| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Three British soldiers to face 'war crimes' trial |
| 2005-07-20 |
| A disturbing development. Three British servicemen are to stand trial under international war crimes legislation for alleged inhuman treatment of detainees in Iraq, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, announced last night. The three soldiers were among 11 charged yesterday in relation to the treatment of two Iraqi civilians who died in British custody in separate incidents in 2003. It comes less than a week after six former chiefs of defence staff claimed that the handling of prosecutions in Iraq was motivated by political correctness. Col Jorge Mendonca after collecting his DSO last year All the soldiers, including those charged under the International Criminal Court Act, will be tried by courts martial in Britain rather than in The Hague. The most senior serviceman concerned is the former commander of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, Col Jorge Mendonca, who is accused of negligence of duty. He is highly decorated, with awards including the Distinguished Service Order. Two Intelligence Corp interrogators who investigated one of the incidents have also been charged with negligence. Seven soldiers, including Col Mendonca, 41, will stand trial over incidents surrounding the death of Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old hotel receptionist arrested in Basra in September 2003. He was taken to British Army headquarters where he died the following day. A post mortem examination found strangulation marks, a broken nose and three broken ribs. Cpl Donald Payne, 34, Lance Clp Wayne Crowcroft, 21, and Pte Darren Fallan, 22, all of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, have been charged with inhuman treatment under the International Criminal Court Act, as well as with perverting the course of justice. Cpl Payne is also accused of the manslaughter of Mr Mousa. Three others charged in relation to Mr Mousa's case are Sgt Kelvin Stacey, 28, also of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, accused of assault; and Warrant Officer Mark Davies, 36, and Maj Michael Peebles, 34, both of the Intelligence Corp, are charged with negligently performing a duty. The remaining four soldiers have been charged with the manslaughter of Ahmed Kareem in Basra in May 2003. Mr Kareem was one of four suspected looters who were allegedly punched and kicked before being forced into a canal. Mr Kareem, who could not swim, drowned. Sgt Carle Selman, 38, now with the Scots Guards, Guardsman Martin McGing, 21, of the Irish Guards, and Guardsman Joseph McCleary, 23, also of the Irish Guards, have all been charged with manslaughter. A fourth guardsman, a 21-year-old lance corporal, has not been named because he has not been informed of the manslaughter charge against him. The three charges of inhuman treatment are the first to be brought against British servicemen under international war crimes legislation, which resulted from Britain backing the establishment of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The trials would only have been held in The Hague, however, if Britain had been unable or unwilling to investigate the allegations itself. America refused to sign the treaty establishing the court because it did not want its soldiers to be liable to prosecution. A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office said that the war crimes legislation had been used because of the gravity of the alleged offences. The charges were announced in the House of Commons. The former chiefs of staff, speaking in a House of Lords debate last week, accused politicians, lawyers, the Ministry of Defence and the military police of ignoring the realities of fighting. The most recently retired, Admiral Lord Boyce, said that the Armed Forces were under "legal siege". "They are being pushed by people not schooled in operations but only in political correctness," he said. They were particularly concerned about Col Mendonca, who was 13 miles from the incident. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #11 The attitudes in Allied countries were largely the same before WWII as they are now. Last time our collective foolishness cost the world sixty million lives, left half of Europe under the iron boot of the communists for half a century, and ushered in the first use of nuclear weapons in war. Before the present conflict ends I fully expect our current collective foolishness to earn us even more serious consequences. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-07-20 20:57 |
| #10 The Allies would have lost World War II if our attitudes were the same then as they are now. |
| Posted by: Educated 2005-07-20 15:47 |
| #9 Why does it take years for Saddam and his henchman to be brought up on trial, but we can get our guys in the docket in a matter of months? |
| Posted by: WhiteCollarRedneck 2005-07-20 15:42 |
| #8 Guilty or no, I regret any such submission to a third-party internationalist judical system. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-07-20 13:17 |
| #7 AP, but the ACLU lawyer will point out that the Z-man is not covered by the Geneva or Hague Conventions and therefore not subject to the ICC, as he is not a legitimate representative or agent of a recongized government. That's just before the ACLU files papers demanding Gitmo detainees be treated in accordence with the Conventions. Heh. |
| Posted by: Glinemble Ulaviger5996 2005-07-20 12:46 |
| #6 Does the ICC have some kind of warrant out for Zarq and Co for their evil deeds? I mean, equal time and all that...... We must be fair and balanced. Zarq's activities are just a criminal matter, right? |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-07-20 11:17 |
| #5 I'm all for offering asylum. One question. The article states they were civilians, but were they really? If they were firing upon the Brits, and/or held info on the "insurgents", they could be unlawful enemy combatants. Of course, I'm using U.S. definitions for this, but it begs the question...Were these "civilians" truly civilians or just more jihadis dressed up to blend in? And, oh yeah, I expect that Zarq and his boyz will be brought up on charges too? Including beheading real civilians? |
| Posted by: BA 2005-07-20 11:01 |
| #4 I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the British government is going along with this. PM Blair has been a good ally in the conventional wars, but he's still Labour. Though I have to disagree with: They were particularly concerned about Col Mendonca, who was 13 miles from the incident. I don't know anything other than what's in this article, but if the Colonel is in the direct chain of command, and if this is a result of orders he gave, and a bunch of other ifs (like if the whole thing is not a crock), then it would make sense to go after him, too. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-07-20 10:50 |
| #3 Just another good reason for the U.S. not to join the World Court. Can you imagine how many "trials" there would have been against Americans? I really feel for those soldiers, maybe we should offer them asylum? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-07-20 10:28 |
| #2 We should offer them political asylum and US citizenship pronto. If ever there were an excuse for such a thing as a grant of political asylum, this is it. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-07-20 10:25 |
| #1 The Beeb are wanking themselves into a frenzy over this. Hold all other news i.e. arrests in Pakistan. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2005-07-20 10:23 |