Musa result

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
OldRedCap said:
Just on 5 Live. Single result Cpl Payne. 12 months. No pension rights
Send again, over . . .

Judge ruled no case to answer on 5 of 7 soldiers, I think Cpl Payne also, even though he admitted abuse. The judge said that his detention of the Iraqis was necessary and that force was also necessary due to an attempted escape.

The treatment or 'conditioning' of the prisoners was sanctioned at Brigade level and this is why it was ruled as 'no case to answer' for the individuals and CO.
 
#3
Not a very tough sentence - maybe the point is that he is taking the rap, when other people should be held responsible.
 
#5
Britain's first war criminal has been dismissed from the army and sentenced to one year in a civilian jail.

Corporal Donald Payne, 36, admitted a charge of inhuman treatment of Iraqi civilians in Basra in 2003.

He was among the first soldiers in UK history to be charged with the offence, framed under the terms of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, and his admission resulted in him being Britain's first convicted war criminal.

His sentence, announced today at a military court in Bulford in Wiltshire, will also result in the loss of approximately £300,000 in future earnings and pension.


I apologise for the cut & paste approach, hyperlinks were never my strong point. Feel free me to PM me on the intricacies.

However, i feel a great deal of sympathy for this poor chap. Apparently the Court martial cost in the region of £20 million, so therefore heads had to roll. I'm not advocating a witch-hunt however surely he was just a victim of circumstance.

Matthew Hopkins would be turning in his grave!!!
 
#6
Aren't British soldiers taught to refuse to obey illegal orders, whether it be from NCOs, Officers or Brigade?

He did the deed, He admitted doing it and He will have to pay the price for doing it.

I do wonder why the Brigade officers that authorised the roughing up of prisoners weren't prosecuted though - the orders must have been written in order for them to have been produced at the courts marshal
 
#7
Biscuits_AB said:
He'll not lose his pension ORC.
My fault for trusting 5 Live. Typed it while listening to what they said.

Mind you - bloody D/Telegraph says it as well
His sentence, announced today at a military court in Bulford in Wiltshire, will result in the loss of approximately £300,000 in future earnings and pension.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#8
He'll get his pension (at his current rank) if he has qualified timewise for it, when he's 65. They can't take it from him. Precident was set by a R SIGNALS WO a few years back and also by an Officer I recall.
 
#9
He has been told he will lose all his pension.

Absolutely disgraceful sentence, some people involved in this case need to learn the meaning of integrity!

Enough said!
 
#10
Claret said:
He has been told he will lose all his pension.

Absolutely disgraceful sentence, some people involved in this case need to learn the meaning of integrity!

Enough said!
Is 'following orders' now a justifiable defence? The guy admitted to abuse, what sentence do You think He should have got, four months and soldier on?
 
#11
Maybe he should have got the same punishment as everyone else who followed the same orders? The word "scapegoat" springs to mind.
 
#12
Claret said:
Maybe he should have got the same punishment as everyone else who followed the same orders? The word "scapegoat" springs to mind.
By dropping the case against the other soldiers, they were in effect found not guilty. Payne admitted that He was guilty of abuse. Given that, I ask again - what would have been an appropriate sentence?
 
#13
Obviously badly advised to make a guilty plea or he decided himself not to see how the trial went. Once he had made a guilty plea there was not much that could have been done. Directing that his guilty plea be rejected would have caused a might hoo ha. Judges would also have been influenced that he had legal support.
 
#14
Sven said:
Aren't British soldiers taught to refuse to obey illegal orders, whether it be from NCOs, Officers or Brigade?

He did the deed, He admitted doing it and He will have to pay the price for doing it.

I do wonder why the Brigade officers that authorised the roughing up of prisoners weren't prosecuted though - the orders must have been written in order for them to have been produced at the courts marshal
I'm not aware there were any orders to rough prisoners up. You identify yourself that any oredrs would have been written.
 
#15
Sven said:
Claret said:
Maybe he should have got the same punishment as everyone else who followed the same orders? The word "scapegoat" springs to mind.
By dropping the case against the other soldiers, they were in effect found not guilty. Payne admitted that He was guilty of abuse. Given that, I ask again - what would have been an appropriate sentence?
appropriate sentence? how about charging Blair with war crimes, or would his excuse of only following orders from Bush be a good enough excuse for you sven?
 
#16
Payne to lose pension - may yes maybe no it seems. However, look at this - some serious loss of benefits
The chief executive of oil giant BP, Lord Browne of Madingley, has resigned from his post with immediate effect.
Lord Browne said he had stepped down to save BP from embarrassment after a newspaper won a court battle to print details of his private life.
He also apologised that statements he had made in legal documents about a four-year relationship with Jeff Chevalier had been "untruthful".
Lord Browne had planned to step down from the company in July.
He will be replaced by his nominated successor Tony Hayward.

As a result of the decision, Lord Browne will lose at least £3.5m of his retirement package - and possibly a further £12m, BP said in a statement.
 
#17
Biped said:
The treatment or 'conditioning' of the prisoners was sanctioned at Brigade level and this is why it was ruled as 'no case to answer' for the individuals and CO.
Some bloke in MOD would beg to differ:

CGS Speaks Out After Court Martial

Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Source: MoD

General Dannatt speaks after close of Cpl Payne Court Martial

Chief of the General Staff and professional head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt has isued a statement following the end of a court martial concerning allegations of mistreatment of Iraqi civilians by British Army personnel.

The court martial, held at Bulford Camp, related to the death of Baha Musa and the alleged mistreatment of other Iraqi civilians in Basra during September 2003 when they were in the custody of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, now the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment.

The full text of General Sir Richard Dannatt's statement is as follows:

"Today Corporal Payne, who pleaded guilty last September to the offence of inhuman treatment of persons protected under the Geneva Conventions, was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to be reduced to the ranks and to be dismissed from Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. At the beginning of the trial, he pleaded guilty to an offence that has been a crime in this country since 1957.
"Today’s decision brings to a close the Court-Martial about the treatment of civilian detainees and the death of Mr Baha Musa in Iraq in September 2003. However, there has been so much comment about this case that I think it only right that I, as the head of the Army, set out my views, conscious that 2007 is not 2003 and in April we lost 12 soldiers to enemy action in Iraq.

"Whichever way you look at it, this case contains some uncomfortable facts. Those facts concern me and all those who are involved in sustaining the operational effectiveness of the Army, and consequently its reputation.

"The facts are that a number of civilians were arrested by the Army on 14 September 2003 and detained in our custody. One of them, Mr Baha Musa, died after being held in Army detention; post mortem examination show that he had suffered asphyxiation and some 93 injuries to his body. Others held in our detention centre at that time suffered similar treatment.

"They were subjected to a conditioning process that was unlawful and I do not seek to condone what happened. It has always been our policy that all British military personnel deployed on operations must be in no doubt about their duty to behave in accordance with the law. It now appears that this duty was forgotten or overlooked in this case.

"The Iraqis we took into our custody should have been treated properly and lawfully and they were not. This was not a case of misjudgment in the heat of battle or the heat of the moment. Nobody who knows anything about the facts has ever suggested that it was.

"It has always been our policy that all British military personnel deployed on operations must be in no doubt about their duty to behave in accordance with the law."

"We in the Army, and in the nation as a whole, rightly place enormous trust and confidence in our servicemen and women, and we demand a great deal from them in very demanding operational environments. Soldiers know that everything they do, wherever they do it, is subject to the law. Credible allegations of serious wrong-doing have to be investigated and, where evidence is independently assessed as justifying a prosecution, the principled application of a robust, fair and efficient system of military justice must follow.

"Discipline and the rule of law are core to everything we do, and are not optional extras appended to the functions of our armed forces. They are vital for command and operational effectiveness, as well as underpinning the very essence of our values and standards. I have never doubted the necessity of the investigation and of the legal process, and that it was the right thing to do in this case. We must see these things through without fear or favour.

"The end of this trial does not mean that this incident is now closed. We know how Mr Baha Musa died, but we do not yet know who was responsible. The Prosecuting Authority and the Service police will consider whether further investigation, in the light of any evidence that has become available during the course of this Court Martial, is appropriate and further formal action might follow. This is the only responsible course of action.

"It is only by rigorously adhering to our values and standards, and requiring alleged wrongdoers to face justice, that we will receive and merit the respect and confidence of the country and the World"

"In addition, in 2005 my predecessor commissioned a body of work to identify lessons to be learned from this and other cases involving the deliberate abuse of Iraqi civilians. This will report shortly and its findings will be made public.

"Finally, everyone inside and outside the Army should recognise the harm that is caused to our hard earned reputation and, potentially, to our operational effectiveness when anyone commits serious breaches of our values and standards and the law that binds us.

"We will always investigate any credible allegations, and do all we can to ensure that those responsible for such serious breaches are held to account.

"I am clear that it is only by rigorously adhering to our values and standards, and requiring alleged wrongdoers to face justice, that we will receive and merit the respect and confidence of the country and the world that we would wish to receive from
 
#18
First of all I hope that the man would be pardoned and his rights for the pension would be restored. It would be fair.

From the start of this story I was sure that it was handled in the wrong way. The UK is rich enough country and spends so big money on the war and spent millins on the trial. $100 thousands would be a reasonable compensation. Also 2 orhpans could be surrounded by special care. It would be right method to win 'hearts and minds'. Instead of this really inexpensive solution British government followed formal way that could be regarded as heartless. The case initiated a big fuss in mass-media. Was it in the true interests of the UK, glorious (indeed glorious) British armed forces? I doubt.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads