UK soldiers to face prosecution for war crimes

enkoda · 2 Jan 2016 at 18:41

Saw this on the news today: UK Iraq veterans 'may face prosecution' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35211336

£57.2m has been set aside for this investigation, ultimately to assess whether UK troops have committed war crimes during the Iraq invasion.

I for one think that this is a hard pill to swallow, that our troops will be subject to an investigation into potential abuses, an investigation that will take longer and examine more "evidence" than was put into assessing the "evidence" of going to war in the first place. :rolleyes:

We train these soldiers to kill, send them into a conflict where they are expected to kill, then attempt to prosecute them for killing. :confused:

Glaucus · 2 Jan 2016 at 18:46

We train them to kill within the boundaries of international laws, we don't just train them to kill anything like you suggest. Of course there should be an investigation and of course they should be prosecuted if they've broken those laws.

The only bit I don't like is the time frame, this should have been dealt with properly many many years ago.

King85 · 2 Jan 2016 at 18:47

Surely they're trained to defend not kill.

Danthus · 2 Jan 2016 at 18:51

King85 said:
Surely they're trained to defend not kill.

I rather hope they do a bit of both.

rare · 2 Jan 2016 at 18:57

Who would want to be a soldier these days. Underpaid, ill equipped, and always with the understanding that the government won't have your back...

I understand there are laws that must be upheld, but the line in combat must surely be blurred. A split second decision could easily send you over that line.

Uther · 2 Jan 2016 at 18:57

Well, if they're guilty then they should face the consequences. Just because they are on 'our' side doesn't let them off the hook.

Ayahuasca · 2 Jan 2016 at 18:59

I honestly don't know why anyone would want to be a soldier these days.

Caged · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:00

rare said:
A split second decision could easily send you over that line.

You'd assume that the actions will be investigated with that taken into account. I'd like to think nobody would be prosecuted for making genuine mistakes.

George Hincapie · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:00

As an ex-soldier, this is utter BS. Combat is a unique environment and civil standards should not and must not be applied.

Any offence occurring during a period of conflict (including contraventions of the Geneva Convention) are always investigated by the Service Police; nothing else is required in my view.

StriderX · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:02

They knew what they signed up for.

Captain · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:03

King85 said:
Surely they're trained to defend not kill.

Isn't it engage when engaged? Anything outside of this means an investigation is necessary.

George Hincapie · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:03

StriderX said:
They knew what they signed up for.

Walk a mile in the shoes before posting nonsense like this. If you haven't been there then you haven't got a clue and your opinion is worthless.

Glaucus · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:04

rare said:
Who would want to be a soldier these days. Underpaid, ill equipped, and always with the understanding that the government won't have your back...

I understand there are laws that must be upheld, but the line in combat must surely be blurred. A split second decision could easily send you over that line.

No one is going to be prosecuted for split second choices like that.

The most famous one, he knew what he was doing and told the rest of the squad to turn off their cameras as it was against international law, before executing them.

Mynight · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:05

I think this is the operative sentence in that article;

Lawyers are continuing to refer alleged abuse by soldiers to the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT)

While I don't doubt there may well be a few cases this screams lawyers getting paid.

elmarko · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:09

George Hincapie said:
As an ex-soldier, this is utter BS. Combat is a unique environment and civil standards should not and must not be applied.

Any offence occurring during a period of conflict (including contraventions of the Geneva Convention) are always investigated by the Service Police; nothing else is required in my view.

Are you saying that if new evidence has come to light that a minority of soldiers executed either prisons or civilians it should be ignored?. Most of the cases these related to are not combat anyway from what I've read, it's after combat, interrogation or involving non-combatants.

Civil standards (outside of normal combat conditions) should most certainly be applied, the military is not & should not be above the law or to a law in themselves alone.

helpimcrap · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:10

King85 said:
Surely they're trained to defend not kill.

rare said:
Who would want to be a soldier these days. Underpaid, ill equipped, and always with the understanding that the government won't have your back...

I understand there are laws that must be upheld, but the line in combat must surely be blurred. A split second decision could easily send you over that line.

Ayahuasca said:
I honestly don't know why anyone would want to be a soldier these days.

Ditto.

Kill someone and you'll be up on war crimes....

Trained to defend yes but we are not Switzerland. But sometimes you have to attack and push forces back to free an occupied area to liberate a country or people.

16 years later though?

If it was needless executions etc then yes that's just wrong. However if they were trying to get information out of people that they've been told they have by intelligence then where is that line? Do nothing and let religious nut-job dictators rule the world? They could have been using information available at the time and made the decision based on that rather than hindsight and everyone has different tolerances to pain so again where is that line?

bitslice · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:10

Prosecute soldiers for misbehaviour, but don't prosecute the Government that lied to put them there in the first place?

Seems legit.

Just to remind people, during the last inquiry the Iraqis lied to the official Inquiry,
so **** them all, I don't see why we should apply our standards of justice to ****hole countries that take the ****.

dowie · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:15

if this has come from legitimate new evidence coming to light - like that idiot in the marines who shot an injured Taliban member on camera then fair enough

but if this is a result of supposed new witness statements as a result of one of these UK law firms that has been paying people to go around Iraq promising large sums of money to anyone claiming they've been mistreated by the British then it is all likely to become very dubious indeed

jl10000 · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:17

George Hincapie said:
As an ex-soldier, this is utter BS. Combat is a unique environment and civil standards should not and must not be applied.

I feel sorry for them, The things they have seen and done to survive are not good for anybody. Those wars were not Turkey shoots.

They were a political failure and the people who put them there should be the ones facing prosecution.

Danthus · 2 Jan 2016 at 19:17

George Hincapie said:
As an ex-soldier, this is utter BS. Combat is a unique environment and civil standards should not and must not be applied.

Any offence occurring during a period of conflict (including contraventions of the Geneva Convention) are always investigated by the Service Police; nothing else is required in my view.

What was that U2 song?