British Justice?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I think it is perfectly OK for anyone engaged in a war to use every means at their disposal to beat their enemy and protect their soldiers.

 

We'll have to agree to differ then cos I don't

 

If they arent doing so their soldiers should be asking why not.

 

Cos there are rules and our soldiers know that and agree to abide by them

 

 

 

I understand what you are trying to say about suspected as opposed to proven but where we differ is that I trust our security forces to only do so if they have good reason to believe that they have relevant information and are refusing to supply that information when questioned.

 

I am sure they will only do so when they belive the suspect is likely to be involved etc. I simply don't agree with using torture on suspects..if it's proven they are involved then by all means

 

If it later transpires that the person was innocent and didnt have any knowledge then it is regretable but theres no such thing as a clean war.

 

 

Would it only be regrettable if it was one of your loved ones or would it be much worse than regrettable?? IMO a lot of people advocate such bthings cos they think it will never affetc their own. Advocate this and it makes it OK for British soldiers to be tortured cos the enemy suspects they know womething that will help..if it's Ok for us then we're saying it's Ok for them

 

 

It is indeed a fact...don't we have responsibility to minimise the innocents that are hurt? Torturing someions whois only a suspect makes it far more likely

 

I dont like it which is why I think any form of armed conflict should always be the last resort and we should stay out of wars that dont directly involve us because that isnt a last resort.

 

hang on..when did we start linking torture with armed conflict...we can be torturing suspects withiout being in an armed conflict.

 

If we can choose to not fight we shouldnt fight. Fighting is for defense in a situation where there is no other choice.

 

You know I disagree..cos we can fight, we have a duty to protect those unable to fight

 

However once we engage in war it should be all out until the enemy are gone and in no fit state to rise again.

 

So you agree that out enemy can also do whatever they want to us and our forces? If they torture Brits you're saying it's Ok for them to do so cos they susepct they will divulge useful info.

 

You cant support sending soldiers into the war zone and then claim that you dont support them fighting against IS. If you send troops in they will be enagaged and have to fight.

 

I have been very clear on this..we don't go in to fight but if we have to then we do

 

 

are you claiming that you dont advocate doing good?

 

That is indeed my whole argument..we have a duty to do what we see as good

 

I dont advocate doing good if it means risking the lives of our troops but only because I dont think soldiers are suitable for humanitarian missions, I think we should send the Pope and all the other priests for that. A big plane load of cassock wearing liars...sorry! I mean holy men

 

Sometiems soldiers are the only solution in a humanitarian crisis when the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of one side

If they would be effective I'd agree ;) The SBS (Special Bishop Service) have had some notable successes..but mainly notable failures :(

[JOHNNYAITCH]

we try to be and that now could be the problem, look at all the cleric's in this country who preach jihad but stay safe here from their enemies, that one with the hook 2 or 3 countries wanted him, we wanted rid but could.nt over 10yrs I think it took us. As for your middle east scenario they already do that, and its no use us observing all the rules if the other side don't. I,m old enough to remember the Vietnam war where a us commander had 2 prisoners up in a helicopter, he was trying to save a marine patrol but they would not answer him so he threatened to throw em out if they did not answer him, so he ended up putting one out, and the other soon told what he knew. Ok it was wrong from our point of view and he got repremand for it but he saved his men's lives, now if the situation was reversed what would the is/taliband or in the example above Vietcong have done? the security forces have got to be right all the time, the terrorists only once, why put our forces under this pressure to keep our own safe if it comes to it, save ours to hell with the rest...why should a soldier have to hold fire till he's fired upon...we ar,nt figting a "normal" war if they leave a bomb on a bus(as they did) they mean to kill and maim anyone that's there war.

 

So basically you're Ok with innocent suspects being tortued as long as sometimes we get it right? We're lowering ourselves to their level...they've won when we do that.

 

You're advocating 'anything goes' (my words) to get the job done so we can't condemn them for doing the same.

 

Aren't we better than that?

[Davebrad]

So basically you're Ok with innocent suspects being tortued as long as sometimes we get it right? We're lowering ourselves to their level...they've won when we do that.

