Inquiry: UK soldiers who fought in Iraq may face prosecution

[SgtRock]

Saved the best one for last.

When the courts entertain claims against our armed forces of the likes of an insurgent bomb-maker suing us for not shooting him in a firefight, but instead taking him prisoner and holding him we until we could guarantee he would not face mistreatment in the local justice system

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/parasitic-law-firms-blamed-for-legal-actions-against-uk-troops-34402752.html

He would probably have had a better case if he had sued for breaching his human rights to get his 72 virgins.

[SgtRock]

Transcript of the debate at Westminster on 27 Jan 2016, which some might find rather interesting.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2016-01-27b.187.0

[billd766]

Of course, for the Liberal, hand wringing Lefties, a totally pointless, not to say unproductive investigation, will have a truly positive effect. It will have a negative effect on future recruitment to the British Army, which will be a fantastic achievement for those that have never served, expect others to protect them, and then cry like babies when that protection is no longer available.

Protection? Where? Maybe lower recruitment will finally demonstrated to what is now a third rate force that they should no longer be sticking their noses in other people's business.

British soldiers killing Iraqi people did absolutely nothing to protect British citizens.

Leave the services for the sociopaths who enjoy that life and can be restrained in their barracks under command of their betters.

The values statement of IHAT is https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/iraq-historic-allegations-team-ihat. All allegations of abuse in war must be investigated no matter the time and no matter the cost. Those officials who resist and do not cooperate should be likewise charged and prosecuted. The UK's obligations to the European Court of Human Rights may just well result in those puffed up, uniformed buffoons to reconsider their military adventurism in the name of an empire that ceased to exist generations ago. My rights and freedoms have in no way been protected by British militants killing Iraqis. The wall you stand only exists in your imagination.

Did it ever occur to you that if the UK governments had not invaded Iraq, Afghanistan etc on the direct orders of the British government at the time, that none of this would have happened. I quote you here

"those puffed up, uniformed buffoons to reconsider their military adventurism in the name of an empire that ceased to exist generations ago." NEVER start wars on their own.

They are sent there on the direct orders of the CIVILIAN government of the day to satisfy the vanity of the powers that be. They are generally under supplied and underfunded and expected to put their lives on the line and if necessary to die or be crippled for life to pull the politicians nuts out of the fire.

So when you blame the military, ask yourself who put them in that spot and assign the blame where it truly belongs.

[lostboy]

Of course, for the Liberal, hand wringing Lefties, a totally pointless, not to say unproductive investigation, will have a truly positive effect. It will have a negative effect on future recruitment to the British Army, which will be a fantastic achievement for those that have never served, expect others to protect them, and then cry like babies when that protection is no longer available.

Protection? Where? Maybe lower recruitment will finally demonstrated to what is now a third rate force that they should no longer be sticking their noses in other people's business.

British soldiers killing Iraqi people did absolutely nothing to protect British citizens.

Leave the services for the sociopaths who enjoy that life and can be restrained in their barracks under command of their betters.

The values statement of IHAT is https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/iraq-historic-allegations-team-ihat. All allegations of abuse in war must be investigated no matter the time and no matter the cost. Those officials who resist and do not cooperate should be likewise charged and prosecuted. The UK's obligations to the European Court of Human Rights may just well result in those puffed up, uniformed buffoons to reconsider their military adventurism in the name of an empire that ceased to exist generations ago. My rights and freedoms have in no way been protected by British militants killing Iraqis. The wall you stand only exists in your imagination.

Did it ever occur to you that if the UK governments had not invaded Iraq, Afghanistan etc on the direct orders of the British government at the time, that none of this would have happened. I quote you here

"those puffed up, uniformed buffoons to reconsider their military adventurism in the name of an empire that ceased to exist generations ago." NEVER start wars on their own.

They are sent there on the direct orders of the CIVILIAN government of the day to satisfy the vanity of the powers that be. They are generally under supplied and underfunded and expected to put their lives on the line and if necessary to die or be crippled for life to pull the politicians nuts out of the fire.

So when you blame the military, ask yourself who put them in that spot and assign the blame where it truly belongs.

