Useful

**para_medic** · 24-11-2009, 15:53

Originally Posted by Scoteh

Dealt with by criminal law of the country in which they were captured -> Iraq -> Death penalty -> Back to the start.

Fair enough, not quite, but still not buying this article. Utterly deceptive twaddlespeak says I.

after "miranda warnings" (the local Arabic version), fair trial :D and the rest as per your description.
All of which has nothing to do with the article - which is obviously shite.

**jon505** · 24-11-2009, 18:16

If such rubbish goes to an enquiry then who pays and from what budget? I think I may already know the answer.........

**ashford_old_school** · 24-11-2009, 18:21

anyone would think that you haven't attended an Operational Law Brief as part of your MATTS. However, the comment regarding the police handcuffing prisoners to the rear; the police are not part of the military armed forces, not at war and therefore not under the Geneva Convention.

**MikeMcc** · 24-11-2009, 18:40

Originally Posted by hobit

Surely by covering the face then you are preventing the humilation as no-one will be able to recognise them. Handcuffing behind the back is something done by law enforcement officers all over the world. Lying down, well to be honest I like lying down and think that after ambushing someone, then a little nap would be quite nice!!!

Even now a Taliban fighter going into the hospital at Bastion will be restrained and hooded until he's tranquilized, there's too many sharps about to risk otherwise. These shots were from 2004, just about the time that the rules got changed.

Frankly it's old news and stupid of the journo to raise it.

**barbs** · 24-11-2009, 20:55

Originally Posted by MikeMcc

Originally Posted by hobit

Surely by covering the face then you are preventing the humilation as no-one will be able to recognise them. Handcuffing behind the back is something done by law enforcement officers all over the world. Lying down, well to be honest I like lying down and think that after ambushing someone, then a little nap would be quite nice!!!

Even now a Taliban fighter going into the hospital at Bastion will be restrained and hooded until he's tranquilized, there's too many sharps about to risk otherwise. These shots were from 2004, just about the time that the rules got changed.

Frankly it's old news and stupid of the journo to raise it.

Two things in response Mike (and please do not take them personally).

One, prisoners should not be hooded: blindfolded using (for example) blackened goggles should be used.

Two, the rules did not change in 2004: hooding has been illegal since well before I joined. In 2004/5 the CofC reminded itself what the rules were.

As regards other comments made on this thread:

Do people not receive their Op Law stuff anymore, or do they just ignore it and hope it will go away?

If combatants do not comply with the requirements to be considered as 'lawful combatants' then they lose their right to be treated as PWs, but still have to be give the equivalent protections. If you don't know if someone should be treated as a PW he should be treated as a PW until an appropriate tribunal can detremine it.

PWs, or those who have to be given equivalent protections are entitled to humane and decent treatment throughout their captivity.

If the rule of law in the country you are serving does not apply, or cannot be enforced, then you should be held to account to the rule of law in the UK.

Restraints should be set to the front, not the back. Why? The prisoner can steady himself if he is about to fall, can sit down in a vehicle or a chair, can relieve himself, amongst other things.

The ignorance about the rules does us no service and undermines the good work we do do.

**MikeMcc** · 24-11-2009, 23:09

True, my bad, meant googles!

**Spank-it** · 25-11-2009, 01:36

Originally Posted by MikeMcc

True, my bad, meant googles!

Huh ! They have to Google the prisoners names 1st

**jumpinjarhead** · 25-11-2009, 02:04

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

As they are 'unlawful combatants' under the GC, we would be perfectly within our legals rights to walk round to each of them in turn and give them a bullet in the back of the head.

"

I can't tell if you are being facetious, but this is certainly not the law.
even unlawful combatants, as "civilians in the hands of a party to Geneva Conventions" are entitled to minimal humane treatment and those suspected of terrorism are entitled to a fair trial. Summary executions are simply a relic of the past.

**Stoppage!!!** · 25-11-2009, 02:22

Originally Posted by ashford_old_school

anyone would think that you haven't attended an Operational Law Brief as part of your MATTS. However, the comment regarding the police handcuffing prisoners to the rear; the police are not part of the military armed forces, not at war and therefore not under the Geneva Convention.

True, but take the point that was made, civil police are not operating in a war zone, generally less likely to sure death at the hand of a prisoner, but are still allowed under the Criminal Law Act, and Police and Criminal Evidence Act, to hand cuff to the rear even when on the ground, (of course bearing in mind positional asphyxia etc).

When I saw the photo I thought... is that it!

**the_boy_syrup** · 25-11-2009, 02:36

I believe this photo was taken after the Battle of Danny Boy as it became to be known
They had ambushed a Jock training team (A&SH IIRC) then the HCR ran into the same ambush and the PWRR was called out to assist
After the battle a number of prisoners were taken at least one of whom was in Police uniform again IIRC
A number of dead bodies were also removed in connection with the deaths of the RMP the year before since Danny Boy was just up the road
The fact there was stab wounds was due to at least one bayonet charge and this was reported at the time
Funny thing if they hadn't have gone out to kill British Soldiers that morning they wouldn't have ended up as they did
Shiner has been banging on about this for years now
I think they even did a Panorama programme on the beeb and the worst that came out of it was someone got a slap as the Soldiers handed out water to the Iraqi's they had just rounded up
Richard Homes also covers it in Dusty Warriers and it's in at least one other book

I don't often agree with Bill Rammel but since I personally know of at least one REME and One T.A. attached to the HCR who were there I have to agree with this

Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, has insisted that there is no evidence of abuse and murder. “For these allegations to be true, it would have involved a massive conspiracy involving huge numbers of people