Iraq murder trial charges dropped

[ORAC]

Iraq murder trial charges dropped (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4403264.stm) See Gilbert Blades was involved, how old is he now?

[Stafford]

Good. Let's see the same media coverage on the result as the original trumped up charges ? I doubt we will though.

[teeteringhead]

If only he'd been carrying a table-leg, we could have saved all this time and trouble ......:rolleyes:

[Human Factor]

Let's see the same media coverage on the result as the original trumped up charges ? I doubt we will though.

I'd have agreed. However, main headline on BBC Six O'Clock News.

[Twonston Pickle]

The linked story on the BBC site is horrifying; could you imagine some Lincolnshire swamp donkey, who works in a chicken factory, judging your actions during a conflict? Oh my God........................ I think I would rather be judged by a GCM thanks very much.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4404086.stm

[pr00ne]

So, for all those who were spitting blood at lawyers and politicians for hanging these guys out to dry, it now transpires that it was the Royal Military Police SIB who insisted on enforcing this prosecution and putting the guys in the dock.

Thankfully, and somewhat ironically, it appears that their rather ham-fisted and allegedly amateurish investigative attempts were the main reason it was slung out of court at the earliest possible opportunity.

A time to look a little inwardly before casting aspersions externally methinks………………..

[Jackonicko]

While many of the witnesses were talking utter bol.locks, the victim didn't beat himself to death, splashing his blood onto one of the para's rifle butts in the process.

No-one should ever be found guilty unless it can be properly proven, but even when there's a 'Not Guilty' verdict, one can be left feeling uncomfortable.

[pr00ne]

JN,

The body was never found, one of the key weaknesses in the case!

[RedTop]

Dear PPRuNers,

Apologies if I'm wrong, but there's still a dead 18 year-old Iraqi attracting flies out there somewhere.

And I don't think he tripped over and banged his head after a boozy night out at a Baghdad go-go bar

Wasn't there DNA evidence linking the rifle butt of one of the soldiers to the deed geeza?

I, like most of you, find it abhorrent that our soldiers stood trial for a "murder" committed in one of the most hostile and difficult environments imaginable.

But in the same breath we have to make sure our troops don't ever let their reputation for 100% professionalism slip.

Because isn't that what separates the British Armed forces from the Yanks? And look at the problems they're having!!

At least our guys remove their shades when they speak to locals?!

Kind regards,

Spawn of Satan / Bile of Beelzebub / Dribble of Detritus*

*delete where necessary

PS- If you could avoid mentioning the Daily Mirror 'pictures' in your replies it would be very much appreciated.

[passpartout]

I thought you weren't going to write any more:)

[RedTop]

I thought you weren't going to write any more
Yes..I know...but I just couldn't help myself.

But I got a surprising amount of supportive messages which convinced me to contribute from time to time.

Better the devil within?!?

It doesn't really make a difference because judging by the last two journos' posts on this thread we say roughly the same things but in slightly different ways!

Kind regards,

Spawn

[Sven Sixtoo]

Hi again RedTop

Valid points mostly. I think, if I got the BBC report correctly, that the RMP are being criticised, inter alia, for not obtaining DNA samples from the dead man's relatives. By inference there was no DNA evidence from the bloodstains.

Sven

[RedTop]

Dear PPRuNers,

From the Guardian (06/09/05)

"Boot marks on the clothes of the injured Toyota driver, Athar Saddam, matched those worn by several patrol members, the court heard.

Blood recovered from the screw recess of Private May's rifle butt matched the DNA profile of Mr Abdullah's family. Private May was second-in-command of the patrol, which was led by Corporal Evans.

Radio messages sent from the patrol that day confirmed they had followed a car from a checkpoint, Mr Heslop said.

Later two of the accused - Privates Di-Gregorio and Vosloo - acknowledged there had been an incident that day."

Questions have to be asked...don't they?

Kind regards,

Bile

[Sven Sixtoo]

Can't see that the Grauniad would make that up. Must have misheard the Beeb (they couldn't be wrong - could they?)

Sven

[pr00ne]

RedTop,

No body, no grave, no death certificate........................................

[teeteringhead]

Perhaps we need the Scottish "Not Proven" verdict, whcih I once heard described as "we can't prove it but don't do it again!"

[Maple 01]

You missed a bit Redtop - surely the Guardian journo isn't deliberately twisting the facts to suit his/her agenda and leaving out the inconvenient bits......:hmm:


Judge Blackett directed the panel hearing the court martial in Colchester, Essex, to return a not guilty verdict on all seven defendants after criticising the "inadequate" investigation into the case.

"It has become clear to everyone involved as the trial has progressed that the main Iraqi witnesses had colluded to exaggerate and lie about the incident," he said.

Witnesses had admitted lying about being assaulted and evidence had been heard that Mr Abdullah's family encouraged others to tell lies, Judge Blackett said.

And Iraqi court witnesses had been influenced by $100-a-day payments to give evidence to make "patently exaggerated claims", he said.

[Data-Lynx]

Hey ORAC, did you ever get an answer about Gilbert Blades?

Don't know him so is/was he military aircrew? If not, why gift this thread to Red Top?

[RedTop]

Maple01
You missed a bit redtop - surely the Guardian journo isn't deliberately twisting the facts to suit his/her agenda and leaving out the inconvenient bits........

In fairness to the Guardian journo, the piece from which I quoted, was taken from early on in the trial before the Iraqi 'witnesses' had been cross-examined (06/09 I think?).

And, yes, you are right, the witness confessions did 'wobble' the prosecution's case......just a tad, though.

But when all this dies down, and I hope us in the media let it happen quickly for the sake of the lads still out there, the Paras have to be sat down in a quiet room and told that if they are going to dish out a bit of street justice again they should do it in the privacy of their own homes.

They should also be reminded of the two golden rules of the South African police circa 1972.....never touch the face........and he tripped down the stairs M'Lud.

Kind regards,

Bile

PS- Apologies for being a real technophobe, but if I want to quote other posters in my replies on this forum, how do I lift them? At the mo, and don't laugh, I'm typing them out word for word which is a bit of a drag.

Data Lynx,

You said:

"Hey ORAC, did you ever get an answer about Gilbert Blades?

Don\'t know him so is/was he military aircrew? If not, why gift this thread to Red Top?"

Explain???

Kind regards,

Dribble

Apologies for that last post.......

Data Lynx,

You said:

"Hey ORAC, did you ever get an answer about Gilbert Blades?

Don\'t know him so is/was he military aircrew? If not, why gift this thread to Red Top?"

Explain???

Kind regards,

Dribble

[Sven Sixtoo]

Gilbert Blades is a barrister who for at least the last 20 years has specialised in Courts-Martial.

Sven

[Data-Lynx]

Happy to oblige with an explanation RedTop. Just seeking some comment from ORAC that his original post on an advocate who has covered aircrew at Courts Martial has transmogrified into a discussion between press and judiciary reps on an incident concerning the Army. Seems a strange bedfellow for this particular forum.

[MightyGem]

but if I want to quote other posters in my replies on this forum, how do I lift them?
You mean like this? But you did it at the beginning of your last post. :confused:

Anyway incase that was a mistake, select and copy the required text on the screen with your mouse. On the "Reply" page click on the "Quote" button and paste your text in the little window that opens and voila!

[RedTop]

Data Lynx,

I don't think I hijacked the post, the thread had started to drift a little before I got involved.

MightyGem,

I tried the old cut and paste job but it's not having it for some reason.

Kind regards,

Spawn

[Data-Lynx]

The FAQs (http://www.pprune.org/forums/misc.php?action=bbcode) on inserting quotes within the body of the post may help you with multiple quotes. As for copy/paste, try pasting into Notepad first and then copy/paste into a Reply.

[airborne_artist]

Gilbert Blades is a barrister

Not really being a legal anorak, but GB is a solicitor - who now have the right to represent in many courts.

[Twonston Pickle]

I have met GB on a number of occassions. He has, sometimes, annoyed the JA by droning on (What is your point, Mr Blades?) but, generally, knows his stuff inside out. I seem to recollect, though, that he is much better at mitigation than getting them off scot free.

[teeteringhead]

And one advantage that Blades has as a solicitor is that one can approach him directly, which would not be the case were he a barrister.

He certainly has a good track record, but I've not been overly impresssed when I've seen him in action I have to say (RAF CMs only) ....

... but then you don't need to be a Premiership goalkeeper if you are only facing Vauxhall Conference strikers!!

[engineer(retard)]

Reminds me of the old line about a question on the police entrance exam:

Q. How do you break an egg.

Pink: I didn't, it fell down the stairs and broke itself.

:)

Regards

Retard

[Lyneham Lad]

I commend the lead article in Simon Heffer's column. I doubt if many (any?) on this forum would disagree with what he expresses so well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/05/do0501.xml

[Jackonicko]

The core of Mr Heffer's argument is that the Government's is showing disloyalty to our troops, in order to appease critics and minorities, by being "ready to go to enormous lengths to prove that the ordinary brave Tommy is, in fact, a seething, wicked war criminal.

Mr Heffer has decided that those charged in this case were "seven fine soldiers" whose reputations have been besmirched. He's entitled to his opinion, of course. He may even be right. It's certainly the case that whatever happened bore little relation to the fantastical tales told by some of the witnesses.

But someone did beat this young Iraqi to death, and the case against these seven was strong enough that their CO thought that they should answer it.

