• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Soldiers DO Have Human Rights

#1
The High Court has just judged that soldiers have human rights on the battle field.

Beeb Report

The judge involved referred only to defective equipment. However should soldiers - and I refer only to being in theatre - have all their human rights protected?
 
#3
I know mate.

I started this thread to develop thoughts on human rights for servicemen and didn't want to divert the other thread
 
#4
Be careful what you wish for. If the entire gamut of human rights is to be implemented, than a serviceman who is wounded or their family if killed will be looking at the decisions made which led to the incident. Therefore an Officer or NCO who has made a poor decision, possibly in a contact, could theoretically be held responsible for infringing on the other parties human rights.

We absolutely have the right to be equipped for any situation that can reasonably be expected, but the nature of our duties means that there will be situations which could not REASONABLY be expected, and there will be poor decisions honestly made.

I am comfortable with the idea - but cautious.
 
#5
Here are a persons human rights as expressed in the HRA. Which are applicable?



* the right to life
* freedom from torture and degraded treatment
* freedom from slavery and forced labour
* the right to liberty
* the right to a fair trial
* the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
* the right to respect for private and family life
* freedom of thought, conscience and religion
* freedom of expression
* freedom of assembly and association
* the right to marry or form a civil partnership and start a family
* the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
* the right to own property
* the right to an education
* the right to participate in free elections
 
#7
The only Human rights a soldier should have during battle are the ones that allow him to take life with any means.

This war thing really is not a touchy feely group thing, it can be and sometimes is a bit messy. You put a bee in a jar shake it around and let it go, its going to bite you. thats what is happening to our Armed forces, they are confined "like the coiled spring"ready for action. Then held back due to touch feely regulations.

If your job is to kill people, just get on with it, the winner can decide the rules afterwards.
 
#8
Enlightenment said:
Therefore an Officer or NCO who has made a poor decision, possibly in a contact, could theoretically be held responsible for infringing on the other parties human rights.
What about Pollies and Apparatchiks out of contact?
 
#9
The_Rattler said:
If your job is to kill people, just get on with it, the winner can decide the rules afterwards.
Is it? I always felt the essence of soldiering was more to endure higher risk than the friendly CIVPOP, i.e you put your life at risk to protect theirs, killing people was a byproduct. At least for the soldiers of modern democracies.
 
#10
I think the essence has changed today, maybe 10-20 years ago the military was there to protect the weak. Sorry I would say now you need to win, then win the hearts and minds (look at eye wrac) not the best example but possibly similiar situations for the future?
 
#11
CutLunchCommando said:
What rights are relevant to people who are soldiers though.

Using the Liberty's Handy Dandy guide to Your Rights. the closest I can see is the Rights of Workers since Squaddies in theatre may be considered to be at their work.
Unions? Industrial action?

My list came from the government site for the HRA and is the definitive list of rights afforded to people.

I have a few thoughts, one or two of them nightmare scenarios. for instance, if this ruling came before Arnhem what might have happened. If the Falklands happened again with the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor, would the advances have to be put on hold because of a lack of vital equipment?
 
#12
The_Rattler said:
The only Human rights a soldier should have during battle are the ones that allow him to take life with any means.

This war thing really is not a touchy feely group thing, it can be and sometimes is a bit messy. You put a bee in a jar shake it around and let it go, its going to bite you. thats what is happening to our Armed forces, they are confined "like the coiled spring"ready for action. Then held back due to touch feely regulations.

If your job is to kill people, just get on with it, the winner can decide the rules afterwards.
How common are bee bites?
 
#13
fas_et_gloria said:
The_Rattler said:
The only Human rights a soldier should have during battle are the ones that allow him to take life with any means.

This war thing really is not a touchy feely group thing, it can be and sometimes is a bit messy. You put a bee in a jar shake it around and let it go, its going to bite you. thats what is happening to our Armed forces, they are confined "like the coiled spring"ready for action. Then held back due to touch feely regulations.

If your job is to kill people, just get on with it, the winner can decide the rules afterwards.
How common are bee bites?
Depends :oops: on where they nibble on you
 
#14
Sven said:
Here are a persons human rights as expressed in the HRA. Which are applicable?



* the right to life Nope - not much point in trying to enforce that one.

* freedom from torture and degraded treatment. - Covered under GC.

* freedom from slavery and forced labour. - GC

* the right to liberty. Nope - What about POWs?

* the right to a fair trial. Nope - What about POWs?

* the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it. Nope - see Nurenburg trials for examples

* the right to respect for private and family life. Nope- no private life when at the sharp end.

* freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Only so far as it doesn't impact the mission.

* freedom of expression. Nope - STFU and do your job

* freedom of assembly and association. Nope - No fraternisation.

* the right to marry or form a civil partnership and start a family.
* the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms

* the right to own property
* the right to an education
* the right to participate in free elections
See additions. The rest are so airy fairy ideals that you can have them if you want.
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#15
The Laws of unintended consequences will come in to play here.

For those in Command it is now another item to consider. If I order x to go and take y because y is shooting at z but they do not have all the kit am I going to be sued by x or x family if it goes Pete Tong (as is the wont in War).

It is a tricky one and we will only really know how it affects when people are wearing nice suits and stood before the Judge.
 
#16
You may be surprised to know that I agree with each of Your 'nopes' Steven. This raises something of a conundrum though, doesn't it?

That is, which human rights was the judge referring to?


(and I see I am at odds with the Lib Dem hiararchy in this)
 
#18
Sven said:
You may be surprised to know that I agree with each of Your 'nopes' Steven. This raises something of a conundrum though, doesn't it?

That is, which human rights was the judge referring to?


(and I see I am at odds with the Lib Dem hiararchy in this)
Since it's in reply to Deperate Des' appempt to get coroners to STFU, it's actually about the families rights to have a servicemans death properly investigated.
 
#19
Sven said:
You may be surprised to know that I agree with each of Your 'nopes' Steven. This raises something of a conundrum though, doesn't it?

That is, which human rights was the judge referring to?


(and I see I am at odds with the Lib Dem hiararchy in this)
Dissent? Why, that's practically unheard of in the annals of the Liberal movement, isn't it?

I can see that the right to life clause, might well be intended to have ramifications for those times when politics gets in the way of procurement and vehs cross the start line in a war to destroy WME, absent CBRN filters, or without more than half a magazine's worth of 5.56...

I can also see that the laws of unintended consequences (and maybe some bees, Rattler!) are probably going to turn around and bite us in the arrse over much the same (but subtly different) sort of situations.
 
#20
Thanks for that list Sven, it will act as an aide memoire when I want to remember everything in modern society that annoys the bejasus out of me! The problem with the apllication of the HRA is that it is implemented without a sense of proportion or without a correlating "human responsibilities" Act in tandem.
 

Latest Threads