International Criminal Court to investigate British troops

Truth. The Saville inquiry investigated what happened that day – are you saying you have information or detail that was not brought up at the inquiry? The truth should have come from those in authority that day – I can’t imagine you taking the word of an opposing terrorist group as the truth despite the fact that some of those present gave evidence to Saville.

Confused. Just taking the information that is available; the Saville inquiry has pretty well covered all corners, even after the obstruction of imagery and weapons by the MoD. Once again, if you have info that disproves anything…?

Mistake. I expect nothing of the sort. It just seems totally obscene that against an unarmed crowd there appeared to be some sort of mindset that allowed the soldiers to fire on people fleeing gunfire, shoot samaritans as they tried to assist the wounded, even ‘execute’ an injured man as he lay on the ground. Should we change the ideal in the public’s mind that this is what should be expected, rather than be concerned at the one-sided death toll in, ahem, ‘combat’?

No, obviously not every para. Just those who, after that day and to the investigators, knew they were lying, covering up the actions of their mates and not giving the full honest facts at the time. After all, some of them had to have had nothing to hide personally since only 108 bullets were apparently fired by the army that day…

Much as it pains me to use the Daily Mail as a source, this article gives the view of one soldier who testified to Saville that some appeared to demonstrate a disturbing enthusiasm to kill without justification, rather than through necessity or fear:

Bloody Sunday soldiers ‘fired without justification’

