War crimes in Afghanistan

[mtoroshanga]

Is it just me but do you agree that the rubbish in some papers regarding so called war crimes should be banned.
Our boys were sent there by a bunch of incompetent clowns and should be supported not critisised. Remember what happens to our people who fall into the hands of the opposition( not the Tories in this case) and back them.
Excuse spelling, am pissed off!!

[soddim]

Understand the dismay at the line taken by some newspapers but the principal difference between us and the Taliban is that we run what is supposed to be a free society without censorship and we practise a (relatively) free society.

The downside is that we have to behave ourselves at all times, including war, in accordance with the principles we live by.

We can't, unfortunately, treat them as they would treat us, otherwise we sacrifice whatever moral high ground we profess to occupy.

Love to snip their goolies but those days have gone!

[jayteeto]

Sorry, I know you are frustrated, but you cannot lower yourself to that level. If our people commit war crimes, they should be punished. If not, we have no right to go into another country to fight this type of scum.

[minigundiplomat]

Sorry, I know you are frustrated, but you cannot lower yourself to that level.


Youre right. Very few people in the UK Armed Forces would agree with sending a 13 year old boy into a group of troops with a semtex powered bicycle, or stone young girls for attempting to attend school.

[legallooptheloop]

I agree entirely with the two replies above. There is an extensive body of law which regulates armed conflict and it is not, in it's application, somehow optional.

Those who break the law must be dealt with in a similar fashion to any other individual who breaks the law. Would it be acceptable for a person in a British city to kill another individual purely for the sake of savagery? Should it be any more acceptable outside of the bounds of conflict (in the strict sense) in Basra or Lashkar Gah for a British soldier to do the same?

While I accept the need for, and indeed admire, the public support given to British troops serving abroad, it should not be limitless. Those who commit crimes in war should be held to account and to the highest standards. Such crimes rubbish the efforts of their colleagues, the public who support them and whatever other noble sentiments they purport to represent.

The 'support our boys' mentality can not, nor should it, extend to a load of testosterone fueled, ill diciplined thugs beating another man to death.

As for banning the media from reporting - don't be daft. Is that really the sort of society you wish to live in and defend?

[mtoroshanga]

ref legalloopthe loops statement
We are not against normal people in this conflict, they do not abide by the Geniva Convention or anything of that sort. I personally had a certain amount of experience with Mugabe's scum and feel that the only way to deal with these low lifes is to combat them with their own methods. Nothing frightens a terrorist more than the realisation that the next knock on the door may be someone who is going to blow your brains out!
Support our boys no matter what! I do not see any of the off-spring of our politiicans there as opposed to Queenies grandson.

[Dengue_Dude]

I must admit to feeling a sense of intense frustration - and I'm not directly involved in ops in the sandpit.

I think most people feel that our troops are 'damned if they do and damned if they don't'. There are two main groups with two totally different agendas at work - both know how to use the meda.

Of course 'war crimes' are reprehensible, but as long as there have been wars, there have been war crimes and they will continue. You can only do your best otherwise there will be more resources spent policing than doing the job in the first place.

Are we not handing a propaganda coup on a plate? 'There's no smoke without fire' - our do gooders et al are undermining all the good works that our poor sods are doing.

I truly believe this is a no win position.

[Chugalug2]

mtoroshanga. as the OP your opening post has been authoritatively answered politely and correctly by those above. As your subsequent post merely repeats your original in its attitude and philosophy nothing that I write is likely to change your mind. I therefore sincerely hope for your sake, but more particularly others, that you are not subject to UK Military Law. If you are I suggest you change your own mind and/or your employer. Lt Calley, US Army thought much the same way as you and ended up doing a long stretch in Military Detention. He gave an illegal order. Those who obeyed it committed illegal acts. Everyone from new recruit to 4* needs to be very clear in their own mind what action to take if they too are given an illegal order, be it from an NCO or the PM, long long before receiving it. Now would be a good time to consider that dilemma.
Support our boys no matter what!
Er,No!

