Posted on 05/19/2009 3:51:05 AM PDT by yankeedame
...British soldiers must have their human rights protected at all times - even when operating in the heat of battle in Afghanistan and Iraq - three Appeal judges ruled yesterday.
The historic and controversial judgment followed the tragedy of Territorial Army private Jason Smith, who died of heatstroke in southern Iraq in 2003.
It could open the floodgates for lawsuits by the families of troops killed or injured abroad because they were sent into conflict without the right equipment.
...military experts warned that it could lead officers to avoid taking action during battle because of the risk of being sued.
Major General Julian Thompson,...said: 'Taken to its ridiculous logical conclusion, you could find officers telling troops not to take up a position because someone might get killed, and instead sitting tight and doing nothing.
'War is not a one-sided performance and the Taliban are not going to give our troops their human rights.
'The enemy is trying to kill us and we must do everything to stop that and achieve our aims in battle. If somebody makes a decision in good faith, we cannot just allow them to be sued.'
The Ministry of Defence had challenged a High Court ruling last year that soldiers or their families could in certain circumstances bring an action under the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights. It argued unsuccessfully during the appeal that in 'the heat of battle during dynamic and fast-moving military operations on foreign territory', UK commanders could not secure the freedoms protected by the Human Rights Act....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Well, that’s the end of the British Army.
Ridiculous.
500 years of a noble military heritage.
It’s all over for the Brits.
Just where do they find these guys ~ if Brown had any cojones he'd have these guys picked up and disposed of.
The hardships endured by the 101st Airborne at Bastogne for the benefit of others are some of the most noble in history, but according to these judges, their "rights" were violated.
How many rounds of ammunition, how many pairs of socks, how many hot meals, how much clothing does a given soldier have to have before his "rights" are violated?
Did Montgomery violate the "rights" of the soldiers during Opertion Market Garden since, in hindsight, he couldn't deliver victory.
European liberalism and liberal internationalism, ftw.
This ruling makes perfect sense. No commander should ever lose an engagement; if he is going to lose he should withdraw before the enemy can get to his men.Just how one ever wins an engagement without perfect knowledge of the enemy's strength and disposition, of course, is left as an exercise for the student.
Aren't second guesses wonderful?
This is the sort of Euro liberal lunacy the ‘rats want SCOTUS to consider in their deliberations. Pretty soon the military will be dominated by union-type pansies dictating ever more stringent limitations for the battlefield “workplace.”
Words fail me.
Utterly stupid decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.