UK soldiers to face prosecution for war crimes

These things need to be investigated, and I don't believe they are nearly as common as since media sources would like us to believe.

Our soldiers have a tough job, all soldiers do. But this time, the enemy has no rules, no uniform, most don't even have a common goal.

But that's why things like rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention are even more important. We need to hold a higher moral ground, we need to be merciful. Anything less it's just a recruitment tool for groups like ISIS.
 
enkoda said:
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:
Click to expand...

A lot of the "accusations" are being dredged up from Mr Shiner. scum of a man who was behind the Al-Sweady investigation fraud.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...exposes-the-smearing-of-British-soldiers.html

Human Rights lawyers allegedly misled a five-year war crimes inquiry in a “shocking” smear of British soldiers, with false claims that they murdered and tortured innocent Iraqis, according to a damning government dossier.

Evidence drawn up on David Cameron’s orders suggests that Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) continued to pursue the claims for a year after realising that the allegations of abuse may be “untrue”.

In what would be a flagrant breach of the rules, lawyers allegedly used an “agent” based in Iraq to trawl for hundreds of new cases, encouraging local people to bring torture claims against the Armed Forces, the dossier claims.
Click to expand...

Naturally they have to still be investigated, and some cases may uncover not ideal situations (abuse carried out by coalition partners within sight of British troops etc) but I don't think its quite what the headline is making out. There may be another Mousa case buried within it all on the flip side of things.

PIL is just trying to apply public pressure to rush the MoD into a payout to make them go away instead of actually looking into the claims, some of which are rather historic.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
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.
Click to expand...

quote from BBC news article said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Just people trying to get some compensation.

The Al-Sweady Inquiry, set up in 2009, followed allegations made in judicial review proceedings at the High Court that the human rights of several Iraqis were abused by British troops in the aftermath of a firefight with insurgents near the town of Majar al-Kabir.
Inquiry chairman Sir Thayne Forbes said allegations that troops murdered and mutilated Iraqis in custody were "wholly without foundation". But he did conclude that some of the detention techniques had amounted to mistreatment.
Click to expand...
 
Woden said:
We need to hold a higher moral ground, we need to be merciful. Anything less it's just a recruitment tool for groups like ISIS.
Click to expand...

What, so all the people who fled to Europe to get away from retarded medieval theocratic dictatorships, suddenly want to go back and join an even more retarded medieval theocratic dictatorship, just because we failed to give the time of day to a bunch of lying peasants looking for compo?

I reckon ISIS are on their way out, so the more islamists we can goad into joining them, the better. I'd hate any of the undecided to miss the jihad boat.
 
People are quoting "rules of engagement", this is incorrect as they can change dependent on the circumstances, mission and commanders intent, its the Law of Armed Conflict that covers these cases, it doesn't change, it is Law, and as such, must be obeyed.

You can, if you feel it is the correct thing to do, change your own rules of engagement, you cant change the Law of Armed Conflict. You always have the inherent right of self defense, which is what the basic rules of engagement are based on, the Law of Armed Conflict is about how you conduct yourself, what you can, and cannot do, and includes non-combatants etc not how/when you engage the enemy.
 
dowie said:
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...
Click to expand...
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?
 
Good, hopefully if found guilty they throw the book at them!
Too many war crimes and straight out pre-meditated murder has been committed by western forces.
 
enkoda said:
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?
Click to expand...

you said you had no problem with a soldier finishing off someone who attempted to kill him, that could easily apply to RAF pilots shot down in WW2 too

now you're trying to throw in the explosive vest thing - if you believe someone has an explosive vest then the last thing you'd want to do is stroll up to them, mutter something about shuffling off this mortal coil and then shoot them at point blank range...

the taliban in question clearly didn't have a suicide vest anyway so tis rather an irrelevant point here
 
I don't see how anybody can argue against soldiers being prosecuted for war crimes (the clue is in the name here). If a crime has been committed then the persons responsible should be held to account regardless of whether they are serving or former soldiers.

I'm pretty sure the vast, vast majority of UK soldiers acted lawfully but in cases where they haven't the circumstances should be investigated. It's common sense surely?
 
That's quite a lot of cases. Genuine cases definately need to be prosecuted, it's for their own good as well as for the image of the army/country and adhereance to international law. Can't have hundreds of ex-army walking the streets with the knowledge and conscience that they are murderers. It wont break the army, people will still sign up.
 
I find it quite scary how many people, not necessarily in here, seem to be OK with soldiers doing whatever they want to the enemy. The only reason I hold the military in high regard is that they are held to such a high standard, one I'm pretty sure I couldn't live up to.
If War crimes were committed then someone has to be punished.
 
I agree with prosecution for a blatent issue.

However I don't agree with prosecution for something that may have been a mistake, the military are terrably underpaid and sacrifice a lot, they also come back either injured, dead, or mentally scarred for a long period if not permenantly on big deployments.

I don't know what the cases are but it really makes you think if you would ever join if you were underpaid and have no backing should something happen which could be a genuine error of judgement and have no backing for help
 
Of course they should face prosecution. Besides all british soldiers should be tried for war crimes, at the end of the day they are terrorists, just legalized ones.
 
bitslice said:
Please leave my nice country as soon as possible

k thx bye
Click to expand...

Explain why, the country is a democracy, I for one don't agree with bloodsports which is what british soldiers do on a regular basis.

http://www.britisharmykillings.com/

http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-crimes-of-the-british-empire/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CEcUH4xybA

a54cb386fa8d2e6610a89667d0d3f1eb.jpg


Think about it logically and a man with a uniform carrying out illegal murder is terrorism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom