Uk says Iraqis not entitled to Human Rights

Memnoch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3684937.stm

Semantics and loop holes continue.

Now the British Ministery of Defence is saying that its troops aren't bound by the Human Rights convention because Iraq isn't a european state?

does this sound ridiculous to anyone else?

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is expected to argue that, because Iraq is not a European state, the human rights convention does not apply to British soldiers in Iraq.

Troops are, however, bound by the Geneva convention covering the treatment of prisoners.

Birmingham-based Public Interest Lawyers, representing the families, want an independent inquiry into the circumstances of the deaths to establish their cause.

They believe this could lead to an examination of the extent and preparedness of the occupation - and so of the Iraq war itself.

Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the 12 cases included those of a man allegedly killed when British soldiers burst into his house before dawn and of a farmer shot while fixing a water pump.

thats just ridiculous, now England wants to ignore human rights law, and try to find loopholes so that its troops can commit crimes????

BBC defence correspondent Paul Adams said in another case it was claimed a 17-year-old drowned when British soldiers beat him up and then ordered him to swim across a river.

In some of the cases, witness statements are accompanied by letters of apology from the British military.

In one, a senior officer expresses regret and offers donations to the families

double standards abound... iraqi deaths aren't as important as british ones..

Liability denied

The court will also be asked to make a declaration that the cases in question involve unlawful killings.

This could result in damages awards for the families.

The MoD has confirmed it responded to the lawyers' letter but says does not accept liability for the deaths.

It says it has written to the lawyers with its reasons.

The ministry is at present refusing to pay compensation, instead making small "charitable donations".

these charitable donations amount to less than a thousand dollars in most cases...

Memnoch

sorry posted this in the wrong forum accidentaly, can a mod pls move this to "politics" forum thanks

Spacedog

This is like living in Hitlers Germany at this stage. So called civilised governments saying human rights aren't for everyone. Bloody hell!

bugler

The following fairies need to visit this thread: The Grammar Fairy, The Spelling Fairy, The Ban Fairy.

Memnoch

hopefully this thread will be moved to the politics forum soon, meanwhile can those posting please stick to the topic at hand?

Memnoch

the guy who made extremely racist comments seem to have deleted his post, hopefully he doesn't escape a ban anyways.

John R

Originally posted by bugler
The following fairies need to visit this thread: The Grammar Fairy, The Spelling Fairy, The Ban Fairy.

Are they banning people for bad spelling and grammar now? !we is all fukked


I am confused? how is this a new development, British and American administrations have always ignored their own laws when dealing with other countries while spouting rhetoric about liberty, democracy, freedom and human rights.

Nuttzz

The Human Rights Act 1998 was drawn up in response to the European Convention on Human Rights, as Iraq is not bound by the ECHR then the UK authorities will argue that the UK Troops are not bound by them as 1) they are operating outside the UK or Europe and 2) Iraq is under US administration rather then UK.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Nuttzz
The Human Rights Act 1998 was drawn up in response to the European Convention on Human Rights, as Iraq is not bound by the ECHR then the UK authorities will argue that the UK Troops are not bound by them as 1) they are operating outside the UK or Europe and 2) Iraq is under US administration rather then UK.

translation British troops can ignore basic human rights laws as specified in the 1998 human rights convention as long as its iraqi's that are the subject of human rights violations

and you see nothing wrong with this?

pork99

Even if the MoD can prove their point in court they're still bound by international laws like the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention etc

Also I assume they subscribe to this

Victor

Originally posted by Memnoch
these charitable donations amount to less than a thousand dollars in most cases...

I'm not saying that the deaths are excusable, but in several Arabic cultures "blood money" is an acceptable alternative to revenge.

Squall

I was under the impression Britain signed the Geneva convention on the treatment of POW's. Doesnt say anything about European states. This is still in effect is it not?

Monty - the one and only

moved as requested

User45701

Originally posted by Spacedog
This is like living in Hitlers Germany at this stage. So called civilised governments saying human rights aren't for everyone. Bloody hell!

Human rights arnt for everyone.

Nuttzz

Originally posted by Memnoch
translation British troops can ignore basic human rights laws as specified in the 1998 human rights convention as long as its iraqi's that are the subject of human rights violations

and you see nothing wrong with this?

Did i say it there wasnt something wrong with it? Do I have to?

I'm just stating the UK government case, as a counter point to the orginal agruement.

Do you have assume that everyone who posts differing points to yours is automatically in favour of those points?

swiss

Originally posted by John R:

Are they banning people for bad spelling and grammar now? !we is all fukked

Banned*

Just kidding :P.

My reading of this thread is that the British Ministry of Defence is using a geographical clause in the Human rights act to exempt themselves from liability in Iraqi deaths. They are fully entitled to do this, but I would agree that the fact that this clause exists is morally wrong, since it dispels any notion that human rights are universal.

So who do we blame for this? The British army, or the people who originally drafted the Human rights bill? Or perhaps the signatories of that bill? Lets not forget that Ireland was/is also a signatory, making us equally culpable if that is the case.

It would appear that in order to stop this happening again, a revised human rights bill should be enacted, one that gives inalienable human rights to everyone, regardless of their location. At least then when such incidents as this occur, we won't bemoan the injustice of it all, especially when we can perpetuate exactly the same kind of double standard, should we ever need to.

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by Memnoch


these charitable donations amount to less than a thousand dollars in most cases...

Considering the familes of suicide bombers are given money as a thank you, maybe giving money as a sorry is ok to these people? Regardless of your opinion!

BarryFry

Whereas western liberals may squeal at the idea of "blood money", the Arabs themselves consider it to be a fair, just and honourable system. It's funny how the same people who moan about the futility of imposing western democracy on Muslim nations are nevertheless keen to promote Western human rights and compensation-chasing on these very same nations.

One of the reasons that the British have had a fairly easy ride of it in Iraq so far is that, unlike the Americans, they have been prepared to pay blood money (although, as Salam Pax has noted, being naive outsiders they have generally paid way over the odds). The source of the violence in Falluja is percieved as being an American refusal to pay blood money for 15 civilians they shot when they first entered the town. Grief counselling and legal aid were not on the residents' minds.

As for the British decision to exclude iraqis from the scope of their human rights legislation, well, of course it whiffs of sophistry, but it serves them right for being stupid enough to sign up for it in the first place without checking the small print (or worse, leaving the checking to lawyers).

Spacedog

Originally posted by User45701
Human rights arnt for everyone.

Ooooooooooh yes they are!...

(your turn)

The Human Rights Act 1998 was drawn up in response to the European Convention on Human Rights, as Iraq is not bound by the ECHR then the UK authorities will argue that the UK Troops are not bound by them as 1) they are operating outside the UK or Europe and 2) Iraq is under US administration rather then UK.

Wasn't Saddams continued Human Rights violations used as a reason by both Blair and Bush for the Invasion of Iraq? They're creating a dangerous precedence, which will allow any nation outside of Europe to ignore Human Rights/Geneva Convention simply because they're outside of Europe. Britain has opened a can of worms here.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
Semantics and loop holes continue.

Now the British Ministery of Defence is saying that its troops aren't bound by the Human Rights convention because Iraq isn't a european state?

Semantics indeed.

The MoD is saying nothing of the sort. Its saying that its troops may not be bound specifically by the Human Rights Act 1998 - a piece of British legislation, drawn up to enshrine how British law will deal with British responsibility to Human Rights within the British jurisdiction.

As with any national law, it is generally not applicable to actions outside the nation which has passed it. However, some civilians have sought to bring a case claiming that British soldiers acting in a foreign country have violated this law.

The first thing that must happen is a determination as to whether or not the law is applicable.

From the article itself :

Mr Shiner outlined his case: "Normally the Human Rights Act applies to the territory of the member state but there are exceptions.

"One is where the state has effective control of another territory," he said.

Now, he has a point....if the UK can be said to be in "effective control" of another territory, which will depend on the exact wording of the bill, as well as a number of other things (i.e. if the British are actually there under American command, then the British are not in effective control).

does this sound ridiculous to anyone else?

Not really.

Saying it should apply is to me pretty similar to the Dmitriy Sklyarov and Jon Johansen cases were, where the US was claiming they had a right to prosecute people for actions carried out in a foreign country which violated US domestic law.

The HRA '98 was primarily a domestic law. It has some conditions for catering for exceptional circumstances.

Whether or not the situation in Iraq should be subject to it is an issue entirely seperate to whether or not it is.

thats just ridiculous, now England wants to ignore human rights law, and try to find loopholes so that its troops can commit crimes????

Whats that you were saying about semantics?

The British Governmetn asserts that this particular law does not cover this particular situation and has very good grounds for saying so. It is not denying that other laws (e.g. Geneva Conventions) apply, but the individuals bringing the court cases have not claimed a breach of those laws...nor do I think they can actually bring civil cases based on them (although I'm not certain of that latter point).

double standards abound...

Sure they do.
I mean...if you go to Germany, you can drive your car on stretches of the Autobahn where there is no speed limit. And if, as a result of such fast driving, someone in Ireland wanted you arrested on return to your own country for breaking domestic speed-limit laws whilst abroad in another nation's jurisdiction.....you'd agree right with them, wouldn't you....because to say that the domestic law didn't apply would be another example of these double standards.

iraqi deaths aren't as important as british ones..

Not under domestic British Law, no they're not.

Just like murders in Outer Mongolia are less important under domestic British Law than murders in Greater London.

jc

egan007

Originally posted by bugler
The following fairies need to visit this thread: The Grammar Fairy, The Spelling Fairy, The Ban Fairy.

The colon in your sentence should be a semi-conlon.

Booya

bonkey

Originally posted by egan007
a semi-conlon.

Could we please stop with the pedantry, or there will be bannings?

I wouldn't mind too much, but its not like any of the pedants have gotten their own grammar right either, so its not likely to ever end if a stop isn't put to it.

Hmm....there used to be a term for that - grammar/spelling mistakes in a correction of someone elses - akin to Godwin's Law....damned if I can remember what it was called.

jc

chewy

does a international human rights not become totally defunct and pointless if it does not apply to govs/organisations who operate even in countries who ahvn't signed up to it the more i learn about the un the more it disappoints

Skud

Is the un renedered ineffective anyway after the invasion of iraq? Did the un not oppose this move and the british and american troops (as well as leaders) chose to ignore the ruling of the united nations. Why should the british worry about a law implemented by an organisiation they shouwed total disregaurd and contempt for? Why should they worry now about their laws when the totally underestimated their political authorithy? Damn right they'll get away with it and so will the americans (btw i didn't say the were right) in an ideal world they would be punished for the unecessary brutallity... but this is not an ideal world

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
Hmm....there used to be a term for that - grammar/spelling mistakes in a correction of someone elses - akin to Godwin's Law....damned if I can remember what it was called.

waves wand

(not sure if there's an interweb rule where you shut up when you mistakenly tell someone their semi-colon should be a pina-colonic)