War crimes in Afghanistan

[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cognisance of the continuing presence of the RN and other training teams in Iraq, even though British Forces have been withdrawn from armed conflict.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]

@ Chugalug

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
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.