• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Words fail me.

#1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1733730.ece

Soldiers acquitted in the Iraqi prisoner-abuse trial linked to the death of Baha Musa, one of nine Iraqi detainees held by the British military in Basra in 2003, are to face an internal army investigation that could lead to dismissal.

Four soldiers from the 1st Battalion The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, including Colonel Jorge Mendonca, its former commanding officer, and two members of the Intelligence Corps, are to be subjected to further inquiries, with the possibility of administrative action against them, the Ministry of Defence said yesterday.

............

Meanwhile, the internal army inquiry, which is not the same as a criminal investigation, will focus on whether the soldiers broke army regulations in the way they behaved. Army sources said that sanctions against soldiers found to have breached regulations ranged from dismissal for gross misconduct to reduction in rank or a severe reprimand.
 
#3
After the CGS made his statement on Monday I suppose we should have seen this coming.
 
#4
Did anyone on this forum really expect this to just go away?

They want a hide nailed to the wall and don't mind who is the donor!



fastmedic
 
#5
This is typical of the coffee house fops in MOD.....lets get a pound of flesh...
 
#6
fastmedic said:
Did anyone on this forum really expect this to just go away?

They want a hide nailed to the wall and don't mind who is the donor!



fastmedic
Me too, and I don't mind either.

Wasn't TCH Sec Def at the time...? Or, since Blair is (this week at least) still in office, isn't it, ultimately, his responsibility?
 
#7
The burden of proof is lower for AGAI 67, "Balance of probability" rather than "Beyond all reasonable doubt" for a CM
 
#8
This will result in more wasted money and when this ultimately fails (which the defence solicitors/lawyers/barristers/QCs will insure) there will be more recriminations for the people who have sanctioned this circus to continue.

Waste of time, effort and rations.

Edited to add - No more double jepordy......that was lucky then.
 
#9
Probably worth posting the relevant extract from AGAI 67:

67.004 Disciplinary Action and Administrative Action are both necessary; and complementary to one another. Although their uses are entirely separate, their uses are not mutually exclusive: ‘upholding good order and military discipline’ and ‘safeguarding or restoring the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the Army’ cover much of the same ground. Commanders must use their powers and authority appropriately and effectively in the context of the offence or misconduct and the operational circumstances. As a general rule, Disciplinary Action should only be used where the offence is wholly deserving of the consequences of the application of military law. On the other hand, Administrative Action – which is intended to set straight professional shortcomings – should not be used in clearly criminal matters.

67.005 Administrative Action may be taken subsequent to Disciplinary Action or prosecution in a civil court, regardless of whether the accused is convicted or acquitted. Such action does not amount to double jeopardy, nor is it in principle oppressive or unfair. It is an established and legally robust dimension of employment practice and is entirely in keeping with the regulation of other professions. It is entirely reasonable for the Army to take into account the employment consequences of a serviceman’s failings.

67.006 Both components of the Army’s discipline system contain provisions for an individual to seek a review of their case and formally to appeal. Disciplinary Action includes appeal to the Summary Appeal Court; petition to the Army Reviewing Authority after conviction at court-martial; and appeal to the Court-Martial Appeal Court. These are all statutory rights. Administrative Action includes review by a superior commander and complaint or appeal to the Army Board under Section 180 of the Army Act 1955. This latter appeal too is a statutory right (which recognises the restricted rights of access of Service personnel to employment tribunals
try telling that to the poor sods going through it.

i do note this sentence:
"On the other hand, Administrative Action – which is intended to set straight professional shortcomings – should not be used in clearly criminal matters."
so they have to endure a court martial, and are acquitted of any wrong-doing. was the court martial not regarding "clearly criminal matters", or am i being naive here?

or are they saying that they shouldn't AGAI someone first, when they can potentially be court martialled... but if that doesn't get the desired result, they will try to punish them by the back door of admin action instead?

i am concerned they will steer clear of the "clearly criminal matters" in the AGAI action... find them guilty of some minor professional quibble or technicality... and then give a vastly disproportionate punishment.

i know our two were very strongly supported by the chain of command during the trial; i only hope this continues and that the guys can go on with their lives and put this debacle behind them.
 
#10
CRmeansCeilingReached said:
Probably worth posting the relevant extract from AGAI 67:

67.004 Disciplinary Action and Administrative Action are both necessary; and complementary to one another. Although their uses are entirely separate, their uses are not mutually exclusive: ‘upholding good order and military discipline’ and ‘safeguarding or restoring the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the Army’ cover much of the same ground. Commanders must use their powers and authority appropriately and effectively in the context of the offence or misconduct and the operational circumstances. As a general rule, Disciplinary Action should only be used where the offence is wholly deserving of the consequences of the application of military law. On the other hand, Administrative Action – which is intended to set straight professional shortcomings – should not be used in clearly criminal matters.

67.005 Administrative Action may be taken subsequent to Disciplinary Action or prosecution in a civil court, regardless of whether the accused is convicted or acquitted. Such action does not amount to double jeopardy, nor is it in principle oppressive or unfair. It is an established and legally robust dimension of employment practice and is entirely in keeping with the regulation of other professions. It is entirely reasonable for the Army to take into account the employment consequences of a serviceman’s failings.

67.006 Both components of the Army’s discipline system contain provisions for an individual to seek a review of their case and formally to appeal. Disciplinary Action includes appeal to the Summary Appeal Court; petition to the Army Reviewing Authority after conviction at court-martial; and appeal to the Court-Martial Appeal Court. These are all statutory rights. Administrative Action includes review by a superior commander and complaint or appeal to the Army Board under Section 180 of the Army Act 1955. This latter appeal too is a statutory right (which recognises the restricted rights of access of Service personnel to employment tribunals
try telling that to the poor sods going through it.

i do note this sentence:
"On the other hand, Administrative Action – which is intended to set straight professional shortcomings – should not be used in clearly criminal matters."
so they have to endure a court martial, and are acquitted of any wrong-doing. was the court martial not regarding "clearly criminal matters", or am i being naive here?

or are they saying that they shouldn't AGAI someone first, when they can potentially be court martialled... but if that doesn't get the desired result, they will try to punish them by the back door of admin action instead?

i am concerned they will steer clear of the "clearly criminal matters" in the AGAI action... find them guilty of some minor professional quibble or technicality... and then give a vastly disproportionate punishment.

i know our two were very strongly supported by the chain of command during the trial; i only hope this continues and that the guys can go on with their lives and put this debacle behind them.
SO WHAT WERE THEY ON A COURT MARTIAL FOR IF THIS CAN BE DONE????

Letters to Soldier magazine anyone?
 
#11
fas_et_gloria said:
Wasn't TCH Sec Def at the time...? Or, since Blair is (this week at least) still in office, isn't it, ultimately, his responsibility?
Oh come now, you surely don't expect the buck to stop there? The CoC only extends so far, don'tcha know, and the buck’s resting place certainly isn't Whitehall or Westminster!

Bravo2nothing said:
This will result in more wasted money and when this ultimately fails (which the defence solicitors/lawyers/barristers/QCs will insure) there will be more recriminations for the people who have sanctioned this circus to continue.
I wonder whether Ms Cherie Booth QC will get in on the act, after all, she's not one to turn down a nice little earner, especially courtesy of the tax-payer... :roll:
 
#12
DozyBint said:
fas_et_gloria said:
Wasn't TCH Sec Def at the time...? Or, since Blair is (this week at least) still in office, isn't it, ultimately, his responsibility?
Oh come now, you surely don't expect the buck to stop there? The CoC only extends so far, don'tcha know, and the buck’s resting place certainly isn't Whitehall or Westminster!
Sorry.

[irony][frustration]... Wasn't TCH Sec Def at the time...? Or, since Blair is (this week at least) still in office, isn't it, ultimately, his responsibility? ...[/irony][/frustration]
 
#13
This stinks to high heaven. These people are found not guilty or had there prosecutions thrown out of court and yet either the chiefs of staff or more likely Blair still wants there scalps.
If it is not a conspiracy what do the army hope to achieve by doing this?
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#14
The problem remains that a man was brutally killed, others were badly mistreated and nobody in a position of authority has yet been held accountable. I'm not in favour of witch-hunts but justice, as well as good order and military discipline, demands that these incidents are fully investigated and subjected to due process. I don't see any way round it.
 
