| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| British general faces war charge |
| 2005-12-04 |
| A British general is facing possible criminal charges over one of the most controversial incidents of the Iraq war, The Sunday Times has learnt. The allegations levelled against Major-General Peter Wall relate to alleged attempts by senior officers to prevent an investigation into the deaths of a British tank commander and an unarmed Iraqi civilian. The death of Sergeant Steven Roberts at al-Zubair in the early hours of March 24, 2003, led to widespread public outrage after the Ministry of Defence confirmed he had no body armour. In a taped message, recorded the evening before he died and released by his widow Samantha, Roberts described the lack of equipment as a âjokeâ. It only emerged later that a civilian had died in the same incident. Wall, who is deputy chief of joint operations, is by far the most senior officer to have been implicated in a case involving alleged wrongdoing by British troops. He was commander of 1 (UK) Armoured Division at the time of the alleged offence. His actions were investigated after Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, told Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary, that the evidence suggested âa concerted attempt by the chain of command to influence and prevent an investigationâ. Goldsmith then removed the case from the armyâs control and ordered that any charges be heard by a civilian court. As a result of a Metropolitan police investigation, two soldiers from 2nd Royal Tank Regiment face possible murder charges over the death of Zahir Zabti Zaher, the unarmed Iraqi civilian. Another soldier from the same regiment faces a possible manslaughter charge over the death of Roberts. Wall faces possible charges relating to the alleged attempt to prevent the investigation. The allegations against Wall, one of the armyâs most senior commanders, and other serious claims made by an army whistleblower, will raise doubts over its ability to police its soldiersâ conduct in Iraq. If Wall is charged, the armyâs role as a peacekeeping force may be undermined, with soldiers under fire fearing legal scrutiny for every action they take. The Ministry of Defence issued a statement on Wallâs behalf. In it the general said: âIt is inappropriate for me to comment on the case as it is still under investigation, but I am confident I acted in accordance with the interests of justice and appropriate care for the soldiers under my command.â The whistleblower, who first informed The Sunday Times of Wallâs alleged involvement, said the army Special Investigation Branch (SIB) team that was sent to the scene of the killings realised immediately there were grounds for a criminal investigation. However, they were told by a senior SIB officer not to pursue the soldiers as possible suspects and to treat them simply as witnesses, a move that seriously hampered subsequent investigations into the killings. The lead SIB investigator, a warrant officer, wanted to interview the soldiers under caution, but he was ordered by the senior SIB officer to take witness statements and compile a report later, the source alleges. The senior officers who decided the investigation should not go ahead âvery nearly succeeded in making any subsequent investigation impossible due to the loss of primary evidence,â the source said. The MoD declined to comment but senior defence officials said Wall had been faced with two conflicting pieces of legal advice and âextremely correctly, sought policy advice and further legal advice about the caseâ. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #1 Crap like this is what happens when you do like the democrats wanted the US to do: treat a war like a police matter. You cannot fight a war if there are contingency lawyers standing behind each soldier, eagerly awaiting some mistake over which they can sue. There is also an intentional effort to *confuse* this nanny-behavior will legitimate prosecutions of truly criminal behavior. Being a soldier does not give license to torture, murder, abuse prisoners or otherwise violate the UCMJ. Plenty of soldiers in a war theater are regularly disciplined or even sent to prison for such offenses. And rightly so. The difference between the two is foresight vs. hindsight. In the US, now, soldiers are starting to be encouraged to use their judgement as to when to use force in a questionable situation. Iraq has generally become too peaceful to continue with a "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude. If the soldier has doubts as to whether to "take the shot", it isn't a bad idea to ask his superior, assuming no imminent risk, otherwise. This is foresight. Having someone there who will back your play, either way. You have reached a point where it is actually better to *not* kill somebody who deserves it, rather than to accidently kill someone who doesn't. More peace than war. Hindsight is leaving the soldier in a state where he must solely rely on his own judgement, without having good advice, but then possibly to face punishment because someone not there decides, after the fact, that he did something wrong. Even in the civilian world, in a real police matter, you see how screwed up it can become. Let us say some naked, drug-crazed individual is walking down the street in a suburb, randomly firing a shotgun. The police gun him down, then are attacked for having used "excessive force", whiners even complaining that they should have used non-lethal means. "Couldn't you have just arrested him without hurting him? (snivel) He was a good boy and they murdered him!" The police have to contend with this crap all the time. However, this is not what soldiers should have to put up with. It demoralizes them, and makes them hesitate in dangerous situations. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-12-04 09:05 |