Frenchy68 0 #26 September 22, 2005 Quotemy point is just because it's what is reported does not make it true. Dan Rather comes to mind Much like "slam dunking" "intelligence" reports. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #27 September 22, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhether or not the SAS did anything wrong in the first place to warrant arrest is immiterial to what went on. Iraqi law requires coalition soliders to be handed over to coalition authorities if they are arrested. __________________________________________________ "Soldiers" wear uniforms. These two are obvious "enemy combatants" or common street thugs. The police were not required to extend to them any privelage granted Coalition Troops nor are these "combatants" protected under the Geneva Convention. Blues, Cliff I started off by saying that you had a good point and that I didn't have a rebuttal... but then as I wrote I actually talked myself into making one. Sorry. It would indeed appear the SAS troopers were dressed in civvies, at least in part although I don't know how much if any uniform they were wearing. It is quite possible they were wearing enough insignia to be afforded protection, although the SAS is pretty much left to its own devices to dress in local garb as they see fit for tactical reasons. I can well imagine them being in complete Arab dress, though that is pure speculation. You do touch on the important point that if we are to snatch and detain Iraqi's based on the fact that they're fighting in civvies, we should at least hold our own troops to the same standard and allow the Iraqi govt. to deal with our troop so captured as we deal with their citizens. If that's the case then any action to attempt to release the troopers could have been illegal as were legally in the custody of the Iraqi government who could stick them in their own version of Gitmo for ever amore and we wouldn't have any right to complain (well we the Brits would perhaps, but not the US... certainly any argument put by the "coalition" would be undermined). That part of your point is certainly well made and is something to bear in mind. However; and here comes the rebuttal part - the Iraqi government sent direct orders to the police commanders to release the prisoners in the British custody and thats where things start to take a different path. The troopers are in the custody of the Iraqi govt. and if there are orders from above to the police to release them to coalition forces then the police action from this point onwards was against orders and illegal. This of course assumes the Govt. official who gave the order had the power under their constitution to do so. I think he was the equivalent of the Home Secretary so he ought to have had. It is unclear when the troopers were handed over to the illegal militia force (before or after govt. orders were received) but either way not retrieving them is defiance of the order and handing them over in the first place was clearly illegal. Does that mean British military actions to force the police hand were therefore legal? I don't know... but it certainly puts them in a much better light doesn't it. I presume there probably is the power to use force against illegal action by Iraqi rogue security forces which place British troops at risk... and if there isn't there ought to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #28 September 22, 2005 QuoteMuch like "slam dunking" "intelligence" reports. no more like anything Kenndy or kerry says Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #29 September 22, 2005 QuoteMaybe the British soldiers shot the Iraqii policemen, because they were doing something terribly wrong, and the Brits were trying to save lives. Good point.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eaglenrider 0 #30 September 22, 2005 the Iraqi government sent direct orders to the police commanders to release the prisoners in the British custody and thats where things start to take a different path. The troopers are in the custody of the Iraqi govt. and if there are orders from above to the police to release them to coalition forces then the police action from this point onwards was against orders and illegal. This of course assumes the Govt. official who gave the order had the power under their constitution to do so. I think he was the equivalent of the Home Secretary so he ought to have had. It is unclear when the troopers were handed over to the illegal militia force (before or after govt. orders were received) but either way not retrieving them is defiance of the order and handing them over in the first place was clearly illegal. Does that mean British military actions to force the police hand were therefore legal? I don't know... but it certainly puts them in a much better light doesn't it. I presume there probably is the power to use force against illegal action by Iraqi rogue security forces which place British troops at risk... and if there isn't there ought to be. __________________________________________________ Actually the prisoners were in the custody of the Basra police for crimes commited in Basra. Now I admit I'm no scholar of the new Iraqi constitution.I haven't read it.