TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Human rights in Iraq by British soldiers

Human rights in Iraq by British soldiers

quote:

Human rights in Iraq Revealed: How Lord Goldsmith advised Army chiefs to deny detainees 'full' legal protection By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor Published: 29 May 2007 The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is facing accusations that he told the Army its soldiers were not bound by the Human Rights Act when arresting, detaining and interrogating Iraqi prisoners. Previously confidential emails, seen by The Independent, between London and British military head-quarters in Iraq soon after the start of the war suggest Lord Goldsmith's advice was to adopt a "pragmatic" approach when handling prisoners and it was not necessary to follow the " higher standards" of the protection of the Human Rights Act. That, according to human rights lawyers, was tantamount to the Attorney General advising the military to ignore the Human Rights Act and to simply observe the Geneva Conventions. It was also contrary to advice given by the Army's senior lawyer in Iraq, who urged higher standards to be met. Today, rights groups and experts in international law will call on the Government to disclose Lord Goldsmith's legal opinion, which they say could have helped create a culture of abuse of Iraqis by British soldiers. Last month, the first British soldier convicted of a war crime was jailed for a year and dismissed from the Army after being convicted of mistreating Iraqi civilians, including the hotel worker Baha Mousa, who died of his injuries at the hands of British soldiers. In 2005, three British soldiers were jailed by a court martial in Germany after "trophy" photographs emerged, showing Iraqi detainees being abused at an aid centre called Camp Bread Basket. There are about 60 more allegations of abuse being prepared for legal claims by rights groups. Last week, Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the Government to ask for an "explanation" about the evidence of torture in the Baha Mousa court martial. Andrew Dismore MP, chair of the committee, said: "We have asked the Ministry of Defence to explain what appear to be stark inconsistencies in the evidence presented to our committee about the use of inhuman and degrading interrogation techniques prohibited as long ago as 1972." But emails sent just after the invasion indicate Lord Goldsmith's belief that British soldiers in Iraq were not bound by the Human Rights Act. The documents also show a wide differing of opinion between him and Lieutenant-Colonel Nicholas Mercer, the Army's most senior legal adviser on the ground, who wrote to say he felt "the ECHR would apply" to troops in Iraq. On one occasion, Rachel Quick, the legal adviser to Permanent Joint Headquarters who had regularly sought and been given guidance from Lord Goldsmith on the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, wrote to Colonel Mercer giving her interpretation of the Attorney General's advice. His view, she said, "was that the HRA was only intended to protect rights conferred by the Convention and must look to international law to determine the scope of those rights". Ms Quick went on say that the advice of the Attorney General, supported by Professor Christopher Greenwood [the barrister who advised Lord Goldsmith on the legality of the war], was that, in the circumstances, the HRA did not apply. "For your purposes," she wrote, "I would suggest this means no requirement for you to provide guidance on the application of the HRA. I hope this is clear." Ms Quick, who in November 2003, was appointed OBE, added: "With regard to the detention of civilians - I will look at your documents in more detail and discuss with FCO, MoD legal advisers. Although my initial thoughts are you are trying to introduce UK procedures to a Geneva Convention IV context. Whilst this may be the perfect solution it may not be the pragmatic solution. Again we raised this issue with the AG and got a helpful steer on the procedures. I'll aim to try to produce guidance, taking into account their advice on the detention of civilians." Such were the concerns of legal advisers on the ground over the Attorney General's views that the MoD arranged for the senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office, Gavin Hood, to visit Permanent Joint Headquarters to settle any worries. Crucially, the emails make clear Lord Goldsmith's legal opinion was not shared by Colonel Mercer, who contacted his superiors in London to ask for guidance after he had witnessed the hooding of 40 Iraqis at a British PoW camp in March. The men were all forced to kneel in the sun and had their hands cuffed behind their backs. Worried this could leave the soldiers vulnerable to prosecutions, he told the MoD that in his view soldiers should behave in accordance with the "higher standard" of the Human Rights Act. But the response from the military's Permanent Joint Headquarters in Qatar was that Lord Goldsmith had told the MoD the human rights law did not apply and soldiers should simply observe the Geneva Conventions. When Colonel Mercer said he disagreed with the Government's most senior law officer he was told that "perhaps you should put yourself up as the next Attorney General". Colonel Mercer also asked for a British judge to be flown out to oversee the procedures for the detention of Iraqi prisoners, but this also was blocked at a high level. Colonel Mercer's interpretation of the law has since proved correct. Thirty months after he first raised his concerns during the Iraq conflict, the Court of Appeal ruled that British soldiers were bound by the Human Rights Act, which bans torture or degrading of prisoners. The emails, part of court documents being prepared to support a judicial review in the High Court this year, reveal considerable disquiet among the military about the Attorney General's advice. The documents show that as early as March 2003, the International Committee of the Red Cross had begun investigating complaints of possible war crimes by British soldiers at the same PoW camp in south-east Iraq that had prompted Colonel Mercer's original intervention. The Government was so worried about this that it flew out a political adviser from London to address the Red Cross's concerns about hooding and other practices. International law * Torture is defined by international law as any threat or use of severe pain, physical or mental, against an individual with the intention of obtaining a confession or other information. Under the UN Convention Against Torture, 40 states - including Britain - have agreed not to engage in such practices. During military conflict the third and fourth Geneva Conventions protect prisoners of war and civilians who are held by soldiers. Torture is also defined as a war crime by the International Criminal Court, which describes it as the unlawful infliction of severe pain. Many of the incidents of abuse committed by British soldiers on Iraqi civilians may fall outside the strict definition of torture under international law. But under the European Convention of Human Rights, incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998, there is no requirement that the threat or use of pain should be severe for an act to fall foul of the law. Lord Goldsmith argued that because UK forces did not have full control of Iraq, the country was not part of its jurisdiction and therefore the Human Rights Act did not apply. He lost this argument when the Court of Appeal ruled that Iraqi civilians held in custody and the soldiers detaining them were subject to the Human Rights Act. The case is to be settled later this year by the House of Lords. If the Government loses then it is expected that full and independent inquiries will be held into the deaths, disappearances and torture of Iraqis by British soldiers.

The Source
Many of the incidents of abuse committed by British soldiers.

Re: Human rights in Iraq by British soldiers

quote:

Originally posted by M.Johan The Source Many of the incidents of abuse committed by British soldiers.

The enemy just puts a bullet in your head after excruciating torture. The coalition does not execute prisoners en masse or systematically torture them. Are we finding detainees floating in the rivers with bullet holes in the back of their heads? NO.

I'm not condoning any illegal acts, but our enemy is much much worse. At least we prosecute our violations.

Re: Re: Human rights in Iraq by British soldiers

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm not condoning any illegal acts, but our enemy is much much worse. At least we prosecute our violations.

I think the point of the article is that the people at the "top" of government are condoning and advising these actions. The only one's thus far that have been prosecuted are the lowly enlisted soldiers.

Oh poor people

how dare people excuse the acts of the muslim extremist or not excuse, but rather, just accept the fact that these muslim radicals are animals.... but one or two incidents by the west compared to the millions done by the "insurgency" and everyone wants to cry foul??

Re: Re: Human rights in Iraq by British soldiers

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm not condoning any illegal acts, but our enemy is much much worse. At least we prosecute our violations.

That "enemy" of yours wouldn�t exist today if your freedom loving president hadn�t evaded them.

Re: Re: Re: Human rights in Iraq by British soldiers

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer That "enemy" of yours wouldn�t exist today if your freedom loving president hadn�t evaded them.

Honestly, I agree with you.

Re: Re: Re: Human rights in Iraq by British soldiers

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer That "enemy" of yours wouldn�t exist today if your freedom loving president hadn�t evaded them.

I agree with you as well, but is that enough to excuse the 100s of daily acts of violence that is done by the "enemy"?? and whats worse is these acts are not against Americans, but rather thier own people!

sad

Lets not forget that Iraq is a lawless country folks and far from any sort of democracy anytime soon.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Human rights in Iraq by British soldiers

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX I agree with you as well, but is that enough to excuse the 100s of daily acts of violence that is done by the "enemy"?? and whats worse is these acts are not against Americans, but rather thier own people! sad

There is no excuse and at the same time I dont see any real logical solutions either.No matter what you do the violence will continue.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Oh poor people how dare people excuse the acts of the muslim extremist or not excuse, but rather, just accept the fact that these muslim radicals are animals.... but one or two incidents by the west compared to the millions done by the "insurgency" and everyone wants to cry foul??

Who the fuck is excusing the acts of Islamic militants?! Are you saying their actions justify the illegal actions of certain British and American soldiers? Do the actions of these "animals" mean we have to descend to their level? If our soldiers commit war crimes then they and everyone else involved in those actions deserve everything they get (well, more actually) regardless of what the "enemy" does...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Who the fuck is excusing the acts of Islamic militants?! Are you saying their actions justify the illegal actions of certain British and American soldiers? Do the actions of these "animals" mean we have to descend to their level? If our soldiers commit war crimes then they and everyone else involved in those actions deserve everything they get (well, more actually) regardless of what the "enemy" does...

