War is hell – but there are standards

[daftandbarmy]

War is hell – but there are standards

War is hell, observed General William Sherman during the American civil war – but that does not mean there cannot be standards on the battlefield.

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 10:11PM GMT 15 Nov 2008

So when Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, 24, were captured by the enemy during the opening days of the Iraq War, they probably hoped for the best.

The soldiers were part of a bomb disposal team which had been sent to search a radio station near the town of al Zubayr, near Basra, but a map reading error lead them into a carefully planned ambush.

As they drove into the area, heavily armed black-dressed Fedayeen gunmen sprayed their vehicles with automatic fire and blasted them with rocket propelled grenades.
Two soldiers travelling in the rear of the two vehicle convoy escaped but SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp were trapped. The pair were immediately seized by the Fedayeen and beaten. Spr Allsopp had been seriously wounded but was still alive. Terrified and in the terrible pain, the two soldiers were driven to an Iraqi intelligence base.
Any civilised commander would have ordered that the prisoners wounds were dressed and that they should be treated humanely until hostilities were over – as directed by the Geneva Convention. Instead SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp were murdered in cold blood – gunned down while a baying mob of grinning Iraqis took sickening trophy pictures.

Such a horrific breach of the rules amounts to a war crime – an international offence – and that is why these two alleged killers must stand trial in Iraq. To allow these former agents of one of the most brutal regimes in modern history to be tried in Britain would be an insult to the memory of every British soldier who has died in the Iraq War.
The mere suggestion that the alleged killers might be tried in Britain is sickening enough but now The Sunday Telegraph has learnt their legal challenge is actually funded by the British taxpayer, a fact that will no doubt leave many of the public fuming with disbelief.

Once the alleged Iraqi killers were captured in the months that followed – the Royal Military Police followed the rule of law to the letter. A file of evidence was passed to the Central Criminal Court of Iraq in late 2005 after which the Iraq Higher Tribunal requested that the two alleged killers should be transferred to their jurisdiction and stand trial in the Iraqi courts. In the meantime the alleged killers were treated humanely inside a British detention centre, were allowed access to lawyers and members of their families.
The British government says that it has been given assurances by the Iraqis that the accused will received a fair trial and will be humanely treated whatever the outcome of the trial.

But Phil Shiner of Public Immunity Lawyers, claims that the Iraqi Higher Tribunal is a "politicised court" with a reputation for executing former members of Saddam's regime and as such it would be impossible for his clients to get a fair trial.

Mr Shiner is one of those lawyers who is happy to quote the European Convention of Human Rights when it comes to trying Britain's enemies. It is worth remembering that SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp also had human rights. They had the right to proper medical treatment and care and they also had the right not to be executed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/3464554/War-is-hell--but-there-are-standards.html

 

[jollyjacktar]

This story just confirms more and more what my in-laws tell my wife what the liberal left has done to Britain.  Rights for native born Britans appear to be erroded and attacked by the Government in the enthuastic zeal for PC standards.  There will be no justice for the victims and their famlies I fear.

 

[Drag]

This story just confirms more and more what my inlays tell my wife what the liberal left has done to Britain.  Rights for native born Britans appear to be er roded and attacked by the Government in the enthusiastic zeal for PC standards.  There will be no justice for the victims and their families I fear.

The UK is on a serious downturn IMO, and might not recover from it.  From the various stories I see on-line the PC is out of control, as are their entitlement programs.  About 20% of all housing is "Council Housing (Projects)" and their debt is at about the same level as the US, which has over 5x the GDP

 

[jollyjacktar]

The UK is on a serious downturn IMO, and might not recover from it.  From the various stories I see on-line the PC is out of control, as are their entitlement programs.  About 20% of all housing is "Council Housing (Projects)" and their debt is at about the same level as the US, which has over 5x the GDP

This, and other factors are what the in-laws say are becoming primary reasons for many native Britons to emigrate elsewhere.  In the Maritimes I have seen quite a few newcomers of middle age, middle income bracket come to my area these past couple of years.

Were they not Seniors, I think my in-laws would also be tempted too.  Sad to see a once great nation get to a state when it's backbone citizenry feels compelled to make a new start elsewhere.

At one time I would have jumped at the chance to live in the UK.  It is for me the mother country as I am first generation Canadian.  No longer though would I give it serious consideration given the opportunity.

 

[Stupor]

What should Britain do instead? Kill these men without a trial? Send them back to Iraq to be tortured and killed?

What they (allegedly) did was despicable, but they will be punished for it according to the rule of law. It may boil our blood to provide them with the legal rights they denied to SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp, but it's the only honourable thing to do. The point of giving these men a trial is not to be "PC", but to uphold the rule of law, which means that we must provide due process to all criminals, no matter how heinous their crimes. Our belief that there are standards even in war is what makes the killings of SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp so infuriating. It would be deeply ironic and an insult to the memories of SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp if we abandon that very belief in the quest to give them justice.

Edited to make paragraph flow better.

 

[jollyjacktar]

What should Britain do instead? Kill these men without a trial? Send them back to Iraq to be tortured and killed?

What they (allegedly) did was despicable, but they will be punished for it according to the rule of law. It may boil our blood to provide them with the legal rights they denied to SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp, but it's the only honourable thing to do. The point of giving these men a trial is not to be "PC", but to uphold the rule of law, which means that we must provide due process to all criminals, no matter how heinous their crimes. Our belief that there are standards even in war is what makes the killings of SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp so infuriating. It would be deeply ironic and an insult to the memories of SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp if we abandon that very belief in the quest to give them justice.

Edited to make paragraph flow better.

I am personally sick and f'n tired of all whining and moaning that goes on for criminal's Rights in today's society.  It is time more thought was given to victims of crime and their famlies. 

Either give these assholes a swift trial and stop buggering about at taxpayer's expense.  Or, as the crimes  occurred in Iraq, and these two are Iraqi nationals let Iraq try them.

 

[KingKikapu]

Everyone is entitled to due process.  Everyone.  The minute we go down that slippery slope is the minute I turn my back on the the judicial system.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Everyone is entitled to due process.  Everyone.  The minute we go down that slippery slope is the minute I turn my back on the the judicial system.

And?  Your point is?  Both suggestions I made cover due process.  They would receive due process of either the UK or Iraqi systems.  It should'nt take bloody years to complete.

As for your faith or lack thereof in the judicial system.  Well that's up to each individual, ain't it? 

I'm sick of the dice being loaded in the criminal's favour.

 

[KingKikapu]

I am personally sick and f'n tired of all whining and moaning that goes on for criminal's Rights in today's society.  It is time more thought was given to victims of crime and their famlies. 

Either give these assholes a swift trial and stop buggering about at taxpayer's expense.   Or, as the crimes  occurred in Iraq, and these two are Iraqi nationals let Iraq try them.

And

... Both suggestions I made cover due process.  They would receive due process of either the UK or Iraqi systems.  It should'nt take bloody years to complete.

As for your faith or lack thereof in the judicial system.  Well that's up to each individual, ain't it?

I'm sick of the dice being loaded in the criminal's favour.

No you didn't cover due process at all.  What you propose would be to supplant it.  Trials will take as long as they damn well need.  It's slow, deliberate work because there are lives hanging in the balance.  The families may think that's insensitive because their sons weren't given the same treatment, but you cannot unduly influence proceedings for anyone or anything.  That includes the victim families, taxpayers, and just plain reactionaries.  A trial is supposed to be about social justice, not appeasing the grief of loved ones.  Ever. 
Iraq would be even worse.  There is little hope of a fair proceeding there.  The corruption perception index for Iraq is the third lowest in the world, besting only Somalia and Myanmar.  That's quite the company they keep: a lawless nation run by warlords who answer to the highest bidder, and a junta that let 140,000 of its civilians die in the aftermath of a cyclone because of their refusal to allow foreign aid into the country.  Jesus.

They're probably guilty as hell, but the dice certainly aren't loaded in their favour.  Article 5 in both the third and fourth Geneva Conventions guarantee them the right to a free trial.  Nothing more.


You're right though about a lack of faith in the judicial system being up to the individual.  I am, however, dismayed that you would casually wave one of the fundamental tenets of our judicial system on the basis of moral relativism. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

And

No you didn't cover due process at all.  What you propose would be to supplant it.  Trials will take as long as they damn well need.  It's slow, deliberate work because there are lives hanging in the balance.  The families may think that's insensitive because their sons weren't given the same treatment, but you cannot unduly influence proceedings for anyone or anything.  That includes the victim families, taxpayers, and just plain reactionaries.  A trial is supposed to be about social justice, not appeasing the grief of loved ones.  Ever.   
Iraq would be even worse.  There is little hope of a fair proceeding there.  The corruption perception index for Iraq is the third lowest in the world, besting only Somalia and Myanmar.  That's quite the company they keep: a lawless nation run by warlords who answer to the highest bidder, and a junta that let 140,000 of its civilians die in the aftermath of a cyclone because of their refusal to allow foreign aid into the country.  Jesus.

They're probably guilty as hell, but the dice certainly aren't loaded in their favour.  Article 5 in both the third and fourth Geneva Conventions guarantee them the right to a free trial.  Nothing more.


You're right though about a lack of faith in the judicial system being up to the individual.  I am, however, dismayed that you would casually wave one of the fundamental tenets of our judicial system on the basis of moral relativism. 

BS!  They would indeed receive due process.  A trial would be held, guit or innocence determined and a decision rendered.  Yes, trials do take as long as they do.  But, getting to trial takes too long.  And Yes, the dice ARE stacked in the criminal's favour.  Burden of proof resides with the prosecution, not the defence.

As for the Iraqi legal system.  Are you a legal expert?  Judging by what is displayed on your profile, I expect not.  I know I sure as hell can't pass judgement on their system of law.

And No, I won't change my mind with regards to the victims of crime.  They get screwed by Both the criminal and the system more often than not. 

And, yes.  I do have experience in the LE side of our legal system.  And, No, thankfully I don't play in those fields anymore.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>A trial is supposed to be about social justice, not appeasing the grief of loved ones.

A trial is about law and process of law.  It does not seek justice as a goal - most courts have at least some processes and rules which militate against justice - and "social justice" as the term of art is understood has almost nothing to do with criminal courts.  Justice means people receive what they earn or deserve.

 

[Niteshade]

My opinion:

They are Iraqi nationals, who broke Iraqi Law, on Iraqi soil.

Um, why on earth are they not being tried in Iraq? If they are abused and treated poorly, well they made their bed, and they can sleep in it.

Why should it be anyone's job to ensure the legal system of another country meets our ideals. It is their country, and the accused were aware of the legal system in which they reside, at the time of the offense.

On another note....

Something is nagging at me, but I do not feel as though the brits have jurisdiction to prosecute. (someone want to tell me how they do?)

Nites

 

[PAT-Platoon]

What should Britain do instead? Kill these men without a trial? Send them back to Iraq to be tortured and killed?

What they (allegedly) did was despicable, but they will be punished for it according to the rule of law. It may boil our blood to provide them with the legal rights they denied to SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp, but it's the only honourable thing to do. The point of giving these men a trial is not to be "PC", but to uphold the rule of law, which means that we must provide due process to all criminals, no matter how heinous their crimes. Our belief that there are standards even in war is what makes the killings of SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp so infuriating. It would be deeply ironic and an insult to the memories of SSgt Cullingworth and Spr Allsopp if we abandon that very belief in the quest to give them justice.

Edited to make paragraph flow better.

Amazing post. Could not have said it better myself, kudos goes to you on a well written and thought out post.

-C/D

 

[KingKikapu]

They are Iraqi nationals, who broke Iraqi Law, on Iraqi soil.

Very true.  They also broke international law to which Iraq is a signatory.  Geneva and Huage both have requirements for the right to a fair trial.  My guess is that is probably why they took Milosovich out of country for his trial as well.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Fair trial.  Is the problem that the Iraqi process of law is barbaric, or that the accused face execution as a possible outcome?

 

[KingKikapu]

Fair trial.  Is the problem that the Iraqi process of law is barbaric, or that the accused face execution as a possible outcome?

The former.  I have no quarrel with the latter: the process is what matters.  A country like Singapore has extremely stiff penalties for a myriad of crimes, but its corruption index is better than Canada's, leading me to believe a fair trial is in all likelihood very possible there.  I personally don't think the same can be said currently in Iraq.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So what about the Iraqi trial process is barbaric?

I can think of some examples of barbarism: any trial process in which the accused must prove innocence; any trial process which subverts the "whole" in "truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

 

[daftandbarmy]

So what about the Iraqi trial process is barbaric?

I can think of some examples of barbarism: any trial process in which the accused must prove innocence; any trial process which subverts the "whole" in "truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

So you're against the Continental system of justice, which requires the defendant to prove innocence, as practised by France and many other countries?

 

[Monsoon]

So you're against the Continental system of justice, which requires the defendant to prove innocence, as practised by France and many other countries?

Well, they don't have to prove innocence the same way the prosection has to prove guilt here, it's just that their criminal system functions the same way as our civil system - guilt or innocence is based on the whole balance of evidence. Neither outcome is "assumed".

 

[PAT-Platoon]

Fair trial.  Is the problem that the Iraqi process of law is barbaric, or that the accused face execution as a possible outcome?

I agree with KingKikapu here, however I do also stray a bit from him in one regards. I think the problem is both. As a nation that prohibits capital punishment, and does not practice it, I believe it is hypocritical to say that a nation can refuse to do it based on moral grounds, while at the same time turning a blind eye around the world.

One or the other. I am also against capital punishment in all forms, not just those practiced by our government. As such, I believe it is a fundamental right not to have capital punishment forced upon oneself. With that in mind, a nation that abhors capital punishment also has the responsibility to prevent it to the best of their abilities.

A country like Singapore has extremely stiff penalties for a myriad of crimes, but its corruption index is better than Canada's, leading me to believe a fair trial is in all likelihood very possible there.  I personally don't think the same can be said currently in Iraq.

I would argue that in the base definition of a fair trial, capital punishment as a tool is inherently wrong. As such, any nation that practices capital punishment, and wherein a trial could lead to the use of that tool, is inherently unfair.

-C/D