Your apology for the UK forces involvement in Iraq does not answer the question of what business did they have being there. National armed forces exist for the defence of the nation. The idea that the UK had national interests in Iraq that required defending by force was and is absurdly anachronistic. Hence my statement. Irrespective of this issue, your apology does not go any where near the point of this topic which is the behaviour of armed forces in conflict and the quite reasonable and necessary need for such conduct to be accountable to international laws. UK soldiers and their various masters are no longer above the law. Their imperial past has passed.

Edited February 5, 2016 by lostboy

[Steely Dan]

If I had my way every scavenging lawyer aiding and abetting the enemy is a traitor, who should be made to do two years in Afghanistan or Iraq fighting terrorists under the same restrictive rules of engagement our soldiers face, which have undoubtably cost the lives of some of our servicemen.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6904896/1200-lies-about-our-war-heroes-without-ONE-shred-of-evidence.html

Edited February 5, 2016 by Steely Dan

[SgtRock]

Today's lesson in legal farce brought to you by PIL.

A terrorist / fighter / combatant was about to let loose with an RPG on British Troops.

He was spotted by a Royal Marine sniper and duly dispatched to meet his virgins from a range of 1200 metres. A feat that in itself deserves a medal.

PIL launched legal proceedings for unlawful killing.

The reason ?

He did not issue a warning before sending him to meet his virgins.

No links to this as I believe it is still an ongoing investigation. You can read about it if you care to look.

[SgtRock]

A POWERFUL committee of MPs has launched an inquiry into the Iraq war crimes investigation after branding it “shambolic”.

The Commons probe turns the tables on the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, dubbed by war vets as a ‘witch hunt’.

The IHAT’s boss Mark Warwick will be hauled in front of the Defence Committee to be grilled on oath during it, as well as tank-chasing lawyers.

MPs revealed last night they will also call Public Interest Lawyers boss Phil Shiner, whose firm has been accused of submitting hunderds claims without carrying out even basic background checks.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6910303/Parliament-going-on-the-warpath-over-Iraq-war-crimes-investigators.html

Anyone who wants daily updates on this farce can do so here.

https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/feed/atom/

[neverdie]

Bush & Blair should be executed for their crimes in Iraq, I see them no differently to the tyrant Saddam !

Disgusting state of affairs !

As for the soldiers, if they acted outside the rule of the law, matters should be pursued. They shouldn't of been in Iraq in the first place so again BUSH & BLAIR took part in each and every crime committed.

Nobody should be tried until Bush & Blair are first.

[evadgib]

A POWERFUL committee of MPs has launched an inquiry into the Iraq war crimes investigation after branding it “shambolic”.

The Commons probe turns the tables on the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, dubbed by war vets as a ‘witch hunt’.

The IHAT’s boss Mark Warwick will be hauled in front of the Defence Committee to be grilled on oath during it, as well as tank-chasing lawyers.

MPs revealed last night they will also call Public Interest Lawyers boss Phil Shiner, whose firm has been accused of submitting hunderds claims without carrying out even basic background checks.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6910303/Parliament-going-on-the-warpath-over-Iraq-war-crimes-investigators.html

Anyone who wants daily updates on this farce can do so here.

https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/feed/atom/

Your second link resembles the GCHQ puzzle (both threads).

[billd766]

Of course, for the Liberal, hand wringing Lefties, a totally pointless, not to say unproductive investigation, will have a truly positive effect. It will have a negative effect on future recruitment to the British Army, which will be a fantastic achievement for those that have never served, expect others to protect them, and then cry like babies when that protection is no longer available.

Protection? Where? Maybe lower recruitment will finally demonstrated to what is now a third rate force that they should no longer be sticking their noses in other people's business.

British soldiers killing Iraqi people did absolutely nothing to protect British citizens.

Leave the services for the sociopaths who enjoy that life and can be restrained in their barracks under command of their betters.

The values statement of IHAT is https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/iraq-historic-allegations-team-ihat. All allegations of abuse in war must be investigated no matter the time and no matter the cost. Those officials who resist and do not cooperate should be likewise charged and prosecuted. The UK's obligations to the European Court of Human Rights may just well result in those puffed up, uniformed buffoons to reconsider their military adventurism in the name of an empire that ceased to exist generations ago. My rights and freedoms have in no way been protected by British militants killing Iraqis. The wall you stand only exists in your imagination.

