Skip to comments.
'War Crimes' Fear For British Troops
The Telegraph (UK) ^
| 11-06-2002
| Michael Smith
Posted on 11/06/2002 4:15:33 PM PST by blam
'War crimes' fear for British troops
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 06/11/2002)
The Government is concerned that British servicemen and women involved in any war against Iraq could find themselves facing action from the International Criminal Court, defence sources said yesterday.
This week's attack, by a CIA Predator drone, on a car containing al-Qa'eda terrorists in Yemen has served only to intensify concerns within the Cabinet, which extend to Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon, Defence Secretary. They are both lawyers by training, as is Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary, another key player in the debate. "Lawyer Blair and lawyer Hoon are really worried about this now," one defence source said.
Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General, and Harriet Harman, Solicitor General, have warned the Government that if it attacked Iraq without the backing of a UN Resolution action then it could find itself hauled before the ICC.
But defence sources said there was just as much concern over the possibility that even with a resolution in place individual servicemen might find themselves subject to action.
One suggested that if a British reconnaissance aircraft passed information to a US ground attack aircraft that subsequently attacked civilians, the British servicemen might be held responsible.
They would be subject to the ICC, although the pilot of the US aircraft would not, since America did not recognise the court.
Despite extensive efforts by the British Government and the Foreign Office in particular, the US administration is opposed to any recognition of the ICC.
Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of Defence Staff, who expressed concerns over the Government's decision to sign up to the ICC, also warned against the US willingness to act like "a 21st century high-tech posse".
The attack in Yemen, with the CIA apparently acting as judge, jury and executioner, was typical of the type of activity over which Admiral Boyce expressed concern, defence sources said. He advocated drawing "red lines" beyond which British troops operating alongside US forces would not go.
He also warned ministers that under the ICC commanders might face a choice between being accused of war crimes or changing rules of engagement to the point where the enemy could be certain of striking first.
The MoD said that any British serviceman or women involved in any alleged offence brought before the ICC would have to be tried in Britain and would therefore be subject to the normal laws of the land.
"We obviously agree to share information and intelligence with the Americans," a spokesman said. "We don't necessarily have any control over how it is used.
"Nor does it follow that because US servicemen are not subject to the ICC they are allowed to go out and act with impunity. Any US serviceman accused of war crimes would be liable to prosecution in the US courts."
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: british; crimes; troops; war
OOPS!!
1
posted on
11/06/2002 4:15:33 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
Well, well, well... welcome to the real world. So, Brits don't like the idea of someone else charging their troops with crimes and then trying them. SURPRISE.
2
posted on
11/06/2002 4:17:10 PM PST
by
Clara Lou
To: blam
The Government is concerned that British servicemen and women involved in any war against Iraq could find themselves facing action from the International Criminal Court, defence sources said yesterday. The ICC is already eating away at national sovereignty like an acid.
To: blam
THIS JUST IN:
The only War Crimes were those by the Islamic Terrorists,
the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the House of Saud, etc.
Americans WILL NOT FORGET
the 911 Atrocities [or which side the US media took durng the Islamic terror war.]
To: blam
"
They would be subject to the ICC, although the pilot of the US aircraft would not, since America did not recognise the court. "
Says it all.
What a bunch of effeminate idiots.
~Grin~
5
posted on
11/06/2002 4:27:58 PM PST
by
VaBthang4
To: Clara Lou
" They would be subject to the ICC, although the pilot of the US aircraft would not, since America did not recognise the court. "
We are not stupids here, just cowboys who like to blow things up hi-tech style.
To: blam
And Blair wondered why we wouldn't sign that ridiculous treaty.
To: VaBthang4
Note to the Brits: When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
8
posted on
11/06/2002 4:45:05 PM PST
by
45Auto
To: blam
He also warned ministers that under the ICC commanders might face a choice between being accused of war crimes or changing rules of engagement to the point where the enemy could be certain of striking first. Umm, Guys? There was a reason we didn't sign it you know. Next time, try listening before you jump all over us for being isolationist.
The world is not your friend and doesn't have your best interests at heart. You should have learned that by now.
a.cricket
To: blam
The Brits have gotta get out of this the way we did - Just Say No.
Or is this not permitted for folks in the New and Glorious EU (soon to be Islamic Republic of...)?
10
posted on
11/06/2002 5:29:03 PM PST
by
livius
To: blam
The British have eliminated themselves as an effective fighting force. Or former allies are now deffenceless. Idiots. Wonder who they will turn to when they are attacked next time.
11
posted on
11/06/2002 5:48:44 PM PST
by
monday
To: monday; MadIvan
"Wonder who they will turn to when they are attacked next time." The Brits won't allow any of their troops to be prosecuted.
12
posted on
11/06/2002 5:54:49 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
,,, the obvious winning strategy would be to clean up the ICC before cleaning up Iraq.
To: blam
The Brits won't allow any of their troops to be prosecuted. I hope so, ferverantly. But they did sign off on this "ICC" BS.
We shall see.
America will not submit to this cR@p.
14
posted on
11/06/2002 6:03:24 PM PST
by
LibKill
To: blam
The real question is, to whom does the ICC answer? Who elected these judges? Or what elected officials appointed them? Under whose sovereign constitutional aegis do they operate? The EU is already a terrible gray area, consisting of politicians and judges who are answerable to nobody. If you dislike the fiats they pass down, you have no way to throw them out of office, short of bringing down the whole unrepresentative structure.
The ICC is analogous to the Kyoto Treaty. Every socialist country wants to see it imposing rules on somebody else, but no country wants it imposing rules and expenses on them.
Wake up, Blair.
15
posted on
11/06/2002 6:08:19 PM PST
by
Cicero
To: LibKill
"America will not submit to this cR@p." Just remember, Bill Clinton approved this nightmare!!
16
posted on
11/06/2002 6:32:57 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
Just remember, Bill Clinton approved this nightmare!! I have not forgotten any of Klintoon's crimes.
17
posted on
11/06/2002 6:51:56 PM PST
by
LibKill
To: blam
"The Brits won't allow any of their troops to be prosecuted."and they won't let them fight either. Why even have troops?
18
posted on
11/06/2002 8:17:33 PM PST
by
monday
To: monday
19
posted on
11/06/2002 8:29:30 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
The Brits knew damned well when they sign up for global governance they would also be subjected to the ICC. Politically we were pee pawed by all and the Brits as we stated this at one of the globalist meetings as our reason for not joining. And now they are whining. Or is it their soldiers waking up to being sold?
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson