Today I was listening to BBC Radio 2 and a debate came on: it turns out Iraqi civialians are looking to sue British soldiers (I don’t know if they want to sue Americans- its a British radio station). The reasoning is that because civilians have been killed after Bush declared the war ended and families are convinced those killed were not acting in a manner that could warrent the troops actions they should have the options of taking the soldiers to court.
Now I can’t make my mind up on this
(this is where some of you say “that’s cos you’re a stinking liberal, suck my Hummers exhaust!”. You know who you are) but this can be seen both ways. The British military police investigate every round fired- soldiers make out a ‘shot report’ which is then passed on to a CO and the MPs. It is then investigated and the soldier in question is repremanded or not as deemed appropriate.
The problems are as follows: Soldiers accept that by joining the army they will face a higher than normal chance of death, civilians have signed up for nothing therefore to target them (as has been customary since Sherman declared ‘total war’ on the South) is at least unfair. On the other hand the Troops in Iraq do not face a foe who wears a uniform, so knowing a soldier from a civilian is difficult. On top of that, if cases do go to an external court it could bring doubt into the minds of British troops about opening fire, meaning they are less inclined to defend themselves and thus more vulnerable to attack. Obviously the last thing we want is our troops doubting the system and being killed due to that. However investigating civilian deaths only in military courts after the war has officially ended seems suspect to me- if a police man shoots me here, on the streets of England I expect that to go to court, not be dealt with internally by the police. So any thoughts are welcome, because I can’t decided which way this one goes.
Thats ridicilious and the possibility of insane trials like this is why the U.S has been reluctant to take part in any international court.
Biltrite hit it on the head. This is precisely why the U.S. won’t sign on to the International Court, although our main concern is someone trying to charge a general or president while he is on a foreign trip. How can you have a bunch of judges second-guessing foreign policy decisions. It already seems that we are ruled by judicial oligarchy – no need to make it worse.
I think you are mistaken about the war in Iraq being over. Under international law Bush had to declare major combat operations over because we were no longer facing large organized combat formations that could deny us access to an area. Bush’s critic’s have tried to give that a different meaning and say Bush told us it is all over and got it wrong. I think it is in the best interests of the army to allow them to police such issues. There are practical reasons for not just letting troops run wild. Just one or two bad seeds can cause a very dangerous situation for all their comrades. Abu Ghraib is a good example of that. The nature of the business of soldiering however does require that soldiers are handled in a manner that will not demoralize the army. That is why we have military justice and court martials, otherwise the courts would be another way for insurgents to attack our troops. Just one unfair case could shatter the moral of the whole army. At the end of the day having an army that can function has to take priority over fairness even though it is important we are viewed as being fair. A local policeman shooting you in your home town is not the same thing as being a soldier on a combat tour of duty. It wasn’t at all fair years ago when a Libyan diplomat shot and killed a Police officer in London and then just left the country. But there are reasons why we have diplomatic immunity.
Well you know what I’m inclined towards trusting the army and the military police on this one too. The last thing soldiers need is more pressure- they’re already having a hard time keeping any kind of morale, who can blaim them, especially now the British troops aren’t getting on too well with the American troops. I’m pretty sure Iraqi lawyers were looking to bring soldiers to trial in Iraq, I don’t recall international courts coming into it. Of course maybe they could bring Bush and Blair to court for war crimes… heh heh
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Well you know what I’m inclined towards trusting the army and the military police on this one too. The last thing soldiers need is more pressure- they’re already having a hard time keeping any kind of morale, who can blaim them, especially now the British troops aren’t getting on too well with the American troops. I’m pretty sure Iraqi lawyers were looking to bring soldiers to trial in Iraq, I don’t recall international courts coming into it. Of course maybe they could bring Bush and Blair to court for war crimes… heh heh[/quote]
It’s hard to mix military and civilian activities like this, and courts are ripe for political manipulation when they begin second-guessing military actions – especially during the military actions.
Of course, there are a few historical precedents for this sort of thing – I’m sure you remember the Boston Massacre Trials. Nothing propagandist about those, I’m sure you’ll agree (tongue firmly implanted in cheek)
I guess a tight grip on their armies distinguishes civilised nations from rogue states. During a war, so many things can (and will) get out of hand, that there should be some control.
I agree with BostonBarrister that civilian and military settings are different, and I would add that in a civilian context an internal enquiry would definitely not suffice.
Coming from a country (Germany) where judges can only change laws in a very limited way, my trust in courts (and judges) is higher though. And in the end, the military must always be accountable to the civilian public.
For the international criminal court though, I think the US should join.