Did it ever occur to you that if the UK governments had not invaded Iraq, Afghanistan etc on the direct orders of the British government at the time, that none of this would have happened. I quote you here

"those puffed up, uniformed buffoons to reconsider their military adventurism in the name of an empire that ceased to exist generations ago." NEVER start wars on their own.

They are sent there on the direct orders of the CIVILIAN government of the day to satisfy the vanity of the powers that be. They are generally under supplied and underfunded and expected to put their lives on the line and if necessary to die or be crippled for life to pull the politicians nuts out of the fire.

So when you blame the military, ask yourself who put them in that spot and assign the blame where it truly belongs.

Your apology for the UK forces involvement in Iraq does not answer the question of what business did they have being there. National armed forces exist for the defence of the nation. The idea that the UK had national interests in Iraq that required defending by force was and is absurdly anachronistic. Hence my statement. Irrespective of this issue, your apology does not go any where near the point of this topic which is the behaviour of armed forces in conflict and the quite reasonable and necessary need for such conduct to be accountable to international laws. UK soldiers and their various masters are no longer above the law. Their imperial past has passed.

I am sorry if you think it is an apology because it is not. Your words quote "The idea that the UK had national interests in Iraq that required defending by force was and is absurdly anachronistic." are actually correct, so can you explain why they were there in the first place and who sent them there.

THAT is where the blame lies.

[SgtRock]

evadgib, on 06 Feb 2016 - 11:58, said:

SgtRock, on 06 Feb 2016 - 11:19, said:

Quote

A POWERFUL committee of MPs has launched an inquiry into the Iraq war crimes investigation after branding it “shambolic”.

The Commons probe turns the tables on the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, dubbed by war vets as a ‘witch hunt’.

The IHAT’s boss Mark Warwick will be hauled in front of the Defence Committee to be grilled on oath during it, as well as tank-chasing lawyers.

MPs revealed last night they will also call Public Interest Lawyers boss Phil Shiner, whose firm has been accused of submitting hunderds claims without carrying out even basic background checks.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6910303/Parliament-going-on-the-warpath-over-Iraq-war-crimes-investigators.html

Anyone who wants daily updates on this farce can do so here.

https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/feed/atom/

Your second link resembles the GCHQ puzzle (both threads).

Not sure why. It works fine for me.

[Rhys]

The boys went, serve, and returned... what they did.. like all soldiers is called war..

Edited February 6, 2016 by Rhys

[Scott]

A post with an aberrant spelling of a politician's name has been removed.

[CharlieH]

Post removed.

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

[Dumbastheycome]

Seastallion, on 08 Jan 2016 - 18:57, said:Seastallion, on 08 Jan 2016 - 18:57, said:

SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 18:01, said:SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 18:01, said:

There you go again. You just cannot help yourself.

Please provide proof that any woman or children were wantonly killed by members of the UK Armed Forces.

Please keep up. Please try to comprehend what this thread is about. It's about allegations, and, quite frankly, some of them would be quite credible allegations. Do you really think no Brit grunt ever committed a war crime?

I'll give you a piece of advice before you bury yourself any deeper....proving that no crimes were committed is going to be a harder job than proving some were committed.

Pick your battles, Sarge. It's good war advice.

Yes, its about allegations. An inquiry that has so far cost £ 31 Million has seen no one charged, let alone convicted of murder. Here is an allegation that will flutter your heart. So far, over 200 Muslims in the UK have been convicted of sexual abuse of youngsters over the last 3 years. So it must be fair to allege that every Muslim in the UK is a paedophile. Fair comparison ? Or how about another in vogue comparison. Is every legal gun owner in the US a mass murderer ?

Therein lies the problem. I highlighted the relevant posts earlier. You are claiming that UK Soldiers have committed murder, killed babies and committed all sorts of crimes. A 5 year investigation has turned up nothing. It only hit the news again in January because its £ 5 million a year from public funds is being cut off. The gravy train is skidding to a halt.

Your advice is flawed. You have that exactly the wrong way round. IF, any crimes have been committed, the wall of silence will be deafening. That might be why £ 31 Million has so far produced 1 conviction for a £ 3000 fine. It certainly has not produced any murderers or baby killers, contrary to your constant procrastinations.

