| Sounding Board 2009 - page 4 | |
|||||
| Choose other pages Or | ||||||
 |
| Question/Comment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31
December:
Some interesting points by Scipio. Scipio's argument that the reference to "enforcement measures under Chapter Vll" is inconsistent with the view that the UN does not involve itself in internal affairs of members states in certain situations is not something I can entirely agree with. We start from the premise of sovereign integrity (see article 2.7). If one looks at the UN resolutions on Kosovo, they used phrases such as "affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". Resolution 1244 referred to the determination "to resolve the grave humanitarian situation in Kosovo, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.... ". In other words, the UN recognised that Kosovo was within the territory of Yugoslavia, ie Serbia. The extent of any international threat is difficult to understand, as Serbia was not threatening anybody. The problem was clearly internal, with the Albanian Kosovars wanting to break away and form their own independent state. It would have become international if that were lawfully permitted to happen and then Serbia and the new state of Kosovo were to go to war. You may remember that the early recognition of the break-away Yugoslav states of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia internationalised the conflict between Yugoslavia (Serbia) and the other newly recognised nations. Kosovo has had very limited international recognition that it is, in fact, a legitimate state. Most nations do not recognise it. The authorisation of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll (mentioned at the end of article 2.7) I suggest does not ipso facto mean military action. Article 41 makes it clear that the "Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions..." But even if military enforcement measures are to be taken under article 42, that follows a UN authorisation eg where there is a threat to international peace. There was no mandate for any military violation of Yugoslav territory in Kosovo. Resolution 1239, passed on 14 May 1999, almost 2 months after the NATO bombing started on 22nd March 1999, still referred to Kosovo as part of Yugoslavia and reaffirmed "the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all States in the region". It made no reference to Chapter VII military action and was mainly concerned with the plight of refugees. The fact remains that the UK and US were looking to settle a score with Milosevic, after the Bosnian war (and even though it was largley due to Milosevic that the Dayton Agreement was successful. He signed the agreement in place of Karadic who the ICTY had just indicted as a war criminal, thereby potentially hindering the peace process). The humanitarian justification for invasion, hyped up by the press and Kosovo Albanians, really evaporated upon closer examination. President Clinton was being fed reports that a 100,000 people had been killed and that he needed to act quickly to intervene. There was also a self interest in hyping the figures. As Dugi Gorani, an Albanian Kosovan interpreter told the BBC, "The more civilians were killed, the chances of international intervention became bigger, and the KLA of course realised that. There was this foreign diplomat who once told me 'Look unless you pass the quota of five thousand deaths you'll never have anybody permanently present in Kosovo from the foreign diplomacy.'" The hundreds of thousands allegedly killed and displaced in fact were much lower, at something like 11,000 killed on both sides. That is still a tragic figure, but is nowhere near the sorts of numbers being used as a US-UK justification for intervening in Yugoslavia's internal affairs. In terms of the numbers of refugees, some believe that their plight actually was aggravated by the NATO bombing campaign, as people took to the woods and forests to hide. We should also remember that NATO killed its share of civilians. Yugoslavia claimed that about 6000 were killed by NATO. In total something like 1,500 are admitted to by NATO as having been killed in airstrikes alone, including those killed when NATO aircraft bombed an Albanian refugee convoy (for which they later apologised) killing about 60; the bombing of the Chinese Embassy, another mistake; the targeting of the State TV station, killing 16 journalists; and the bombing of Dubrava prison in Kosovo, killing over 80 prisoners and guards. In August 2000 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) announced that it had exhumed 2,788 bodies in Kosovo, but declined to say how many were thought to be victims of war crimes. Of course, war crimes were committed by both sides and, some say, by NATO in its targeting of civlian objects. States unlitaerally violating the sovereignty of another state for humanitarian reasons is in my view a breach of the UN Charter. That type of action requires UN authorisation which, in a genuine case, would doubtless be readily forthcoming. As has often been said, there are only two legal bases for military action: "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations" under article 51 and authorisation under article 42. That's it. I suggest that the enforcement measures referred to in article 2.7 are those determined by the United Nations, not by any regional group of states or individual states. As there was no UN mandate for intervention in Kosovo, as Russia and China would have vetoed it, there was no legal basis open to argue other than self defence. That defence can only be relied on "if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations" and only lasts until such time as the UN has taken necessary measures to restore peace. As there was no armed attack by Serbia on a member of the UN, that defence falls away. As there is no defence of humanitarian need in the Charter, I suggest there was no legal basis for what was done by NATO's unlilateral action. Moreover, the state of Kosovo does not, in my view, have any standing internationally as it has failed to acquire sufficient recognition by other states. If the ICJ legitimises what has been done, then I suggest it gives a green light to other large ethnic groups living in provinces within the territory of UN member states, to declare independence. It is a very dangerous precedent to set, in my humble opinion. Anthony
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31
December: If the court of justice thinks Kosovo has a case, then the plight of the Kurds will have to be recognised and Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran will have to give back the land they took when they wiped out the state of Kurdistan. Oh, and by the way, then there are the Palistinians. Happy New Year.
Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| It was the League of Nations/UN that created the state of Israel and effectively dispossessed the Palestinians, thereby creating many of the problems we see today in the Middle East. They failed to think it through properly to arrive at a just solution. Happy New Year to you and everyone. Aspals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30
December: Anthony has certanly chosen to end the year with a great debate! I would make two points in reply him. 1. Resolution UNSCR 1244 recognised that the situation in the region continued to constitute a threat to international peace and security. So there was an international threat. 2. Article 2.7 of the UN Charter says, "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll." At first sight it looks like a hands off approach in internal matters, but the reference to "enforcement measures under Chapter Vll" is inconsistent with the view that the UN does not involve itself in internal affairs of members states in certain situations. Happy New Year. Scipio top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30
December: The ICJ has started its deliberations in the case of Kosovo, considering the validity of the declaration of independence from Serbia. It is a very important case. One of the Kosovo-Albanian supporters of the declaration of independence is the UK. Another is the US. Both have an unhappy history in that region, bearing in mind the lack of a legal basis for their invasion of Kosovo back in 1999. So, I suppose they have to support the Kosovo Albanians in order to attempt to legitimise what they did. It is difficult to see how there is any genuine justification for what happened, either in the UN Charter or the NATO treaty. The matter is of great concern because if the court legitimises the US-UK led action it will give a green light to other internal regions of UN member states that wish to create an independent state in their own right, in defiance of any lawful process, safe in the knowledge that they will be supported in their objective - especially if they are perceived to be of value to any of the super powers. Supporting Kosovo independence was a way of punishing Milosevic and the Serbians for the breakup up of Yugoslavia and the war in Bosnia. It will be extremely worrying to smaller, less powerful states if the court legitimises internal regime change by force when there are no, or insufficient, serious external threats to other nations. One thinks immediately of Cyprus; a small island with no military forces to speak of, invaded by over 30,000 heavily armed Turkish troops. The island is still divided after almost 36 years of Turkish occupation. That occupation has been declared illegal, together with the political and legal regime that was created. Only Turkey recognises Northern Cyprus as a state. The United Nations Security Council challenged the legality of Turkey's action. Article Four of the Treaty of Guarantee 1960 gave the right to guarantors to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs. The invasion had the opposite effect. It failed to safeguard the Republic's sovereignty and territorial integrity and led to partition of the island, followed by forced expulsion of Greeks, a grave breach of article 147 of GC IV and art 85(4)(a) of AP I. The Turks also changed the demography (a grave breach of article 49 of GC IV and art 85(4)(a) of AP I) of the northern part of the island by importing thousands of people from mainland Turkey. The proclamation of an independent Turkish state of Northern Cyprus was condemned by the UN in UNSCR 541 of 1983. Kosovo was (and still is in my view) a legitimate and integral part of Serbia. Even UNSCR 1244 recognised that fact (see the preamble). If the UN Charter is to continue to be respected as the legal code that governs the civilised world, then its principles must be followed and bullies must not be permitted to have their own way. Or else, where will it stop? Anthony top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23
December: The more the Chilcot Inquiry tries to justify itself against accusations about its ineffectiveness, the more it drops itself in the poo and shows how farcical it is. The latest news is that Gordon Brown will be called to give evidence, but not until after the election. Well, we wouldn't want to harm his chances, would we. What on earth was the point of this very expensive charade anyway? It's so obviously a whitewash. Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22
December: Ditto, Tess. Enjoy the snow, and cold.
Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22
December: i wont need amnesty for help. enjoy skiing Tess. pete
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22
December: Merry Christmas Aspals and everybody. We're off skiing today, yippee. Tess
top of page | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| And to you, too, Tess. Have a super time and "see you" when you get back Aspals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22
December: I hope Pete never needs the services of any of these pinko organisations like Amnesty. They do a lot of good work for people who would not otherwise have a voice or someone to defend them against injustice. Briony top of page | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22
December: since when have judges understood what the ordinary man thinks. there pinko beliefs will finish us off and hand victory to the enemies of the people. we should elect our judges like they do in the states and then we can find out if they are left leaning amnesty card carrying liberals with there heads stuck in the clouds or if theyve got there feet planted on the ground. pete
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18
December: Isn't it strange how most people find the attitude of our courts and the extent to which they go to protect the human rights of terrorist suspects over the rights of the rest of us as out of touch. The item by Benedict Brogan (by the way) that Anthony pointed out is just another example of how people are losing confidence. Just reading some of the comments in this morning's Telegraph makes that plain. I can't remember any time in the past when our judges have been held in such low regard as now. People are actually asking whose side they are on. If judges don't realise this then they need to read newspapers and get down into the pubs and restaurants to find out how really angry people are. This is particularly bad news when you think back only a few years to how our judges were respected. That was when English law held sway and there was no obedience to a spra national court sitting in Strasbourg. Human Rights was a principle enshrined in English law and we didn't need an Act to point that out.
Terrorism is a nasty business. Fighting terrorists is a nasty business. Fighting Islamic terrorism is an even nastier business made even harder by the pro-defence attitudes of the courts. They look like they completely fail to get it that fundamental Islam isn't about compromise, it's about total victory. Fundamental Islam denies human rights to women and homosexuals. It preaches a form of religion that is alien to any civilised society and is lacking compassion. It is prepared to send children as suicide bombers to kill themselves and indiscriminately murder civilians. It lacks any moral basis. Fundamental Islam would kill the judges that regard them as so special. They survive perhaps because of that and maybe that's the reason for there pro defence decisions, which is understandable but is a form of moral cowardice. I used to think the human rights laws were a good thing for us but with all that's been going on it looks like a good idea taken too far. Judges need to restore the balance and import some common sense into their judgments. Anthony mentioned the case of Ms Livni, it is a sad day when our courts are hijacked for political ends. It's even worse when judges allow themselves to be used in this way. I cannot fathom what was going through the mind of the district judge or magistrate who granted the arrest warrant. Con Coughlin's point in today's Telegraph is quite right when he says that looking at this situation the other way round, we can imagine the anger if Israel issued a warrant against Jack Straw for his role in supporting the Iraq war. I agree that such a rationale would be seriously worrying for him and Tony Blair. Like Benedict Brogan says, we are in danger of forgetting that we are the good guys. That is something that scares me. Roger top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You make some powerful points, Roger. I am reminded of what a former Attorney General told me, when I discussed with him some while ago the operation of the then to be introduced Human Rights Act. His view was that the rights of the individual had to be balanced against the rights of society as a whole and that the legislation required a balancing act to be carried out. I wonder what he would make of the present state of affairs and whether he would be as disappointed as many of us at the approach taken by the courts in the types of case under discussion. Aspals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17
