Labour Infighting Thread #423,555

[srb7677]

No one wants members of the military dragged through the courts at the drop of a hat. But neither can it be right that illegal killings or other crimes committed in uniform be given a free rein. It is about where the balance should lie, and any presumption against prosecution is in my view unbalanced and risks letting rogue individuals get away with war crimes. There should be no presumption against or for prosecution, but merely a decision based upon the evidence.

And before anyone accuses me of not giving a shit about the members of the armed forces, my own nephew is in the Rifles and has been to Afghanistan. In private discussions with us he has always said that he would refuse to obey an illegal order.

[DeppityDawg]

y only addition was, despite the intent of the bill, it could be misused to dismiss charges against soldier's that commit crimes abroad

Abroad? I'm sure we don't mean a bit of fisticuffs in some skank bar in Dhekelia, so in reality we mean in conflict. There is an old expression about looking over the hill, but in reality Dynamis, what is a "crime" in war? Who decides? Historically, these things were always dealt with under military law, but in todays increasingly liberal world, there is a growing trend to try and bring these matters into the civilian realm. Since conflict is so far outside most peoples understanding, for the typical jury member, its like trying to describe the surface of the moon. We've all seen pictures of it, but most of us have never been there

Look, for example thousands of deaths from the NI conflict that didn't involve accusations against the military will remain unsolved, Because unlike the military, official records don't exist in this world, and the people that carried them out and the "civilians" who aided and abetted them will never say a word. This is typical of dozens of insurgent type wars where "civilians" play military, then if caught fall back on "civil" protection, protection that the military doesn't get. The only cases that get pursued (at public expense), are the ones against the easiest targets - those where records exist and which the whole legal circus can feast itself on. Because its governments that send these poor c**ts to these places to do their dirty washing, and its governments who will then pay the legal profession to prosecute its own service personal

I'm not sure how many conflicts Nadia Whittome, Beth Winter and Olivia Blake have seen, but I don't think it will be many. That people like them are more interested in repatriating Jihadis than seeing them in court, and far less interested in the historical crimes of organisations like PIRA than they are in prosecuting current or former British soldiers speaks volumes about some parts of the Labour left

[papasmurf]

Because in reality, the words "innocent" and "civilian" do not necessarily follow one another in conflict zones

As a relative of mine found out, he shot a child dead who had just shot the squaddie stood alongside him dead with a revolver.
Not something that is good for the mental health. That was in the Cyprus Emergency, 371 British dead.

[Borg Refinery]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/eddie-gallagher-trump-navy-seal-iraq

The purpose of the bill is to prevent endless litigation and "uman rights" conga trains against the Armed Forces, not to "decriminalise torture", as the Lady puts it

Sorry to be blunt General, but the Army probably contains more headcases per 1000 than in any other profession, and that's especially true of the combat arms - generally, sending Rupert Bear and his chums to Afghanistan wouldn't work out that well

The operative word here is "sending". The people who get "sent" to these places are almost always the ones who end up being made to carry the can (assuming they even make it home in the first place) for the shit that happens when it all goes tits up. Because in reality, the words "innocent" and "civilian" do not necessarily follow one another in conflict zones

Then we are left with politicians, who are not the ones who face losing their arms or legs and then end up in court over it too, who are the ones who make the policy in the first place

Fair points.

My only addition was, despite the intent of the bill, it could be misused to dismiss charges against soldier's that commit crimes abroad.

I know our armed forces are a lot more disciplined (and well trained..and skilled) than the yanks but with 1/2 the resources per head, but there's still a miniscule proportion of wrongdoers and with people in govt with the morality of a hyena, I am concerned that they can't be trusted with this issue.

Did you hear about Mark Francois getting Cummings to 'sort out' the head of the army...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/mark-francois-threatens-army-chief-dominic-cummings-a4491866.html%3famp

I'll bet he was shaking in his boots..

..with laughter. These guys have absolutely no clue what they are doing.

[DeppityDawg]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/eddie-gallagher-trump-navy-seal-iraq

The purpose of the bill is to prevent endless litigation and "uman rights" conga trains against the Armed Forces, not to "decriminalise torture", as the Lady puts it

Sorry to be blunt General, but the Army probably contains more headcases per 1000 than in any other profession, and that's especially true of the combat arms - generally, sending Rupert Bear and his chums to Afghanistan wouldn't work out that well

The operative word here is "sending". The people who get "sent" to these places are almost always the ones who end up being made to carry the can (assuming they even make it home in the first place) for the shit that happens when it all goes tits up. Because in reality, the words "innocent" and "civilian" do not necessarily follow one another in conflict zones

Then we are left with politicians, who are not the ones who face losing their arms or legs and then end up in court over it too, who are the ones who make the policy in the first place

[Borg Refinery]

Surely it creates conditions similar to those where Trump pardoned Navy SEALs who shot civilians purposely - because they weren't good soldiers, but sick psychopaths. Those sort of people simply don't belong in the armed forces of any country.

Do you have a link to that claim/story?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/eddie-gallagher-trump-navy-seal-iraq

A Navy Seal platoon leader controversially cleared of war crimes by Donald Trump was a "toxic" character who was "OK with killing anything that moved", according to fellow Iraq veterans who reported his conduct to military investigators.
...
In a lengthy criminal investigation report, the navy detectives laid out other allegations against Gallagher, including shooting a schoolgirl and elderly man from a sniper's roost. Members of Alpha Platoon's Seal Team 7 alarmed by their leader's conduct said they were initially shut down by military chiefs when they first spoke up, and told their own careers would suffer if they continued to talk about it.

Eventually, the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) began an inquiry and the platoon members were called to give evidence.

"The guy is freaking evil," special operator first class Craig Miller, one of the platoon's most experienced members, told investigators in sometimes tearful testimony. "I think Eddie was proud of it, and that was, like, part of it for him."

[DeppityDawg]

Surely it creates conditions similar to those where Trump pardoned Navy SEALs who shot civilians purposely - because they weren't good soldiers, but sick psychopaths. Those sort of people simply don't belong in the armed forces of any country.

Do you have a link to that claim/story?

[johnofgwent]

Thoughts on the bill itself are that Starmer has already had his nose bloodied by labour demands that soldiers be put on trial for doing their fucking jobs.

[Borg Refinery]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/23/minister-says-labour-took-uk-into-wars-during-commons-debate

Labour has sacked three junior shadow ministers who joined with Jeremy Corbyn and 14 other Socialist Campaign group MPs in breaking the party's whip by voting against the second reading of a controversial armed forces bill.

Sources close to the party's leadership said that the three MPs were warned in advance that they could not remain in their posts as parliamentary private secretaries if they voted against the bill.

Nadia Whittome, Beth Winter and Olivia Blake defied the whip, which called on Labour MPs to abstain on the overseas operations bill. The legislation aims to introduce a presumption against prosecution for British soldiers serving abroad.

Thoughts on the bill itself?

Surely it creates conditions similar to those where Trump pardoned Navy SEALs who shot civilians purposely - because they weren't good soldiers, but sick psychopaths. Those sort of people simply don't belong in the armed forces of any country.