COOL your jets there..... Perhaps the word excuse is a little too drastic....

yes the men that commited these acts and their commanding officers need to be held accountable.

No we, the west, should not lower our selves to the level of these Animals, but how do you fight a group that resorts to suicide bombs, using human shields and hiding in places of worship? Apprently the way the west has been fighting is not doing squat. SO how does the west fight. With our rules of engagement, our morals and our beliefs; how do we fight an enemy that resorts to inhumane tatics ON A DAILY BASIS. These Animals kill inocents every day in the name of thier Myth, they blame the US, UK, Jews and the purple monster under my kid's bed for all of thier troubles.

Should the West should just say FUCK YOU ALL and leave the area and sit back and watch the people kill each other?? How many of the same people that advocate the with draw of the US will stay silent when 10's of 1000s are killed in civil war.

What to do, what to do?

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX COOL your jets there..... Perhaps the word excuse is a little too drastic.... yes the men that commited these acts and their commanding officers need to be held accountable. No we, the west, should not lower our selves to the level of these Animals, but how do you fight a group that resorts to suicide bombs, using human shields and hiding in places of worship? Apprently the way the west has been fighting is not doing squat. SO how does the west fight. With our rules of engagement, our morals and our beliefs; how do we fight an enemy that resorts to inhumane tatics ON A DAILY BASIS. These Animals kill inocents every day in the name of thier Myth, they blame the US, UK, Jews and the purple monster under my kid's bed for all of thier troubles. Should the West should just say FUCK YOU ALL and leave the area and sit back and watch the people kill each other?? How many of the same people that advocate the with draw of the US will stay silent when 10's of 1000s are killed in civil war. What to do, what to do?

I'm not sure what you're saying? You seem to be implying that the only way to emerge victorious in this "war" is to use the same tactics of these "animals" you describe. Should we kidnap random Iraqis and tortue them? Should we behead suspected terrorists in front of the world's media?

What exactly are you trying to say here?

I think our rules of engagement, our morals and our beliefs might be the only weapon we can use against these people if we don't want to make this conflict any worse.

Unfortunately it may be too late for that. Our complete lack of understanding (and continued lack of understanding) of Iraqi and Arabic culture has led to this mess and unless we begin to educate ourselves about Arabic and Islamic culture then we will continue to fail in Iraq.

Like it or lump it, the only way this conflict will be resolved will be when the government is run by respected Shia and unfortunately that means of the religious type - not the Western puppet type

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'm not sure what you're saying? You seem to be implying that the only way to emerge victorious in this "war" is to use the same tactics of these "animals" you describe. Should we kidnap random Iraqis and tortue them? Should we behead suspected terrorists in front of the world's media? What exactly are you trying to say here?

No one likes to fight.... well at least any civilized person that lives with his or her mind. But there comes a time in life that morals and civility have no place. Its a tight rope George, its a focking tight rope. We stay people die, we leave people die.
We turn up the heat; we are being uncivilised, we stay the course with our present rules of engagement; we are still focked and 1000s of innocents continue to die.
focking el busho, man. we should of stayed in Afganastan and never left till the job was done....

quote:

I think our rules of engagement, our morals and our beliefs might be the only weapon we can use against these people if we don't want to make this conflict any worse.

The people, yes, it will work for the people. I am sure that the majority of the people just want to live a peace filled life...
its the muslim radical that is focking it up....

quote:

Unfortunately it may be too late for that. Our complete lack of understanding (and continued lack of understanding) of Iraqi and Arabic culture has led to this mess and unless we begin to educate ourselves about Arabic and Islamic culture then we will continue to fail in Iraq.

True,

So what exactly are you proposing?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So what exactly are you proposing?

The Total Withdraw of all forces from Iraq.
and I say that with a heavy heart cause right now, the way things are. Its damned if we do, damned if we don't. and people will die

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX The Total Withdraw of all forces from Iraq. and I say that with a heavy heart cause right now, the way things are. Its damned if we do, damned if we don't. and people will die

True.

No insurgency has won though without outside help. That would be Iran/Syria.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton True. No insurgency has won though without outside help. That would be Iran/Syria.

Yea we should go to war with them next shouldn't we?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton True. No insurgency has won though without outside help. That would be Iran/Syria.