A Bloody Sunday paratrooper today said that his colleagues fired without justification.
The former para, identified only as Soldier 027, said just two soldiers – identified as Lance Corporal F and Soldier G – were probably responsible for eight or 10 of the deaths of the 13 unarmed men killed on 30 January 1972 on a Londonderry civil rights march.
The witness, in his statement to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, sitting in London, recalled that one colleague from 1 Para was “exuberant” as a terrifying display of firepower was unleashed against civilians.
Soldier 027’s eyewitness account of the bloodshed in the Bogside is hotly contested.
Dozens of other soldiers are expected to say they fired within rules of engagement and only at threatening targets.
Soldier 027 was giving his live evidence today behind a screen, just yards away from bereaved relatives who believe their loved ones were killed without proper reason.
Several of the 14 injured in the shootings also attended.
The ex-para is in a special protection scheme, paid for by the Northern Ireland Office, to ensure he co-operates with the Government-appointed inquiry which is expected to cost more than £100 million by the time it concludes.
It is believed Soldier 027 fears retribution from his former colleagues. The deal, which includes relocation and a salary, ends when he finishes giving his evidence.
In his statement to the inquiry, Soldier 027 claimed Lance Corporal F began firing “without pause or hesitation” at the centre of the crowd at the rubble barricade in Rossville Street, where six people were killed.
There were “shocked and terrified” people who were shot at while they fled Glendfada Park North and others froze in fear. Four people died in the Glenfada Park area.
Soldier 027 said he stood amid the carnage and never fired a single shot because he could not identify a gunman or a nail-bomber.
In total, 108 bullets were fired on Bloody Sunday.
Soldier 027 recalled being positioned at a wall in Kells Walk, Rossville Street, with his fellow soldiers and scanning the crowd for a target with his rifle at his shoulder.
He recalled one soldier, probably a corporal from Guinness Force, running up beside him and pushing between two soldiers who were firing so that he could begin firing himself.
“He indicated to me that he thought what was happening was great. He was exuberant,” Soldier 027 said in his statement.
“I looked through my sights, scanning across the crowd. I was as keen to find a target as anyone, but I just could not identify a target that appeared to justify engaging. I did not see anyone with a weapon or see or hear an explosive device.
“I have a clear memory of consciously thinking ‘what are they firing at?’ and feeling some inadequacy. What was I not seeing that I ought to be seeing?”
The paras, believing they could be attacked by IRA gunmen, were psyched up for battle, according to Soldier 027.
A briefing held the Saturday evening had left the soldiers remarking how they could be “getting kills” the following day, he said.
The paras in his section had passed around dumdum bullets as they waited in the armoured vehicles ready to go into the Bogside, he said.
Soldier 027 said he joined the Parachute Regiment in 1971 when he was 19 years old and was a radio operator in the regiment’s anti-tank platoon on Bloody Sunday.
“Unspeakable acts took place on Bloody Sunday,” he said in his inquiry statement.
“There was no justification for a single shot I saw fired. The only threat was a large assembly of people and we were all experienced soldiers who had been through riot situations before.”
He added: “Events that day within my own platoon were triggered by two individuals with a game plan and when they saw they could bring it into action, they did so and others joined in. There was no command to prevent or stop this happening.”
The march occurred at a politically sensitive point in Ireland’s troubles. Internment, which was introduced in August 1971, had escalated the violence on the streets and made rioting and sniper fire against British soldiers commonplace.
The paras, whom Soldier 027 has dubbed “the army’s rottweilers”, were, he said, arrogant and elitist shock troops who were deployed for efficient clear-up or arrest operations.
People in authority needed to accept some of the blame for Bloody Sunday, Soldier 027 said.
He added: “The responsibility for its (1 Paras) actions lies with those who selected and directed an outfit like that. It is noticeable that no one in authority has taken responsibility for orchestrating the situation.”
Soldier 027 recalled that on Bloody Sunday his platoon moved in south down Rossville Street in armoured vans after getting the go-ahead from Major Ted Loden, Commander of the Support unit.
There was an intense feeling of adrenalin and apprehension as the paras, with their blackened faces, de-bussed quickly and approached their task. They were convinced they were about to face gunman, Soldier 027 claimed.
A crowd of people were facing them from the rubble barricade, slightly to the east of the Rossville Flats.
As 027’s section reached the pavement by the end of the small wall one of his colleagues went into a kneeling position, raised his rifle to his shoulder and began firing, he alleged in his statement.
Soldier 027 said he saw two people at the barricade fall.
His statement added: “Within seconds, other soldiers came on the scene, some kneeling and some standing, joined in the firing.”
His impression was that the burst of fire from the Kells Walk was “continuous and sustained firing over a period of several minutes”.
He added: “I had the distinct impression that this was a case of some soldiers realising this was an opportunity to fire their weapon and they didn’t want to miss the chance.”
Of Lance Corporal F and Soldier G, now deceased, he said: “My impression has always been that the two of them … had a preconceived idea of what they were going to do that day and set about doing it as a pair of oppos.”
He received a ceasefire over his radio and relayed the message to his fellow paras.
Lance Corporal F and Soldier G, who “worked in concert in all that they did” according to 027, moved to the west, closely followed by Soldiers E and H.
They ran towards Glenfada Park North and F and G continued in the same vein as at Kells Walk.
At least one person was on the ground as he approached the scene. He saw a crowd of “about 40 shocked and terrified people” along the south side of the car park trying to flee.
In his statement he continued: “They were in the process of exiting the southwest corner of the car park when, in the presence of the shattering noise of the SLR’s (self-loading rifles) they became submissive and acquiescent. Some froze in a static huddle.
“I saw no civilians with weapons, no threatening gesture, neither could I see or hear any explosive devices during the entire situation.
“I was not personally at risk from anything that I could see and it never entered my head to fire my weapon.”
He said he felt “mentally overloaded and seized up” and added “it was surreal – as if the events took place outside normal time”.
He believed that four soldiers fired rounds while he was in Glenfada Park with F and G particularly appearing to “assert themselves and influence events”.
His statement added: “I have always been satisfied in my own mind that Lance Corporal F and Soldier G probably shot eight or 10 people that day.”
He alleged that much of his statement to the Royal Military Police, taken immediately after Bloody Sunday, was fabricated by others in which “facts have been altered and added” to justify the shooting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-142962/Bloody-Sunday-soldiers-fired-justification.html

Such blood-lust could do nothing but help the IRA, boosting recruitment (as I’ve already said) and strengthening their grip on those with even the slenderest feeling of injustice.

But that is not the point – no one fired at them but they fired into the crowd…

Those soldiers panicked – but since it would not be right to admit the troops were frightened the lie had to be spread that they were fired on.

…apparently there was a chance that two soldiers may have been fired at by an IRA sniper some 15 minutes before the main shooting, but only after the soldiers had fired on the crowd…

What??? Doubt??? Surely you could ask the IRA for the truth?

I didn’t really want to discuss Bloody Sunday, much less try to defend the indefensible, but it seems incredible to me that after forty years, and the closest possible scrutiny, you can be so sure of your facts, and yet, clearly still be so confused…

…of course, you expect soldiers on the ground, in the confusion of ‘combat’, never to make a mistake…..ever.

As I said, I didn’t really intend to discuss Bloody Sunday, as you cannot defend the indefensible…

…and I also must make sure I read posts correctly; when I read your post I thought you were saying that every member of the Parachute Regiment who thought, and I stress thought, they they had been fired at, had to be lying.

Having read your post again I don’t think you are saying that…..are you?

Casual… – left it (stupidly) to autocorrect.
Derry – went with the spelling on the reports I referred to; it is both Derry and Londonderry in two different reports I found on the National Archives website. But if it is acceptable for the Protestant Apprentice Boys of Derry then what can I say…?