Now, if you manage to get a name for someone who gets convicted for murder. Feel free to name and shame him and I will join you in condemning that individual. To claim that Soldiers of the British Army are murders and child killers, with absolutely nothing to back it up, quite frankly, makes you look rather foolish.

Pick my battles ? Why, what would you know about it ? Have you ever been in battle ?

And that one conviction is irrelevant to the other accustions? I say no. If there is one provable then it justifies the other pursuits of investigation. If not then any allegations of criminal action in any sphere coould be dismissed as "not worth the cost". That would be an invitation to welcome social chaos and mayhem. The world faces extremes enough without dismissing justices. The military have no greater right outside of military action than do the police or any private individual. Yes....some do make accusations of no merit...and if found to do so should be countered. Politicians who propel armed forces into war can be accountable for that decision. Military members who perform gross actions outside of military convention but abusing the situation must be held personally accountable. If not... The Gestapo and SS were merely benevolent puppets ? The gross massacres in Vietnam and Cambodia were the result purely of following political instruction?

War is not an excuse for extremes outside of the horror of military neccessity! And that neccessity cannot justifiably be extended to include actions that would be considered criminal in a non military scenario.

A military mobilization whether or not pre-emptive or defensive is deemed to be in order to protect the normal social and human rights of people. Any failure to adhere to that requires investigation.

[SgtRock]

Today's lesson in Legal whatabootery and false allegations of unlawful killing brought to you by none other than PIL.

Anybody beginning to see that pattern here ?

IHAT / 82

The IHAT has carried out enquiries to establish the circumstances surrounding the death of 57-year-old Mohammed Al Kanaan in April 2003. Mr Al Kanaan was arrested by British Forces and taken to Camp Freddy, near Umm Qasr, 44 miles south of Basrah.

The IHAT investigation has established that whilst in custody, Mr Al Kanaan experienced heart problems. He was taken to a medical facility at Al Zubayr Port, but doctors were unable to save him.

It has been decided that there is no criminal case to answer in this instance.

Amazing UK.

[sandyf]

Of course murder should be investigated, and if found guilty, every single criminal should be sentenced to the full degree of the law.

It doesn't work that way.

My nephew was in a convoy attacked by a trigger happy Tankbuster pilot in 1991 after the ceasefire. Nine Scottish soldiers including his best friend were blown to bits.

The UK courts ruled unlawful killing but the US government refused to name the pilot, the case is still open and the families are still looking for justice.

[stevenl]

Today's lesson in Legal whatabootery and false allegations of unlawful killing brought to you by none other than PIL.

Anybody beginning to see that pattern here ?

IHAT / 82

The IHAT has carried out enquiries to establish the circumstances surrounding the death of 57-year-old Mohammed Al Kanaan in April 2003. Mr Al Kanaan was arrested by British Forces and taken to Camp Freddy, near Umm Qasr, 44 miles south of Basrah.

The IHAT investigation has established that whilst in custody, Mr Al Kanaan experienced heart problems. He was taken to a medical facility at Al Zubayr Port, but doctors were unable to save him.

It has been decided that there is no criminal case to answer in this instance.

Amazing UK.

I really dont understand you.

This enquiry is clearing the forces of wrong doings, what more do you want?

[SgtRock]

sandyf, on 07 Feb 2016 - 09:30, said:

Seastallion, on 03 Jan 2016 - 09:24, said:

Of course murder should be investigated, and if found guilty, every single criminal should be sentenced to the full degree of the law.

It doesn't work that way.

My nephew was in a convoy attacked by a trigger happy Tankbuster pilot in 1991 after the ceasefire. Nine Scottish soldiers including his best friend were blown to bits.

The UK courts ruled unlawful killing but the US government refused to name the pilot, the case is still open and the families are still looking for justice.

sandyf.

My condolences for your loss.

Some additional info for your perusal.

This incident came about due to a number of factors.

1. Tactics.

2. Passage of information.

3. Analysis and dissemination of information.

This was a tragedy that could, and should, have been avoided.

I would also like to give my thanks to the 2nd A10 pilot, who got the picture very quickly and risked his life by flying infront, and cutting off the next run by the 1st A10 pilot. His actions saved the lives of many more people.