True, but Iran is not going to last long in its present form... the people and the youth are tired of AMIANASSORWHATamed rule. People in developed nations are starting to see through all the BS that they have been fed. Syria is a mystery to me. But Iran, the people are hard working and honorable. They will not take AMIANASSORWHATamed shit much longer.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX True, but Iran is not going to last long in its present form... the people and the youth are tired of AMIANASSORWHATamed rule. People in developed nations are starting to see through all the BS that they have been fed. Syria is a mystery to me. But Iran, the people are hard working and honorable. They will not take AMIANASSORWHATamed shit much longer.

What's that based on?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What's that based on?

Uhhh, the Iranian Reformist Movement? Duh...

quote:

Yea we should go to war with them next shouldn't we?

If the US wants to defeat this insurgency, they have to cut off the outside help. How they do it, thru' diplomacy, 'soft revolution', or war is up to the politicians. If the US 'cuts n runs', then it really doesn't matter then, send them home now. Let Iran have all the fun they want with Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Uhhh, the Iranian Reformist Movement? Duh...

You mean that you know there is a reformist movement, or you know that it enjoys the support of the majority of the population?

quote:

If the US wants to defeat this insurgency, they have to cut off the outside help. How they do it, thru' diplomacy, 'soft revolution', or war is up to the politicians. If the US 'cuts n runs', then it really doesn't matter then, send them home now. Let Iran have all the fun they want with Iraq.

But are the Sunnis not doing as much damage as the Shia? More to the point, why has everybody forgotten that the Sunnis, not the Shia, are supposed to be the enemy in this "war on terror"? You also make the false and dangerous assumption that the insurgency is a) unified, b) made up of foreign nationals and c) entirely foreign funded. It is an insurgency where maybe 10% militants are foreign and the rest are Iraqi. They are not unified either, they all form small groups depending on religion or politics.

By categorising the insurgency as one harmoneous group funded and supported by one source, you make a very ignorant but more importantly dangerous observation that if adhered to by our policy makers will prove disasterous for Iraq (and is doing so)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You mean that you know there is a reformist movement, or you know that it enjoys the support of the majority of the population? But are the Sunnis not doing as much damage as the Shia? More to the point, why has everybody forgotten that the Sunnis, not the Shia, are supposed to be the enemy in this "war on terror"? You also make the false and dangerous assumption that the insurgency is a) unified, b) made up of foreign nationals and c) entirely foreign funded. It is an insurgency where maybe 10% militants are foreign and the rest are Iraqi. They are not unified either, they all form small groups depending on religion or politics. By categorising the insurgency as one harmoneous group funded and supported by one source, you make a very ignorant but more importantly dangerous observation that if adhered to by our policy makers will prove disasterous for Iraq (and is doing so)

Really don't know what you mean by 'forgotten' the Sunnis...

I made no a, b, c assumptions, you did, then said I made them. I know it's not unified, etc. But the reason they are so strong is solely because of outside help. Do you actually believe the Iraqi people support the terrorism? Hell no, otherwise, they'de be in a peace by now. I am not saying the help comes from one source, but the main culprits are Iran/Syria, and we have yet to negociate or deal with them in any constructive way.

Re: Re: Human rights in Iraq by British soldiers

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The enemy just puts a bullet in your head after excruciating torture. The coalition does not execute prisoners en masse or systematically torture them. Are we finding detainees floating in the rivers with bullet holes in the back of their heads? NO. I'm not condoning any illegal acts, but our enemy is much much worse. At least we prosecute our violations.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Uhhh, the Iranian Reformist Movement? Duh...If the US wants to defeat this insurgency, they have to cut off the outside help. How they do it, thru' diplomacy, 'soft revolution', or war is up to the politicians. If the US 'cuts n runs', then it really doesn't matter then, send them home now. Let Iran have all the fun they want with Iraq.

That enemy is supported by yours.
Great difference between the Iraqi resistance &........

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX True, but Iran is not going to last long in its present form... the people and the youth are tired of AMIANASSORWHATamed rule. People in developed nations are starting to see through all the BS that they have been fed. Syria is a mystery to me. But Iran, the people are hard working and honorable. They will not take AMIANASSORWHATamed shit much longer.

i've told u before
no media lies

"Ohhh DRAMA!!!" lol you guys realise that the Geneva convention IS being observed.... it's just the HRA.... the same thing that has for example lead to claims against the goverment about prisoners not getting to vote and about a million other pretty much BS requests.

The convention if far more applicable here (basicly = no torture). To apply the HRA would be basicly crazy given the situation.

It's good to see that the British military justice system is working.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.