[PPRuNeUser0139]

mtoroshanga
And if, as I suspect, you've never heard of My Lai, then you need to read all of this link:
My Lai Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre)

[mtoroshanga]

side valve et al
Do not get patronising I beg. I am well aware of My Lei and do not advocate anything like that but by the same token believe in support. I suspect I am getting flak from people who have never heard a shot fired in anger and have as a hobby the protection of the black squirrel or the bridge for bats across the motorway!! Get real, these are our people about to be lynched by do good-ing tree-hugging prats who are forcing the Royal Navy to permit pirates to go about their business while they look on in case they end up with more assylum seekeers. And for your information I was in Mogadishu in 1994, were you???

[legallooptheloop]

We are not against normal people in this conflict, they do not abide by the Geniva Convention or anything of that sort. I personally had a certain amount of experience with Mugabe's scum and feel that the only way to deal with these low lifes is to combat them with their own methods. Nothing frightens a terrorist more than the realisation that the next knock on the door may be someone who is going to blow your brains out!
Support our boys no matter what! I do not see any of the off-spring of our politiicans there as opposed to Queenies grandson.

1. Normal people - I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. If you mean the Taliban or Al-Qaeda then I would agree that their tactics are often less than legal. That said, you can't tie up and torture someone who breaks into your house. While different in scale, the same applies in war. Reciprocity is an issue, but murdering prisoners isn't likely to be acceptable by any sane individuals measure.

2. Scum - Humanity is not in any way furthered by two groupings of the aforesaid moral residue. If the enemy are vile, surely it's preferable that British troops don't become the same.

3. Blowing brains out - A Predator/Hellfire combo has been proven to do the trick. This is arguably legal too, as you'll no doubt be delighted to hear being such a stickler for what's allowed... It is dubious whether "terrorists" are ever afraid (in the normal sense) of such an end however, and so blowing their brains out in their living room probably only goes to ruin the wallpaper and set their many sons to go rigidly along the same vengeful path.

4. "Support our boys no matter what" - Independence of thought clearly is not something you've been blessed with. While support is often warranted, awful things have, on occasion, been done. Murdering Iraqi civilians really doesn't fall within the job description. My support will never be unconditional - neither should yours.

If those are views which you honestly hold, then please consider your position if you're in any way related to the military. Having read the above, I wouldn't give you a broomstick, nevermind a gun.

[Chugalug2]

mtoroshanga:
Do not get patronising I beg.
Well it's tempting I admit but no, you are right, your proposal must be argued with on its own merits, or lack of them. So I'll try to keep my eye on the ball and play that, not the man. You can suspect all you like about the trees, squirrels or bats that I might choose to hug. I assume that is your code for anyone who is not prepared to:
Support our boys no matter what!
in which case put me down as a card carrying hugger by all means. Somehow I just know that you are not, nor ever have been, in HM Forces for the philosophy that you express is totally alien to the ethos for which they stand and the law to which they abide. As to being in Mogadishu 1994, I'm very happy indeed to confirm that I was not there. With respect what has that to do with the price of fish? UK Military Law extends to wherever those bound by it are sent, without exception, endex. Finally I endorse everything that legallooptheloop has said, merely adding a barge-pole to his list of Inventory Items, for the use of.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

While sharing the frustration of the “bad buggers deserve being buggered about” contingent, I’m clear in my mind that Military and International Law isn’t optional. Good discipline also dictates that boots in the Field should not become boots in the heads of suspects and prisoners. One of the many problems, though, is that, when a man is caught red booted by a recently crippled or dead body, he will want to share the blame. Blame normally ascends the command chain. As a consequence, normally good commanders find themselves answerable for “oversights” that may not have occurred in the comfort of a UK/Europe camp/station/depot. My personal frustration is that otherwise exemplary commanders are being judged by people who have never experienced exercise pressures, let alone operational ones. Some of these accusing people also may or may not be anti military. I additionally feel frustration at the UK meja that seems to delight in stoking up emotions over such revelations with the distinct aim of making money and creating more heat than light.

So criminal acts are criminal and must be investigated and acted upon. I genuinely believe that. I also believe that investigations and actions should not be conducted completely in the open, as they are now. Like it or not we are engaged in continuing armed conflicts and must remain sensitive the morale of the Serviceman and the “comfort” provided to the opposition. Once everyone is safely out of harms way, be as open as you want. My analogy would be a boat inspector who is determined to find and remove every rotten timber in a wooden hull. That is fine in dry dock but not necessarily that clever at sea in a force 10.

[Mick Smith]

GBZ
I’m clear in my mind that Military and International Law isn’t optional.

Good. We agree. It is not optional, be it today, yesterday or tomorrow.

I additionally feel frustration at the UK meja that seems to delight in stoking up emotions over such revelations with the distinct aim of making money and creating more heat than light.

There is no money in reporting, which is all that is happening, these allegations, and sadly in some cases, convictions. It is, unsurprisingly, not something the public wants to hear.

But if the allegations are made, then they have to be reported to ensure that the public is a) aware and b) reassured that such allegations are properly investigated.

That is a key part of the media's role, in my view, probably the key role, demonstrating to the public that the government, the courts and government bodies, including the forces, are doing their jobs properly.

Quite properly, these allegations cannot be reported as anything other than allegations, until someone has been convicted, and if you have seen anywhere where they have been, I suggest you report them to the judge when the case comes before the courts, so he can declare the offending organisation in contempt of court.

We are currently in the middle of one inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa, a Basra hotel worker, who died after being beaten during a sustained softening up process. The evidence is out there and horrific. I suggest you google Baha Musa and choir and read any of the reports from the current inquiry in that regard.

One soldier admitted inhumane treatment and served a year in jail. No-one else was convicted as a result, and no-one was convicted of manslaughter, because of what the judge condemned as a "closing of ranks" within the regiment involved.

The High Court ordered an inquiry into another case "Danny Boy" earlier this year and the MoD finally announced the inquiry this week.

Lawyers for a number of Iraqis asked for the inquiry because, they alleged, the RMP had failed to investigate allegations that British troops beat and killed prisoners.

The inquiry was only ordered after evidence to the court from a senior RMP officer was found to be seriously flawed and it emerged that someone in the chain of command had tried to withhold from the court Red Cross documents which suggested that Iraqis taken prisoner had been beaten while being held down.

Blame normally ascends the command chain. As a consequence, normally good commanders find themselves answerable for “oversights” that may not have occurred in the comfort of a UK/Europe camp/station/depot.

For a very good reason. Because they have fouled up and are ultimately responsible for what happens on their watch.

I sat through the Bread Basket court martial in early 2005 and it was very clear very early on that the officers who gave the orders and shaped the environment in which the incidents occurred were never investigated and the junior NCOs were left to carry the can.

But in the more recent cases, elements of the chain of command blocked RMP officers from investigating some cases properly, including at least one case where the original RMP investigating officers had very strong suspicions that a murder had taken place. That's not an allegation incidentally, it's a fact, revealed by Lord Goldsmith, the then Attorney-General, in correspondence released to the court.

It's worth bearing in mind that if the RMP had investigated - or had been allowed to investigate - all of the cases that came up properly at the time, there would be far less problem getting the UK courts to dismiss fraudulent claims now. As it is virtually any claim has become almost impossible to deny.

So frankly, I find it difficult to understand why anyone would have any sympathy for those in the chain of command who now find themselves under fire.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Good that we partly agree then.

You didn't quote me on;

My analogy would be a boat inspector who is determined to find and remove every rotten timber in a wooden hull. That is fine in dry dock but not necessarily that clever at sea in a force 10.

[Mick Smith]

Didn't think it was worth quoting I'm afraid.

My analogy would be a boat inspector who is determined to find and remove every rotten timber in a wooden hull. That is fine in dry dock but not necessarily that clever at sea in a force 10.

In the context in which you sought to use it, it's a poor analogy.

It does however work fairly well when you look at the reality of our actual situation.

We are fighting a force that doesn't play by our rules in a war where our sole justification is to try and persuade the local population that our rules are the ones people should be playing by.

