Crosswords1 min ago
Who Needs Enemies, When We Have Human Rights Lawyers?
41 Answers
http://
/// The lawyers are believed to have Pashtun-speaking teams throughout Afghanistan asking locals if they were ever mistreated by the British. ///
/// The law firms took on the cases and mounted legal claims against the Ministry of Defence. Other locals then heard by word of mouth who to contact if they had a grievance with the British. ///
/// Suspected insurgents are also able to approach UK teams still in the country and lodge complaints of ill treatment. ///
/// Suspected insurgents are also able to approach UK teams still in the country and lodge complaints of ill treatment. ///
And it is not just Afghanistan, look how much this kind of thing cost us in Iraq?
/// Since 2003, the MoD has spent £100million on Iraq-related investigations and compensation, with £44million more earmarked for ongoing claims from Iraqis up to 2019. ///
/// The Al-Sweady public inquiry cost £31million and lasted five years but exonerated British troops of claims they went on a torture and killing spree following a 2004 battle in southern Iraq. ///
/// The lawyers are believed to have Pashtun-speaking teams throughout Afghanistan asking locals if they were ever mistreated by the British. ///
/// The law firms took on the cases and mounted legal claims against the Ministry of Defence. Other locals then heard by word of mouth who to contact if they had a grievance with the British. ///
/// Suspected insurgents are also able to approach UK teams still in the country and lodge complaints of ill treatment. ///
/// Suspected insurgents are also able to approach UK teams still in the country and lodge complaints of ill treatment. ///
And it is not just Afghanistan, look how much this kind of thing cost us in Iraq?
/// Since 2003, the MoD has spent £100million on Iraq-related investigations and compensation, with £44million more earmarked for ongoing claims from Iraqis up to 2019. ///
/// The Al-Sweady public inquiry cost £31million and lasted five years but exonerated British troops of claims they went on a torture and killing spree following a 2004 battle in southern Iraq. ///
Answers
What has the Canadian interpretati
12:34 Sat 24th Oct 2015
They have to prove mistreatment happened.
The best way to avoid these costly payouts is to not do the mistreatment in the first place.
We have professional soldiers, and they should behave professionally at all times. Otherwise these large amounts of compensation will continue to have to be paid.
Blaming the lawyers is missing the point.
The best way to avoid these costly payouts is to not do the mistreatment in the first place.
We have professional soldiers, and they should behave professionally at all times. Otherwise these large amounts of compensation will continue to have to be paid.
Blaming the lawyers is missing the point.
The costs look ridiculous; but if one wishes to be part of a moral society then claims need to be checked to ensure we are not simply allowing abuse to others. And if a failure to act properly is identified, what mitigating circumstances existed. Someone has to do the job. The costs still look extortionate though.
RETRO COP the Canadians disagree. They said,
'The Government of Canada’s position is that those parts of the Geneva Conventions and additional Protocols related to Prisoners of War are reflective of customary international law, and will apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, even if they do not apply as a matter of treaty law.
“Common Article 3, so called because it appears in Geneva Conventions I – IV, provides the minimum standard of care, stating: In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions…(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention…shall in all circumstances be treated humanely… The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the provisions of the present Convention."'
'The Government of Canada’s position is that those parts of the Geneva Conventions and additional Protocols related to Prisoners of War are reflective of customary international law, and will apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, even if they do not apply as a matter of treaty law.
“Common Article 3, so called because it appears in Geneva Conventions I – IV, provides the minimum standard of care, stating: In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions…(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention…shall in all circumstances be treated humanely… The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the provisions of the present Convention."'
What has the Canadian interpretation got to do with it. We are talking British Military and Civil police being tasked to investigate British troops.
//each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions…(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention…shall in all circumstances be treated humanely//…
According to that it applies to the Taliban and you think they actually comply with that. Ask any returning British Troops what the Taliban do with their wounded prisoners.
Same armchair warriors here criticise a situation they know nothing about in the safety of their armchair yet you wish them to go into a conflict with their hands tied behind their backs. Fight fire with fire.Taliban do not play by the rules so if you have to beat them then Play Dirty.
We know how many soldiers have been killed or mutilated by IED's. Do you stop to think how many innocent Afgani children herding goats or Women going to work in the fields get blown to hell as well. Do you think the Taliban care about that. Don't try to convince me that the Geneva Convention applies to this bunch of terrorists.
//each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions…(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention…shall in all circumstances be treated humanely//…
According to that it applies to the Taliban and you think they actually comply with that. Ask any returning British Troops what the Taliban do with their wounded prisoners.
Same armchair warriors here criticise a situation they know nothing about in the safety of their armchair yet you wish them to go into a conflict with their hands tied behind their backs. Fight fire with fire.Taliban do not play by the rules so if you have to beat them then Play Dirty.
We know how many soldiers have been killed or mutilated by IED's. Do you stop to think how many innocent Afgani children herding goats or Women going to work in the fields get blown to hell as well. Do you think the Taliban care about that. Don't try to convince me that the Geneva Convention applies to this bunch of terrorists.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.