UK soldiers to face prosecution for war crimes

Amp34 · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:20

scorza said:
The ICC has achieved a grand total of 8 convictions in 18 years of operation against exclusively African criminals - seems to me that the ICC is screwed when it comes to a bit more than America/Russia. Yeah I can see why the lawyers would love this grand institution, sit around all day showing off how clever they are to their peers and earning mega-bucks without having to actually achieve anything. The most significant thing the ICC has ever done is indict the President of Sudan for crimes in the Darfur region, but where is he now? When he's not at home in Khartoum he's living the life of luxury touring round Africa, the Gulf and China as an international statesman and I wouldn't expect that to change anytime soon.

In reality, institutions like the ICC are seen as examples of western imperialism by ordinary Africans, and completely ignored by the rest of the world. The only people it's relevant to are naive intellectuals, and sadly it seems that western governments these days are full of such people.

So what do you suggest? Just say **** it and do whatever we please? Rip up the Geneva convention and go back to raping and pillaging cities we take over? Become ISIS and all the things you hate? That's essentially what your argument boils down to.

That said, I do agree with the imperialist bits. We only really have true international law if we adhere to it too, that includes both the soldiers (which we are trying to adhere to) and the ones that have them their orders). Unfortunately until the east and south become more even and force us to adhere, that's not going to happen. Our politicians and senior military figures will never worry about facing trial, unless of course we lose a war.

Feef · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:29

OldCoals said:
How far back do we go, a soldier was recently arrested for an alleged crime in 1972 recently.

As far back as anything can be proved, I'd imagine.

Yes, soldiers have a difficult job, both sides of people in here accept that, it seems. One reason it's difficult is being held to certain standards.

Nutella33 · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:34

N17 said:
Look for yourself at "British War Crimes" The killings of innocent men, women and children. You'll soon see.

No reply to your copy and paste job then?

Just googled your suggestion. 200 civilian deaths identified in 8 years of war. majority being crossfire or misidentified airstrike. Oh and the case of Sgt Blackman, who is serving life.

Are you suggesting that is a moral equivalence of the kidnap, rape, slave trade, torture and ethnic cleansing of entire areas or even of "terrorist" attacks which intentionally and directly attempt to kill civilians? And how do you know these people are innocent or guilty?

I'm glad you aren't in a position of power or a lawyer. you seem to be an absolute moonhowler.

lemonkettaz · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:36

N17 said:
Look for yourself at "British War Crimes" The killings of innocent men, women and children. You'll soon see.

So apart from the known that is just lazily found on google going back to the Boer War...

What about all the unnoticed war crimes you know about?

In recent years our military are totally professional and the morally right and wrong is trained from day 1 and constantly through their career. Rules of armed conflict is clearly defined to every individual, are you one of these nutjobs that automatically assume all these weapons that are fired in anger are aimed at "innocent women and children" ?

N17 · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:36

Nutella33 said:
No reply to your copy and paste job then?

Just googled your suggestion. 200 civilian deaths identified in 8 years of war. majority being crossfire or misidentified airstrike. Oh and the case of Sgt Blackman, who is serving life.

Are you suggesting that is a moral equivalence of the kidnap, rape, slave trade, torture and ethnic cleansing of entire areas or even of "terrorist" attacks which intentionally and directly attempt to kill civilians? And how do you know these people are innocent or guilty?

I'm glad you arent in a position of power or a lawyer.

Again you are wrong, there have been more than 200 civilians killed by thick british soldiers. If I were you, i'd do more research.

151,241 – 170,731 have been killed.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warlogs/ By both UK and US terrorist forces.

albert · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:39

Surely it's Blair and Bush who should be tried for war crimes. 160,000+ innocent Iraqi people killed and no weapons of mass destruction. Don't know how they are still free men..

Amp34 · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:40

dowie said:
if there is solid evidence then we should go back as far as we like... for example if a known Nazi involved in death camps is caught and happens to be in his 90s I don't think some statute of limitations should be used as a technicality

Exactly. However if someone claims someone else robbed them 20 years ago, with no evidence other than a witness statement. Then that makes sense to be struck, as you'll never really know the truth. If on the other hand there is video evidence of the person then it makes sense to try them.

lemonkettaz · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:40

N17 this is your platform, you are in a great position to wage your personal opinion across the internet

You have suggested something you are currently not backing up with proof.

Until you let us all know about this list of atrocities that the UK military have been involved in, that isn't found on wikipedia, then you are failing to enlighten your supporters.