#15
cpunk said:
The problem remains that a man was brutally killed, others were badly mistreated and nobody in a position of authority has yet been held accountable. I'm not in favour of witch-hunts but justice, as well as good order and military discipline, demands that these incidents are fully investigated and subjected to due process. I don't see any way round it.
My bold.

I might be mistaken but wasn't that what the court martial was for?
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
Why are they being done a second time, and by other means? Weeeelllll let me tell you folks! In their defence, it was stated that it was a policy of the Brigade to 'acclimatise' (or some such description) the prisoners to aid in questioning, ie: their treatment was sanctioned at Brigade level. It was on this basis that the case was won.

Now, it might be assumed that someone at Brigade level who felt somewhat impuned by the defence of the soldiers/colonel may wish to get his/their own back. After all, they've effectively passed the buck up the chain of command and got off. The men further up the chain o command are probably feeling the pressure from even higher now.

Just a thought.
 
#17
Biped said:
Why are they being done a second time, and by other means? Weeeelllll let me tell you folks! In their defence, it was stated that it was a policy of the Brigade to 'acclimatise' (or some such description) the prisoners to aid in questioning, ie: their treatment was sanctioned at Brigade level. It was on this basis that the case was won.

Now, it might be assumed that someone at Brigade level who felt somewhat impuned by the defence of the soldiers/colonel may wish to get his/their own back. After all, they've effectively passed the buck up the chain of command and got off. The men further up the chain o command are probably feeling the pressure from even higher now.

Just a thought.
sounds like the guys were obeying Brigade orders, and the Brigade staff should be the ones getting AGAId then?

Chain of Command question - who will be doing the AGAIing?
 
#18
This was to be expected as soon as the words "Wall of Silence" were uttered. There can be no way that a wall of silence can be permitted to exist. Soldiers are expected to stand up, own up and then shut up. Those who want things any other way should get jobs as ambulance men or fire fighters. The highest level of CoC within the Regt did nothing to put his house in order - maybe because he knew what had happened and chose to ignore it - so it becomes a challenge between the troops involved and the very top brass. Guess who will win that battle?
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#19
evilgenius said:
cpunk said:
The problem remains that a man was brutally killed, others were badly mistreated and nobody in a position of authority has yet been held accountable. I'm not in favour of witch-hunts but justice, as well as good order and military discipline, demands that these incidents are fully investigated and subjected to due process. I don't see any way round it.
My bold.

I might be mistaken but wasn't that what the court martial was for?
The fact that criminal charges could not be made to stick doesn't mean that the killing didn't happen. This is the British Army, not the mafia, and we should not pretend that this incident was not indicative of serious problems somewhere in the chain of command, for which AGAI action might represent some form of solution.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
CRmeansCeilingReached said:
Biped said:
Why are they being done a second time, and by other means? Weeeelllll let me tell you folks! In their defence, it was stated that it was a policy of the Brigade to 'acclimatise' (or some such description) the prisoners to aid in questioning, ie: their treatment was sanctioned at Brigade level. It was on this basis that the case was won.

Now, it might be assumed that someone at Brigade level who felt somewhat impuned by the defence of the soldiers/colonel may wish to get his/their own back. After all, they've effectively passed the buck up the chain of command and got off. The men further up the chain o command are probably feeling the pressure from even higher now.

Just a thought.
sounds like the guys were obeying Brigade orders, and the Brigade staff should be the ones getting AGAId then?

Chain of Command question - who will be doing the AGAIing?
Well, if it is a case of sour grapes at Brigade level (and I may be wrong, but I doubt it), then the Brigade brass will be hoping to nail the guys at the bottom (and the Col.) via another route in the hope that it stops down there, rather than at their hallowed heights. It might even be that careers have already been harmed at their level and this is just a nasty way of saying "You F****d me and my career by saying what you did, so here's one backatchya!", sort of thing.

Mind you, this is merely supposition on my part. BTW, the word 'Conditioning of the POWS' springs to mind in terms of the claims made in their defence, and apparently this WAS sanctioned at Brigade level.

Edited to add: Nothing wrong with a bit of conditioning. It works better than sitting down on sofas with cups of tee and saves lives. For men in uniform fighting on a battlefield, I'm all for the Geneva convention. For men who hide amongst (and murder and use as human shields) civilians, then nothing is too much for them - Geneva convention is only valid if you signed up to it anyway, and these insurgent fcukers didn't.
 

Similar threads

Top