Who Needs Enemies, When We Have Human Rights Lawyers?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3287178/Afghan-veterans-face-criminal-probe-mistreating-Taliban-suspects.html

/// The lawyers are believed to have Pashtun-speaking teams throughout Afghanistan asking locals if they were ever mistreated by the British. ///

/// The law firms took on the cases and mounted legal claims against the Ministry of Defence. Other locals then heard by word of mouth who to contact if they had a grievance with the British. ///

/// Suspected insurgents are also able to approach UK teams still in the country and lodge complaints of ill treatment. ///

/// Suspected insurgents are also able to approach UK teams still in the country and lodge complaints of ill treatment. ///

And it is not just Afghanistan, look how much this kind of thing cost us in Iraq?

/// Since 2003, the MoD has spent £100million on Iraq-related investigations and compensation, with £44million more earmarked for ongoing claims from Iraqis up to 2019. ///

/// The Al-Sweady public inquiry cost £31million and lasted five years but exonerated British troops of claims they went on a torture and killing spree following a 2004 battle in southern Iraq. ///

[THECORBYLOON]

RETROCOP I am trying to show that your view about the Convention is at odds with the Canadian Government's and with respect, it is likely that they know a wee bit more about it than you.

The fact that one side in a conflict ignores conventions, treaties or moral obligations does not mean that the UK should follow suit.

When you were a policeman, did you fight dirty and did you ignore the law of the land because criminals did?

[retrocop]

Nope.Never had to except once when I was in a life or death situation and I could of been accused of excessive force. But you see when a loaded firearm is pointed at you and the trigger is pulled and all you hear is a click because the felon,in his excitement pulled back the action of his luger before inserting the clip then adrenaline takes over a bit and I knocked the carp out of him. So being human,yet still alive,I suppose I did break the rules a bit. Ever suffered an adrenalin rush when your life is threatened. I bet a few hundred soldiers will admit to it.

[Baldric]

///your view about the Convention is at odds with the Canadian Government's///

What the hell has that got to do with the OP, The Canadian Government are not involved in this at all,except as a crutch to prop up your rather weak argument!

[THECORBYLOON]

If you have never fought dirty what about your colleagues who may have given one or two folk a good hiding, would that be justified? What about vigilante civilians getting a bit of revenge in when the police have not been able to get enough evidence on an offender but the vigilantes think they know better, is that okay?

[THECORBYLOON]

BALDRIC I have not said the Canadians were involved, merely pointing out that RETROCOP'S opinion was not correct as far as the Canadian Government is concerned and if you think that not following the Geneva Convention is a weak argument are you in favour of ignoring all laws in general or only those that are a tad inconvenient at a particular moment in time?

[retrocop]

Your arguments are becoming weaker.Give up if I were you.This thread is not about me, or my former colleagues who I cannot speak for but you wish me to. It is not about the Canadian government policy or vigilantes.
It is about British troops who are about to be s..t on from a great height by an ungrateful government and from what I read here an ungrateful public.
Probably why I have great empathy with the armed forces. If you must debate stay on track and stop wandering into irrelevance.

[retrocop]

You might as well say the Canadian Governments opinion is not correct as far as RETROCOP is concerned because the Canadian policy is irrelevant to this post.

[Svejk]

Al sweady- £31 million. Among the claims made, the soldiers raised their voices to the prisoners. For Funks Sake.

[Baldric]

I did not suggest you had said the Canadians were involved, but I did query why you thought their views were relevant when they are not involved.
I'm not in favour of ignoring any Laws, but are you honestly telling us that first you think the Taliban obey all the rules? and second, that you believe those doing the complaining are telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
For the record I have over a period of 20 years been involved in a few 'Firefights' (RMs) and can assure you things can get heated, but I never once broke any rules or was aware of any of my Men doing so.

[THECORBYLOON]

I am asking whether you think soldiers should abide by domestic and international laws and with your being a former policeman you have experience of law enforcement and meeting those in society who choose to ignore those laws. I am asking if you condone those who ignore the rule of law.

[anotheoldgit]

THECORBYLOON

/// I am asking if you condone those who ignore the rule of law. ///

We are not taking about Britain here, we are taking about two lawless countries Iraq and Afghanistan (well lawless by our standards at least).

[Baldric]

///We are not taking about Britain here///

And there was me, thinking we were talking about Afghan Veterans
(that is British Forces who have served in Afghanistan)
being investigated by Lawyers looking for possible mistreatment of Taliban suspects at the hands of those Veterans.

[retrocop]

You are also asking me to comment on another country's interpretation of the Geneva Convention which has no relevance in this OP. As I am not a Canadian I don't need to care , know or understand their different views .
Unlike you my sister has Canadian dual Nationality and is rather intelligent so I would expect her, maybe,to have some interest.
As for me. I would rather you stuck to the thread.
Sometimes, when needs must and the devil drives, and survival is upper most in a person 's mind the old adage, "Rules are for the Guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools" has some meaning. People who continually wave rule books about are generally to stupid to think on their feet when an instant decision has to be made.IMO and rules go out the window in justifiable circumstances if an advantageous position is to be gained. Not everything,in the real world,is black and white.

[retrocop]

* too stupid

[Gromit]

The headline screams Taliban (who were mainly foreign fighters), but the majority of compensation cases are from Afghanistani people.

We invaded their country. And treated everyone the same, Afghani or Taliban. Combatants don't win compensation claims for being abused, but civilians do.

Commanders in the field were either negligent of their responsibilities or complicit in the bad behaviour. Either way, that has a price tag, £31million and rising. The eye watering amount is an indication of how widespread the unprofessionalism went.

[anotheoldgit]

Baldric

If you must make sarcastic remarks on what I put, please put them in their correct context, my remark "We are not taking about Britain here" was made in reply to another ABer's referral to a certain Ex-Policeman's experience of law enforcement in Britain.

[Baldric]

No sarcasm involved, honest!

[Gromit]

Thecorbyloon/Retro

All the individual coalition member countries who joined the invasion of Afghanistan are signatories to the Geneva Convention. But NATO isn't because it isn't a country. We went in under the NATO banner, so the argument went that the Convention could be broken. However, that appears to have been dodgy advice, because the litigants have been successful.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// We invaded their country. And treated everyone the same, Afghani or Taliban. Combatants don't win compensation claims for being abused, but civilians
do. ///

We 'invaded' their country did we? I was under the impression that we were requested by the Afghanistan Government to help them in their efforts to rid their country of the Taliban.

We treated everyone the same did we? Funny how the civilians welcomed us with open arms, and their troops fought alongside of us.

Regarding the civilians killed, you cannot carry out such a war without some innocents being killed, especially when the enemy don't look any different to the terrorists, and since the Taliban regularly used civilians to hide being.

/// Most of those killed were victims of “collateral damage” when caught up in crossfire between British forces and the Taliban. ///

/// But dozens were killed in airstrikes and artillery barrages, while others were shot dead after being mistaken for insurgents. ///

None of these were deliberate war crimes.

[Gromit]

// I was under the impression that we were requested by the Afghanistan Government to help them in their efforts to rid their country of the Taliban. //

Good grief AOG, if you are going to re-write history, at least get some facts right. We invaded to remove the Afghan Government who were harbouring the Taliban. They did not invite us, and fight with us.

I Think you are getting us mixed up with the Russians who said the afghan Government had invited them to invade. But that was 20 years earlier.

I won't waste my time correcting the rest of your inaccurate comments, but there were many.