ChatterBank0 min ago
MoD pays millions to stay out of court
The MoD today announced it would not contest the claims that it killed and tortured Iraqis, and has agreed to pay millions in compensation.
"The Ministry of Defence has admitted responsibility for the death of an Iraqi hotel worker and agreed to pay compensation that could reach up to a million pounds.
Another eight Iraqis will receive substantial payouts after the MoD admitted they were also tortured by troops from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment following a raid on a Basra hotel during the 2003 invasion."
Is this damaged limitation at the taxpayers expense?
"The Ministry of Defence has admitted responsibility for the death of an Iraqi hotel worker and agreed to pay compensation that could reach up to a million pounds.
Another eight Iraqis will receive substantial payouts after the MoD admitted they were also tortured by troops from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment following a raid on a Basra hotel during the 2003 invasion."
Is this damaged limitation at the taxpayers expense?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hmmmmm
The MOD has admitted responsibility so compensation should be paid in my opinion.
However, to nit-pick, those incidents happened shortly after the invasion, not during as your link (I assume it is taken from a link) says. Those soldiers from the QLR went from a warfighting operation to 'peacekeeping' within a couple of weeks/days.
Those are two types of Operation that require different training and equipment for the troops involved and the Queens Lancs guys should have been replaced immediately after the warfighting stage by troops trained in the business of peacekeeping/policing, however, the way our forces are overstretched it's easy to see why it happened. That's not to excuse the soldiers behaviour, before Ops, every soldier from the lowest Private to the Commanding Officer has to attend lectures in the LOAC (law of armed conflict/Geneva Convention), so they should have been aware that their actions were illegal
The MOD has admitted responsibility so compensation should be paid in my opinion.
However, to nit-pick, those incidents happened shortly after the invasion, not during as your link (I assume it is taken from a link) says. Those soldiers from the QLR went from a warfighting operation to 'peacekeeping' within a couple of weeks/days.
Those are two types of Operation that require different training and equipment for the troops involved and the Queens Lancs guys should have been replaced immediately after the warfighting stage by troops trained in the business of peacekeeping/policing, however, the way our forces are overstretched it's easy to see why it happened. That's not to excuse the soldiers behaviour, before Ops, every soldier from the lowest Private to the Commanding Officer has to attend lectures in the LOAC (law of armed conflict/Geneva Convention), so they should have been aware that their actions were illegal
Unusually for you there is no link so I only know what you have posted.
In other cases of compensation, accepting responsibility and making a payment is often perceived as behaving responsibly and not dragging the litigant/claimant through the court process. The MoD can not undo the murder of that person and torture of those others so apart from in effect holding the hand up and making compensation, not sure what would be achieved and for whom by a different course of action.
Do you suspect other less transparent reasons for the response of the MoD?
In other cases of compensation, accepting responsibility and making a payment is often perceived as behaving responsibly and not dragging the litigant/claimant through the court process. The MoD can not undo the murder of that person and torture of those others so apart from in effect holding the hand up and making compensation, not sure what would be achieved and for whom by a different course of action.
Do you suspect other less transparent reasons for the response of the MoD?
Oops, sorry, I meant to...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2008/03/27/wmod127.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2008/03/27/wmod127.xml
It is unusual for the MoD/Government to make such a frank admission. Maybe even unprecedented? Corporal Payne is the first soldier to admit to committing a war crime.
It would be very damaging to the country and Army if the full facts were presented in open court. This way, they pay the millions (of taxpayers money) and limit the damage.
Corporal Payne pleaded guilty to inhuman treatment of Iraqi civilians but denied manslaughter. There was no charge of murder brought. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment in a civilian jail.
His six colleagues were all acquitted.
It would be very damaging to the country and Army if the full facts were presented in open court. This way, they pay the millions (of taxpayers money) and limit the damage.
Corporal Payne pleaded guilty to inhuman treatment of Iraqi civilians but denied manslaughter. There was no charge of murder brought. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment in a civilian jail.
His six colleagues were all acquitted.
Gromit
Thank you for the link, without you providing this service I would have had to actually look up the article myself!!!
I still don't see why accepting responsibility can be construed as a method of avoiding the consequence of a court process. If a court process had been held, there may have been further shaming information that would come to light, but also possibly none. Certainly it would have been an ordeal for the victims and family.
Thank you for the link, without you providing this service I would have had to actually look up the article myself!!!
I still don't see why accepting responsibility can be construed as a method of avoiding the consequence of a court process. If a court process had been held, there may have been further shaming information that would come to light, but also possibly none. Certainly it would have been an ordeal for the victims and family.
shame they dont treat our own servicepeople who usually have to fight for every penny of compensation after getting injured in the service of their country the same way. They usually deny all resposibility whenever possible, but in this case no problem, admissions abound and compensation will be plentiful.
if they must admit liability, fine, but to pay out millions in compensation, i dont think so.
like the recent case , soldier loses both arms and a leg has to fight to get around �200,000 civilian typist strains her wrist and gets around �450,000.
i take it the Iraq government will be paying compenstaion to the families of the military who have died or got injured and the people kidnapped and murdered, all trying to help free them from the tyranny of Saddam ?
Nah, didnt think so.
if they must admit liability, fine, but to pay out millions in compensation, i dont think so.
like the recent case , soldier loses both arms and a leg has to fight to get around �200,000 civilian typist strains her wrist and gets around �450,000.
i take it the Iraq government will be paying compenstaion to the families of the military who have died or got injured and the people kidnapped and murdered, all trying to help free them from the tyranny of Saddam ?
Nah, didnt think so.
Soldiers accept the risk of death or injury when they sign up - people staying at hotels don't that's the difference and that's why they're getting compensation.
People injured by Saddam could claim compensation if there were anybody to sue.
