UK Soldiers To Face Murder Charges For Alleged Crimes Committed In Iraq

Oh right, I remember you were a fan of Saddam Hussein and went to that party in London to stop the war.

Do you folks have the legal concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Because based on Jennys rant, it would seem that the opposite applies. Of course I'm sure her tune will change should a soldier that happens to be a woman is charged.

Can't we find a way to blame Obama on this one?

Well, he is a man, so there's that.

I love this bit!

I said at the time.... and was heavily criticised for daring to suggest that our "heroes" were involved in criminal activity..... that the sheer weight of allegations warranted detailed investigation and that the Royal Military Police were not fit for purpose.


Said where and who cared? Is Jen really suggesting that the government are investigating UK troops on her say so?

Well, that should be enough... after all, that is the exact problem with the world today.

from the article she quotes...
"In December the Daily Mail revealed how PIL had used an agent in Basra who allegedly cold-called a grieving widow of a dead Iraqi and persuaded her to mount a legal claim against the British Government. Her testimony was the closest proof yet that UK LAW FIRMS ARE TOUTING FOR BUSINESS"

It's easy to sit in the safety of your own home etc and make judgements when your safety is not under threat, when you have never operated in an environment where for months on end you are never safe. Not even on your own base. Where stepping outside of the wire significantly increases your chances of being killed or wounded. Where the enemy wear no uniform and often seek to hide among the general populace.

Soldiers operate in an environment where they may have a mere split second to make life or death decisions. A split second to judge if the person in their sights presents a clear and present danger or if they dont. Is it therefore any surprise that under such circumstances soldiers occasionally get it wrong? But this is a world away from murder. And yet civvies who have no concept of the world the soldier lives in cant tell the difference.

As boxer pointed out it seems that someone - based on a daily mirror story - has already had any squaddies under investigation tried and found guilty! Why am i not surprised...

O it's Tommy this an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away"
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play"

Actually, there have been two instances of convictions for war crimes. One was Corporal Donald Payne who was convicted after his "trophy video" showed him brutalising a suspect in custody. Another came after an army sergeant shot a wounded captive and then boasted to his comrades "I've just broken the Geneva Convention lads, let's keep quiet about it, right?" He too was caught on camera.

But yes, as evidence is slowly coming to light and being pieced together, then charges are becoming increasingly likely.

We have to remember that the legal process has been hampered by the destruction or tampering with of physical evidence and the wall of silence that has confronted investigators during interviews with suspects and those who would have been witnesses to events. But little by little, piece by piece, the truth will out in the end. As it should.

I happen to think that justice is important and where evidence does exist, those accused should face trial. They can have their say in court. If they are found not guilty then so be it, but we owe it to the victims to pursue the allegations with vigour.

Perhaps my critics don't have an interest in justice. Perhaps they think that as long as something is done by "our heroes" that makes it alright.

Atrocities are only ever committed by the enemy, eh..?

Actually, we do. We invented it, at least as far as the Western world is concerned.

It was a concept enshrined in English law during the reign of Henry II (a twelfth century king of England). He also innovated such laws as the right to silence, trial by jury and the creation of local justices called "Shire Reeves", from which the modern word "Sheriff" is derived.

Us crazy Brits, eh...?

During the reign of Henry's son, King John, we also, by virtue of Magna Carta, instituted the law of Habeus Corpus, a legal concept ditched by the American justice system at Guantanamo Bay.

Yes. We do have a legal system. And it's been around since long before Columbus or Vespucci were even born.

deleted

What is this we stuff? Oh, I forgot you are a fan of the royalty. They don't do kings in America, it's a republic and all the better for it.
As for the legal system in Henry VIII time I shudder to think what it would have been liked to have been brought before the bench in his time.
He didn't innovate anything, though I accept that they happened under his reign, if he wasn't there, they would still have happened.