Snafu – of the ‘higher education’ – the plural of casualty is casualties not casualty’s.

Over here, Derry is correctly Londonderry – Snafu of the ‘higher education’.

Your comments often lack complete credibility – don’t make it more so !

If you are a young member of the Parachute Regiment, who has never been under fire before, and you hear shots fired nearby, you, of course, being absolutely omnipresent, know that it is another member of the Parachute Regiment, and not the ‘enemy’ you have been briefed to possibly expect…

All well and good but why is there not a massacre every time paras go on the street, go on patrol, hold on to a gun? And yet there were no casualty’s, other than the civilians (and the one later revealed to be a member of the IRA youth movement was only fingered as having the weapons, found on his body in the morgue, by a police informer and not by the army medic or the civilian doctor nor his rescuers who turned out his pockets to try and find his identity. Of those deceased able to be tested later it was decided none had the usual residue associated with having handled a weapon).

But that is not the point – no one fired at them but they fired into the crowd, and in some cases took deliberate aimed shots at people waving white hankies, people trying to help the wounded, and even people not involved in the original march. Those soldiers panicked – but since it would not be right to admit the troops were frightened the lie had to be spread that they were fired on.

…and, knowing also, that everybody else, including ‘hostile’ civilians and the IRA, always tell the absolute truth, even in a situation where telling the truth will help their ‘enemy’, the British Army…

There was no need to worry about anyone else trying to tell the truth – the military were (still are) considered the tellers of the truth and anyone who said different (that sound familiar?) was lying.
That will have been the problem the Iraqis will have faced – there are laws and rules about what can and can not be done to prisoners but who can you tell when the authorities are the ones in whose prisons you have been abused? No point in appealing to the British public: they believe that butter wouldn’t melt in the mouths of our boys…

…the only possible explanation is that every member of the Parachute Regiment who thinks, or thought, that he was being fired at, is lying, and knows he is lying, and is lying to ‘justify’ a massacre.

I do like this bit, not least because that was the same conclusion that the Saville inquiry came to – but then you knew that, didn’t you…

Look at the timeline of the event. It wasn’t once but twice that troops fired on unarmed protesters (apparently there was a chance that two soldiers may have been fired at by an IRA sniper some 15 minutes before the main shooting, but only after the soldiers had fired on the crowd, according to Saville; one marcher later died of his injuries, but was still not a member of the IRA). Look at the inquiries, search for ‘Soldier F’ (actually a lance corporal) and see just how skilled he was at shooting to kill.
In fact Bloody Sunday doesn’t appear to be the action of a frightened, under trained unit, jumping when a car door slams or motorbike backfires – read this statement issued by Derry’s coroner at the time, retired British Army Major Hubert O’Neill:

This Sunday became known as Bloody Sunday and bloody it was. It was quite unnecessary. It strikes me that the Army ran amok that day and shot without thinking what they were doing. They were shooting innocent people. These people may have been taking part in a march that was banned but that does not justify the troops coming in and firing live rounds indiscriminately. I would say without hesitation that it was sheer, unadulterated murder. It was murder.

Widgery’s rushed report (published less than eleven weeks after the event) backed the army’s account, surprise surprise, even though witnesses who had initially planned to boycott it for presumed bias were convinced to take part. The fact that it blindly backed up everything the army said and was regarded, even within the army itself, as a whitewash boosted terrorist recruitment – not helped by the secretary for state, Reginald Maudling, declaring that the army had only fired in self defence (which got him punched by Bernadette Devlin, who had witnessed the event but was denied the opportunity to speak – her right as an MP – in parliament about it). But then the whitewash faded and when someone like General Sir Mike Jackson (Who had been a captain and present on the day) said he believed that he had no doubt that innocent people were killed then the writing was on the wall.
The Saville inquiry was more thorough than Widgery, but attempts were still made to obstruct it; original army photo’s and film taken at the time were not produced and despite the MoD’s claim that all the guns used at the time were either lost or destroyed some were discovered to have been sold on to Beirut, Sierra Leone and possibly other countries.

Lord Saville…: “What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland.”…

…In no case was any warning given by the soldiers before opening fire and the support company “reacted by losing their self-control … forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training”.
The result was a “serious and widespread loss of fire discipline”.
Afterwards, many of the soldiers involved “knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/7829208/Bloody-Sunday-Inquiry-Cameron-apologises-as-Saville-says-shootings-unjustified.html

Saville concluded that no stones or petrol bombs were thrown before the soldiers opened fire, and that the civilian crowd posed no viable threat at any time. In addition Saville decided that Lt Colonel Wilford, in command of 1 Para, disobeyed orders and went into the Bogside, exacerbating the situation…

But I dare say that if you want any more info you can look it up yourself.

The blame, [Phil Shiner] believes, lies with our inability to confront our colonial past, to realise our empire has gone, and that when we had the empire, we did some terrible things. “Nobody has ever made the British public face what their armed forces did in the Second World War…” he says. “Germany was divided into four, made to eat humble pie, and national monuments were built commemorating their atrocities. What have we ever done? Nothing.”

What ‘atrocities’ perpetrated by the British armed forces in the Second World War are these then…

…the ones that nobody has ever made the British public face?

…for example, those paras who lied for forty years about coming under fire to justify the Bloody Sunday Massacre…

If you are a young member of the Parachute Regiment, who has never been under fire before, and you hear shots fired nearby, you, of course, being absolutely omnipresent, know that it is another member of the Parachute Regiment, and not the ‘enemy’ you have been briefed to possibly expect…

…and, knowing also, that everybody else, including ‘hostile’ civilians and the IRA, always tell the absolute truth, even in a situation where telling the truth will help their ‘enemy’, the British Army…

…the only possible explanation is that every member of the Parachute Regiment who thinks, or thought, that he was being fired at, is lying, and knows he is lying, and is lying to ‘justify’ a massacre.

We do not pretend that all our soldiers behaved with total propriety in extreme circumstances…

The Telegraph – knowing well their readership – might not, but there are many right here who do.

SNAFU I wlll go back to my crayons when you stand up for our armed forces. You are just intent on making trouble and running this country down. In my opinion you are a pr*t dont bother replying to me as I have no further interest in what you think. I will blank you from now on!

You just don’t get it, do you?
Our armed forces are great, they are fantastic – but they (and us, of course) have been let down by a minority. A minority like, for example, those paras who lied for forty years about coming under fire to justify the Bloody Sunday Massacre, or British war criminal Donald Payne who was the only soldier to admit to abusing prisoners (others denied it and thus got away with it) which resulted in the death of Baha Mousa. Do you see?
And am I making trouble because I am not bowing to your belief that there is nothing to see here?
I must be a prat because I am replying to you, despite you surrendering your opinion…

SNAFU I wlll go back to my crayons when you stand up for our armed forces. You are just intent on making trouble and running this country down. In my opinion you are a pr*t dont bother replying to me as I have no further interest in what you think. I will blank you from now on!

By Telegraph View

8:52PM GMT 21 Mar 2014

More than a year after a public inquiry opened into claims that British troops in Iraq unlawfully killed up to 20 civilians, the central charge has now been withdrawn. Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), the human rights law firm acting for the families of the alleged victims, told the hearing that they now accepted that there was no evidence to substantiate the claims. So far some £22 million has been spent on the so-called al-Sweady inquiry, named after one of those who died. Opening in March last year, it has sat for 167 days and heard evidence from 280 witnesses.

To call this a scandalous waste of public money would be an understatement. But more than the drain on public finances, this has been another example of besmirching the reputation of British forces while enriching lawyers courtesy of the taxpayer. The allegations arose out of one of the fiercest battles fought by troops in Iraq, when they were ambushed by armed insurgents at a checkpoint named Danny Boy in May 2004. Soldiers were forced to fix bayonets in desperate close–quarter fighting. Several received bravery commendations, including the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross and the Military Cross. Yet an engagement that showed the courage and professionalism of British forces was turned into an attack on their integrity.

PIL is headed by the socialist lawyer Phil Shiner, who is well known for pursuing British soldiers through the courts over alleged war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. His firm has been paid millions from public funds and hundreds of claimants have been compensated to the tune of about £20 million. But PIL has not acted alone; government ministers have been far too ready to believe the worst of our own troops and should not have set up the inquiries in the first place.

Meanwhile, the relatives of six officers of the Royal Military Police killed in the town of Majar al–Kabir, north of Basra, the previous year have been denied a hearing of their own and are still waiting for justice after a trial of the alleged perpetrators in Iraq collapsed. In addition, soldiers from the Parachute Regiment involved in the Bloody Sunday shootings more than 40 years ago face the prospect of prosecution even though former IRA terrorists have been given an effective amnesty.

The Paras continue to be investigated despite the most expensive inquiry in British legal history, costing more than £200 million. We do not pretend that all our soldiers behaved with total propriety in extreme circumstances, often in fear of their own lives. But this relentless mud-slinging must stop. It is time to shut down what amounts to a blueprint for lining the pockets of lawyers by denigrating our troops.

So how many cases, against the troops, has Mr. Shiner actually won, in court?

Phil Shiner: ‘I will not rest until I know how many Iraqis died in British custody’

Hardly a day goes by, says Phil Shiner, without him or someone who works for him receiving abuse or worse.

“They will phone my office, sometimes daily. They’ll shout ‘c*nt’ to whoever answers the phone. I’ve had to train my team to stay calm and put the phone down.”

Has he had death threats? “Plenty, in letters, in packages in the post, in emails. People ask me, ‘Isn’t that what Pat Finucane did, he didn’t take the threats seriously either?’”

At the mention of the Belfast solicitor shot dead in front of his family, there is a pause. Finucane acted against the British Army in human-rights cases on behalf of Irish nationalists, and was murdered by loyalists, possibly working in collusion with elements of the security forces.

Finucane had three children; Shiner has five. So why doesn’t Shiner stop? His answer is instant. “Principles. There’s something in me that says, ‘I’m not going to be bullied. They’ve picked on the wrong person to bully.’”

He’s a Catholic, a committed socialist, who believes passionately in social justice. Those are his guides.

Shiner, 57, is the Birmingham-based lawyer who is the scourge of the British Army, bringing case after case alleging brutality against Iraqi and Afghan prisoners.

Along the way, Shiner and his Public Interest Lawyers firm have earned the hatred of former and serving soldiers and their flag-bearers, including sections of the media. Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail accused Shiner of milking the legal-aid system, earning millions from the public purse to fund his cause: “Shiner is always on the lookout for a jihadist with a grievance which can be used to discredit the Army and win some hard cash.”

Last week, Shiner was on the receiving end again as the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague announced it would launch a preliminary examination of claims that British troops committed war crimes after the invasion of Iraq. The court will study an estimated 60 alleged cases of unlawful killing and 170 of mistreatment of Iraqis in British military custody between 2003 and 2008. The ICC was responding to a complaint made by Shiner and the Berlin-based NGO the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights.

What was his reaction to the news? “That it’s a real breakthrough. Back in 2006, I pursued a much smaller number of torture and killing cases. Then the ICC said they felt sure war crimes had been committed, but they did not have enough of them. This one will involve the examination of far more cases and the prosecutors will have access to thousands of Ministry of Defence [MoD] documents. It’s a real breakthrough that vindicates 10 years’ hard work.”

This is all said in a flat Brummie accent. It’s hard to imagine that in his spare time he is a comic. “Richard Littlejohn said I wasn’t known for my sense of humour. When I did my stage show, I got 37 laughs in five minutes. I’ll stand by that.”

The UK has its own investigatory body, the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), set up by the MoD. Shiner has little faith in the IHAT. “I’ve no confidence in them. They’re interviewing, but slowly; they’ve had some of the cases 10 years, and there are hundreds of them.”

He’s optimistic of the ICC now getting to grips with the claims, because “the ICC is not woven into our political establishment”. It’s been a rocky road, he admits, but insists, “I’ve never stopped believing in the rule of law.” He hesitates. “If I did, I might as well take up market gardening.”

He has no doubt where it could lead. “All levels, right up to Geoffrey Hoon [the Defence Secretary during the invasion], and those who followed him as Defence Secretary while we were in Iraq, but also the chiefs of intelligence and general staff. It should take in those at the very top, as well as the interrogators below.”

He draws breath. “I believe there are at least another 11 Baha Mousas, 11 other deaths in British custody.”

It was Shiner who doggedly pursued the case of Baha Mousa, the Iraqi hotel receptionist tortured to death by British troops in 2003. One soldier, Corporal Donald Payne, admitted to inhumane treatment of detainees and was imprisoned for one year. He has the distinction of being the only British soldier in history jailed for a war crime.

Six of his colleagues were acquitted and, while the judge was certain Mousa had been subject to sustained assaults and maltreatment over 36 hours, “a more or less obvious closing of ranks” meant other charges had to be dropped.

Shiner is determined to go further. “I’m not going to rest easy until I find out the answer to the question of exactly how many died in British custody.”

It would be far better, he says, if the MoD ceased resisting at every turn. “The MoD needs to stop, accept it and grow up. They’ve been rumbled, they’ve got it wrong. This wasn’t one-off behaviour, it was systemic and they know it.”

His proof is the manuals from the Army’s intelligence and training centre at Chicksands in Bedfordshire. “They show that the training was blatantly unlawful. It’s like they reverse-engineered the ‘Muslim Handbook’. Sexual humiliation plays a big part. They must get the prisoner naked, so the interrogator pretends they must strip for a medical examination.”

He scoffs. “Honestly, what sort of nonsense is that?”

In one of the cases, the prisoner was made to take his clothes off in front of a lot of people, including women, and made to kneel on all fours. “One of the soldiers gets an erection and says ‘jiggy-jiggy’. He stands by the naked man and masturbates on his back.” In another, “a prisoner had hardcore porn played to him all night. He was asked if he’d masturbated.”

And there was “a woman interrogator who straddled a man, and put her genitals in his face. She said, ‘Do you want that? You can have it if you tell me what I want to know.’”

This, and more, with names, he hopes will come out now the ICC is involved. “It’s part of the training regime at Chicksands – get them naked and keep them naked. The MoD says it’s not systemic but it clearly is.”

His “ultimate goal”, Shiner says, is to achieve “reform of our armed-services personnel so it never happens again. We need to train soldiers and interrogators properly, train them in the basic elements of law.”

He can’t see why the Army can’t be like the police. “If you join the police and you patrol the streets you need to know what the law is. That doesn’t happen in the Army – they’re not taught it.”

He sticks with the police comparison. “It’s very simple: why do we need interrogators to do disrespectful things to people? We don’t. A skilled police questioner knows, when a child has gone missing, if the person in front of them knows where he or she is. They can tell. They know if they’ve got the right person. And they’ve done that without doing anything disrespectful.”

What about the charge that he is unpatriotic? He bristles. “What, that I don’t care about the soldiers? What nonsense. I acted for the Gurkhas from 2002 onwards. In one case I secured £40m in compensation for the Gurkhas captured by the Japanese. The Gurkhas were excluded by the Government from the compensation scheme. I got them compensation.”

He’s acting for one of the mothers of the six British military policemen murdered in Iraq in 2003. And he’s represented the Gulf War veterans affected by Gulf War syndrome. “The list of people I’ve acted for who are serving or ex-serving military personnel is a long one.”

And is he making millions at the taxpayers’ expense, as Littlejohn alleges? “I’ve put in hundreds of thousands of hours into the ICC complaint at my own expense and my team’s expense. We’ve spent a small fortune putting it together. But we’re doing it for free. Why? Because we might be a dying breed, because we’re lawyers of principle. The idea I’ve enriched myself doing this sort of work is nonsense.”

But he’s made his point; why not let them rest? Is he not damaging the nation by constantly bringing these cases? “Listen, the people who are damaging the nation are the senior politicians, civil servants and lawyers who let this happen. Those are the people who are damaging the nation.”

In 2003, he says, “We went into Iraq to win hearts and minds. How could we do that, if people were taken into custody and came out in body bags? We abused women and kids, and expected people not to talk to each other! Well, they did.”

It’s been referred to, he says, as a loss of a moral compass: “But moral compass doesn’t cost money. It’s something drilled into you by training and discipline. The troops should have been told by their commanding officers: ‘There’s a line in the sand and if you cross it you will be found out. You will be dishonourably discharged at best and your Army career will be over. You will have brought shame upon your regiment. You’ve a duty to report to me if anyone crosses that line in the sand.’ With the right ethos and training, the commanding officers could have made sure that ethical principles were applied.”

There is such a thing, I venture, as the “fog of war”. His answer is mocking. “People who say that don’t know what they’re talking about. Iraq wasn’t a war – the fighting lasted just five weeks. After that, we were an occupying power. Afghanistan was not a war. It was a United Nations operation to assist the government there to restore peace to the region.”

Our bad behaviour, he says, has done us harm: “Look at us. We’re supposed to be a democratic nation, a great democratic state that abides by the rule of law. Now countries can turn around and say, ‘No you don’t – you’re not better than us.’ The Syrian government can say, ‘Don’t you dare lecture us on what we would and should not be doing.’”

The blame, he believes, lies with our inability to confront our colonial past, to realise our empire has gone, and that when we had the empire, we did some terrible things. “Nobody has ever made the British public face what their armed forces did in the Second World War and the colonial wars since,” he says. “Germany was divided into four, made to eat humble pie, and national monuments were built commemorating their atrocities. What have we ever done? Nothing.”

He must go. He’s got a “highly confidential” meeting to attend, this time involving the rapes of women. Seemingly, his work never ends. And whose fault is that?

Phil Shiner: The essentials

Born: 1956, in Coventry

Education: Bishop Ullathorne Roman Catholic Comprehensive School; Birmingham University (law)

First major victory: defeats Edwina Currie as a member of Birmingham City Council over a policy she was promoting of housing tenants behind in their rent in a “punishment block” of an old barracks

Moves: from law centre in Birmingham to Barnardo’s in Bradford as a community-development worker, to Birkenhead working for the Labour MP Frank Field. Sets up environmental-law department for Tyndallwoods law firm in Birmingham

Finally: in 1999, launches Public Interest Lawyers

Family: twice married; three children from his first marriage, two from his second, to Rachel, a gastroenterologist

Relaxes: runs (once did a marathon in two hours, 30 minutes), cycles, goes on an annual religious retreat to Iona

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/phil-shiner-i-will-not-restuntil-i-know-how-many-iraqis-died-in-british-custody-9392990.html

Richard Littlejohn mentioned him in a column?
Richard Littlejohn? The Richard Littlejohn who never lets the truth get in the way of a good smear campaign? The Richard Littlejohn who goes on and on about homosexuality so frequently in his columns that questions are asked about what he is trying to hide? The Richard Littlejohn whose catchphrase is you couldn’t make it up despite writing in the Daily Mail where they push the boundaries of fiction beyond the believable edge? The Richard Littlejohn who is a moron?
That Richard Littlejohn?
If Littlejohn is scared enough to mention him there must be something in what Phil Shiner says…

No, but leave it. We don’t agree – agreed?

Actually, no, I don’t think we disagree, fundamentally, but it would be nice to actually express a view without being disagreed with so vehemently first!

After all, I’d wouldn’t have thought you were short of people to argue with on this topic!

No, seriously…..I DON’T!

My original post in this thread was directed only at the post directly above it; I wasn’t discussing anything with you whatsoever. I’ve edited my post so that there can be no mistake…

…take a couple of deep breaths…..and read my original post again. See?

No, but leave it. We don’t agree – agreed?

I hope you are not suggesting that there was no difference between the ideology of Britain and Germany during the Second World War except that the Allies got to write the history books?

No. Had they won we all might be happily poking fun at the lesser people, and complaining about the emissions from the concentration camp chimneys…

And generally speaking – they are treated very well by our troops…as I posted earlier – an ‘irregular’ can become a ‘civilian’ simply by throwing away their weapon(s) ; )

But it is not the irregular who is the subject of the investigation, is it.

You can keep repeating that and I can keep repeating that too, but in essence it will have nothing to do with the investigation: if there is a scenario where one man with a gun was seen discarding his weapon and running into a crowded market place, soldiers flattening that market place and killing 50-100 civilians would not get away with claiming that the exercise was justified. I do not know what I would do, what I would expect to be done in my name nor whether that lone ‘un’-gunman should be allowed to escape to prevent innocents being killed; what would you do?

I only wish he was standing by a big pile of murdering scum. They murder out troops,their own people and just for good measure shoot a little girl in the head for wanting an education then run away and hide. Those that moan about the actions of British Service personnel really do not have a clue about what they are up against!

Please, go back to your crayons and stop thumping your head repeatedly against the wall for fun.
I have a very good idea of what our troops are up against, the problem is that all the time our troops – who should be operating under things like Geneva – go freelance and play like the bad guys then they create problems further down the line.
That marine shoots a wounded Taliban dead on camera and you whine – but the publicity it generates worldwide does not put the British military in a good light; stupid crazies like Lee Rigby’s killers can use that sort of nutjob idiocy to justify their actions. Is that all right with you?
You know that thing about ‘for want of a horseshoe, a battle was lost…‘? How about it starts instead with some lowly dumb private who happily slots an innocent passerby, for no reason other than because he can, which leads that guys family to revolt against the army that shot their father/brother/son/husband which snowballs on into, oh, I don’t know, lets say a vengeful suicide bomber in a crowed department store in Oxford Street in the week before Christmas… No, that is not my dream – it is a fear, a nightmare, a worst case scenario. And, I admit, it is not even my worst case scenario but that of the security services (or was, about four-five years ago) in London; it is what I was told when I asked a chief inspector in the Met the stupid question how does what happens out there affect us in Britain.
So you want me to stand in front of a crowd of rabid Islamists, Iraqis, Afghans? I’ll stand there with you, mate, and lets hope the army are there to rescue us. But if they are not radical but revolting due to some stupid action (see above) by one of those soldiers then you are on your own, because that is the sort of thing these investigations are to sort out.

I only wish he was standing by a big pile of murdering scum. They murder out troops,their own people and just for good measure shoot a little girl in the head for wanting an education then run away and hide. Those that moan about the actions of British Service personnel really do not have a clue about what they are up against!

And my point is that no matter how they may be treated by their leaders or their terrorists they should not be treated that way by our troops.