Now you might consider that the Government showed disloyalty to this individual patrol (if you ignore the evidence that allowed a prosecution to be attempted at all) by allowing them to be court martialled at all.

But it's a stretch to suggest that by allowing a court martial against seven soldiers perceived (perhaps wrongly, which would be disgraceful) to be bad apples who had besmirched the reputation of the British Army, the Government was attacking 'ordinary brave Tommies'.

Surely by taking action against possible thugs and murderers, it was showing quite clearly that such people were not acceptable, nor representative of the Army as a whole.

There seems to be some kind of unspoken idea that these seven should have been immune from prosecution, even if they had suspected of beating an unarmed man to death, because to question their actions is somehow a blow to the entire armed forces.

The system worked, they were found not guilty. What's the problem?

[Stafford]

The case should never have been brought to any court given the lack of credibility of the Iraqi witnesses. And if the so called victim hasn't been found ?

It is amazing, isnt it, that even with all the turmoil in Iraq that these people are street savvy enough to know that if claims are made, we will pursue them out of political bloody mindedness.

Its not enough that while we do your dirty work, we must not only be above reproach, we must be absolute Saints in adversity.

Doesn't work that way in real conflict, especially when you witness the near hysteria of any Iraqi faction after being whipped into a frenzy by what normally amounts to street rumour. Jacko, I think you should acquaint yourself with the nature of the average Iraqi after years of institutionalised brutality and their sudden awareness of the pot of gold at the end of the litigation rainbow. The Germans did it for years - every farm in W Germany must have been rebuilt courtesy of the claims commission ;)

[pr00ne]

Lyneham Lad,

Afraid I do!

The forces would be in no different position if there was a Tory Govt, they would still be in Iraq, they would still be in Afghanistan, they would still have gone into Kosovo and the only difference in the budget and equipment situation is that there would be a good deal more privatisation and civilianisation and no more money.

JN,

All you say would be true IF there was a body! As there is not even a death certificate or a grave then the whole thing smacks of a cock up of gigantic proportions.

Stafford,

It was the Royal Military Police who pursued this prosecution, NOT the Labour party or Tony Blair!

[Stafford]

Proone

Anyone who can't see the dead hand of Goldsmith and Noo Labour at work in influencing the desire to prosecute these lads is really myopic.

Of course it was a malicious, politically motivated prosecution. :yuk: The whole Blair project is guilty of the greatest incompetence and sleight of hand ever seen in it's schitzophrenic attitude to those doing their dirty work for them in Iraq.

Professor Kelly's family will vouch for my sentiments too I believe !

[Maple 01]

Prosecution is binned at stage 1
Media reaction - Government cover-up, protecting war-criminals, British soldiers worse than Saddam, illegal war bla

Prosecution given go-ahead even though it's iffy
Media reaction* - Not backing 'our boys', arse covering, lack of responsibility at top, illegal war etc

The government dammed if they did, dammed if they don’t

WWMD?

*insert reactionary PPRuNers to taste

[Smoketoomuch]

Jacko - in the run-up to the last General Election various Labour ministers were touring constituencies with large Muslim populations desperately trying to recover some of the votes they knew they'd lost because of Iraq. It was about this time they 'took over' prosecutions that had been dropped by the military and pressed ahead with them.
They also published a series of leaflets emphasising the 'Jewishness' of Tory leader Howard and his No.2 Letwin, and had letters published in 'Muslim News' remarking on Israel/Palestine and what would Howard and Letwin do to help the Palestinians.

On a related note, I believe that most of the complainants in these cases have been assisted by UK solicitor Phil Shiner, who, if I'm not mistaken, also represented many of the Kenyans who brought claims against the MoD a while ago. Firstly for injuries caused by munitions allegedly left on a Kenyan range by the British Army, and even though millions was paid out many of the claims have since been discovered to be utterly fraudulent - the real cause of injury ranging from car accidents to falling on a fire whilst drunk. No matter, UK PLC paid out anyway because, as a leaked government memo revealed, the alleged victims were planning to visit, and the thought of hundreds of one-legged Kenyans protesting outside Downing Street was too awful to contemplate. More recently there were numerous allegations of rape and the inevitable demands for compensation, although fortunately after the munitions scam some UK newspapers looked more closely and found almost all the 'victims' were lying and it then all went very quiet.

I speak as a mere outsider, even worse, an OASC reject, but to me the whole thing stinks to high heaven -- an ungodly mixture of political correctness and sordid vote-grabbing. It's one thing to throw millions of pounds down the drain as in the Kenyan farce, but to actually criminally prosecute people doing their job under desperate circumstances in Iraq is frankly obscene.

[GeeRam]

but to actually criminally prosecute people doing their job under desperate circumstances in Iraq is frankly obscene.

Absolutely.......