If your man rips out the rotten wood, your ship sinks. If our rules are ripped out, we lose our justification for fighting. So in that way your analogy works a dream. But I didn't think that was what you were driving at.

[PTT]

My analogy would be a boat inspector who is determined to find and remove every rotten timber in a wooden hull. That is fine in dry dock but not necessarily that clever at sea in a force 10.
Nor is it clever to have the rotten timber in your boat in the force 10 in the first place. If you can RiP the timber then it makes sense to do so.
The boat of our moral high ground only floats because there are no moral leakages (to murder the analogy even further!).

[legallooptheloop]

The boat is now a shipwreck... in a similar condition to that of mtoroshanga's arguement.

[Chugalug2]

I would not only abandon GBZ's boat but also his premise that the problem here is:
frustration at the UK meja that seems to delight in stoking up emotions over such revelations with the distinct aim of making money and creating more heat than light.
It seems that all that is being stoked up here is a smokescreen to obscure an ambivalence about what is right and what is wrong. History tells us that any country, any army, in fact anyone, that loses sight of that simple comparison is heading for a fall. If we lose the will to conduct ourselves in accordance with what is right then this campaign, and any other, is doomed anyway and we should pack it in forthwith. Of course individuals, even groups of individuals, perhaps even whole units, might go "rogue". They must be condemned and disowned by their own colleagues, never mind the "UK meja". War is a bloody and merciless business and must be fought to win or not embarked upon, but that has to be done without stooping to arbitrary and senseless brutality away from the front line. We prevailed over such brutality as exercised by the Nazis and the Japanese, as well as half a hundred "Freedom Fighting" armies since, and we can do so again. Don't shoot the messenger but listen to the message.

[Two's in]

War is a bloody and merciless business and must be fought to win or not embarked upon

...assuming you have a clear and unequivocal military objective, the above is true. But given an opaque and manufactured conflict like Iraq, the end result is often conduct and behavior coming to light now. The more abstract and convoluted the political reasoning, the more difficult it is to impose the correct moral and ethical standards on those waging the conflict.

[VinRouge]

In which case, dont start the war.

Or dont get caught when you have to do something that ensures success, not failure.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Chugalug2. Thank you for quoting me but it would be appreciated if you would do it in context. Prior to that, I had written;

So criminal acts are criminal and must be investigated and acted upon. I genuinely believe that. I also believe that investigations and actions should not be conducted completely in the open, as they are now.
For the benefit of those who I seem to have confused, my belief is;

a. allegations of criminal acts should be investigated, thoroughly and fairly

b. if the Military has lost credibility to investigate allegations of criminal acts, they should be entrusted to an independent body (it would be preferable if that body was not anti military)

c. individuals found guilty of involvement in criminal acts should be dealt with by the appropriate means

d. allegations of criminal acts should not be investigated as a Media circus with the entire world as its audience. If we are a civilised society, we should be able to trust duly appointed people to handle such matters on our behalf without detailed insight to every sensational/shocking revelation.

e. If investigations must be made public, it should be deferred until after hostilities and aid to the foreign power have ceased. I say that in cognisance of the continuing presence of the RN and other training teams in Iraq, even though British Forces have been withdrawn from armed conflict.

[Avitor]

The two greatest criminal acts were, in my opinion, committed by the government....the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan.

Would any military person at the sharp end concede, the supply of our perceived enemy is endless?

Our military is good enough to defend our island, that is what it should be used for.