There isn't so they can't
It would have been nice to see some of that oil money going to help them but I think most is going to Haliburton shareholders via various tortuous routes - mostly inflated uncompetetive contracts
People injured by Saddam could claim compensation if there were anybody to sue.
There isn't so they can't
It would have been nice to see some of that oil money going to help them but I think most is going to Haliburton shareholders via various tortuous routes - mostly inflated uncompetetive contracts
Exactly, where are the large pay-outs when it comes to our boys, what a brilliant post bazwillrun.
It makes me sick to the stomach to read jake- the- peg's usual remarks regarding soldiers accept the risk of death or injury when they sign up.
How do we know that these so called innocent Iraqis or Afghans do not deserve the treatment they received from our forces. When one is fighting a foe that does not wear a uniform to distinguish themselves from non-combatants then I am afraid sometimes everone must be treated as the enemy.
Our troops have a very hard job to do, at a great risk to themselves. They are trained to fight and kill and yet they are expected to take these risks with one arm tied behind their backs, and treat people who could be prepared to kill them with a smile and a hand shake.
It would do the likes of jake-the-peg good to be out there in this situation, and begin to realise that these are not conventional wars when you know who the enemy is.
incidently how much compansation did Ken Bigley's family receive from the iraqis?
It makes me sick to the stomach to read jake- the- peg's usual remarks regarding soldiers accept the risk of death or injury when they sign up.
How do we know that these so called innocent Iraqis or Afghans do not deserve the treatment they received from our forces. When one is fighting a foe that does not wear a uniform to distinguish themselves from non-combatants then I am afraid sometimes everone must be treated as the enemy.
Our troops have a very hard job to do, at a great risk to themselves. They are trained to fight and kill and yet they are expected to take these risks with one arm tied behind their backs, and treat people who could be prepared to kill them with a smile and a hand shake.
It would do the likes of jake-the-peg good to be out there in this situation, and begin to realise that these are not conventional wars when you know who the enemy is.
incidently how much compansation did Ken Bigley's family receive from the iraqis?
Exactly, where are the large pay-outs when it comes to our boys, what a brilliant post bazwillrun.
It makes me sick to the stomach to read jake- the- peg's usual remarks regarding soldiers accept the risk of death or injury when they sign up.
How do we know that these so called innocent Iraqis or Afghans do not deserve the treatment they received from our forces. When one is fighting a foe that does not wear a uniform to distinguish themselves from non-combatants then I am afraid sometimes everone must be treated as the enemy.
Our troops have a very hard job to do, at a great risk to themselves. They are trained to fight and kill and yet they are expected to take these risks with one arm tied behind their backs, and treat people who could be prepared to kill them with a smile and a hand shake.
It would do the likes of jake-the-peg good to be out there in this situation, and begin to realise that these are not conventional wars when you know who the enemy is.
incidently how much compensation did Ken Bigley's family receive from the iraqis?
It makes me sick to the stomach to read jake- the- peg's usual remarks regarding soldiers accept the risk of death or injury when they sign up.
How do we know that these so called innocent Iraqis or Afghans do not deserve the treatment they received from our forces. When one is fighting a foe that does not wear a uniform to distinguish themselves from non-combatants then I am afraid sometimes everone must be treated as the enemy.
Our troops have a very hard job to do, at a great risk to themselves. They are trained to fight and kill and yet they are expected to take these risks with one arm tied behind their backs, and treat people who could be prepared to kill them with a smile and a hand shake.
It would do the likes of jake-the-peg good to be out there in this situation, and begin to realise that these are not conventional wars when you know who the enemy is.
incidently how much compensation did Ken Bigley's family receive from the iraqis?
AOG
I think you will find that 4GS has already pointed out that every British solider would realise that torture is illegal. Presumably the MoD wouldn't have accepted full responsibility if torture was a sometimes a publicly acceptable practice.
I love your point about the uniform. If this country is ever invaded the civilian population can be killed with impunity because they are not wearing a uniform?
I think you will find that 4GS has already pointed out that every British solider would realise that torture is illegal. Presumably the MoD wouldn't have accepted full responsibility if torture was a sometimes a publicly acceptable practice.
I love your point about the uniform. If this country is ever invaded the civilian population can be killed with impunity because they are not wearing a uniform?
Well said AOG.
Our Boys are under enough pressure coping with hot weather and unwelcoming civilians to worry about right and wrong. Or who's a soldier and who isn't. Or whether they are or aren't torturing someone for fun.
So if Our Boys open fire on a civilian woman carrying a baby then good luck to them. After all, that 'baby' could be a bomb.
And like you say AOG, how do we know that these so called innocent Iraqi or Afghan mothers do not deserve to be shot? Everyone - and you're so right again, AOG - should be treated as the enemy.
The Geneva convention simply ties one hand behind Our Boys' backs. War should be like the Rambo films.
And until you've actually been there yourself and shot a civilian in the back and beaten up his kids, you've got no right to criticise Our Boys. No matter what they do.
Our Boys are under enough pressure coping with hot weather and unwelcoming civilians to worry about right and wrong. Or who's a soldier and who isn't. Or whether they are or aren't torturing someone for fun.
So if Our Boys open fire on a civilian woman carrying a baby then good luck to them. After all, that 'baby' could be a bomb.
And like you say AOG, how do we know that these so called innocent Iraqi or Afghan mothers do not deserve to be shot? Everyone - and you're so right again, AOG - should be treated as the enemy.
The Geneva convention simply ties one hand behind Our Boys' backs. War should be like the Rambo films.
And until you've actually been there yourself and shot a civilian in the back and beaten up his kids, you've got no right to criticise Our Boys. No matter what they do.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Crosswords16 mins ago
News17 mins ago
Power Of Social Media Put To Good Use
News19 mins ago
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.