It should be Blair in court ........

[gasbanni]

Fight for your country...........

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ry-Iraq-years-later-smeared-war-criminal.html


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6689105/A-heartless-coward-wrongly-branded-murderer.html

Why would you ?

 

[conny]

There was a time when any 'alleged crime' was dealt with by the military, be it Army, Navy or Air Force.
How has it come down to civilian solicitors being able to allege 'mistreatment' on a battlefield from behind a big desk with a comfy chair?
If a military court found someone guilty of a crime they have/had a number of options to take and in serious cases a legal duty to discharge the person and allow them to be prosecuted in civilian courts.
This Shiner bloke, and all others like him who try to make easy money of the backs of or troops, should be barred from practice and made to pay back the costs of these time wasting enquiries. People join the military to defend not just British lives but the lives of people in other countries that want/need/request our help. Our military should be able to do their duty without fear of prosecution at some time in the distant future.

 

[JohnD]

Our military should be able to do their duty without fear of prosecution at some time in the distant future.

Perhaps they will take the line that they were "only obeying orders"

 

[transam]

Perhaps they will take the line that they were "only obeying orders"

That's what my grandad said or words to that affect he still ended up in clink

 

[jasonzyx]

military should be able to do their duty without fear of prosecution at some time in the distant future.

Therein lies the problem. If it applies to one country's military, it must apply to all.
Individuals within the military are just as capable of war crimes as the leaders.

That kind of philosophy could extend to the Police also, and the legal profession, etc.

 

[conny]

So do you think, Jason, that if you were in the forces, (lets leave the police out of this one), there was a chance that at some time in the future you could face spurious charges that you would feel confident in discharging your duty as you had been highly trained to do when you enlisted?

Bear in mind a seconds hesitation on a battle field, to decide should you take the risk of future prosecution, could cost you and/or your colleagues lives.
If you know you have done to the best of your ability what you were asked to do then you should not have to fear allegations at some future date by some 'blame chasing pen pusher' in a far away office, who's closest contact with danger is running across a busy road to hail a taxi.

 

[jasonzyx]

So do you think, Jason, that if you were in the forces, (lets leave the police out of this one), there was a chance that at some time in the future you could face spurious charges that you would feel confident in discharging your duty as you had been highly trained to do when you enlisted?

Bear in mind a seconds hesitation on a battle field, to decide should you take the risk of future prosecution, could cost you and/or your colleagues lives.
If you know you have done to the best of your ability what you were asked to do then you should not have to fear allegations at some future date by some 'blame chasing pen pusher' in a far away office, who's closest contact with danger is running across a busy road to hail a taxi.

I am simply referring to "military" in general. If one country's military should be exempt from investigation, then it should apply to all. Then the Geneva Convention etc, would be pointless.
Bear in mind that a war crime is rarely committed in battlefield situations. I very much doubt if anyone would be found guilty of a war crime for a battlefield 'accident'.

The article was not referring to battlefield incidents, but to disappearances of captured soldiers or civilians.

 

[conny]

It was also referring to mis-treatment of prisoners at the cessation of the battle. One of the alleged mis-treatments was because he didn't give a prisoner a drink of water. His response was that they only had a small limited amount of water and he did not know if it would be enough for his men if they should encounter a clash with the rebels on their return journey.
This country has one of the highest skilled military in the world and do not just beat the hell out of someone or kill them out of hand. Other countries are not so skilled and can sometimes take a different approach to prisoners. These leeches, sorry lawyers, are even trying to charge soldiers who served in Ireland in the 70's and 80's during the conflicts. They were fighting an 'army' who didn't have the guts to wear a uniform or show their faces when they attacked our troops with home made petrol bombs and various other 'non-military type' weapons, yet they expected our troops not to do their job.

 

[jasonzyx]

Sorry, conny, I see no reason to, and I have no wish to discuss a highly emotively charged article in the DM. The article was discussing investigations only, and reporting that one individual felt like he was on trial, albeit, in a highly emotively charged fashion. That was not the case. He was a witness in an investigation.

I was talking generally about rules which if applied to one country's military, must apply to all.
There is no reason or excuse not to hold investigations into potential war crimes, irrespective of who's military is involved.
To argue that one's military is a professional, highly motivated military is like arguing that a person (let's say a judge) could not be guilty of a crime because of the professional standing of the judiciary.
If those investigations identify potential war crimes, those involved ought to face whatever courts are required.

 

[pete50]

"It should be Blair in court" LOL I think it's time that everyone realised that poloticians and ex politicians are, clearly, above the lawin this country.

 

[SirGalahad]

It happens in the NHS, lawyers after a quick payday.

 

[darrington]

Charles Lynton Blair has already been in court in the early 80's. Blair was fined £500 for soliciting in a toilet, he was also a "cross dresser named "Miranda"!
That scumbag should be strung up for the blood he has on his hands, and for the blatant misinformation he spewed out.
There is also the "murder" of Dr. David Kelly, which many believe was a Blair government planned murder, hence the dossiers on it are to be kept "secret" for 70 YEARS!!
Many people saw, and always will see liar Tony Blair as the villain in this whole debacle, not Saddam Hussein and the war in Iraq.
Tony Blair couldn't wait to back up his "mate", President George Bush, so he LIED to the country about weapons of mass destruction, went to war illegaly, causing the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people, including many of our armed forces.
That thing Blair has blood all over him, he should have been lynched years ago!!

 

[jasonzyx]

Conny, I would like to add that the 'risk' of investigations, and thus the accountability, does not reduce the professionalism of a military. I would argue that it enhances and encourages the professionalism of that military.

 

[Vinty]

Blair is a fully paid up member of the establishment which means he will never face justice.
The arrogant Bastard knows he is untouchable, the Chilcot inquiry found that he lied to get his war in Iraq yet he is still swanning around and treated like a statesman by fellow members of the establishment.
Blair is the guy who gave the IRA letters "of comfort ' which gave its members immunity from prosecution.
A couple of years ago àn IRA terrorist called John Downey appeared at the Old Bailey charged with the Hyde park bombing.
When's Downey's lawyer produced one of Blair's letters of immunity the trial was stopped and Downey walked free.
Blair bent over backwards to get a deal with the IRA just so that he could claim to have solved the "Irish Problem".

 

[Vinty]

Conny, I would like to add that the 'risk' of investigations, and thus the accountability, does not reduce the professionalism of a military. I would argue that it enhances and encourages the professionalism of that military.

What you are saying is correct if the intention of these investigations is to find the truth rather than a witch-hunt by greedy lawyers and litigants motivated by hatred and greed.