The Ministry of Defence yesterday launched an appeal against a high court ruling that British troops on foreign operations are bound by the Human Rights Act, which bans torture and inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners.
I'm aware that any talks about concrete cases are strongly prohibited here. So it should be an abstract discussion.
I don't think that the MoD in its appeal meant that 'torture and inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners' should be allowed. But sadly such unpleasant events could happen. So in this case what should be a legal procedure? Who namely would bear responsibility (including compensations)?
Does not make a difference, not only is Freedom from torture and degrading treatment disallowed by the HRA it is also a right under the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War and treatment of civillians. I don't think they have a chance of winning. Even if they did the countries of the soldiers would be held accountable for their actions under International Law.
Presumably the argument relates to which case law is applied to our treatment of prisoners in Iraq. If we are forced to concede that the HRA applies, then I guess this admits all kinds of namby-pamby Euro law into the equation, whereas I expect we would like a more robust and manly British military interpretation of what constitutes torture or degrading treatment. I agree with jest625: whatever the argument is, I doubt the MOD has a chance of winning it.
Has the appeal chances to be satisfied? No of course. Maybe MoD's lawyers are not professionals? No, in is unbelievable. MoD's leadership? They are professionals no doubt.
What is a real reason of the appeal? Possibly it is an intention to postposne transfer of some cases in the court. The appeal could be regarded months and even years. After obvious decision new trick could be invented (probably has been invented) for next postponement.
The whole thing is becoming more complicated by the second. Either we have an INTERNATIONAL and all-encompassing law on human rights which we ALL observe to the letter, or we fall back on the despicable Septic version, wherein only "Westerners" are accorded these rights and all other nations, races, religions and political persuasions are grouped under "others".
Let's have some clarity, FFS!!!