Saturday, 12 April 2008

Soldiers Human Rights -Tragic Oxymoron!

I saw this report on the BBC wesbite, here's the original

As I read through it I found myself makings these following comments - they are in italics.

This is what I think.

What do you think? Lets be honest here.

Human rights 'apply to UK troops'

(bbc headline!)

Human rights laws can be applied to British troops even in combat, a High Court judge has ruled

The landmark judgement came in a test case relating to the death of Scottish soldier Pte Jason Smith in Iraq.

Mr Justice Collins said sending soldiers into action without proper kit could breach human rights. Ministers are appealing against the ruling.

What about the human rights of those caught in the crossfire?

What kind of kit would the court estimate would be 'poper' for a woman with three children, and two grandparents caught in the crossfire?

Whose responsibility is it to provide that kit?

The court also ruled families of those killed in conflict should get legal aid and access to military documents.


The judgement came during a request for military inquest guidelines in the case of Pte Smith, 32, from Hawick, in the Scottish Borders, who died of heatstroke in Iraq in 2003.

Legal defeat

Moral Victory?

Phyrric Victory!

Lawyers for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had argued it was impossible to give soldiers in combat situations the benefits of the Human Rights Act.

But Mr Justice Collins said that although a duty of care could not be expected in combat, troops did not lose all protection.

So give them proper kit? Still getting shot at! And shooting back! Still murder! Still illegal!

It's an illegal war of aggression!


For example, sending a soldier out on patrol with defective equipment might be a breach of Article 2 of the Human Rights Act - the right to life, which in the event of death requires an independent inquiry.

Many believe the judgement will make it easier for the families of those injured or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to claim for compensation.

Is it really that hard?

The decision was a legal defeat for Defence Secretary Des Browne who also had his attempt to ban coroners from using critical phrases such as "serious failure" rejected.

It is! You would sell your mothers soul for whateva!

Jocelyn Cockburn, the solicitor for Pte Smith's family, said the ruling meant British soldiers sent abroad would "have the same human rights as any other British citizens and must be properly equipped when sent into battle".

Hmmmmmmmm …. aren't human rights applicable to ALL nationalities, equally and without favour?



Catherine Smith, Pte Smith's mother, welcomed the decision and said she hoped other families would now not have to struggle in the same way she did to find out how their loved ones died.

"It was questions upon questions that we couldn't get - we couldn't get any information at all. And I think that's wrong. We should've had disclosure."

She's right, of course. And braver , so much more committed to just cause than many in parliament, in that she seeks to face down the Government and the MOD! She is their equal in every way. Each of us is.

'Common sense'

Diane Dernie, the mother of L/Bombadier Ben Parkinson, from Yorkshire, who was injured in an explosion in Afghanistan last year, told the BBC the decision was "absolute common sense".

Soldiers Human Rights -Tragic Oxymoron!

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said it was now clear it was "not just the military covenant that protects our forces all over the world".

"Their fundamental right to dignity and fair treatment must be safeguarded as well."

As well as what, might I ask?

Their right to murder people?

Their right to follow illegal orders?

Their right to NOT follow illegal orders?

... or is that a duty, under the Law?

But shadow(y) defence(sive) secretary Liam Fox said it should not have taken a court decision for ministers to realise they had "a responsibility and a moral obligation" to ensure troops were the "best trained and best equipped in the world".

Human Rights? 'Best' trained killers? 'Best' weapons of mass destruction? This is insane!

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey described the ruling as a "shattering ruling for Des Browne" and said he hoped it would "wake the government up" to equipment shortages.

I must be at the wrong meeting!

The government has a moral obligation to equip those it sends into battle on our behalf properly
Matt Hennessy, London Send us your comments

Those in government, being of able body, and unmarried have a moral obligation to equip themselves appropriately and go fight the fuckin' wars themselves.

However, Mr Browne told the BBC his department had come "a long way" in response to "the changing environment both in Iraq and Afghanistan" regarding equipment.

So That's all right then! You guys are on it! Yay! LMAO!

"So this is criticism which is dated criticism from a different time. It is not applicable to the troops that are presently deployed."

Well that's nice to hear! Although ithe courts decision is a precedent! Well, OK then, possibly….

He confirmed the MoD would be appealing against the ruling that sending British soldiers into battle with defective equipment could breach human rights.

You What? Appeal? Didn't you hear the man? You really want to send young men to me maimed, traumatised, even to their deaths, men you have asked to do your dirty work for you?

You Absolute Tosser! And all who like you see fit to use legal instruments applied to mitigate murder, as opposed to banning it outright. Ist that it?

On the judge's rejection of the government's bid to stop coroners using critical language, the MoD said it had never attempted to prevent coroners from "undertaking independent investigations and making their findings public".

You quibble over wording when peoples lives are destroyed by decision that you make and their consequences.

Damn! I got taken in again, for a moment I had lost the sight of all the civilians who are the majority of casualties, across all three spectra - psychological trauma, maiming, death not to mention the collapse of society, for a moment I was really only concerned about the soldiers human rights.

Just stop the bloody war and start to make reparations, dude! It's our money. We WANT YOU TO DO THIS!

Stop the war.

....and... geuss what?

Brownie Boy

....... is NOT

..... really

..... listening!

So hit him, and all the civilian and corporate war makers where it hurts - in the pocket, to do this we need to build communities everywhere, that is talk to each other and break the spell of the denial- we all need to learn to grow food, and start to withold our taxes that we who do pay taxes, pay to central government.....and this is legaly sound and cannot be prosecuted under any law because it is merely upholding the Law, both National and is do-able..... and if done....... then very soon after it will bring the wars to a close.

Then it won't matter if they don't listen. They will stand trial.

People must be mature ebough to accept the responsibility of taking any and all possible legal action that leads to stopping thes wars dead in their tracks.

Be the Law!

It's about all humans rightful expectation that peace should prevail, that greed be curbed and that wars shoudl stop. Now. Just say No!

Kindest regards


Do what you love, it's your gift to universe

Bookmark and Share


DAVE BONES said...

Everyone in uniform should note- The government are appealing against the human rights of their own soldiers. If I was in that situation i'd have a good hard think who the enemy was.

DAVE BONES said...

Yes indeed. Everyone in uniform should now be aware that the government are APPEALING AGAINST being responsible for servicemens human rights.

I got you linked on my blog now, I will pop by..