An article in the Mail today claimed that the Radio Logs put the accused patrol miles away from the location of the supposed incident?

Surely if this was the case, how the hell did the 'case' get as far as it did?

And this whole sorry episode has apparently cost some £8m as well......:*

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

"And this whole sorry episode has apparently cost some £8m as well"...............no doubt a whole bunch of pr00nites are rubbing their collective hands in glee:yuk:

Lawyers or Mugabe.....not much to choose:}

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[ORAC]

Sod this game of soldiers (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1859385,00.html)

[Stafford]

Proone

The prosecutions and investigations are just a sop to the old guard of Noo Labour who are quite rightly uncomfortable with Blair's war, but typically have nobody else to vent their spleen on.

In their cosy Utopian world, they see servicemen who operate in the hot zone as some kind of HSE or social workers.

The Government are just preparing to investigate and (hopefully on their part) prosecute members of HM Forces who served in NI against the psychopathic killers of either hue over thirty plus years there.

All part of Blair's shabby deal with the IRA/Sinn Fein to continue to target prosecutions of British servicemen and women whilst giving amnesty to the murderous b:mad: s from the dregs of the Loyalist and Republican cause(s). :yuk:

Not Blair Proone ? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[pr00ne]

stafford,

Oh right stafford, the RMP and the SIB are directly under the influence of the old guard of the Labour party! How on earth do you work that one out?

Once again, it bears repetition, it’s NOT the Government or the Labour party doing the investigating, it is the Special Investigation Branch of the British Army Royal Military Police.

As for NI, you may not have noticed but that “shabby deal” has actually brought peace to that troubled isle, I suppose you think it would have been more honourable if people were still shooting each other dead and innocent men women and children were being blown apart and losing limbs on a weekly basis.

No, stafford, NOT Blair!

[GeeRam]

Once again, it bears repetition, it’s NOT the Government or the Labour party doing the investigating, it is the Special Investigation Branch of the British Army Royal Military Police.

Pressure to do so being brought about from where though....:rolleyes:

[16 blades]

Once again, it bears repetition, it’s NOT the Government or the Labour party doing the investigating, it is the Special Investigation Branch of the British Army Royal Military Police.
...and if you think that they weren't leaned on by their political masters via the chain of command to make this happen, then you truly are naive in the extreme, Pr00ne. For f**k's sake, man, if Blair pulled out a gun and shot somebody on live TV, you would STILL defend him. You are now becoming a ridiculous characature, my 'learned' friend. No matter, Blair's days are now well and truly numbered (and that number is small) with all that is coming out of the woodwork now - he's going down, and his band of cronies with him. And I am counting the days....

But someone did beat this young Iraqi to death
er...what young Iraqi, exactly?
- No body.
- No burial site.
- No death certificate.
- Family refused to give DNA samples or allow any investigation that may yield forensic evidence, so quite where talk of a 'matching blood sample' found on a soldier's rifle came from is beyond me.
- No reliable evidence that an incident ever took place, or that this person even existed, in fact.

Jacko, I'm a little shocked at your lack of objectivity here - not what I have come to expect of you, old boy. I'd expect this kind of thing from a Tabloid journalist, not a respected aviaton journo such as yourself. Which brings me to:
Apologies if I'm wrong, but there's still a dead 18 year-old Iraqi attracting flies out there somewhere.

And I don't think he tripped over and banged his head after a boozy night out at a Baghdad go-go bar
the Paras have to be sat down in a quiet room and told that if they are going to dish out a bit of street justice again they should do it in the privacy of their own homes.
So, RedTop, I guess a 'Not Guilty' verdict and the complete lack of evidence, save a few concocted statements by a group of lying, greedy (by their OWN admission) compensation-chasing Iraqi's is not good enough for you - you KNOW what REALLY happened, of course.

It is because of moronic statements like these from third-rate gutter journalists that we have so many problems with public perception. I strongly advise you to get out there yourself, on patrol with the troops, and see for yourself what they have to face on a daily basis before you make statements like these.

This case was POLITICALLY motivated ffrom the start. The reason? around 1 million Muslim votes up for grabs, many of whom deserted Labour at the last election. Join the dots, people. It's not f**king rocket science, although it is obviously beyond the average Tabloid journalist.

16B

[pr00ne]

8 x 2 blades,

Sorry, it’s the likes of you who cannot see beyond the end of their politically blinkered and conspiratorial nose who are being naïve, not me.

You seem to forget that it was Blair who sent the troops to Iraq in the first instance and Blair who supports their continued presence, so he is hardly likely to be actively campaigning for this sort of prosecution now is he? Especially when it failed at the first hurdle in such a dramatic and embarrassing fashion!

Now, interesting comment on my perceived support for Blair, if he, to quote you; “pulled out a gun and shot someone on live TV you would still defend him” of course I would you loon, that sort of thing is what I do for a living!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUT, and it’s a huge BUT that you seem to conveniently ignore, I strongly believe that we were WRONG to invade Iraq, that Blair was WRONG to take us in, that his justification before and after the action was WRONG and that we are in an unholy mess in this so called “war on terror” because Blair has gone about it in the totally WRONG manner! DO I make myself clear 16blades??????????????????/

Agree 100% about the body issue, you seem to think the quote about the lad being beaten to death in Iraq was from me, sorry, but I have consistently said that as there was never a body produced, never a grave found and never a death certificate produced this whole thing was a cock up from start to finish and should NEVER have gone to court.

[bjcc]

While I hate to defend the RMP, who on the 2 occations I have dealt with them, were not exactly wonderful, I don't think they actually initiate any prosecutions.

My understanding is that they investigate, and report the facts. Then someone else makes the decision to prosecute based on that investigation.

To say that pressure was put on them to prosecute is therefore wrong.

It may well be that pressure was applied to the decision making authority.

I do find it odd that there was no critisum of the Army Legal Serices or Senior Officers for bringing the case. They saw the investigation, and therefore the evidence, they could and should have called a halt to it, if it did not support the charge.

[Stafford]

Proone

Your puppy like adoration of all things Blair and New Labour is actually quite endearing. However, you need to get out more and talk to servicemen and women who bear the brunt of his political horse trading. Doesn't matter how much you rant and bluster, the fact is that there was significant political pressure applied to mount these prosecutions to appease many in Blair's party apparatus who didn't necessarily share his pro American stance.

As for NI, it's sickening to see the terrorists being granted amnesty whilst maliciously pursuing members of HM Forces who served there with distinction. There is no doubt that Blair has given too much away to the terrorists who were under real pressure from the USA after 9/11. Read up on it man and get real.

[16 blades]

Sorry, Pr00ne, those particular comments re: the body etc were not aimed at you, but the journo fraternity.

If you do disagree so vehemently with Blair's actions over Iraq, why are you so quick to fanatically defend everything else the lying, cheating, thieving, slimy, slippery excuse for a politician does? It often seems like you are in love with the bloke.

Your'e not his wife, perchance, are you?

16B

[shandyman]

Now then, I may be a litle naive in all matters political, but if I have read the Telegraph and some of the posts above correctly, I am led to believe that our troops, past and present are to be prosecuted for hunting down and 'dealing' with terrorists in N. Ireland. Nothing strikes me as more perverse than a situation in which one can be trained to do a job, carry out this job successfully saving countless lives in the meantime (Gib) and then be prosecuted for actually doing said job. Not to worry though 'cos those individuals actually bombing, killing and maiming as a matter of course, will be pardoned from a lengthy jail term. Hopefully the government will also apologise to them for having taken up so much of their time and hand tham a little compensation to ease the pain! Un-flaming-believable. 'Nuff said!!!

[Twonston Pickle]

I seem to recall a case before that of the 7 Paras. I may be a little sketchy on the details but I believe that there was an investigation into the actions of a soldier during TELIC by the RMP. They investigated and the charge was brought before his CO. The CO dismissed the charge but Lord Goldsmith (or his department) disagreed and forwarded the case to the crown prosecution service. I seem to remember that the individual was found not guilty but had been effectively tried twice. It smacked of political interference and would also explain the prosecution of the latest 7. I would be grateful if anyone could fill in the blanks or provide more detail on the case I mentioned.

[airborne_artist]

How can HMG possibly get away with the (if true) news that the SIB has started looking into killings in NI by the Army, some of which were approved by ministers? If yesterday's Telegraph is to be believed, operations such as the SAS ambush of the IRA with the JCB as they attempted to massacre the occupants of a police station (Op Judy) are to be "reviewed". There could well be political pressure to get a few soldiers in the dock as part of the "peace" process.

[Stafford]

Its true A_A, the Government has formed a group to investigate a significant number of shootings / deaths / injuries of the terrorist players involved. Loughgall figures prominently due to the accusations of the propaganda machine and the families of the East Tyrone Bde casualties of a shoot to kill policy.

Never mind the explosives in the JCB and the fact that all eight were heavily armed and, quite unusually, involved in the attack on the RUC Station indicating they were going for maximum opposition casualties.

On the two previous attacks mounted by ET Bde, both had utilised JCB Digger Blades loaded with explosive and in the ensuing aftermath they had indulged in the murder of all or most of the station occupants. Your monicker would suggest more than a passing acquaintance with, or or knowledge of, the incidents in question (??) so please forgive me... granny, eggs etc

(Blair and New Labour of course is still in thrall to the power wielded by Adams and McGuinness, and have been consistently outmanoeuvred by wily Sinn Fein tactics - peace, but at any price ?)

[Archimedes]

Twonston, I think you are referring to the case of Trooper Kevin Williams. His CO (who had based his decision that NFA was required on advice from the Army Legal Service) was second-guessed by the Army Prosecuting Authority, who then referred the case to the Attorney General. It was decided that as the CO had dismissed the case, a civil trial was required.

Times story (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1251819,00.html)

Telegraph Story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/08/nwill08.xml)

Grauniad Story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1454641,00.html)

[ORAC]

The Times: Our abused disarmed forces. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-1861864,00.html)

[airborne_artist]

Thanks Orac, I wouldn't have seen that very good article in The Times. Libby Purves has hit the mark very well with that, IMHO.

Her final sentance:

"Politicians must grasp that it is not enough to wear a poppy on TV and pose with tanks. If you’re going to have an army, treat it with respect."

[pr00ne]

16 blades and stafford,

I don’t “fanatically defend everything else” that Blair does, I simply react when I see ridiculous claims of him being personally responsible for everything from body armour being withdrawn in Iraq to him overseeing prosecutions of UK forces for ‘war crimes.’

A lot of folk on this site are very quick to place blame on Blair when it rightly should be placed at the feet of some very senior officers in uniform. Others merely allow their own political agenda to get in the way and cloud their judgement.

I am far from some fanatical Blairite, to me he has been a huge disappointment but in no way do I see him as the lying conniving slimy toad that you seem to, he is no worse than most senior politicians but certainly no better.

I do not know the man but I do frequent the periphery of what may be described as his very outer social circle, I hear a lot that is totally at odds with what a lot of posters think is Blair’s opinion and motives.

stafford,

How do you KNOW that there was “significant political pressure to mount these prosecutions?”
The fact is that you DON’T but it suits your own political agenda and opinion to believe that there was!

shandyman,

Yes, you are extremely naive!

[Stafford]

Proone

I note you don't actually take issue with the assertion, just the man playing the ball ? You failed to comment on the malicious political actions reference NI which leads me to believe you think there might be some substance there too.

I'll concede your point that I DON'T KNOW that there was significant political pressure to mount the prosecutions, just as you DON'T KNOW that there wasn't. However, if it walks like a duck...

NI just proves my point and reinforces our belief that the Blair Government is sacrificing good servicemen on the altar of pc politicking. Too many credible sources are pointing out the role of Goldsmith and the Government in these show trials. Another New Labour clusterf:mad: k

[pr00ne]

stafford,

Far from not commenting, this is what I wrote on the relevant thread;

“Far from calling for a Ministerial denial of any enquiry, have we seen any confirmation other than a Torygraph assertion that such an enquiry is actually under way?

Seeing as what is being done to and for convicted terrorists I would be amazed if there is any attempt to prosecute a member of the armed forces for any action during the troubles, it would be a legal minefield with the precedents that have been set.”

You may wish to see the NI situation as reinforcing your own political point of view but you are letting emotion cloud the facts. Which party was in power when the Stalker enquiry into a shoot to kill policy in NI was ordered?

[Stafford]

Proone,

I do hope you are right and that this proposal withers on the vine ! If it was being run up the pole to test opinion then my MP certainly now has mine.

As for the Stalker enquiry, IIRC the results were never formally published since Stalker was removed and replaced by another senior officer. To be fair to Stalker, I think he even stated in his book that he found no evidence of a shoot to kill "policy". The fact that we were accused by the European Court in Strasbourg, at the instigation of the IRA propaganda machine and the Labour opposition says it all since the Government of the day had to go through the motions. If you remember, the Government fought very hard to have evidence given in camera despite the best endeavours of the IRA and the families to identify certain soldiers giving evidence, eventually from behind screens.

I contend that the current political motivation in both Iraq and retrospectively NI is there - we obviously won't agree until you see the evidence in the actions currently being considered against former and serving servicemen.

The findings on Loughgall were that the players involved had their human rights violated due to the lack of a "credible" inquiry - how ludicrous is that following a military operation where heavily armed combatants were shot dead during the commission of a crime with the intent of mass murder

[16 blades]

I do frequent the periphery of what may be described as his very outer social circle
Ah! Finally it all becomes so much clearer!

I hear a lot that is totally at odds with what a lot of posters think is Blair’s opinion and motives
Well, what do you EXPECT to hear if you spend time in his worshipping harem?

16B

[Roland Pulfrew]

And then of course there is this, in this weekends Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1056-1861864,00.html

I think that this Government has lost the faith of the Armed Forces. No wonder there is a recruiting crisis. Overstretch can only get worse.:(

[pr00ne]

16 blades,

I can assure you it is no worshipping harem! Not exactly HIS either old chap. You may think that it all becomes so much clearer but quite frankly you are way off the mark. The last time I had a really good word to say about TB was around 2000, since then it has been a huge dissapointment and that was BEFORE this totally disastorous invasion of Iraq, which, despite what folk on here are saying, WILL go down as the one single thing he will be remembered for for all time, not an epitaph I would want!

stafford,

Stalker was replaced by Colin Sampson; Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Constabulary after being accused of various wrongdoings by the RUC, the whispering campaign was that he was TOO near the truth for comfort!
Colin Sampson’s report was never made public and the Attorney-General of the day merely announced that the 11 members of the RUC investigated would not face prosecution for reasons of national security.

As I said the existence of any campaign to prosecute members of the security forces would face huge difficulty in light of the actions that came out of the Good Friday agreement, you simply cannot treat members of both sides differently and anyone in the Govt will know this, an amnesty is just that you cannot apply it on one side and not the other. The existence of a shoot to kill policy within the RUC and collusion with Loyalist death squads is indeed shameful and abhorrent, but no more shameful or abhorrent than the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians and off duty members of the security forces and their families, for which a full and 100% amnesty has been agreed.

[Stafford]

Proone

Thanks, good reply despite clear differences of opinion which neither of us will resolve on this or any other forum? :ok:

I remember the "whispers", but as always it depends on who is doing the whispering and the IRA propaganda machine beats even New Labour spin into a cocked hat.

I think we beat them at their violent game in a very dirty war, and the American reaction to all forms of terrorist murder after 9/11 certainly removed a very important, emotional prop from under their feet but we lost the propaganda war and the so called higher ground on bad political calls.

I saw the look on McGuinness' face after his bollocking in Washington and the wily bas:mad: d still managed to wangle massive concessions from Mowlam, Short (calling for a military withdrawal from NI?), Reid, Mandelson :rolleyes: , Blair et al

[Pylot]

The people who should be on trial over Iraq are not the brave soldiers, sailors and airmen who had no choice in engaging in this outrageous conflict.

I would like to see Trust me Tone and his entire war cabinet dragged before the International Criminal Court for waging the illegal, imoral and wholly unjustifiable Iraq war. Perhaps they could also be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice over the manipulation of the 'legal advice' from Goldsmith. The real criminals are our own government, not members of the armed forces.

I certainly did not join the forces so that I could be party to acts of aggressive warfare, the like of which has not been seen since 1939.

[16 blades]

I certainly did not join the forces so that I could be party to acts of aggressive warfare

So, what did you join for? The excellent travel opportunities?

I'd rethink this comment if I were you.

16B

[Twonston Pickle]

Come on 16, you know what Pylot meant; that we do not start wars, conflict or a humanitarian crisis but that we will intervene where necessary to protect life not oil.

[RileyDove]

I think 'defence of the realm' springs to mind! The original idea was to protect the U.K and the Commonwealth. The commitment
to NATO has somewhat changed since the Cold War defrosted.
However places like Zimbabwe need regime change and re-entry into the Commonwealth . There are two big problems 1. No oil there and 2. Bush cannot find it on the map let alone spell it!
So it isn't going to happen - we need an outbreak of ethics.

[Pylot]

Twonston, Thanks, my point entirely.

16 Blades,

What I meant was that Iraq was not a morally justified conflict, as well as being illegal. If we are killing people, we need to have right on our side. WWII, the Falklands and GW1, as well as the UN endorsed multi national campaign in Afghanistan, are all fine with me. Attacking a country in order to effect a change of government was not on my 'reasons to join list'. It is has brought violence to our doorstep, achieved nothing for the Iraqi people, apart from 30000 or so dead, and is percieved by most of the world as American Imperialism. I do like the travel though, especially 5 star hotels.

[16 blades]

Iraq was not a morally justified conflict, as well as being illegal

...in your opinion. Only the UNSC can rule it illegal, and they will not.

It is has brought violence to our doorstep

Are you suggesting that it wasn't here BEFORE the invasion?

achieved nothing for the Iraqi people

...apart from freedom from a brutal dictator, and a democratically elected govt (that may or may not work for them - only time will tell).

I do see your point, in that you didn't join up to do something you fundamentally disagree with; however, we are not here to have political or moral opinions - we're here to do as we're told. The govt, on advice from the country's top lawyer, said it is legal - so go do it.

To borrow a line from a film, we're here to preserve democracy - not to practice it.

16B

[JessTheDog]

...in your opinion. Only the UNSC can rule it illegal, and they will not.


Ahh, its the other way around. Only the UN can authorise the use of military force (Articles 39 and 42 of the UN charter) except in the case of permissible self-defence (Article 51) with the conditions of necessity and proportionality.