N17 · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:40

lemonkettaz said:
So apart from the known that is just lazily found on google going back to the Boer War...

What about all the unnoticed war crimes you know about?

In recent years our military are totally professional and the morally right and wrong is trained from day 1 and constantly through their career. Rules of armed conflict is clearly defined to every individual, are you one of these nutjobs that automatically assume all these weapons that are fired in anger are aimed at "innocent women and children" ?

Oh look how brave they aren't

N17 · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:41

albert said:
Surely it's Blair and Bush who should be tried for war crimes. 160,000+ innocent Iraqi people killed and no weapons of mass destruction. Don't know how they are still free men..

And the thick soldiers as well, whom are just as bad and carry out the orders.

lemonkettaz · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:42

And again, are all UK armed forces personnel almost the same as terrorists (but in uniform)

Or is it a case of all but your personal friends that are almost evil?

Please i'm on the edge of my seat

Amp34 · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:42

albert said:
Surely it's Blair and Bush who should be tried for war crimes. 160,000+ innocent Iraqi people killed and no weapons of mass destruction. Don't know how they are still free men..

Because, as Scorza rightly points out, the ICC can only investigate certain things and have to be careful about biting the hand that feeds them.

N17 · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:42

lemonkettaz said:
N17 this is your platform, you are in a great position to wage your personal opinion across the internet

You have suggested something you are currently not backing up with proof.

Until you let us all know about this list of atrocities that the UK military have been involved in, that isn't found on wikipedia, then you are failing to enlighten your supporters.

151,241 – 170,731 have been killed.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warlogs/ By both UK and US terrorist forces.

Now go and meet victims of war, men, women and kids and they will say that there have been more than 200 deaths. You'd soon get your face turned to pu1p

Nutella33 · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:42

N17 said:
Again you are wrong, there have been more than 200 civilians killed by thick british soldiers. If I were you, i'd do more research.

I just followed your suggestion and that is what it brought up. Again I'll ask, how do you know these people are innocent or guilty from your screen in north london?

And how do you know the situation of each killing or the intelligence of anyone involved?

where are these unnoticed war crimes then? since you alone seem to have the knowledge of, which btw, if you withhold is a crime in itself.

I can't wait till school opens again.

N17 · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:45

lemonkettaz said:
And again, are all UK armed forces personnel almost the same as terrorists (but in uniform)

Or is it a case of all but your personal friends that are almost evil?

Please i'm on the edge of my seat

Definition of Terrorist

Noun = "a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims"

A soldier, A freedom Fighter, Someone who does not want an illegal occupation by another country within theirs.

N17 · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:46

Nutella33 said:
I just followed your suggestion and that is what it brought up. Again I'll ask, how do you know these people are innocent or guilty from your screen in north london?

And how do you know the situation of each killing or the intelligence of anyone involved?

where are these unnoticed war crimes then? since you alone seem to have the knowledge of, which btw, if you withhold is a crime in itself.

I can't wait till school opens again.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warlogs/

http://www.britisharmykillings.com/

Gregster · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:48

N17 said:
And the thick soldiers as well, whom are just as bad and carry out the orders.

You have zero idea what you are on about. A soldier (smart or thick) can't just refuse orders.

Nutella33 · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:48

N17 said:
151,241 – 170,731 have been killed.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warlogs/ By both UK and US terrorist forces.

Now go and meet victims of war, men, women and kids and they will say that there have been more than 200 deaths. You'd soon get your face turned to pu1p

You were claiming afghanistan.... now you've changed it to Iraq? OK.

Have you actually read what you've just linked to? It includes military deaths, terrorist deaths and civilian deaths in one and doesn't proclaim to know who killed who.

So for all you know most of them could be reprisal killings by locals or terrorist forces?

Secondly it is inclusive of all allied forces throughout the whole of iraq. So doesnt answer the case of British war crimes.

You appear to be dribbling.

RDM · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:49

N17 said:
151,241 – 170,731 have been killed.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warlogs/ By both UK and US terrorist forces.

Now go and meet victims of war, men, women and kids and they will say that there have been more than 200 deaths. You'd soon get your face turned to pu1p

That website doesn't say what you think that website says...

RDM · 3 Jan 2016 at 18:50

Gregster said:
You have zero idea what you are on about. A soldier (smart or thick) can't just refuse orders.

They can if it is an unlawful order.