December: There is an excellent article by Benedict Brogan (he who exposed the MP expenses scandal) in today's Telegraph, headed "Britain's judicial system is being used to help the bad guys". The principle thrust of the article is that our judges are out of touch and they need to remember that we are the good guys, not the terrorists trying to kill us and whom our liberal laws protect — at potential heavy cost to us. Mr Brogan also makes the important point that, in the recent episode of the Binyam Mohamed saga, "the legal and campaigning machine behind the former Guantanamo prisoner has distracted attention away from his questionable activities in Afghanistan by putting the Government in the dock." Intelligence sharing between states is an important convention. Without it we just could not effectively fight terrorism and serious international organised crime. While the Court of Appeal does not regard this as customary law, it looks very much like it to me. After all, what is customary law? The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, §1.11a., defines it as "rules developed from the practice of states which are binding on states generally." It is difficult to contemplate that any state providing sensitive intelligence to assist another, would consider it alright for that information to be disclosed to others without their authority. That is a state practice and one, I suggest, which states regard as binding on them generally. It also makes good common sense. But even if, as a matter of law, it is not regarded as a state practice, it is still a convention which should be honoured in order to permit the friendly cooperation of states to continue, thereby ensuring that there is a coordinated international fight against terrorism and international organised crime through the provision of high grade intelligence. If this convention were breached — whether by deliberate design or by the decisions of the courts — it would not take long before valuable intelligence was no longer forthcoming from our allies. Society would be placed in even graver danger and all because our judges thought it right to protect the rights of a very, very small minority against the greater interests of the rest of society. Let us also not forget that some intelligence is obtained from sources who, if identified, would be placed in immediate mortal danger — and their families, too. In order for the public to have confidence in our legal system, judges must make decisions which are for the greater good of our society and which everyone can readily see are for our protection. At present, that confidence is lacking significantly. Processes which are designed to provide the balance between protecting the interests of a defendant and protecting the sources of intelligence, are being struck down even in circumstances where judges have indicated that, having seen the intelligence they are not saying that the secret evidence was in anyway unreliable, but because of the House of Lords rulings they must accede to the defendant's complaint. See also the report in the Guardian, 3 July 2009. Anthony (Amended 18 Dec).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15
December: Today's news items announcing the closure of RAF Cottesmore and making other defence cuts, at a time when this country is in its third war of this government's term of office, just beggars belief. It as if this government is living in some parallel universe. It certainly has no contact with the realities of life in this world, or the foreign policy problems it has created and then put its servicemen in harm's way to try to solve, while underfunding them and sending them off to fight without the right equipment. Then they impose the present cuts while its forces are actually fighting. Its a bit like dismantling your body guard's house while he is protecting you and then telling him you are doing it to help him. Would any rational person do such a thing? The Iraq Inquiry is exposing just how shallow the political thinking was in the run up to the war with what one might regard as a reckless disregard for the consequences of the government's political decision to go to war. All of this was compounded by totally inadequate funding. Will talks of the responsibility of leadership. I agree. All who were complicit in the decision making process also bear responsibility as co-conspirators - and that includes responsibility for the deaths that followed as a result of deliberate under-funding and refusal to follow the advice of military commanders, who happen to know a thing or two about war fighting, unlike the politicians holding the reigns of power. The issuing of the arrest warrant for the former Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, is another amazing blunder. When people like Robert Mugabe travel around freely, to try to arrest Ms Livni is incredible, especially as she probably had immunity anyway for any "offences" she committed when in office (see my comments below for 30 November). One hopes that prosecutorial decisions do not follow a political agenda, but it appears here they were motivated by politics. The issuing magistrate was clearly persuaded there was a case. All the same, if the courts are prepared to issue an arrest warrant for Ms Livni, then contrary to what I said before, I think that Mr Blair may be in trouble. (Modified 16 December) Anthony top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15
December: Pete is right, but that's the price of leadership. A very lonely job and the buck always stops there.
Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14
December: all the rats are fleeing the sinking ship and saying what a nutter blair was but why didnt they say anything at the time about how they were against the war and about how wrong blair was. at least blairs got the guts to stick up for what he did. pete
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13
December: Briony.
I understand how you feel, but the annihilation of the Jews commenced
after WWII started and was not a reason beforehand to go to war
although, I accept there was persecution of Jews from the early 30s
onwards. If the mass murder of Jews had taken place before the war
started I believe the international community might have felt that
there was a right to intervene to prevent Genocide. The UN couldn't
have been consulted because it didn't exist until much later. If it had
existed nations would have sought a resolution to support their
military action. Scipio
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12
December: Tony Blair has shown himself to be a man of
principle. Would we have stood by and watched Hitler annihilate the
Jews purely because that was an internal matter? I think not. History
would have judged us very poorly. The UN Charter cannot be prayed in
aid to prevent what is clearly humanitarian assistance to a persecuted
people. Saddam Hussein killed many of his own people and ruled with a
fist of iron. It was quite right to get rid of him - and the prime
minister of Iraq agreed today when he was asked about Mr Blair's
remarks. Briony
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12
December: Mr Blair's remarks to the media
seem to obviate the need for an inquiry. He wanted to get rid of Sadam
Hussein to achieve regime change. I have not found any justification
under the UN Charter
for this new principle of international law. Scipio
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12
December: Blair has a bad case of Foot in Mouth disease.
Tess
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10
December: I am an academic at the University of Edinburgh
conducting some research into the history of legal responses to
allegations of torture in the British Army. I have fond your website
incredible useful and was hoping that you could give me some further
help. The links on your website to the prosecuting and defence opening
statements in the Court Martial of Mendoca, Payne et all seems to be
broken. Might it be possible to send me the documents? Also, I am
trying to get hold of the entire transcript for the case. Could you
give me any advice on where to get it from. Many
thanks. Toby
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Toby, glad you find the site useful. To reply to your questions, the links to the transcripts sadly no longer work as they linked to the Army Prosecuting website. The APA no longer exists as it has been superseded by the Service Prosecuting Authority. Unlike the APA, the latter organisation does not have a web site. So all links that were previously listed on the APA site have gone. I do have copies of some of the proceedings but, sadly, not all. I will send you what I have, as soon as I locate them. For a copy of the entire transcript, you might wish to contact the office of the Military Court Administration Officer and/or Wordwave who were the official transcribers, as I understand it. Being a commercial organisation, Wordwave will charge for the material they provide, but I am unaware of their fees. As the trial lasted about 6 months, this could be substantial! When your research is complete, and subject to what your publishers say, perhaps you might let us have the details so that we can link to it. It sounds a very interesting area of research. It is quite fascinating that even though the case raises serious command responsibility issues under the Yamashita principles and the ICC provisions, there has been absolutely no comment on it whatsoever within the international legal community. So I will look forward greatly to what you write. Aspals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10
December: Re Pegasus.
Just think what more we might have found out if the general had been
cross examined by senior counsel. Tess
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9
December: Well, it looks like Lt Gen Viggers needed no
clever barrister to cross-examine damning information out of him. He
let loose with both barrels. The integrity of military officers shines
like a beacon through the fog of government spin in this sordid affair.
The failures of this mob that took us to war, clueless in military
strategy and naive to the extent of gross negligence in their budgetary
allocations for equipment acquisition, preparation and planning, are
being exposed by the ones who are constitutionally bound to carry out
their lunatic foreign policy. Yet not a single member of government has
served a day in the service of the country they were elected to lead.