May your nephew ( JL or CF ? ) RIP along with the others who sadly lost their lives that day.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[sandyf]

sandyf, on 07 Feb 2016 - 09:30, said:

Seastallion, on 03 Jan 2016 - 09:24, said:

Of course murder should be investigated, and if found guilty, every single criminal should be sentenced to the full degree of the law.

It doesn't work that way.

My nephew was in a convoy attacked by a trigger happy Tankbuster pilot in 1991 after the ceasefire. Nine Scottish soldiers including his best friend were blown to bits.

The UK courts ruled unlawful killing but the US government refused to name the pilot, the case is still open and the families are still looking for justice.

sandyf.

My condolences for your loss.

Some additional info for your perusal.

This incident came about due to a number of factors.

1. Tactics.

2. Passage of information.

3. Analysis and dissemination of information.

This was a tragedy that could, and should, have been avoided.

I would also like to give my thanks to the 2nd A10 pilot, who got the picture very quickly and risked his life by flying infront, and cutting off the next run by the 1st A10 pilot. His actions saved the lives of many more people.

May your nephew ( JL or CF ? ) RIP along with the others who sadly lost their lives that day.

Apologies, I should have been a bit clearer, my nephew was not in the vehicle that got hit.

However it didn't end there. He was only 19 at the time and his friend that got killed was 18, they had been at school together. He came back from Iraq mentally disturbed. The army in their wisdom sent him to Bosnia and the condition just got worse but as the army does not recognise mental illness they did nothing and he hung himself. Effectively consequential loss.

[Celer et Audax]

Of course murder should be investigated, and if found guilty, every single criminal should be sentenced to the full degree of the law.

It doesn't work that way.

My nephew was in a convoy attacked by a trigger happy Tankbuster pilot in 1991 after the ceasefire. Nine Scottish soldiers including his best friend were blown to bits.

The UK courts ruled unlawful killing but the US government refused to name the pilot, the case is still open and the families are still looking for justice.

Unfortunately Blue on Blue incidents do occur in war However if I remember correctly the soldiers were travelling in a Warrior APC which doesn't even have a passing resemblance to any vehicle used by the Iraqi forces as they were using Soviet block equipment at that time

For this reason the pilot of the A10 was at best grossly negligent and worst guilty of a more serious offence

Perhaps PIL should be pursuing him instead!!!

[Celer et Audax]

What an offensive, trite, simplistic comment. It is the comment either of a simpleton or an unthinking ideologue. I guess at least people who speak in aphorisms do not have to expend any energy on thought.

British and American forces killing Iraqi people have not contributed to my freedoms one jot. In no manner at all. For no-one in any region of the world. In fact, it has made the world less safe, brought misery and death to hundreds of thousands and is facilitating the dominance of the security-industrial complex that will trample on freedoms for the next and future generations.

Spare us the grade school history lessons. You are just feeding the power grab by people who have no interest in protecting anyone's freedoms at the expense of their power or financial benefit. Such mindlessness is tragic.

Can you remove your blinkers?

And how do you know that the killing of Iraqi people (particularly the criminal Isil) has not contributed to your freedom? Who went to help the Yazidi peoples, the "security-industrial complex" you have such a problem about?

What was the financial or power benefit from doing that?

Yes, unfortunately there are always collateral damage in any war, to all sides.

And you are sounding like the propaganda machine spokesperson of conspiracy theorists with your "security-industrial complex" fears. And who will protect you in the event of a real threat to you and your lifestyle?

So spare me your return comments, I have no further interest in them - you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. Try and have a nice day.

Don't have the courage of your convictions to stand by your insults I see. Pepper me with questions and then tell me I can't reply to your post. Well, since this is not a conversation but a series of public posts, then what attracts your interest is of no concern to anyone. You have zero authority to determine what anyone posts.

How do I know that killing Iraqi people has not contributed to my freedoms? Quite simple. ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003, the date when US led forces attacked that country on the basis of untruths, deceptions and public manipulation by the US regime. The group that seems to send you into hysterical fear was a creation of abominable decisions taken by the US occupying forces after the collapse of the Iraqi regime, specifically the 'de-bathifisation' of the civil service and the disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces.