 

You're advocating 'anything goes' (my words) to get the job done so we can't condemn them for doing the same.

 

Aren't we better than that?

 

 

I suspect that when the security services question someone they,re not just someone siting in a café, they,ve been under superspition and perhaps followed for months, then pulled in when tip's are showing that something is about to happen. There's no time to apply for legal aid, arrange for a solicitor, In the field a soldier might have if he's lucky min's to find information out thru questions so he does it and possibly save his mates or others lives, then some human rights lawyer pops up and the soldier finds himself in court recently a case was brought and it found in favour of the soldier and the judge critised the lawyers who brought it.

At the end of the day its the police/security/and soldiers duty to protect and save lifes, ours, if they have to do things we feel uncomfitable with so be it, those wishing to harm us would not think twice,as has been proved. We are better than that but if to save British lifes we have to lower our selves to their level, so be it...

[geosname]

So basically you're Ok with innocent suspects being tortued as long as sometimes we get it right? We're lowering ourselves to their level...they've won when we do that.

 

You're advocating 'anything goes' (my words) to get the job done so we can't condemn them for doing the same.

 

Aren't we better than that?

 

I dont believe there can be rules in war, I dont see such conflict as a game where we tip our hats to the opposition for putting up a good show. The sole purpose of war is to win, no matter what the cost or consequences of that action. The aim is to defeat the enemy not have a good knock and back to the pavilion for tea... when an enemy is prepared to use your moral code against you to defeat you its either throw out the rule book or surrender because the rule book will be your destruction not theirs.... perhaps if politicians and high ranking military men considered this we would have had less conflict in the past and shorter conflicts in the future... the problem is defining what a war actually is... as opposed to a battle/skirmish etc... yes in my book anything goes if thats what the enemy decides its what they will do... you need to be prepared to do worse to him than he could possibly do to you... and continue to do it until you win,,

 

Now then.... where is Austria?

[For Us All]

I suspect that when the security services question someone they,re not just someone siting in a café, they,ve been under superspition and perhaps followed for months, then pulled in when tip's are showing that something is about to happen. There's no time to apply for legal aid, arrange for a solicitor, In the field a soldier might have if he's lucky min's to find information out thru questions so he does it and possibly save his mates or others lives, then some human rights lawyer pops up and the soldier finds himself in court recently a case was brought and it found in favour of the soldier and the judge critised the lawyers who brought it.

At the end of the day its the police/security/and soldiers duty to protect and save lifes, ours, if they have to do things we feel uncomfitable with so be it, those wishing to harm us would not think twice,as has been proved. We are better than that but if to save British lifes we have to lower our selves to their level, so be it...

 

Next time I suggest that the army takes a battalion of lawyers with them.They can then act as the advance guard placing injunctions on the enemy. Those who survive can then be awarded the same salary as a squaddie.:rolleyes:

[For Us All]

Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), the human rights law firm acting for the families of the alleged victims,told the hearing that they now accepted that there was no evidence to substantiate the claims.So far some £22 million has been spent on the so-called al-Sweady inquiry, named after one of those who died.Opening in March last year, it has sat for 167 days and heard evidence from 280 witnesses.

To call this a scandalous waste of public money would be an understatement but more than the drain on public finances,this has been another example of besmirching the reputation of British forces while enriching lawyers courtesy of the taxpayer.The allegations arose out of one of the fiercest battles fought by troops in Iraq,when they were ambushed by armed insurgents at a checkpoint named Danny Boy in May 2004.Soldiers were forced to fix bayonets in desperate close–quarter fighting and several received bravery commendations,including the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross and the Military Cross.Yet an engagement that showed the courage and professionalism of British forces was turned into an attack on their integrity.

PIL is headed by the socialist lawyer Phil Shiner,who is well known for pursuing British soldiers through the courts over alleged war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.His firm has been paid millions from public funds and hundreds of claimants have been compensated to the tune of about £20 million but PIL has not acted alone,government ministers have been far too ready to believe the worst of our own troops and should not have set up the inquiries in the first place.

Meanwhile,the relatives of six officers of the Royal Military Police killed in the town of Majar al–Kabir,north of Basra the previous year have been denied a hearing of their own and are still waiting for justice after a trial of the alleged perpetrators in Iraq collapsed.In addition,soldiers from the Parachute Regiment involved in the ****** Sunday shootings more than 40 years ago face the prospect of prosecution even though former IRA terrorists have been given an effective amnesty.

The Paras continue to be investigated despite the most expensive inquiry in British legal history,costing more than £200 million.We do not pretend that all our soldiers behaved with total propriety in extreme circumstances,often in fear of their own lives but this relentless mud-slinging must stop. It is time to shut down what amounts to a blueprint for lining the pockets of lawyers by denigrating our troops.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I suspect that when the security services question someone they,re not just someone siting in a café, they,ve been under superspition and perhaps followed for months, then pulled in when tip's are showing that something is about to happen.

 

I don't doubt that......but thy are still at that point only suspects. don't think agents of the Uk should be using torture..we're better than that that

 

There's no time to apply for legal aid, arrange for a solicitor, In the field a soldier might have if he's lucky min's to find information out thru questions so he does it and possibly save his mates or others lives, then some human rights lawyer pops up and the soldier finds himself in court recently a case was brought and it found in favour of the soldier and the judge critised the lawyers who brought it.

 

That's a very different scenario to using torture in annon-combat situation..I totally acceot that in a kill or be killed situation decisions have to be made..I'm not talking about such situations

 

[At the end of the day its the police/security/and soldiers duty to protect and save lifes, ours, if they have to do things we feel uncomfitable with so be it, those wishing to harm us would not think twice,as has been proved.

 

So that's my point...we become no better than them so if we're entitled to do whatever it takes we can't condemn them for doing the same

 

We are better than that but if to save British lifes we have to lower our selves to their level, so be it...

 

WHich is exsctly the attitude they will take

 

I just can't agree that anything goes just cos it saves british lives cos if we adopt that then our enemies are perfectly entitled to the same stance..so what's our justification for being in conbat with them if we are all doing the same thing?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I dont believe there can be rules in war,

 

But clearly there are rules..we take prisoners for example..we don't just shoot soldiers who have surrendered. That does not mean that everyone follows those rules all the time but it does mean that they exist.

 

If it's win at all costs then we might as well just nuke and napalm and carpet bomb etc anyone we have a conflict with to make sure we win..who cares about a proportionate response when all that matters is winning?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), the human rights law firm acting for the families of the alleged victims,told the hearing that they now accepted that there was no evidence to substantiate the claims.So far some £22 million has been spent on the so-called al-Sweady inquiry, named after one of those who died.Opening in March last year, it has sat for 167 days and heard evidence from 280 witnesses.

To call this a scandalous waste of public money would be an understatement but more than the drain on public finances,this has been another example of besmirching the reputation of British forces while enriching lawyers courtesy of the taxpayer.The allegations arose out of one of the fiercest battles fought by troops in Iraq,when they were ambushed by armed insurgents at a checkpoint named Danny Boy in May 2004.Soldiers were forced to fix bayonets in desperate close–quarter fighting and several received bravery commendations,including the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross and the Military Cross.Yet an engagement that showed the courage and professionalism of British forces was turned into an attack on their integrity.

PIL is headed by the socialist lawyer Phil Shiner,who is well known for pursuing British soldiers through the courts over alleged war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.His firm has been paid millions from public funds and hundreds of claimants have been compensated to the tune of about £20 million but PIL has not acted alone,government ministers have been far too ready to believe the worst of our own troops and should not have set up the inquiries in the first place.

Meanwhile,the relatives of six officers of the Royal Military Police killed in the town of Majar al–Kabir,north of Basra the previous year have been denied a hearing of their own and are still waiting for justice after a trial of the alleged perpetrators in Iraq collapsed.In addition,soldiers from the Parachute Regiment involved in the ****** Sunday shootings more than 40 years ago face the prospect of prosecution even though former IRA terrorists have been given an effective amnesty.

The Paras continue to be investigated despite the most expensive inquiry in British legal history,costing more than £200 million.We do not pretend that all our soldiers behaved with total propriety in extreme circumstances,often in fear of their own lives but this relentless mud-slinging must stop. It is time to shut down what amounts to a blueprint for lining the pockets of lawyers by denigrating our troops.

 

Agreed..no one should be profiting form this and clearly there should be a greater onus on the prosecution to at least demonstrate that tehere is a case to answer before such cases get as far as they have..these guys were only suspects and yet were treated abysmally

[For Us All]

Agreed..no one should be profiting form this and clearly there should be a greater onus on the prosecution to at least demonstrate that tehere is a case to answer before such cases get as far as they have..these guys were only suspects and yet were treated abysmally

 

This gravy train needs to stop.

The inquiry needs to be stopped and new one set up,the firms and more importantly individuals within those firms need to be investigated.

PIL now accept there was no evidence to proceed.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but surely there should have been a requirement within the law to have evidence before any proceedings and the subsequent investigation was started.

[Davebrad]

So that's my point...we become no better than them so if we're entitled to do whatever it takes we can't condemn them for doing the same

 

 

 

WHich is exsctly the attitude they will take

 

I just can't agree that anything goes just cos it saves british lives cos if we adopt that then our enemies are perfectly entitled to the same stance..so what's our justification for being in conbat with them if we are all doing the same thing?

 

We don,t condemn them we are defending ourselves against them for what they are doing and what they have done.

 

As for justification we are there in response to a call for help from the legitimate government.

 

And if we are all doing the same thing, it means at least a level playing field. but I don accept that we are, we do,nt use roadside bombs, nor suicide bombers, nor kill our own people if they choose not to agree with us.

 

In the protection of our country again we need to be able to use all means available as I said a few posts before " we have to be right every time, they only have to be once", so the end does justify the means. If torturing a terrorist would have stopped the London bombings so be it...

[geosname]

But clearly there are rules..we take prisoners for example..we don't just shoot soldiers who have surrendered. That does not mean that everyone follows those rules all the time but it does mean that they exist.

 

If it's win at all costs then we might as well just nuke and napalm and carpet bomb etc anyone we have a conflict with to make sure we win..who cares about a proportionate response when all that matters is winning?

 

There are rules because we like to pretend we are gentlemen, even in such circumstances. Of course there have to be some rules otherwise there is just chaos but the Geneva convention was just something we could complain the enemy didnt observe.

The "rules" of war are simple.... kill them before they kill us

[JOHNNYAITCH]

We don,t condemn them we are defending ourselves against them for what they are doing and what they have done.

 

I don't agree..the newspapers and media are full of stories conemning what they do and see their actions a justification for us taking action against them. If anything goes then that is no justification

 

As for justification we are there in response to a call for help from the legitimate government.

 

In some cases that is true

 

And if we are all doing the same thing, it means at least a level playing field. but I don accept that we are, we do,nt use roadside bombs, nor suicide bombers, nor kill our own people if they choose not to agree with us.

 

We don't but your saying it's Ok if we do

 

In the protection of our country again we need to be able to use all means available as I said a few posts before " we have to be right every time, they only have to be once", so the end does justify the means. If torturing a terrorist would have stopped the London bombings so be it...

 

Would torturing a suspected terrorist who knew nothing about it be a case of the ends justifying the means? That's my whole point...anything fgoes cos of the end we are aiming for?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

This gravy train needs to stop.

The inquiry needs to be stopped and new one set up,the firms and more importantly individuals within those firms need to be investigated.

PIL now accept there was no evidence to proceed.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but surely there should have been a requirement within the law to have evidence before any proceedings and the subsequent investigation was started.

 

I agree

[JOHNNYAITCH]

There are rules because we like to pretend we are gentlemen, even in such circumstances. Of course there have to be some rules otherwise there is just chaos but the Geneva convention was just something we could complain the enemy didnt observe.

The "rules" of war are simple.... kill them before they kill us

 

So you agree that if some small nation is a threat to us then we might as well just nuke them before they get a chance to kill us? Why take the chance of trying anything else? An extreme example I know but it highlights the principle