Pegasus
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9
December: On Monday I was at the inquiry into Mousa's death
and it was obvious that skillful questioning by able barristers makes a
lot of difference. What I did find interesting too was that the press
reports about the evidence of witnesses I saw made no reference to
their demeanour and whether they were credible or
not. Scipio
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The above posting is after agreed editing with Scipio to remove specific comment. I suppose demeanour is a subjective assessment and is one for those involved in the Musa Inquiry to evaluate, especially for the chairman, Lord Justice Gage. Nolle prosequi have been given to all witnesses, "in the interests of obtaining from witnesses the fullest cooperation and frankest account of the events which had occurred". Evidence is given on oath. That Inquiry means business. Even though there is no prospect of prosecution for past wrong-doing, anyone who lies to the Inquiry is liable to prosecution. Consequently, comment on a witness's demeanour would be inappropriate. With the Inquiry into the war, there are no equivalent undertakings, nor is evidence on oath, nor are witnesses liable to cross-examination, which shows its proceedings are not intended to pose any danger to its "witnesses". I see no problem with the press commenting freely in these circumstances. It is easier, also, for each of us to assess each witness, as the evidence is televised and it is not a judicial inquiry that will apportion blame. The press is freer to comment in these circumstances. Here is the BBC link to Monday's proceedings, as reported by them. Aspals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9
December: It appears from the article in today's
Guardian that our concerns over the effectiveness of the
Chilcott Inquiry, also shared by others, are well founded. As the
former head of MI6, Sir John Scarlett would have been able to reveal
much about the real intelligence available and the actual threat
apparent in the days prior to the invasion. Of course, the reality was
that, as soon as US and UK deployed forces to the Middle East, there
was no going back as to do so would have handed a PR victory to Saddam
Hussein and a very public humiliation to US and UK which would have not
gone unnoticed in the Middle East/Arab nations where, unlike in this
country, "losing face" is an ignominy. In any event, it would have been
nice to learn (insofar as national security allowed) more about the
provenance of intelligence upon which decisions to go to war were made.
We have lost a significant opportunity to do that and also lost
important material for the Inquiry to put to those ministers and
government officials then in power who are yet to give evidence. Had
there been a Counsel to the Inquiry, (s)he would have had many
questions for Sir John, without doubt. Anthony
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6
December: so he gets away with it. the inquiry does look a
bit pointless then. pete
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3
December: I vote we don't prosecute and leave the matter to
the ICC prosecutor decide.
Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5
December: They wont prosecute
Blair because he's a member of the Euro Club. They might also have ot
look at other European leaders that went along with the decision and or
provided supplies. I think they are very selective in their choice of
defendant. Rob top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3
December: I vote we don't prosecute and leave the matter to
the ICC prosecutor decide.
Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3
December: i vote we prosecute. pete
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3
December: So if this inquiry is not a proper investigation and if there
are not to be people blamed or prosecuted, then I don't understand your
ban Aspals on discussing it. Thinners
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Some ban, Thinners! Aspals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2
December: I think even the ICC might not fall for that one,
Will. Prosecution by the services is no more worthy of being described
as an "investigation" than the present Iraq Inquiry. Aspals should
start a new poll taking votes on whether Blair should be prosecuted or
not by the ICC. Tess
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A poll is an interesting thought, Tess, but judging by the present mood, an unnecessary step! In any event, should we not wait until we have heard the evidence, such as it is, from the Inquiry. There seems to be no shortage of high ranking officials more than ready to spill the beans. Of course, what cross-examination by a skilled advocate would have done is elicit whether a witness account is motivated by self interest, that is, to minimise their own involvement and thereby exculpate themselves. Aspals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2
December: If he wants to get away with a prosecution by the
ICC, let's prosecute him by court martial. Judging by past form he's
bound to get acquitted. That will stop the ICC from prosecuting him.
Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2
December: blair should be investigated and put on trial. hes
got a lot to answer for. the more you read about what went on the more
you see he had no proper reason for war apart from wanting to support
the yanks. pete
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2
December: If the Inquiry isnt an investigation for the
purposes of the applicable law, and I agree with that, then it looks
like Tony Bliar is at risk of the ICC exercising jurisdiction, or is
that only done in relation to unfashionable states or heads of state
that are less flashy than others? Polly
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2
December: I do not believe the Inquiry is sufficient to
qualify as the sort of investigation required under the ICC statute.
Investigation, as it relates to criminal offences, must be given its
usual meaning which, in my view, requires it to be undertaken by the
state organisation that effectively investigates crime, ie the
police/judicial authorities who have an understanding of the applicable
law. The Iraq Inquiry is not about apportioning blame. Its
"investigation" isn't undertaken by the police, nor are any of its
members holders of judicial office and, as we saw yesterday, the
questioning of vital witnesses able to give crucial evidence of the
thoughts and intentions of the then PM and his close team of advisers,
is rather inept (see the Guardian report on the observation
of Philippe Sands, professor of international law at University College
London, who was "... pretty shocked by the questioning," Sands said. "I
was very surprised and disappointed by the failure to press Manning on
any issues"). Anthony
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1
December: Anthony, the Iraq inquiry will fudge the matter
and avoid blaming Blair for taking us into an illegal war. Blair then
will get round being prosecuted by arguing the inquiry was an
investigation which found insufficient evidence against him and so
there will be an investigation to overcome the jurisdiction of the ICC.
That's what I think will happen. Tuppy
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1
December: From what Anthony says, I think that the Iraq
Inquiry will serve a useful purpose and will throw a lot of light on
the involvement of members of government past and present and their
advisers. There may then be enough evidence for the CPS to decide
whether to prosecute Mr Blair or anyone else for that matter, for going
to war. Briony
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30
November: An interesting article by Sir Michael, venting some
disquiet. As Roger pointed
out only recently, the only authority for going to war is to be found
in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The
right to self defence under article 51 is one such authority. The other
is under article 42, where there is a threat to international
peace and security, when the UN may authorise states, to "take such
action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or
restore international peace and security." Such action will follow on
from a UN mandate providing the requisite authority. There is no other
authority for going to war or violating the sovereignty of another
state. Sir Michael mentions proportionality ("its actions are proportional to the threat"), but this is only relevant to the extent of force used in prosecuting warfare. It is not a justification for war. Turning to the International Criminal Court, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction, under the principle of complementarity, and will declare a case is inadmissible under article 17 where,
Many may recall Mr Blair's eagerness to put General Pinochet on trial, in what some regarded as a violation of sovereign immunity attaching to a head of state under the State Immunity Act 1978. It was argued that this exemption did not apply as he was a former head of state and putting him on trial was the exercise of "universal jurisdiction" under the jus cogens in respect of grave international crimes that fell outside the accepted boundaries of immunity of heads of state. (After all, we would have prosecuted Hitler if he had been captured by the wartime allies). Other states agreed with this rationale, Spain being one from what I can remember. The US did not share this view and the risk posed to heads of state by the ICC may be one reason why it has not been willing to sign up to the ICC, although President Obama is reckoned to be thinking of doing so (perhaps with significant derogations). There is quite authoritative caselaw supporting state immunity, where a state (Belgium) sought to justify its actions on the basis of universal jurisdiction. The Pinochet case was one of those considered. On 14th February 2002 the International Court of Justice ruled in the case of Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium (see also the Press Release) that there was immunity from criminal jurisdiction for acts committed either before or while a government official holds office, even though he ceased to hold office after the date of institution of proceedings. Despite the change in professional situation of the official (Mr. Yerodia), the character of the dispute submitted to the Court had not changed: the dispute still concerned the lawfulness of the arrest warrant issued on 11 April 2000 against a person who was at the time Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Congo. Moreover, the court held where allegations are made that such an individual is suspected of having committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, it was unable to deduce from state practice any existence under customary international law, in regard to national courts, of any form of exception to the rule according immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability to incumbent Ministers for Foreign Affairs. However, the court went on to say, "jurisdiction does not imply absence of immunity, while absence of immunity does not imply jurisdiction..." as "various international conventions on the prevention and punishment of certain serious crimes impose on States obligations of prosecution or extradition, thereby requiring them to extend their criminal jurisdiction, such extension of jurisdiction in no way affects immunities under customary international law, including those of Ministers for Foreign Affairs." One such "international convention" is, of course, the Rome Statute. Undoubtedly, much will depend on the willingness of the international community to see Mr Blair before the Hague Court. There appears an inconsistent track record in pursuing heads of state. After all, Idi Amin never received the Pinochet treatment, and nor has Robert Mugabe (although he arguably still benefits from State immunity). Are they any better than Milosevic or Karadzic, or Mladic? One thing is for certain, there seem many who would like to see Mr Blair stand trial. Without any proper investigation of his conduct in this country, the jurisdiction of the ICC prosecutor might be invoked. But all this begs the question of whether the decision to go to war did in fact breach international law. For as long as there remains a divided legal opinion in the matter, it is doubtful that a criminal case could be made out. We shall have to await the outcome of the Iraq Inquiry to have a better understanding of the reasons for war. If they were based upon the UN Charter (or the enforcement of UN obligations imposed upon Iraq by the Security Council after the first Gulf War, for which a UNSCR would probably have been required, anyway) then Mr Blair should have no cause to be worried. Anthony top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30
November: Aspals missed the article in the Sunday Hate
(Mail) by Sir Michael Rose in which he called Tony Balir a war criminal
and suugested that he should stand trial at the Hague. The link is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231540/Why-I-believe-Blair-stand-trial--face-charges-war-crimes.html#ixzz0Y9Nv4iMq He says that "according to accepted international law of war, no country should go to war unless it is the action of last resort; its actions are proportional to the threat; and unless the end result is justified by the means used - in other words, that the situation in the country after the invasion will be an improvement, in human and security terms, on the original state of affairs." Sounds good enough for me. Rob top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28
November: Never a truer word, Pete. Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28
November: I am not connected to anyone involved with the
inquiry. To come back to the main point, the evidence given so far
shows that there are key individuals ready and willing to give a full
account of what the thinking and advice were at the time, and all this
is without the need for senior counsel cross examining them.
Briony
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27
November: young men lost there lives for nothing the place is
worse now than under Saddam.there families deserve answers.
pete
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27
November: Can I ask Briony if she's connected to any of the
people she so gallantly tries to defend? Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27
November: To reply to Briony, I think you are missing the point
actually. Why shouldn't the PM and his predecessor be subjected to
skilfull crossexamination of the reasons why they took us to war, what
evidence it was based on and whether they lied to the country about it?
The families of servicemen who lost their lives and those who were
injured deserve to know just why it was that they paid the price they
did. Hostile questioning is exactly what is needed. It's called
democratic acountability. Thinners
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26
November: I'm sorry to say it but I think you are missing the
point about the Chilcot Inquiry. Its aim is to find out the reasons why
we went to war and the political thinking and impetus that took us
there. Surely it is better that we know than be kept in the dark and
left to speculate. The government is to be supported for the decision
to hold an inquiry, even in the form it is. It wouldn't be right for
the former prime minister, the serving prime minister, senior ministers
past and present and senior legal and political advisers to be faced
with hostile questioning from highly paid lawyers about their role in
the key decisions or the advice they gave. Briony
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25
November: its a shame that the money being wasted on all
these inquiries isnt being spent on the troops who need
it. pete
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25
November: I suppose that when you get senior judges saying that
analysing the war's legality was beyond the panel's competence as it
doesn't include a single judge or lawyer, and that members are not
experienced at cross-examination because it is simply not their skill
set, we know that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. The
whole thing is a farce. Thinners
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24
November: So there really is no point to this thing then? Didn't think
so myself. I hoped we'd see some smart barrister cross examine the
likes of Tony Blair and put him on the spot, along with Gordon Brown
who was the Chancellor at the time and would have been involved in all
of the decisions. Thinners
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24
November: lying dont matter, theyre getting imunity from
prosecution anyway. pete
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24
November: Bang on Tess. The other strange thing is that the
witnesses wont have to give evidence on oath - so they can't be
prosecuted for lying about the lies they told. What's the point of
holding the "inquiry". Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23
November: I hope this comment dosesn't fall foul of Aspals'
ban. Does anybody else find Chilcott's remarks as amusing as me, that
his Inquiry will not be a white wash and he doesn't need barristers to
help with the Iraq inquiry, because it isn't a trial, even though they
will be looking at the very sensitive reason of why we went to war and
calling some pretty high profile politicians including, perhaps, Tony
Blair? The Mousa inquiry, looking into the activities of soldiers who
abused detainees, is not supposed to be a trial either, and has a
narrower remit but it does have barristers galore and even a barrister
to present the facts. Surely an independent inquiry that is going to
present facts impartially should have a lawyer to help them do it,
otherwise they end up looking as if they've already made their minds up
because they pick and choose who gives evidence and what is presented.
Tess
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I think that is OK, Tess. You make an interesting point. Aspals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23
November: I was. Theres more to come because there is another inquiry
starting tomorrow into political handling of the war.
Thinners
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Just as the Sounding Board got started again I really do not wish to put a damper on this discussion, but as the inquiry is to start tomorrow I would rather we did not refer to matters that might be considered to prejudice or influence its outcome. Discussion of general legal principles is fine, but can we please avoid direct reference to specific events or individuals. Sorry. Aspals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22
November: The only authority for going to war is to be found
in the UN Charter: self defence or
Security Council authorised action under Chapter 7. In the case of Iraq
there were obligations that it was bound by from the first war and
which it failed to comply with, so it is arguable that continued
breaches would give a reason to take action to ensure compliance.
Whether that justified an out and out invasion incorporating regime
change though is debatable. I don't think the UN resolutions went that
far. Roger
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22
November: The incident Tuppy
is talking about at the start of the war is the Gleiwitz incident when
some Germans dressed up as Polish soldiers and attacked a German radio
station. They sent out some anti-German messages in Polish. SOme people
say there were bodies left of men in German uniforms who the "Poles"
were supposed to have killed and that these men were in fact prisoners
from Concentration Camps. MilLaw
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22
November: Blimey Polly,
thats the 64000 dollar question. Its' not a crime to go to war when
you've got a good reason like defending yourself. but i dont think iraq
attacked us or anything, so its difficult to see the justification. so
i think that declaring war without a reason is a crime and i dont think
the sexed up war dossier that Dr kelly prepared was anything like a
good reason. It was a bit like what the Germans did to start the first
world war when they faked the incident on the polish border to provide
the justification for invading poland. A faked justification is no
justificaiton in my opinion. Tuppy
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22
November: The Independent
on Sunday aks whether Tony Blair should be regarded as a war
criminal. I'm not sure if opposition to a war by other members of
government or even the general public is enough to make him a war
criminal. Is it a crime to go to war? Polly
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22
November: Yet another inquiry and still more money for the lawyers. I'm
not sure how you torture people when you're fighting a battle when some
of it is hand to hand. I don't think the payment of £3 million quid
compensation to the Mousa family would have had any influence on the
latest lot suing. Not much anyway. Thinners
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You haven't said so, but I take it you are referring to the article on today's newspage about the Danny Boy incident. Aspals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17
November: (sent 16th Nov) dont hold your breath will. pete
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10
November: The report on today's
newspage about the threats to judges in Ireland reminded me
of something I wrote on the Sounding Board earlier this year that if
terrorists targeted our judges they might have a different view about
dealing with terrorist suspects on trial in front of them. Anthony made
the point that judges in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s were
murdered, along with their families, by terrorists. The IRA are up to
their old tricks again. I bet the judges in Ireland wont be as
sympathetic to terrorism as some of our senior judges.
Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24
October: I understand the reason for not having recent court
martial appeal cases, but what about the first instance trial reports?
Is there any legal provision preventing reporting them? Open justice
should apply to court martial, shouldn't it? Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You are
right Will that court martial cases should be reported. Unfortunately
they remain a closed book save where newspapers get involved and report
the proceedings. However, there is nothing to prevent advocates from
reporting cases in which they appeared. This used to happen and we hope
that any advocates who are reading this will feel encouraged to let us
have first instance case reports. Aspals
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20
October: I wonder if anyone can help. I am researching
sentencing decisions of courts martial and found the cases referred to
on Aspals, but they are quite old. Can anyone point me to a more up to
date source or provide me with electronic copies. Many thanks.
Dorothy
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Our
sources have dried up, Dorothy. To purchase these titles costs about
£40 each, which is well beyond the means of the Aspals site, as we rely
on donations from our supporters to meet our running costs. If anyone
has copies of sentencing (or other) decisions, perhaps they would send
them to us so that we might post them on the site for others to view
and download. Thanks. Aspals
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19
October: The difficulty with Millaw's
point of view is that very few people these days trust the court
martial to be impartial most of all when trying soldiers accused of
crimes against Iraqis of Afghans. Just look at the record of
convictions of people accused of killing Iraqis. Tess
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13
October: There is no real alternative to trial by
court-martial when one thinks about the need for courts to understand
the society from which an accused comes. How can a civilian jury be
qualified to do that? What understanding will they have of the
pressures of soldiering? MilLaw
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11
October: The evidence I
rely on for a lack of public confidence comes from
confessions from insiders, like the remarks made tonight, if you
listened to the radio tonight with the interview of the anonymous RMP
investigator, and to concerns expressed by the former Attorney General
about the way cases were investigated and handled, about chain of
command conduct (even you were threatened) and the general
dissatisfaction of people commenting on the Aspals site and elsewhere
about the state of military "justice". The person named John was very
unimpressed by RMP performance and if what he says is only half true,
serious matters were not investigated in some cases because the chain
of command stopped them. That is criminal in itself and should be
investigated. He said that the RMP was structurally flawed from the
outset because they were part of the army with soldiers investigating
soldiers, so there was no independence from the chain of command. He
was very convincing when he said that senior military figures could be
obstructive by denying the use of helicopters to investigators trying
to get into an operational area. Like Aspals said, these decisions
should be for the police not for the chain of command. It was quite
eerie when he mentioned the personnel reporting system as a means of
ensuring compliance by blighting the career of anyone who didn't toe
the army line and so would have promotion blocked and how this how been
used to punish some investigators with integrity who had pressed on to
investigate. According to John there were hundreds of cases of death or
serious injury to Iraqis where senior officers decided RMP
investigation was not required. He also made the point that compared to
Iraq there has been little info about troop behaviour in Afghanistan
which indicates that there are things being covered up and that we can
have no confidence in RMP investigations of alleged misconduct by
British troops. He said that even our allies think we have covered up
torture and murder. Yet compared with the Americans they have
successfully tried soldiers and officers. Is that enough evidence for
you? Tess
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You should
know that I did not succumb to threats from anyone. They only ever
emanated from elements of the army that never understood the reforms to
the disciplinary system brought about by legislation and ECtHR
decisions from about 1995 onwards. But you would be surprised by who
else did not understand what "independence" meant - but please do not
ask for clarification of that statement, because I am afraid none will
be forthcoming for the time being. As for matters being quiet in
Afghanistan, the explanation may also be due to the fact that lessons
have been learned from earlier experiences. For your reference, The HM Inspectorate Report into the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch is available on line Aspals top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11
October: You dont' convict your mates, Will,
do you. Torture Iraqis, beat them up, kill them and you can get off by
court martial. Command responsibility will never wash before a court
martial. Tuppy
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11
October: The problem with Aspals
idea of prosecuting army officers interfering with investigations is
that they would be tried by court martial by fellow officers. You can
guess what the result would be. You can't have the system trying
itself. I should also say that the praiseworthy idea Aspals has of remaining aloof
from attempts by senior officers to interfere in investigations is one
that probably has career consequences for the person bold enough to
argue the toss. I don't think any of the services is well known for
acceptance of free thinkers. Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11
October: yes anthony
you are spot on about the goverment. the trouble is the tories arent
any better. pete
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I agree that the Tories do not have clean hands in these matters. Along with others, I recall it was a Tory government that instigated "Drawdown" in the early 90s as part of the so-called peace dividend for the ending of the cold war.
Aspals
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11
October: Thanks for the interesting stats, Aspals. Am I
the only one who's noticed that there were only 165 contested cases
throughout the whole of 2008? Presumably some of these would be AWOL.
Hardly a caseload justifying a separate system. On a similar note, the BBC item in today's news shows
that even RMP investigators were concerned about the ability of RMP to
deal with the pressures of their own investigations and mentioning that
allegations of torture and murder were being "covered up". How much
more criticism must it take before the MOD finally admits that the
military system stinks and that the public has no confidence in it. If
it wants to hang on to some form of discipline system then it could
hang on to the minor cases and needs to hand over the serious stuff to
an independent police body for investigation and the CPS for decision
making, with trials in the civilian courts. When a former senior RMP
officer says the "organisation wasn't seeking out the truth" and that
"hundreds of suspicious incidents of alleged misconduct had not been
properly investigated or simply ignored", then it is time to sit up and
take note and do something about it. It can't go on.
Tess
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tess, as I
said before, the RMP do need more resources and, to directly address
one of your criticisms, do need to have their investigators separated
from the chain of command. These issues seem "no brainers" to me and,
it would appear, to you too! I believe that if these two problems could
be constructively addressed, then the perceptions of cover ups and
allegations of failures to investigate properly would fall away. I am
aware of pressures from the chain of command which had the potential to
hamper investigations. Independent investigators would make it more
likely that individuals interfering with the progress of an
investigation were warned about their conduct and, in appropriate
cases, investigated for obstruction or, in more serious cases,
perverting the course of justice. A few prosecutions for those offences
might then serve to get the message home that administration of justice
is not a tool in the hands of military commanders. Investigations must
be carried out properly and professionally. The squaddie is suspicious
of the RMP, who they do not regard as being proper soldiers. So, there
is a problem that some RMP members, especially those serving in
operational theatres, "go native" with the chain of command in a rather
naive attempt to win acceptance as being part of the military. It is an
insecurity that can lead to allegations of collusion/empathy and needs
to be addressed if found to be the case. Creating an independent
military investigations branch to investigate serious crime would give
an incentive to uniformed military investigators to join an elite
investigation force that was able to exercise proper police powers
without fear of obstruction. Placing investigators (especially SIB)
outside the chain, the loyalty would be then to the branch rather than
any need to conform and fit in with the wishes of the wider army. When
it existed, the APA was disliked by some elements of the chain of
command because it would not do its bidding. By way of example, when I
was serving at the APA, because I had to make a number of unpalatable
decisions, I was once menacingly told by a senior officer that I should
remember I was still an army officer. The implication being that my
independent stance would impact upon my career (a clear breach of what
was said in the Morris case). That sort of
attitude also found favour with some elements in the JAG department. It
is only by remaining aloof from such attempts at blatant interference
that an organisation - or an individual - can stand any chance of
maintaining professional integrity. Aspals
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7
October: I don't believe that the ECHR really knows the ins
and outs of a court martial. While I do accept that there is an
argument for saying it should be able to try some more minor offences
when there is no chance of getting soldiers back to UK in time for a
trial here or where there are serious local witness difficulties, the
civil courts are more than well equipped to deal with the case load of
the courts-martial - does anyone have facts and figures? The SPA is
very secretive about it. As with other cases involving foreign
witnesses, evidence can be given by live link. I think public
confidence is lacking in the military system. Tess
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tess, what
is your evidence to support you in your belief that public confidence
is lacking in the military system? As for facts and figures, from
information helpfully provided to me by the DSPA, for 2008,
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7
October: I think your accusation of gross negligence is very
appropriate, Anthony. That is exactly what the goverment is guilty of,
among other things. Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7
October: Lie
after lie after lie. That is the legacy of this government.
They spin the truth at the speed of a whirling dervish, but with less
poise, and that is why they keep toppling over. The revelations by
General Dannatt will come as a surprise to no one, I suppose. It is
morally indefensible for a government to make the political decision to
go to war and then to fail to provide the requisite troops and
equipment which their military experts tell them are needed. In any
other walk of life, that sort of approach would be regarded as gross
negligence. While they were denying cash and equipment to our troops
they were spending over £120 billion on social services and handouts to
those who refuse to work. What is especially unforgiveable is the fact that the politicians and civil servants making these decisions have little military experience, if any at all, to properly understand the situation facing our servicemen in theatre. It is a monumental display of arrogance and utter disdain for our troops whom they direct to do their political dirty work, while all the time looking to catch the right sound bite. Our servicemen saw through the facade some time ago. They are sick of it and it is damaging to morale. Brown and his government should go and go quickly. They have played a cruel and cynical game with the lives of our servicemen all in the furtherance of their own morally bankrupt political agenda and should never be forgiven for it. Anthony top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7
October: The decision in Al-Sweady which
you recently put on your web cases makes rather worrying reading. It
makes me wonder whether the time is up on the military police
investigating serious cases. The court made a few serious criticisms of
the military police in particular concerning disclosure. In my own time
in the army it was clear that on ops the RMPs got very close to the
chain of command. It just seems a bit cosy that they can investigate
incidents concerning soldiers when, because they are so close to the
chain of command, they can't be viewed as impartial. A bit like the
court-martial system really, which is a complete anachronism.
Tess
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tess, you
are of course right that the case raised serious criticisms of the RMP,
but I think we should be wary of throwing the baby out with the bath
water. To deal with the point about RMP being close to the chain of
command, I think you make a good point. It should definitely be the
case that those involved in investigating crime should be outside the
chain of command, like the prosecutors have been for some years. But
there still remain some difficult problems. The first relates to the
ability of commanders to hamper (hopefully not deliberately) a timely
investigation, especially on ops. As they control the ground, they
decide who gains access to it. As anyone knows who has been involved in
criminal investigations, speedy access to a crime scene is vital, in
order to preserve evidence. Sometimes, for good reason, this may not be
possible (eg a battle going on or the area being covered by sniper
fire, or unexploded IEDs etc). However, the question remains whether it
should be the commander who takes the decision to prevent access or the
investigating policemen who decides whether it is too dangerous.
Personally, I prefer the latter approach, as it places all the relevant
decisions in the hands of the investigator. In my experience, the military police are a dedicated organisation keen to do the job properly. The SIB have some excellent investigators in their number and it has been a privilege to work with them. One of the problems that I am aware of from my time in the Army is not the quality of investigator, or the level of determination, but the numbers available to undertake a huge amount of work. At one stage I was dealing with several high profile cases involving either death or serious injury, yet I was meeting the same groups of investigators dealing with them. In a civilian context this would not have happened. A separate serious crime team would have handled handle each of those cases. But they have more resources than the military. Which now brings me to my final point. Even if policing in operational theatres is handed over to civilians (eg the Met), there is no guarantee that they will face any easier task. In fact, it may be even more difficult for them due to their ignorance of the way the military operates. A lack of relevant military experience may also lead to the making of decisions on false premises. I also doubt that the chain of command will be any more amenable to having even civilian police investigating their soldiers on ops. So, in short, I think the military investigators should be independent of the chain of command and should investigate offences without any interference and there should be more SIB policemen. As for the court-martial system, I should remind everyone that it had been cleared by the European Court in the case of Morris-v-UK Aspals top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2
October: After government denials that there were any
shortages of equipment, the Telegraph
carried an article today headed "Bob Ainsworth warns shortage of
equipment to limit troop numbers in Afghanistan". Brilliant proof that
this government can't remember the lies its told because it told so
many. Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2
October: Thanks for your help. Connie
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30
September: I thought that dismissal was just an option.
Didn't the army keep on some soldiers who had been convicted of
shooting and killling civvies in Northern Ireland?
Tess
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You are
right that the army did take back into service Private Thain and Cpl
Clegg. You may recall that Thain was charged with the murder of Thomas
'Kidso' Reilly, a man aged 22, on Springfield Road on August 9, 1983.
Thain was convicted the following year and sentenced to life in prison.
However, only two years later he was released from prison and went back
into the army. In relation to Clegg, on 30 September 1990, he was a
private on duty with his fellow soldiers manning the checkpoint on the
Upper Glen Road. They fired nineteen bullets into a stolen Vauxhall
Astra that passed through their checkpoint at speed. Clegg fired four
of the bullets, the last of which killed 18 year old passenger Karen
Reilly. The driver, 17 year old Martin Peake, also died at the scene,
and the last passenger, Markiewicz Gorman, escaped with minor injuries.
Clegg was convicted of murder in 1993 and sentenced to life
imprisonment. In 1995 he was released under licence by then Northern
Ireland Secretary Patrick Mayhew. His conviction for murder was
eventually quashed in 1998 and a re-trial orderd. At the re-trial in
1999, he was convicted of "attempting to wound" the driver of the car,
Martin Peake, who also died in the incident, but that conviction was
itself overturned in 2000. In relation to dismissal from the service, you will see that the wording in Section 71(3) of the Army Act 1955 is mandatory, that is, dismissal from the service will follow on from a sentence of imprisonment, whether or not ordered by the court martial of trial. However, the position is not quite the same when it comes to conviction by civilian court. Section 11(3) of the 1955 Act (3) states "Except in pursuance of the sentence of a court-martial ..., a soldier of the regular forces shall not be discharged unless his discharge has been authorised by order of the competent military authority or by authority direct from Her Majesty; and in any case the discharge of a soldier of the regular forces shall be carried out in accordance with Queen’s Regulations." Under Queen's Regulations (Army), ยง6.149, "A soldier sentenced by a civil court to imprisonment, whether at home or overseas, remains subject to military law until discharged from the Army under authority of para 9.404" (Misconduct). So, if the army regards the civilian conviction as unfair, eg where the soldier's conviction arose from the carrying out of his duties, there is a discretion under these provisions to retain him in the Service. Aspals top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27
September: A friend of mine was convicted at court marshall.
If he gets sent away to prison will it mean he's got to be dismissed
from the army as well or can he soldier on when he's done his time?
Thanks for any help. Connie
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Connie,
Section 71(3) of the Army Act 1955 states: "A person who, otherwise than
under section 57(2) [contempt in the face of the court] of this Act, is
sentenced by a court-martial to imprisonment shall also be sentenced
either to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service or to
dismissal from Her Majesty's service: Provided that, if the
court-martial fail to give effect to this subsection, their sentence
shall not be invalid, but shall be deemed to include a sentence of
dismissal from Her Majesty's service." From what we can see there does not appear to be any corresponding provision in Section 164 of the 2006 Act (which is soon to come into force). Aspals top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27
September: Aspals readers might be interested in a slight
crisis that has hit the Australian Court-Martial system recently. In
the case of Lane, the Australian High Court declared the new Australian
Military Court (AMC), the centrepiece of military justice reforms, to
be unconstitutional. Lane, a former sailor, was charged with indecent
assault for placing his genitals on a sleeping colleague's forehead - a
practice known as "teabagging" - after a drunken night out in 2005. He
denied the charge and fought it all the way to the High Court. Background: Due to concerns that the Australian military justice system was not striking the right balance between the requirements of the armed forces on the one hand, and the rights of its personnel on the other, it was reformed in 2006. However, in doing so, the Australian government rejected the recommendation of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee to create the military court under Chapter III. The AMC was created in 2006 by the inclusion of section 114 in Division 3 of Part VII of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1984 (Cth) (the Act). Section 114 states: "(1) A court, to be known as the Australian Military Court, is created by this Act. Note 1: The AMC is not a court for the purpose of Ch III of the Constitution. (1A) The AMC is a court of record." The effect of section 114 was to discard the court-martial process and to create in its place the AMC which would have the jurisdiction to determine military justice issues. The problem was, however, that the judicial power identified in Chapter III of the Constitution is that of the Commonwealth and the powers to create federal courts are found in sections 71, 72 and 122. It was for that reason, in a unanimous verdict, the High Court held that the provisions of Division 3 of Part VII of the Act were constitutionally invalid. French CJ and Gummow J held that the AMC was intended to be a Court under Chapter III but was not created under Chapter III, and section 51(vi) does not allow for military jurisdiction under a "legislative" court. The Court rejected the Commonwealth's submission that the AMC, as a replacement for the court-martial system, was merely a "modernisation" of terminology and not a matter of substance. Consequences: Quite apart from the unusual circumstances of Australia not currently having a military tribunal, there is a clear question over the validity of the decisions made by the AMC since it was convened in October 2007. The Government has enacted legislation to reinstate the pre-2007 machinery as an interim measure while it determines the construction of a military justice system that meets the requirements of the Constitution. For more information, please see the following links: Aspals top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22
September: Judging by the results that the ICTY produced, if
the Payne case had been tried by them the result might have been a lot
different. Will
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21
September: Rabinder Singh made a good point in his opening
adress to the Mousa inquiry today when he said that one of the striking
features of the case was that the abuse did not take place in a secret
location behind closed doors and that many people must have seen or
heard what was going on. It seems an obvious and powerful point but one
that the court-martial didn't find persuasive. Cases like that should be tried by the ICC in future to ensure that justice is seen to be done. It would have been interesting to see what a tribunal like that would have made of the evidence and the various defences put forward. I really hope that the defendants at the trial will be called to give evidence so that their accounts can be tested for the first time by cross-examination. Tess top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20
September: I answer David's
message. The release of people from custody after a court hearing is
called the Rule of Law, in other words accountability for our actions
before the courts. Briony
top of page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
These pages are under regular review, with new
links being frequently added. Please let us know if any really do not
work. Sometimes you may need to persevere, depending upon the quality
and speed of the connection. webmaster@Aspals.com
Copyright ©
Aspals Legal Pages 1997-
