British troops to be made exempt from European human rights laws during combat
19 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Soldiers could be shielded from legal action brought under the European Court of Human Rights in future conflicts, in a bid to protect troops from “vexatious” court claims.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-troops-shielded-legal-action-european-court-human-rights-iraq-afghanistan-a7343551.html[/url]
Yes! Now our boys can legally execute injured enemy combatants!
Too far, but the lawyers abuse of this made it almost inevitable
Wasn't the European human rights originally made [I]by the british[/I] after one of the world wars?
Kind of a slippery slope to be going down. Definitely don't support it considering the dodgy shite soldiers often commit
I remember one particular case where an insurgent [I]successfully[/I] argued that being held by the British was contravening his right to a family life. He got released and continued to plant bombs until British soldiers shot him dead on the battlefield.
I assume that the government is bringing this in so that stupid stuff like that doesn't happen again.
And now, we have people are suing the MOD for property damage that they incurred during the war.
Whilst I am in favour of giving some recompense, I don't think human rights law should be used to do it - it pushes the human rights law far beyond what it was intended for and weakens the whole system.
[QUOTE=Doozle;51150048]Yes! Now our boys can legally execute injured enemy combatants![/QUOTE]
They're still bound by things like the Geneva Convention and general military law.
[QUOTE=Doozle;51150048]Yes! Now our boys can legally execute injured enemy combatants![/QUOTE]
Unless this is bad joke
No they won't, remember that guy who got jailed for shooting that injured taliban fighter? We have high standards mate
people are acting as if all these troops are gonna be exempt from the geneva convention as well
Seems reasonable to me if the ECHR was being abused.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;51150441]Seems reasonable to me if the ECHR was being abused.[/QUOTE]
How about just stop it being abused by greedy lawyers.
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;51150258]Unless this is bad joke
No they won't, remember that guy who got jailed for shooting that injured taliban fighter? We have high standards mate[/QUOTE]
I'm taking the piss, but I remember that case and at the time a lot of people were upset that a soldier was being charged with murder. This is sort of thing that appeals to those sort of people
for all of you who didn't read the article, the troops will still be held accountable under the Geneva conventions. Much like the US, this prevents people from going after troops for 'legal murder' during lawful armed combat.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51150450]How about just stop it being abused by greedy lawyers.[/QUOTE]
As a greedy lawyer, I can tell you that's not how it works.
[i]EDIT:[/i] I just want to note that this was in reference to lawyers using "loopholes", rather than EU HR law (of which I know not much).
[QUOTE=Mythman;51150212]I remember one particular case where an insurgent [I]successfully[/I] argued that being held by the British was contravening his right to a family life. He got released and continued to plant bombs until British soldiers shot him dead on the battlefield.
I assume that the government is bringing this in so that stupid stuff like that doesn't happen again.
And now, we have people are suing the MOD for property damage that they incurred during the war.
Whilst I am in favour of giving some recompense, I don't think human rights law should be used to do it - it pushes the human rights law far beyond what it was intended for and weakens the whole system.[/QUOTE]
can I get a source on that as I'd like to have a read
[QUOTE=Doozle;51150496]I'm taking the piss, but I remember that case and at the time a lot of people were upset that a soldier was being charged with murder. This is sort of thing that appeals to those sort of people[/QUOTE]
Oh, sorry :v:
And yeah there's still a push for his release.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51150450]How about just stop it being abused by greedy lawyers.[/QUOTE]
that is the entire point behind this.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;51150559]As a greedy lawyer, I can tell you that's not how it works.[/QUOTE]
As somebody who knows a lot (relative to general public) about this area of cases, in this case, although it isn't 'greedy' (a business is a business) it is exceptionally dodgy. Leigh Day and Public Interest have to use sketchy agents in Iraq who they pay referral fees to - can you not see the problems in this when you also examine that almost all of the claims were thrown out for being baseless? Ultimately there are ethical issues, particularly in a war torn country like Iraq with no proper institutions with pursuing these claims actively, but that is required for any business to do. The entire business model has serious ethical problems that need to be addressed.
This whole house of cards came collapsing down after Leigh Day and Public Interest not only had hundreds of cases thrown out, but then it was discovered that Leigh Day shredded an original document that showed that the claimants were actually middle-ranking officers and not farmers and students as they claimed, destroying the entire case, and then didn't disclose this or make clear the still available translations of the document. When this was discovered, the entire case collapsed, but not before millions of pounds defending the claim by the government had been wasted. Leigh Day are now being investigated by the SRA for this. The other main firm (Public Interest) who collapsed are also being investigated but in secrecy for reasons nobody quite understands, which some people think may suggest that they have done even more serious wrongdoing.
In addition, the way the law works becomes complicated because although soldiers seem to be wavered on the battlefield, the line between an occupied country and a battlefield is completely blurred at this point. For example, compare the occupation of Iraq to the occupation of Germany and Japan.
i'm happy about them killing off crap claims made by deceptive organisations, but bear in mind that the ECHR was essentially responsible for getting rid of the UK form of "Don't Ask Don't Tell".
[URL]http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1999/71.html[/URL]
just got to remember not to throw the baby out with the bathwater with these things - during combat helps with that, but it should still raise an eyebrow and [I]not be entirely surprising[/I] that a military wants to exempt itself from human rights laws during war
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.