Baha Mousa - The official verdict

#2
A couple of years and a few million quid down the line, the report will clear the army of systematic abuse. It will conclude that a number of people in the QLR were vicious bastards who battered a man to death then lied about it to anyone who asked. It will also probably conclude that the chain of command was woefully inadequate.

Could have told them that for nowt.

I think pretty much everybody will be satisfied by the report, except for the lefty lunatic fringe and a number of ex QLR and their apologists.
 
#3
A couple of years and a few million quid down the line, the report will clear the army of systematic abuse. It will conclude that a number of people in the QLR were vicious bastards who battered a man to death then lied about it to anyone who asked. It will also probably conclude that the chain of command was woefully inadequate.

Could have told them that for nowt.

I think pretty much everybody will be satisfied by the report, except for the lefty lunatic fringe and a number of ex QLR and their apologists.
You are contradicting yourself and suggesting collective guilt. perhaps you think that the QLR had a Bn parade and took turns in beating Mousa.
 
#4
You are contradicting yourself and suggesting collective guilt. perhaps you think that the QLR had a Bn parade and took turns in beating Mousa.
I see no contradiction in my comments.

As to the QLR holding a BN parade and taking it in turns to beat Mr. Musa; his beating seemed to have been carried out semi publically over a couple of days, with various people wandering in and out of the detention area and many more hearing the screaming and shouting. Given the average squaddy's propensity for gossip and rumour, I find it hard to believe that many in the camp didn't have some idea that thuggery towards prisoners was taking place.

Edited to add: I accept that many QLR soldiers were out patrolling the streets of Basra and were based at other locations when Mr. Musa was killed. I don't suggest any complicity on their part.
 
#5
I certainly didn't take what he said that way. There were bad eggs; bad egs have mates, some of whom may have been complicit or turned a blind eye; bad eggs have family who're not willing to believe their little Johnny did it; and Regiments have Old and Bold who can't accept that one of theirs would have done it.

All of those groups are likely to have people who'll try to discount or justify what was a brutal crime by any standard. Recognising that isn't the same as insisting on collective guilt.
 
#8
In wars, good people sometimes do bad things.

It's always been like that. Nobody should be surprised. When you've seen mates have bits blown off, it can colour your whole attitude.

War is always terrible. Some wars are still worth fighting. Although Iraq never was.

It cost a lot of money, but the fact we do investigate such behaviour, and don't condone it institutionally is just one of the things that makes US better than THEM.
 
P

pp0470

Guest
#9
£12 million inquiry costs upto June this year

Costs link

£6 million of that 'legal costs'. Nice work if you can get it I suppose.

p.s. £12 million is the inquiry cost, not including the MOD expenditure on its investigation and legal costs.
 
#10
I am interested to see how the RMP come out of this report.

I believe the report concludes that there were failures within the CoC.

This sorry episode has cast the entire British Army into disrepute and from a professional and personal pov, I want those who have been found wanting to be dealt with. I hope names will be mentioned and that somehow those who have been shown to fail will face the consequences of their failure.

I still find it disconcerting that a man has entered into british custody alive and left it a beaten up corpse, and yet, apart from a token conviction and resignation, no one seems to have been held accountable for it. That surely cannot be the standard that the British Army adheres to.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#11
This sorry episode has cast the entire British Army into disrepute and from a professional and personal pov, I want those who have been found wanting to be dealt with. I hope names will be mentioned and that somehow those who have been shown to fail will face the consequences of their failure.

I still find it disconcerting that a man has entered into british custody alive and left it a beaten up corpse, and yet, apart from a token conviction and resignation, no one seems to have been held accountable for it. That surely cannot be the standard that the British Army adheres to.

QFE. It makes all Soldiers, and ex-Soldiers, appear to be dishonest and provides ammo to those who think we are all *****.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#12
A couple of years and a few million quid down the line, the report will clear the army of systematic abuse. It will conclude that a number of people in the QLR were vicious bastards who battered a man to death then lied about it to anyone who asked. It will also probably conclude that the chain of command was woefully inadequate.

Could have told them that for nowt.

I think pretty much everybody will be satisfied by the report, except for the lefty lunatic fringe and a number of ex QLR and their apologists.
And that sums it all up. The allegations did however need to be investigated, if only to prove that they were unfounded. Sadly, this costs money and lots of it, but we wouldn't be shelling out if it wasn't for certain members of the QLR. At the end of the day, we wouldn't have been here if they had been better managed. And their apologists can go **** themselves.
 
#13
The British Army has been held in high regards because it has traditionally be seen to be "playing the game". That gives us the moral highground and makes "us" better than "them". This incident was a shameful abuse of power and tainted the whole of the British Army. We were already on a sticky wicket thanks to Phony Tony's political horseshit. The ones that committed these abuses should be punished and those that condoned it by allowing it to happen should be punished more severely. Responsibility is the privilege of rank.
 
