afraid british troops we be seena s war criminals
brian | 07.11.2002 06:13
the UK prefer the view we are not going to commit war crimes,we are going to prevent them
(if you invade a country that has not attacked you, kill its citizens and topple its ruler....what are you?)
(if you invade a country that has not attacked you, kill its citizens and topple its ruler....what are you?)
The Government is concerned that British servicemen and women involved in any war against Iraq could find themselves facing action from the International Criminal Court, defence sources said yesterday.
This week's attack, by a CIA Predator drone, on a car containing al-Qa'eda terrorists in Yemen has served only to intensify concerns within the Cabinet, which extend to Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon, Defence Secretary. They are both lawyers by training, as is Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary, another key player in the debate. "Lawyer Blair and lawyer Hoon are really worried about this now," one defence source said.
Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General, and Harriet Harman, Solicitor General, have warned the Government that if it attacked Iraq without the backing of a UN Resolution action then it could find itself hauled before the ICC.
But defence sources said there was just as much concern over the possibility that even with a resolution in place individual servicemen might find themselves subject to action.
One suggested that if a British reconnaissance aircraft passed information to a US ground attack aircraft that subsequently attacked civilians, the British servicemen might be held responsible.
They would be subject to the ICC, although the pilot of the US aircraft would not, since America did not recognise the court.
Despite extensive efforts by the British Government and the Foreign Office in particular, the US administration is opposed to any recognition of the ICC.
Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of Defence Staff, who expressed concerns over the Government's decision to sign up to the ICC, also warned against the US willingness to act like "a 21st century high-tech posse".
The attack in Yemen, with the CIA apparently acting as judge, jury and executioner, was typical of the type of activity over which Admiral Boyce expressed concern, defence sources said. He advocated drawing "red lines" beyond which British troops operating alongside US forces would not go.
He also warned ministers that under the ICC commanders might face a choice between being accused of war crimes or changing rules of engagement to the point where the enemy could be certain of striking first.
The MoD said that any British serviceman or women involved in any alleged offence brought before the ICC would have to be tried in Britain and would therefore be subject to the normal laws of the land.
"We obviously agree to share information and intelligence with the Americans," a spokesman said. "We don't necessarily have any control over how it is used.
"Nor does it follow that because US servicemen are not subject to the ICC they are allowed to go out and act with impunity. Any US serviceman accused of war crimes would be liable to prosecution in the US courts."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/06/nirq06.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/11/06/ixnewstop.html
This week's attack, by a CIA Predator drone, on a car containing al-Qa'eda terrorists in Yemen has served only to intensify concerns within the Cabinet, which extend to Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon, Defence Secretary. They are both lawyers by training, as is Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary, another key player in the debate. "Lawyer Blair and lawyer Hoon are really worried about this now," one defence source said.
Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General, and Harriet Harman, Solicitor General, have warned the Government that if it attacked Iraq without the backing of a UN Resolution action then it could find itself hauled before the ICC.
But defence sources said there was just as much concern over the possibility that even with a resolution in place individual servicemen might find themselves subject to action.
One suggested that if a British reconnaissance aircraft passed information to a US ground attack aircraft that subsequently attacked civilians, the British servicemen might be held responsible.
They would be subject to the ICC, although the pilot of the US aircraft would not, since America did not recognise the court.
Despite extensive efforts by the British Government and the Foreign Office in particular, the US administration is opposed to any recognition of the ICC.
Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of Defence Staff, who expressed concerns over the Government's decision to sign up to the ICC, also warned against the US willingness to act like "a 21st century high-tech posse".
The attack in Yemen, with the CIA apparently acting as judge, jury and executioner, was typical of the type of activity over which Admiral Boyce expressed concern, defence sources said. He advocated drawing "red lines" beyond which British troops operating alongside US forces would not go.
He also warned ministers that under the ICC commanders might face a choice between being accused of war crimes or changing rules of engagement to the point where the enemy could be certain of striking first.
The MoD said that any British serviceman or women involved in any alleged offence brought before the ICC would have to be tried in Britain and would therefore be subject to the normal laws of the land.
"We obviously agree to share information and intelligence with the Americans," a spokesman said. "We don't necessarily have any control over how it is used.
"Nor does it follow that because US servicemen are not subject to the ICC they are allowed to go out and act with impunity. Any US serviceman accused of war crimes would be liable to prosecution in the US courts."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/06/nirq06.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/11/06/ixnewstop.html
brian
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Justice?
07.11.2002 10:14
Jingo
above the law
07.11.2002 11:51
Remember, only one of the six men killed in Yemen was considered the target, the other five had the misfortune to be murdered as a consequence of association.
Well this kind of association works both ways. Any illegal activity on the behalf of amerika maybe ignored sucessfully by the us of a on the grounds that they have not signed up to nor recognize the courts dealing with this level of criminal activity. The uk, however does not have that luxury. Any assistence rendered to a criminal activity is described as aiding and abetting and is punishable on the same scale as the original act.
I beleive that we, as citizens of earth, have the right to take measures that safe guard our future and the systems that protect us from injustice. Precisly what measures we have available to us is the crucial question, but I would recomend any form of non-violent direct action against any and all individuals and organisations involved, along with any and all acts of sabotage against the things that these people use.
I realise that in the eyes of the criminals in government that I have virtually signed my own death certificate, but then they were going to kill me (slowly, invisibly, envionmentally, spiritually) anyway!
Be your own leader.
Be your own judge.
Oh and god told me [specifically] that I could be my own law, so I hereby convict every government in the world ever of crimes against humanity.
The sentence is to be decided soon.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com