Iraq under Saddam did not threaten my freedoms. Iraq under Saddam did not threaten your freedoms. Iraq under Saddam threaten no one in the West. The military adventurism of the neocons under GW was unjustifiable but they just steamrolled over everyone. Their unilateralism compounded by incompetence in administration and refusal to work with other countries created the mess in Iraq.

For the security industrial complex, I guess you just slept through the whole past decade and the Wikileaks and Snowden stuff. The 34th President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who coined the phrase military-industrial complex. You clearly cannot comprehend its insidious reality and try to pass it off as a joke. The 34th President of the United States was no joke.

I work in conflict states. I confront security issues and real threats every day I work on missions in these countries. Do you? Or are you just spreading your fear exacerbated by right wing intolerance and a sophomoric understanding of international affairs? The conduct of war is governed by the Geneva Conventions. US unilateralism, assisted by the UK and a few other nations bullied into compliance change the international legal basis for conflicts at their whim. It is very clear what constitutes a war crime. Passing it off as collateral damage is unacceptable. All accusations of war crimes must be investigated and if found to be substantiated prosecuted and punished.

These are not matters of opinion. These are matters of Law. They are matters of Morality and Ethics. They are matters Right and Wrong. We do not agree to disagree. You have no choice but to accept the Law.

Who's Law? Who's Morality and Ethics? Who's matters of Right and Wrong? The whole world does not subscribe to them!! How do you know ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003? Do you think the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other "terrorist organizations" have no choice but to accept the Law. They do, but it is there Law, not yours!

I repeat, take your blinkers off!

You are acting like some schoolyard, know it all, religious bully. Or perhaps you're just being an ostrich? Or got your head up your own fundamental? I DO HAVE A CHOICE AND I WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

For a start, British soldiers have to obey the law, and that law does not allow them to go around willy nilly torturing and murdering non combatants, it doesn't even allow them to torture and murder combatants. The rules of engagement are there for a reason.

It's irrelevant what the enemy does, or if they do or don't obey the law.

If you don't understand that you have never been in the armed forces.

Examples of War crimes carried out by British soldiers in Iraq where the alleged perpetrators have been found guilty of same and convicted in a court of law!

Links please

Thanks

[Celer et Audax]

thaibeachlovers, on 08 Jan 2016 - 10:55, said:thaibeachlovers, on 08 Jan 2016 - 10:55, said:thaibeachlovers, on 08 Jan 2016 - 10:55, said:thaibeachlovers, on 08 Jan 2016 - 10:55, said:

SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 08:33, said:SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 08:33, said:SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 08:33, said:SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 08:33, said:

For the benefit of the uneducated and the troglodytes that actually liked your posts on this thread, it is YOU that doesn’t get it.

This is all about public funding to the tune of £ 5 million a year that is now being cut off. The reason it is being cut off is because the whole thing is a farce.

A 5 year inquiry that has produced a single Soldier being fined the huge sum of £ 3000. Read about it here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10517784/Iraq-abuse-investigation-just-one-soldier-fined-in-three-years.html

The only other case that has made it to court was thrown out of court and legal proceeding launched against the Law Firm.

Read about it here.

QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote

Lawyers who wasted millions of public money pursuing false claims that British troops murdered and tortured Iraqi detainees should now face disciplinary action, senior Government figures have suggested.

Ministers condemned the “shameful” conduct of solicitors who brought the claims, which were yesterday dismissed as “deliberate lies” by a £31million, five year inquiry.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11300398/Al-Sweady-lawyers-should-now-face-disciplinary-action.html

Case against the Law Firm involved is now gathering pace.

QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote

The prominent London law firm Leigh Day has been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to answer complaints about its handling of legal challenges brought by Iraqi detainees against the Ministry of Defence.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/05/law-firm-leigh-day-solicitors-disciplinary-tribunal-al-sweady-inquiry

I trust that we can now see a long serious of posts, apologising for the erroneous, libilous and defamatory claims of murdering, child killing Soldiers.

Shouldn't your username be STAFFSgt Rock, going by your avatar?

There are no Staff Sgts in the Infantry, it would be Colour Sgt. I could have used WO11 but not sure how many people would have understood it.

Although I did think that you were going to be the 1st to issue a public apology.

Well said Colour!! But WO2 would have worked for me

[Celer et Audax]

I wasn't in the British army

Don't worry, most posting here would assume an 1157 inspection was a battlefield tour of Agincourt (1415-near enough innit?) & an MOD 90 was a tank!

And a "chit in lieu" was going to the toilet555

[Celer et Audax]

I trust that we can now see a long serious of posts, apologising for the erroneous, libilous and defamatory claims of murdering, child killing Soldiers.

I will look for that around the same time that I see UK soldiers apologise for killing Iraqi people.

Remind me, what justification did any UK soldier have for being in Iraq? What justification did they have for killing Iraqi people?

The fact that this military adventure by soldiers of a country with absolutely no business being there involved alleged war crimes, misdeeds and criminal acts of torture is grossly shameful to humanity. And to top it off, no strategic objective was ever gained by these armed foreigners. This violent adventurism just further destabilised an already fragile region. And these people now have the hide to lash out and abuse anyone who calls for some measure of accountability.

Perhaps if you want justification you should ask Bush,Rumsey and their poodle Blair!!

[JDGRUEN]

Battlefield conditions were frequently situations where the enemy Iraqi irregulars places women and children as shields, send women and children as suicide bombers, forced women, children and old people to remain in buildings that were being bombed, placed offensive weapons near and even inside hospitals... All this was done deliberately to gain favorable media coverage as the near sighted media could not / would not discern the real story and significance of the battle or skirmish... These dastardly deliberate actions to put innocent non combatants into harms way is more often the war crime than the action of the Coalition Soldiers who fired on these emplacements. This does not account for all that might be accused - but it accounts for many...

Also far too often the crippling ROE "Rules of Engagement' that was placed upon Coalition soldiers put all concerned in jeopardy ... practically causing Coalition soldiers to forewarn the enemy of patrols setting Coalition soldiers up for ambush and resultant indiscriminate hell fire being used to escape with their lives and these incidents at times resulted in killing of innocents. Prime example - the shooting of enemy scouts who were following Coalition troop movements and were reporting it to the enemy waiting up the road. - resulted in at least one soldier being prosecuted.

Politicians - should stay out of combat ... their indecision and sometimes idiotic interference has caused both Coalition soldiers and civilians to be killed.

[Celer et Audax]

evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:

SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 14:21, said:SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 14:21, said:

Take it up with those that made the decision to send them.

Now do a Michael Jackson and beat it. You are boring me sh!tless.

If ever there was a wrong thread I think you just found it:

Mike Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember him very well from the Falklands in 82.

He wore a green beret in those days.

I doubt it very much that you remembered him from the Falklands in 1982 as the 2 battalions that were there were 2 and 3 para and Mike Jackson was 1 para

Second point no para would wear a green beret!!

you can see from the picture that even as chief of the general staff he still wears his maroon para beret of his parent regiment!!

[SgtRock]

Celer et Audax, on 07 Feb 2016 - 14:43, said:

SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:32, said:

evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:

evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:

If ever there was a wrong thread I think you just found it:

Mike Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember him very well from the Falklands in 82.

He wore a green beret in those days.

I doubt it very much that you remembered him from the Falklands in 1982 as the 2 battalions that were there were 2 and 3 para and Mike Jackson was 1 para

Second point no para would wear a green beret!!

you can see from the picture that even as chief of the general staff he still wears his maroon para beret of his parent regiment!!

Mike Jackson was seconded to the MOD as a Staff Officer from 82 - 84. I can confirm that during this time he wore a green Beret.

[Celer et Audax]

Celer et Audax, on 07 Feb 2016 - 14:43, said:

SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:32, said:

evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:

evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:

If ever there was a wrong thread I think you just found it:

Mike Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember him very well from the Falklands in 82.

He wore a green beret in those days.

I doubt it very much that you remembered him from the Falklands in 1982 as the 2 battalions that were there were 2 and 3 para and Mike Jackson was 1 para

Second point no para would wear a green beret!!

you can see from the picture that even as chief of the general staff he still wears his maroon para beret of his parent regiment!!

Mike Jackson was seconded to the MOD as a Staff Officer from 82 - 84. I can confirm that during this time he wore a green Beret.

Ok fair comment but unusual that an officer on a staff posting didn't retain the beret from his parent regiment

What colour green was it?

Light green= I Corp

Mid green = Royal Marines

Dark green = RGJ