Gulf War 2 was not legal, and Kofi Annan - boss of the UN - has said that. Like many mugs, I believed that there was a credible WMD threat and did not suspect that two governments would concoct a bogus case for war. I thought the Cyprus scenario in the dossiers was absolute b0llocks, but that there was critical int somewhere in the pipeline.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have walked out of the camp gate (I was working in the bowels of the Earth in rural Buckinghamshire at the time) on March 17th, dropping my kit off on the way out.

Ironically, I believe the Kinloss doctor is wrong in his stance as there is now a UN resolution concerning the presence of coalition troops. This does not make good the illegal war of 2003.

To return to the topic of the thread - perhaps, if anyone subject to the impartial process of the law (surely stitched up by the attorney general) as the result of any incident in Iraq, they should consider bringing a lawsuit against HMG for a failure in duty of care as the result of ordering participation in an illegal war.

[Twonston Pickle]

16B

You cannot possibly believe that we are just here to "do as we are told" without thinking things through? To motivate your troops/airmen/sailors you must have an understanding of what you are getting in to and why. When Bloggs comes up and says " What's the gen with this bulls hit Boss" You can then cofidently respond "To make the World a better place, free Iraqis from a Tyrant or create Bliar's legacy etc".

Moreover, have we made Iraq a better place? When I was last there, the locals now have a choice of who kills them rather than just Saddam (think Al Sadr Brigade, IPS, Coalition Forces, Tribal feuds etc).

You are right though when, ulitmately, we have to obey our deployment orders. If only the Government (Lab, Lib or Con) of the Day would ever listen to the Chiefs of Staff but twas ever thus!

[parabellum]

But that just isn't so Jess, the war was as legal as you can get. Were it not so then more than half of the legal profession in the USA would be queueing up to file a suite!

In 1991 a Cease Fire was signed with a number of terms and conditions attached. Saddam Hussein failed to meet the requirements of these conditions. In 2003 hostilities were resumed , nothing more, nothing less.

Time and time again we see people claiming the resumption of hostilities amounted to an "illegal war", never yet have we seen a word to justify that claim.

[Roland Pulfrew]

And another disgraceful trial...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/14/nmend14.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/14/ixnewstop.html :mad:

[g126]

That is awful. It is difficult to comment if we do not know all the facts as to what Col. Mendonca may and may not have done, but if it is just a case of an Army witchhunt to satisfy the media cry for blood then it is a disgrace to the Col. the Army and to this country.

I have been slow to join-in the anti-Tony Blair talk, however I am beginning to think that it is time for a change of government. It is a shame that there is no one competent enough to replace him.

G

[RileyDove]

Parabellum -Thats a bit like saying WW2 was just a continuation
of WW1 because Hitler failed to abide by the Versailles agreement! The first Gulf War was finished because the coalition
had liberated Kuwait . There was no mandate from the UN to invade Iraq although that obviously did happen in the pursuit of Scuds and various elements of the Rebublican Guard.
Because of the disasterous way the Kurds were encouraged to attack Saddam and then left in the cold the various 'no fly'
zones in the country gave the allies the ability to keep a close eye on the Iraqi forces and give slight protection to the civilians.
There is scant evidence to suggest that the status quo had changed in any way - the so called 'spikes of activity' which preceded the second Gulf War are decidedly in the area of illegality because there was no manadate to carry out sustained
bombing of the Iraqi air defence network as a self defence measure . The justifications of which the war was based have been comprehensively shown to be decidely flawed - it's wasn't a case of getting it slightly wrong - the reasons were totally wrong.

[Maple 01]

RileyDove,

Read UNSCR 687 which was the 'ceasefire' for GW I, notice I said ceasefire - if Saddam failed to meet ANY part of the UNSCR the war was back on

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
Remember Saddam's frantic atempts 12 years later on the eve of GW II to get rid of the illegal long-range rockets?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2756987.stm

Twelve years grace - 687 there's the mandate

Just saying GW2 was illegal dosen't make it so - as Koffie knows

Unless Kosovo was too?

[RileyDove]

Maple - UNSCR 678 was the authority to use force to remove Saddam from Kuwait - this was based on the previous resolution
which called on him to withdraw from Kuwait. UNSCR687 was the ceasefire document which outlined the provisions under which Saddam would disarm post the war .
The breaches of 687 however didn't in any way allow 678 to be used again because 678 was incredibly specific in that it allowed for military force to be used for his removal from Kuwait
but it didn't authorise the invasion of Iraq . It wasn't a blank cheque for war against Iraq at any time.
The breaches of 687 were serious but if you follow the wording of the resolution - the length of time that this resolution
could run for was almost unending and could hardly have been
within the spirit of what the U.N decided in 1991 . The purpose wasn't to turn Iraq into a destitute state.
Effectively there needed to be a new resolution authorising force against Iraq. The 'spikes of activity' carried out by the co -allition previous to GW2 to soften up the Iraqi air defence network clearly didn't come within the terms of 687.