(Didn't know they have one.) However I'd expect local crime is something that is handled on a local level. If that is the case then the orders of the interim Iraqi government (who by the way were elected under duress while the country was occupied) hold no weight. Incase the Iraqi Government does hold a legal power to force local government to their will, then Iraqi Government Forces should have been the ones to free the prisoners. For British military forces to enact a jail break of civilian prisoners in a *sovereign country* is certainly a crime and calls into question the premise of the occupation * to help build a sovereign Iraqi Nation". Further , As the criminals in question were driving a car loaded with explosives and a remote control detonation device, and two other car bombs exploded in Basra on the same day as they were captured, one must ask themselves ;"are these two conspirators in league with the other bombers?" This is a question for the Iraqi courts to answer, not one for the British military. But certainly . thearmed removal of these two British terrorists by British military force seems to indicate that the British government supported their illegal activities. Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #28 September 22, 2005 QuoteMuch like "slam dunking" "intelligence" reports. no more like anything Kenndy or kerry says Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #29 September 22, 2005 QuoteMaybe the British soldiers shot the Iraqii policemen, because they were doing something terribly wrong, and the Brits were trying to save lives. Good point.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eaglenrider 0 #30 September 22, 2005 the Iraqi government sent direct orders to the police commanders to release the prisoners in the British custody and thats where things start to take a different path. The troopers are in the custody of the Iraqi govt. and if there are orders from above to the police to release them to coalition forces then the police action from this point onwards was against orders and illegal. This of course assumes the Govt. official who gave the order had the power under their constitution to do so. I think he was the equivalent of the Home Secretary so he ought to have had. It is unclear when the troopers were handed over to the illegal militia force (before or after govt. orders were received) but either way not retrieving them is defiance of the order and handing them over in the first place was clearly illegal. Does that mean British military actions to force the police hand were therefore legal? I don't know... but it certainly puts them in a much better light doesn't it. I presume there probably is the power to use force against illegal action by Iraqi rogue security forces which place British troops at risk... and if there isn't there ought to be. __________________________________________________ Actually the prisoners were in the custody of the Basra police for crimes commited in Basra. Now I admit I'm no scholar of the new Iraqi constitution.I haven't read it.(Didn't know they have one.) However I'd expect local crime is something that is handled on a local level. If that is the case then the orders of the interim Iraqi government (who by the way were elected under duress while the country was occupied) hold no weight. Incase the Iraqi Government does hold a legal power to force local government to their will, then Iraqi Government Forces should have been the ones to free the prisoners. For British military forces to enact a jail break of civilian prisoners in a *sovereign country* is certainly a crime and calls into question the premise of the occupation * to help build a sovereign Iraqi Nation". Further , As the criminals in question were driving a car loaded with explosives and a remote control detonation device, and two other car bombs exploded in Basra on the same day as they were captured, one must ask themselves ;"are these two conspirators in league with the other bombers?" This is a question for the Iraqi courts to answer, not one for the British military. But certainly . thearmed removal of these two British terrorists by British military force seems to indicate that the British government supported their illegal activities. Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #31 September 23, 2005 The matter really can be seen quite simply: Were the Basra police acting legally when they handed prisoners over to terrorists? The answer here has to be “no”. No police force in the world can be said to be acting legally in handing a prisoner over to a terrorist and illegal organization to detain with the hope that they will be able to exchange the two soldiers for terrorists legally captured earlier in the month following a terrorist attack. So we have a situation where we know the Basra police have acted illegally, and those illegal actions have caused the lives of two British servicemen to be threatened. It should therefore follow that British forces have the right to use force against those rogue elements of the police who are acting illegally in order to secure the safety of servicemen who have been placed in the hands of terrorists. Here’s some questions for you: Y’a know how the Warrior vehicle broke through the wall of the police station in order to free 6 officers who had gone in to negotiate with the police and subsequently been held hostage? What legal authority did the Iraqi police have for holding those 6 officers prisoner? What law had those 6 officers broken which entitled the police to detain them rather than hand them over to coalition forces as Iraqi law requires? (You do realize it was 6 negotiators held hostage who were busted out of the jail right, not two SAS troopers yeah? The troopers were held in a house in Basra by terrorists; not in the jail.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #32 September 25, 2005 So, an Iraqi judge just issued warrants for the arrests of two British soldiers. The question is - do we respect it? Do we respect the authority of the Iraqi government even when they do things we don't like? I suspect we won't even consider handing them over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)