[Chugalug2]

GBZ, I was not trying to ignore your thoughtful and resolute stand against unlawful military acts, for which indeed I commend you, but rather trying to point up what I see as an ambivalent attitude to its revelation by others than in the CoC. I'm afraid that its ability to fearlessly do its duty in this regard is poor, which is why it all comes out in your "meeja" circus the way it does. As stated earlier, war is a dreadful thing and hence those who conduct it on our behalf have an awesome responsibility to do it in accordance with the rules, ie UK Military Law. Again as stated earlier this responsibility extends from Monarch to the lowliest private and certainly includes HM Government. That responsibility includes issuing only legal orders and obeying only legal orders. It may well be that steadfastly standing by either or both of these strictures will get one into very hot water. Tough! That's what you're paid for! Of course the higher up the food chain you are the more effect such a stand might have, but as with this case we see time and again the actual doing of these acts is usually at the other end of the spectrum. That is why the first thing you should learn as a raw recruit is the concept of obeying legal orders only and being sure in your own mind what you will say and what you will do if ever you receive an illegal one. As to your:
b. if the Military has lost credibility to investigate allegations of criminal acts, they should be entrusted to an independent body (it would be preferable if that body was not anti military)
I'm afraid that we seem to be in violent agreement. My attitude to Self Regulation is well rehearsed and needn't be paraded yet again other than to say that it never works and this is as powerful example of it as any involving Airworthiness (there, I finally got to the punch line!).

[mtoroshanga]

Have a look at arrse.co and see what the boys who are on the ground where the meat meets the metal think. I joined the Air Force in 1961 and started combat flying in 1965 in a nasty war that lasted 14 years and do not need someone who flew around in Bosnia delivering meals on wheels to call me' princess' and I still say support the boys on the ground!

[AlpineSkier]

I remember reading that Lt Calley was released after a couple of years ( for whatever reason ). Uncertain if this was the long sentence you referred to ?

[Chugalug2]

You are too kind AS, for if indeed I had contented myself to referring merely to his long sentence then I would have been technically correct for he was in fact sentenced to Life Imprisonment with Hard Labour. But of course I had to spoil it all by claiming that he "did a long stretch". Amazingly he served only one day at Fort Leavenworth and then a mere three and a half years of House Arrest before being released by a Federal Judge. All of the above was news to me and plucked from Wiki:
William Calley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley)
He finally apologised for his role in the massacre to the Kiwanis Club of Greater Columbus as recently as 19th August 2009!
Not sure what all that does for my using him as an example. Given that many felt he took the rap for others in the CoC there is perhaps a continuing moral to his tale, not least in the naming of people by Mr Hadden-Cave QC in the Nimrod Report. Many are conspicuous there too by their absence!

[legallooptheloop]

Have a look at arrse.co and see what the boys who are on the ground where the meat meets the metal think. I joined the Air Force in 1961 and started combat flying in 1965 in a nasty war that lasted 14 years and do not need someone who flew around in Bosnia delivering meals on wheels to call me' princess' and I still say support the boys on the ground!

Truely persuasive...

So are you pretty much saying mtoroshanga, that a UK soldier should be supported (and not held to account?) despite any illegal acts for which they are found to responsible?

[mtoroshanga]

No I am not saying that 'legallooptheloop' but I am supporting the people on the ground. Have a look at the headlines of todays INDEPENDANT and you will see why I started the thread, not to wave my willy or for anything personal. I've got nothing to prove.

[legallooptheloop]

There is a vast difference between wanting UK troops to benefit from public support and seeking to have media outlets banned from reporting allegations of war crimes.

The first is commendable and the second is utter madness.

If you are saying that healthy support equates to absolutely no critisism, of any aspect, in any circumstance, then you're being rediculously unrealistic.

Should a war not be debated like any other major issue of national importance? Should we stiffle completely any well reasoned arguement for the sake of military morale? Should we accept what we're fed blindly and not question what has gone on, and what may continue to do so for possibly years to come?

Sounds fantastic! Iran anyone?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

legallooptheloop, the last time you were in a hostile location, wasn’t the morale of your Unit and those around you a cause for concern? Similarly, didn’t support from the general public at home feature as something valuable to you? Most importantly, perhaps, didn’t the prospect of the opposition being “fired up” by lurid and sensational news reports of alleged allied/British atrocities, broadcast worldwide, worry you? Even proven offences, rightly reported, can have an adverse influence on events if publicised in particularly sensational ways.

I agree that here should be no cover-ups but public blow by blow accounts of trials, often in graphic detail, are not helpful and add little to gaining the final truth and justice.