#14
The British Army has been held in high regards because it has traditionally be seen to be "playing the game". That gives us the moral highground and makes "us" better than "them". This incident was a shameful abuse of power and tainted the whole of the British Army. We were already on a sticky wicket thanks to Phony Tony's political horseshit. The ones that committed these abuses should be punished and those that condoned it by allowing it to happen should be punished more severely. Responsibility is the privilege of rank.


You need to climb down off that moral high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself.

The British Armed forces has proven time after time during it's history, that when the SHTF, they can be more nails and just as nasty as the best of them.
Wars a big boys game with big boys rules and stuff happens.
 
#15
I think people need to read between the headlines.

The army being cleared of allegations of systematic torture means merely that it has been established that it was not Official Policy. In other words the senior levels of the CoC have been found not to be to blame.

Other points being reported are:

An unprecedented public inquiry into the conduct of British soldiers in Iraq is expected to contain damning criticism of senior army officers and their legal advisers, and highlight the failure of commanders to ensure orders were passed down
The inquiry's report into the September 2003 death of Baha Mousa, a Basra hotel worker, is also understood to include scathing criticism of military intelligence personnel
Instead it will strongly criticise serving and former soldiers for their conduct and describe "numerous failures" of the chain of command
The inquiry will also strongly criticise the nature of the original investigation into how Mr Mousa died.
 
#16
I'd quite like to see the actual report rather than a BBC interpretation of a Sunday Telegraph commentary on what seems to be a leak of the more newsworthy extracts before I come to any conclusions (apart from the painfully obvious one - a man died when he really, really should not have. And he was in British Army custody at the time. Which makes us corporately culpable.)

But then I'm a dull bastard.
 
#17
You need to climb down off that moral high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself.

The British Armed forces has proven time after time during it's history, that when the SHTF, they can be more nails and just as nasty as the best of them.
Wars a big boys game with big boys rules and stuff happens.
What the **** has that got to do with anything to do with this case? The British Army goes in hard and is a killing machine. It is ruthless and will destroy it's foes when it needs to. That's a long way from putting the Bedding Storeman or Provo Staff in charge of looking after detainees and letting them beat the shit out of people with little reason. It's a matter of discipline.

You appear to have completely missed the point of this all.
 
#18
You need to climb down off that moral high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself.

The British Armed forces has proven time after time during it's history, that when the SHTF, they can be more nails and just as nasty as the best of them.
Wars a big boys game with big boys rules and stuff happens.
Bollocks!!

Beating to death someone who is unarmed, and defenceless, does not make anyone “nails”.

Defending your position against sustained attack, makes you “nails”. Attacking with less resources than would be ideal, makes you “nails”.

Beating to death someone who is unarmed, and defenceless, does not make you “nails”.

You do a disservice to all those “nails” who received bravery awards.

You also do a disservice to all those professionals, who in difficult circumstances restrained their natural instincts and emotions, remembered their training, and conducted themselves properly.

War is NOT a “big boys game”. It is a serious business conducted by men.

The “rules” - written down or otherwise - are there to ensure that “stuff does not happen”.
 
#19
I think people need to read between the headlines.

The army being cleared of allegations of systematic torture means merely that it has been established that it was not Official Policy. In other words the senior levels of the CoC have been found not to be to blame.

Other points being reported are:
I can't remember there ever being any inquiry into anything that has not looked for the lowest ranked, but suitable highly ranked, person of whom to make an example. The establishment is never to blame, it's always some mid-level functionary who has either gone rogue or failed to ensure.

If you have people in custody and under interrogation then you normally set up external monitoring rather than just taking the unit's word for things.

At that point in time transparency of actions would have been vital for civilian co-operation and senior officers should have been aware of that.

Soldiers always operate best when they have a clearly defined and readily identifiable enemy. When the enemy may or may not be the local civilian population then there should be assistance from agencies who have greater understanding and experience of dealing with civilians.

The very top of the CoC should have made it more than plain exactly what was and what wasn't cricket. If they did then all you need to do is look for who was covering up and at what level in the CoC and why that level felt that it was OK to disregard what would have been very clear policy.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#20
Wars a big boys game with big boys rules and stuff happens.
Would you apply that logic to the conduct of our enemies during WW2 and to that shown by certain Serbs in recent times? What about the murder of the RMP 6 or the 2 Sappers? Were they fair game for those playing under big boys rules? You're confusing the conduct of ably led, professional, focussed and courageous soldiers with that of poorly led, low life, mediocre, cowardly scum. And the latter includes those who managed to duck their responsibilities.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts