mental health intersected in this case. It asks hard questions: Was Blackman a murderer, or was he a soldier under inhuman stress, operating in the moral gray zones of modern warfare?
The Incident: What Happened in Helmand, 2011
To understand the case, it’s important to reconstruct the incident. On 15 September 2011, in Helmand Province, Blackman and other marines from J Company, 42 Commando, conducted a battle damage assessment after an Apache helicopter strike in which 139 30 mm rounds were allegedly fired at a target.
They located a wounded Taliban insurgent, who was lying in a field, still alive despite severe injuries. According to reports and to Blackman’s own account, he searched the man, discovered an AK‑47, ammunition, and a live grenade. But crucially, despite being gravely wounded, the insurgent was not killed by the helicopter strike — he was still breathing.
At this point the events that followed became deeply controversial. Helmet-camera footage from another marine captured Blackman shooting the man at close range with a 9 mm pistol. After the shot, Blackman reportedly said aloud, “Shuffle off this mortal coil, you c***,” echoing Shakespeare, then turned to his comrades and said, “I just broke the Geneva Convention.”
These words and actions would later become central to legal and moral debates. The suggestion that he knew he violated the laws of war — and his own repetition of a famous Shakespeare quote — made the case far more than a battlefield accident.
The Legal Battle: Trial, Conviction, and Appeal
Court Martial and Initial Conviction
Blackman was tried by a court martial — a military court — under the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006. He was accused of murder, contrary to Section 42 of that Act. During the trial, two other marines (referred to as Marines B and C) were also tried, accused of assisting or encouraging the killing.
The court martial found Blackman guilty of murder in November 2013. Marines B and C were acquitted. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of ten years, and was dismissed from the Royal Marines “with disgrace.”
Appeal and Reduced Charge
Blackman appealed. In March 2017, his murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The appeal hinged strongly on psychiatric evidence. A psychiatrist diagnosed him with adjustment disorder, arguing that his mental state at the time of the killing significantly impaired his judgment.
Following this appeal, Blackman was released from prison in April 2017. His release was the result not just of legal maneuvering but also of a sustained public campaign, led in part by his wife, Claire, who argued that he had not received adequate mental health support during deployment.
Legal Significance
This case was historically significant: Blackman (Marine A) became the first British soldier in recent history to be convicted of a battlefield murder. The Free Library The case drew attention to important issues in military justice, particularly:
- The rules of engagement and the application of the Geneva Conventions in war zones
- The role and limits of combatant immunity
- Whether soldiers under extreme stress should be judged to the same legal standard as civilians
- The adequacy of mental health care and assessment for deployed service personnel
The Documentary’s Narrative: Structure and Key Themes
War and Justice: The Case of Marine A weaves together several threads:
- First-Person Account: The film includes rare, in-depth interviews with Alexander Blackman himself, his wife, and others close to him. Seeing Blackman talk about the incident, his mindset, and his guilt (or lack of it) is powerful. He repeatedly insists, “I don’t think I am a murderer.”
- Combat Footage: Crucial to the documentary is the helmet-cam video that caught the killing — footage that was central in the court proceedings. This gives the viewer visceral insight into the chaos, the decisions, and the moral weight of Blackman’s actions.
- Psychiatric and Expert Analysis: The film brings in psychiatric experts, notably those who assessed Blackman after his conviction, to explain what “adjustment disorder” is, how it might affect behavior under fire, and how mental illness in a warzone isn’t like illness in civilian life.
- Legal and Ethical Reflection: The documentary probes the legal process: how the case went to court martial, how evidence (especially video) was handled, and how the appeal was built around psychiatric testimony. It raises deep ethical questions about what justice means in war — can there be “fair” justice when the battlefield is chaotic, dehumanizing, and morally ambiguous?
- Broader Critique of War: Implicit in the film is a broader challenge to the war in Afghanistan. Some commentators (including in reviews) note that Blackman’s case can’t be divorced from the overall purpose and conduct of that war. The documentary suggests that the “war on terror” framework, with its moral and legal gray zones, contributed to conditions that could push a soldier to break the rules.
Critical Response and Controversies
Critical response to War and Justice has generally been positive, especially for its thoroughness and emotional weight. The Guardian described the documentary as “engrossing,” though it also pointed out a “fatal flaw”: the lack of focus on the real victim, the insurgent who was killed. The Guardian review argues that while Blackman’s story is deeply explored, the film does not equally investigate who that insurgent was, or what became of him — his identity remains largely unexamined.
This is an important critique. In telling Blackman’s story, the documentary centers the British soldier’s experience—and the moral and psychological toll on him—but arguably sidelines the person whose life ended in his hands. For many viewers, that absence raises ethical questions about how war crimes stories are framed: are we only interested when our own soldiers are prosecuted, rather than when innocent or non-state actors are killed?
Another controversial dimension is the depiction of mental health. Some will argue that diminished responsibility is too lenient, particularly in cases involving the taking of a human life. Others will say it’s precisely in such stressful and morally fraught environments that mental health must be taken seriously, otherwise we risk viewing soldiers as automata or as purely criminal actors when they are also victims of trauma.
Broader Significance: War, Justice, and the Modern Soldier
The case of Marine A / Alexander Blackman is more than a singular incident — it’s a lens through which to examine the broader moral, legal, and institutional challenges of modern warfare.
1. Military Justice and Public Accountability
Military justice systems are often opaque and insulated. Blackman’s court martial, conviction, and appeal shine a light on how war crimes are—or are not—properly adjudicated within armed forces. The documentary raises the question: can military justice truly deliver “justice” when it is both judge and jury and part of a system that trains men to kill?
2. Mental Health in Combat
Blackman’s diagnosis of adjustment disorder (and later having his conviction reduced because of diminished responsibility) underscores a vital issue: many soldiers operate under extreme psychological strain. The film forces viewers to confront whether current military mental health support is adequate, both during deployment and after.
It also raises ethical dilemmas: if a soldier is mentally compromised, does that excuse their actions? Or does it make those actions more culpable because they were predictable and preventable? The documentary doesn’t offer easy answers, but by presenting expert testimony and personal accounts, it fosters deeper understanding.
3. Rules of War and the Human Cost
By referencing the Geneva Conventions and other laws of war, the documentary reminds the audience that there are legal standards even in war — but enforcing them can be deeply challenging. Blackman’s admission (“I just broke the Geneva Convention”) is chilling precisely because it conveys a recognition of wrongdoing, yet also a kind of resignation or flippancy about that breach.
War is chaotic. The institutional systems (helicopter strikes, damage assessments, rules of engagement) do not always operate in neatly regulated ways. War and Justice forces us to reckon with how these systems can fail—not just in preventing wrongful death, but in ensuring accountability.
4. Public Memory and the “War on Terror” Narrative
Another dimension is how the case fits into public memory about Afghanistan and the “war on terror.” For many in the UK, the war in Afghanistan remains contested: what did it achieve, at what cost, and who paid those costs? By telling Blackman’s story, the documentary contributes to a more nuanced memory—one that includes not just battlefield heroism, but moral injury, legal fallout, and political controversy.
It also asks us to consider how we treat veterans. Blackman was released, supported by his wife, and brought back into civilian life. But his case raises important questions: how do we support soldiers who break under pressure? And how do we balance sympathy for their trauma with accountability for actions that violate basic moral and legal norms?
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Documentary
Strengths:
- Raw, candid interviews: Blackman’s own voice is central, giving the story emotional weight.
- Use of real footage: The helmet-cam recordings provide a powerful, unvarnished window into what happened.
- Balanced legal and psychological analysis: The film doesn’t simply portray Blackman as a criminal; it explores the context, his mental health, and the pressures of war.
- Accessibility: By focusing on a single case, the documentary makes complex issues (like the Geneva Conventions, mental illness, courtroom mechanics) more accessible to a general audience.
Weaknesses:
- Limited perspective on the victim: As noted in reviews, the documentary largely ignores the life, identity, or family of the insurgent who was killed.
- Potential bias toward Blackman: By centering him so much, the film risks eliciting too much sympathy, perhaps at the expense of a fuller moral or legal reckoning.
- Lack of broader systemic critique: While the film raises important questions, it could go further in critiquing institutional forces (e.g., military hierarchy, policymaking) that enable such incidents.
Conclusion: Why War and Justice: The Case of Marine A Matters
War and Justice: The Case of Marine A is a compelling documentary not just because it tells the story of Alexander Blackman, but because it grapples with some of the most difficult ethical and legal questions of modern warfare. It is a story of violence, accountability, mental health, and the law—and how these forces collide on the battlefield.
This is not a “just war” story; it is a “war and justice” story — a reminder that in war, justice is often messy, incomplete, and deeply human. Blackman’s case forces us to challenge simplistic narratives: about heroism, villainy, mental illness, and the cost of fighting in foreign lands.
Ultimately, the documentary asks: when a soldier breaks the rules of war, who pays the price? And what does that tell us about our own collective responsibility for war, for memory, and for justice? War and Justice doesn’t provide all the answers — but it pushes us to confront questions we often avoid.
