UK soldiers to face prosecution for war crimes

[enkoda]

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

 

[enkoda]

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.

My suggestion is simple fact, they are trained to kill, I didn't imply they go around killing anything.

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.

Exactly. £57.2m for this inquiry, £24m for the Al-Sweady inquiry (some sources quote £31m) and £13.5m for the Baha Mousa inquiry shows we are more concerned with prosecuting service personnel than equipping them with the resources they need.

My main issue is that we are sending our troops into war and forcing them to abide by the laws of our civil society.

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

The Al-Sweady case is a perfect example. Testimony from Iraqis (and their relatives who weren't even there!) who ambushed our soldiers and tried to kill them, causing an expensive and protracted inquiry that resulted in the allegations being dropped.

I have no problem with a soldier finishing off someone who has just attempted to kill him.

 

[enkoda]

I do

I mean taking your attitude maybe the Germans should have simply executed all those RAF pilots they shot down back in WW2 since they were originally trying to kill them? Even the Nazis didn't generally go for that approach except re: commandos and spies.

there are still rules in war

What a bizarre analogy. You cannot compare that to close quarter combat. I'm not sure many of our RAF pilots wore explosive vests like Iraqi/Taliban insurgents do.

Having known people who served in Northern Ireland and The Falklands, you get to understand that an injured enemy soldier is as much a threat to you and your mates as one that isn't. It only takes the push of a button to set off a car bomb, IED or explosive vest.

 

[enkoda]

Exactly this.
This isn't about charging people who engaged under normal circumstances, it is about investigation potential breaches in conduct that resulted in deaths.
All armies should hold their soldiers to this level.
You don't just wind them up, arm them up, set them off and let the ISIS the place as they wish.

All solider know, as they have been well trained, in what they can and cannot do.
Let them be investigated, lets hope they all come out of it clean.

They fact we investigate such matters holds up to a higher standard than those who would not.

Col Richard Kemp, a former army commander in Afghanistan, agreed that the investigation needed to be completed urgently, but said it was "inconceivable" that that number of allegations against British troops could be legitimate.

"Of course one has to be concerned about these allegations, but the number, the sheer number, thousands of allegations made against British soldiers in Iraq, I just cannot believe that any significant number of them can be valid," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

The problem is that a number of these allegations come from people who have been persuaded to do so by UK law firms, a similar approach first seen by those personal injury specialists.
One of the law firms helping foreign nationals to prosecute British soldiers does so using taxpayers money via the legal aid budget.

 

[enkoda]

it isn't an analogy - it was a straightforward rebuttal to your idea that it is OK to finish someone off who just tried to kill you




who'd have thought that eh? Maybe the armed forces could train people to search the enemy after a firefight... oh wait...

If, in a situation that neither you or I will (hopefully) ever experience, they felt it was necessary to finish off someone who could potentially cause further immediate injury or death, then I have no problem with their actions.

I still don't see how a captured pilot compares to combatants who have a history of using IEDs and explosive vests designed to kill/maim troops at close quarters?

 

[enkoda]

Just to add, there has been only one British soldier convicted of a war crime.

And what did he do? He admitted beating up a prisoner, who subsequently died in military custody. Is it right that this now ex-soldier should be seen in the same light as those who experimented on and then slaughtered millions of Jews in Austrian concentration camps during WWII?

I certainly don't think it's right at all.

 

[enkoda]

Wrong, there have been more than one. Their are also a lot more British Soldiers whom have carried out crimes whom still get treated as heroes and have not been charged.

I've looked and looked but admit defeat in finding any other conviction for war crimes other than the case of Corporal Payne. There have been numerous investigations and yes, British Forces have been found guilty of committing them, but no one else has been convicted.

I'm not saying that British troops should enjoy immunity from prosecution, far from it (even brief extracts from the Baha Mousa inquiry makes for unpleasant reading). I just don't believe labelling them as war criminals serves any purpose other than unwarranted sensationalism.

 

[enkoda]

Before I reply.

I stick by what i said, no one is above the law even if you have a country protecting you and thats my view you can like it or hate it, if its proven you have committed a crime it should be the same for everyone, you should not be free to do what you want just because your protected.


You may care more about the military but I don't, they are too many people and countries already that believe themselves above international law.

No one is above the law, except people attempting to kill our troops, yeah? Are you equally concerned with prosecuting those who set off roadside IEDs?

You really have no idea of what our armed forces are trained to do - they don't just jump off a plane and go around killing, raping and pillaging.

 

[enkoda]

Where has he said that there shouldn't be repercussions for people setting IEDS?

They should be, but taken in the context of my reply to 2013, how many Taliban have been prosecuted for war crimes by their own people? I doubt ANY of their fighters would stick to the rules of engagement.

If the tables were turned, would a Taliban fighter be offering medical support to a severely wounded British troop, or would he finish him off? And if he did, would he ever face a war crimes tribunal from his own side?