'uman Rights - again......

Previous Post Next Post

22 June 2013

So the High Court has ruled that the Human Rights Act should apply to our soldiers in the field of combat. Tell that to the enemy!

Yes, our troops deserve to have the best equipment available when sent into harms way.

Yes, they should have the best possible training, leadership, command and control.

Yes, their lives should not be squandered or put at risk needlessly.

But to have the risk of being sued hanging over the heads of our military is utter madness.

Our troops simply cannot do their jobs and their duty in this way.

This latest ruling is yet another reason to repeal that appalling legislation and to get out of the European Convention for good measure. I cannot imagine anything as idiotic as this ruling. The loonatics really have taken over the Courts.

Guest 710 wrote:
Somebody, somewhere does not like the Human Rights Act, but of course we knew that already.

Are we to relay instead on the many "yes's"? Will it suffice, as of old, that we should be assured that at all times the Government and its agents do the very best of a bad job?
[This certainly is still the case in the NHS, to the embarrassment of the present and the previous Administration.]
Well, we have wasted enough time on the actual argument, let us get back to the central point:The avowed unwillingness of the UK State to shift from its, entirely self-serving, paternalism.

There is a little more on the details and the personalities within the article linked to below, but the essential thrust of things is contained in the quotations I have set out...

The Court says; "narrowly", the Minister says; "wider implications", the rational has it that human life deserves respect, and that soldiers are human too...

"...The court ruled that the doctrine of combat immunity – which prevents soldiers from claiming compensation for injuries received in combat except under official schemes – should be interpreted "narrowly" and should not be extended to cover "the planning of and preparation for active operations against the enemy"..."
"... Hammond said he was "very concerned" at the wider implications of the judgment, which "could ultimately make it more difficult for our troops to carry out operations" and "throws open a wide range of military decisions to the uncertainty of litigation"..."
"... A decision at the European court of human rights in 2011 on the al-Skeini case, relating to Iraqi civilians who died in areas under British military control, set a powerful precedent. If Iraqi civilians were deemed to have human rights and be under UK jurisdiction, lawyers for the soldiers' families argued, then the troops themselves should not be denied such legal protection..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/19/iraq-soldiers-families-sue-ministry-of-defence?INTCMP=SRCH

Finally: A Crown Court Judge (himself an ex POW, not that this is important at the moment) once commented, as part of his judgement, that parents should not hit their children in anger. An intelligent, caring and thoughtful young mother mentioned this to me, as she was quite bewildered by the logic. "At what time other than in anger would any parent strike their child?" she asked.
The Supreme Court in the current case is siding with the young mother:In the heat of battle "shit happens", but otherwise all due care must be exercised. Politicians and sundry 'bean-counters' cannot justify their apparent inaction, there's is not the field of combat.
This is no more than making the living-breathing soldier a Hero, and no longer waiting until their death for them to be so called.
Guest 696 wrote:
Barry, one thing is for sure:
The Syrian rebels do not respect human rights when the purposefully transform towns, cities and villages into battlefields.

They are a minority in respect to the numbers of the Syrian military and police, their numbers are largely bloated with foreign combatants from anywhere other than Syria, they do not have the support of the majority of people in, for example. Aleppo.

They kill their prisoners of war, which alone is a crime under international law.

They are self-confessed criminals who admit to be committing offences that are in breach of international law.

By supporting them, a government could end up in very serious trouble with the British Law!
Guest 698 wrote:
The fact remains that if your opponents play dirty and you are governed by complex human rights laws and written rules of engagement, you are disadvantaged. It's called asymmetric warfare. If you go to war with one or both hands tied behind your back by stupid legal rulings, it's called suicide. Tom is probably right in that all soldiers now face legal risks in combat which are at least as deadly as those posed by the enemy. If I have interpreted his post correctly.
Guest 710 wrote:
"in combat" is probably a too-broad description Peter. In the heat of armed engagement there would be little to no threat of legal ramifications, but in the more general 'Theatre' of operations;occupation, detentions and in dealings with the population things are more tricky.
I doubt whether the US Army has much truck with all of this, but then again they flew around and had more heavily armoured vehicles when they did drive.
'We' chose to do things differently using snatch Land-rovers. 'We' chose to play-up the dangers of chemical weapons, but had what equipment there was for dealing with such a threat in the bowels of a ship far from the coast.
It seems more likely to me that the Political rhetoric must begin to match the actual threat in order to avoid culpability under the HRA.
Guest 696 wrote:
How will William Hague, who has participated in the "friends of Syria" meeting which has just approved supplying the rebels in Syria, justify his bypassing the Parliament in this decision, and the fact that the Syrian rebels kill their prisoners?

Has he ever heard of the Hague Tribunal?

I believe he has breached UK Law on support of organisations that commit war crimes.
Brian Dixon wrote:
nothing wrong with human rights.
Guest 698 wrote:
No Brian but should we extend uman rights to those who do not recognise ours?
Guest 696 wrote:
Human rights are defined in the British Army and must be respected.
Our soldiers must not be taught or encouraged to be dismissive of human rights.
Brian Dixon wrote:
peter,i didn't spesify
Guest 683 wrote:
Barry, you should give up your financial work! Your talents are being wasted; The Daily Mail could do with your skills as its headline writer.
I am surprised, however, to see you advocating the abandonment of protection of our troops from poor decisions/indecision "made well away from the heat of battle at a time when the decision maker was neither under attack nor at threat from attack."
Serving soldiers deserve more than this.