And generally speaking – they are treated very well by our troops…as I posted earlier – an ‘irregular’ can become a ‘civilian’ simply by throwing away their weapon(s) ; )

…what was the difference between the Allied armies in 1945 and the Nazi armies in 1945?

My answer is that the Allied armies won – we get to write the history books…

I hope you are not suggesting that there was no difference between the ideology of Britain and Germany during the Second World War except that the Allies got to write the history books?

You seem to believe I have a world view, that your opinion is wrong and my view right…

No, seriously…..I DON’T!

My original post in this thread was directed only at the post directly above it; I wasn’t discussing anything with you whatsoever. I’ve edited my post so that there can be no mistake…

…take a couple of deep breaths…..and read my original post again. See?

And my point is that no matter how they may be treated by their leaders or their terrorists they should not be treated that way by our troops.

Snaffu…..So are you saying you feel it is ok for our troops to treat other people differently from how they would be treated in, say, Europe?
Life might well be cheap but that does not ever give us the right to treat them like they are lesser human beings: untermensch, sub human, one step up from being a monkey

That is not what I meant at all – and well you know it…you just have to sensationalise !

My point was clearly made that I was describing how they were treated by their own leaders etc !!

No, I didn’t have the stomach.

No? But rumour has it…;o)

Snaffle…

I am not saying that no cases get investigated…there are good and bad eggs in every walk of life – but most cases with our lads are relatively minor…life is cheap in many countries around the world and some ordinary folk suffer far worse abuse from their own leaders and religious ‘leaders’…therefore the whole thing is one sided and unbalanced !

So are you saying you feel it is ok for our troops to treat other people differently from how they would be treated in, say, Europe?
Life might well be cheap but that does not ever give us the right to treat them like they are lesser human beings: untermensch, sub human, one step up from being a monkey – think Nazis and how they treated Jews, selective East Europeans, that sort of thing – even if they do themselves.

Re 34
CD

We have history on this point – don’t we ?

I know nothing about the mechanics of the distastful act you’ve mentioned. That doesn’t prevent me from weighing evidence when deciding culpability.

Bravo, you know right from wrong. Hopefully.

I know plenty about the mechanics of war in contrast to the trouble seeking socialists on this Forum who endlessly seek to make trouble wherever they can sense an opportunity to decry and impugn the valiant efforts of our Armed forces – don’t give them any more ‘ammunition’.

And…maybe you don’t.
You do not need to know that rape is wrong to come to a conclusion about it, just as you do not need to be, for example, a US soldier or an Iraqi to know that taking photo’s of naked Iraqi prisoners, in sexual positions, for fun, is wrong. Or maybe it is right, in your eyes?

May I ask you what the difference was between the Allied armies in 1945 and the Nazi armies in 1945? (I know, and guess you do too, that there were a fair proportion of other nationals rather than just Germans fighting to the end in Berlin). My answer is that the Allied armies won – we get to write the history books and ignore the ‘occasional’ incident by ‘our’ troops that, when mirrored by a German or Japanese, resulted in prison or a death sentence.
Well, these days it doesn’t matter who wins or loses – the investigation is a good thing because it should prove rumours false. Unless you know something to the contrary…?

I’m sorry, but I literally have no idea what you are talking about; I think you may be responding to a post that wasn’t even directed at you (and I have avoided using the quote facility where possible)?

Nope, got the right guy:

In your world-view, whatever my opinion, I’d be wrong and those Iraqi civilians would be right.

You seem to believe I have a world view, that your opinion is wrong and my view right.
We are discussing on a forum, yet you believe that I should judge you based on the scenario you set up (and ignored mine, I noticed) and that whatever you said would be wrong. We are discussing, and I am taking the view that this investigation NEEDS to take place so that, internationally, the files can be closed (with or without prosecutions, it would eventually be closed) but – and this is to all – I am not the one who stood up and said “we need an investigation so that all the baby-bayoneting soldiers get revealed for what they are“! I merely posted a link so that interested people here could mouth off about how wonderful our fantastic military is.

And talking of the quote function; could you possibly make several smaller post, rather than one large one, it will make it so much easier to use the quote function in return (without having to delete 95% of your post).

I doubt it; already been accused of trying to get a record for the number of posts posted (or something; he was raving rabidly) and I try to snip each quote down to just the relevant points (unless there is a chance that they will delete their post later – which has happened and caused confusion due to those who just put the post number as reference; the post number isn’t deleted with its post so we all move up…).
Also, unlike some I am not here all day so there is usually a big batch of posts to reply to and I know I can upset Charlies day (and maybe a few others too) by making a really long post that he just falls asleep reading and thereby loses the thread.;o)