BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 03:28 PM

McGrath-

Numbers, please, if you want to use those dates. And keep away from Bobert- he has a real problem with numbers...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:19 AM

"By the bye - you don't have to have an independent investigation to determine what they were up to - it is blatantly obvious."

Considering the type of weapons that were in their possession and
that they were dressed in civilian clothing makes it obvious to me that they were fomenting civil war in Iraq and trying to blame it on "insurgents".

Reminds me of Belfast.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 11:49 AM

I rather assume that "much higher" refers to the number of innocent deaths in the two years since Saddam was overthrown, compared with the number during the two years before the invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 11:16 AM

dianavan,

"Saddam is a monster but the combined forces of the U.S. and Britain are even worse and the tally of innocent deaths is much higher."

Care to give any indication where you made these numbers up?

Or are the hundreds of thousands found in mass graves, the deaths in the Kuwait and Iran wars, and the civilians killed by bombs all to be presumed guilty?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 10:00 AM

"Use of force" doesn't mean the same as "initial victory". It means something much wider and more difficult to achieve, and which would have involvesd intelligent planning in advance and preparation. The failure to do that kind of work has meant thousands of dead among the occupying forces, and God knows how many dead Iraqis. And it is reducing to vanishing point the hope that out of all this will come an Iraq that is any better to live in then it was under Saddam.

There are all kinds of regimes around the world I'd love to see the back of. But I am sure that if the USA were to give them the same kind of treatment they have given to Iraq, the end result would probably be even worse than the present situation in country after country.

Maybe it's sometimes necessary to crack eggs to make an omelette - but you don't do it with a sledgehammer.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 09:56 AM

Change the record here too Bill

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 09:55 AM

"Islamic governments are not well known for their civil liberties."

Sounds more like an observation - hardly condemnation - that you seem to reserve for the current US Government.

"Would I have preferred it if Saddam Hussein were still in power?

Thats not the point." That is entirely the point, you were asked a simple question, which you answer rather obliquely - in short you would prefer it if Saddam Hussein were still in power.

Oh and as for - "Britain is no better. They have a very long history of invasion of other countries that pre-dates World War II." In actual fact they don't, but that's a popular misconception of many living on your side of the Atlantic.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 01:48 AM

teribus, you said, "Apart from which I have yet to read one post of yours (Dianavan) comdemning any Islamic Government for human rights abuses."

Then I guess you can't read, teribus because I said, "Islamic governments are not well known for their civil liberties."

Would I have preferred it if Saddam Hussein were still in power?

Thats not the point. The point is that the U.S. should not have invaded but should have continued to negotiate through the U.N. I doubt if Saddam would have killed any more people than the U.S. has killed in the same space of time.

Maybe we should tally the number of deaths that can be attributed to the U.S. and compare it to the number of deaths that can attributed to Saddam minus the help he got from the U.S. We know that we cannot attain these facts but we all know that the U.S. is responsible for one hell of alot of death and destruction. At least Saddam did not destroy the country and its infrastructure.

Britain is no better. They have a very long history of invasion of other countries that pre-dates World War II. Would you like to compare the number of deaths caused by British invasions to the number of deaths attributed to Saddam?

Saddam is a monster but the combined forces of the U.S. and Britain are even worse and the tally of innocent deaths is much higher.

Get off your high horse and realize that the U.S. and Britain should start minding their own business on their own turf and stop meddling in the affairs of other nations unless they have the support of the U.N. Without international support, the U.S. and Britain are merely war mongers in pursuit of economic gain.

If they were interested in democracy, they would be doing a better job of it at home. In other words, they would be listening to the people. There is more to a mandate than a crooked election.

Since you obviously didn't read my previous post and attempted to put words in my mouth, I will, like other Mudcatters, refuse to enter into any further dialogue with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 12:53 AM

Two quotes from MGOH;

""I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that." Donald Rumsfeld, Sect. of Defense, Nov. 14, 2002."


"Of course, so far as the actual initial victory goes, they are accurate enough ..."

No qualification - seems so to me.

There is no civil war in Iraq at present, no matter how much those of you posting here would wish to see it. Apart from which I have yet to read one post of yours (Dianavan) comdemning any Islamic Government for human rights abuses. At least the people of Afghanistan and Iraq have been given the opportunity - most seem to appreciate it - even when threatened by those you seem to whole heartedly support. Please answer a direct question would you have preferred it if Saddam Hussein were still in power?

Foolestroupe - the grounds for your rather inane statement is? In May 2003 British troop levels in Iraq were over 30,000, they are now slightly less than 8,500 - in Northern Ireland they are at around 15,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 10:18 PM

"good will still exists between the population in and around Basra and the British Forces"

Oooops! Not any more!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 08:24 PM

Political freedom isn't the only freedom. For women in much of Iraq, their freedom to do all kinds of things appears to be significantly less than it was. Even aside from the increased likelihood of being blown up or shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 03:41 PM

Teribus - If you call civil war, "political advancement", I think you are delusional. I do not think Saddam is or ever was (even when the U.S. supported him) a good guy. I do think that democracy cannot be imposed.

If, "by the end of the year the first democratically elected Government of Iraq will be in place" we will have to wait and see how long it will be in place and/or how democratic it actually turns out to be. Islamic governments are not well known for their civil liberties.

I think you would have to ask the people of Iraq if intervention by the U.S. and Britain has improved the quality of their lives. Its a bit smug to assume that, from the perspective of an outsider, that the people of Iraq have more freedom now.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 03:34 PM

"Minimum timeline"?

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that." Donald Rumsfeld, Sect. of Defense, Nov. 14, 2002.

Seems pretty unambiguous to me. There is absolutely no qualification about this merely meaning "the end of hostilities in relation to the Iraqi armed forces under the command of the Ba'athist regime."

The point is, they went in in a tearing hurry, on a timetable based on internal political considerations, and with no worked out strategy for what to do, and how to extricate themselves. For example the decision to disband the entire Iraqi armed forces in the way that it was done has been pretty well universally seen as a disastrous blunder, and one which did an enormous amount to foster the insurgency.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 02:14 PM

Teribus ...You've only just returned, dont start squirming already.

By the end of the year we either have civil war,(maybe we have it now) or a "democratically" elected Islamist govt...Its no joke..

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 05:49 AM

Dianavan,

I think the first part of it went quicker and easier than everybody though it would. The second part was always going to take time and be much harder. The political advancement has, by and large, kept on track with regard to timetable - by the end of the year the first democratically elected Government of Iraq will be in place.

You on the other hand would have preferred to see Saddam Hussein still in power - You're joking, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 04:37 AM

Some political leaders and military leaders have stated that they will remain in Iraq and in Afghanistan as long as the puppet governments want them to remain.

Of course! They know that as soon as the big guns leave, they will quickly be thrown out of power.

You must admit, terribus, it wasn't as quick and easy as they thought it would be and it certainly has cost alot more than anyone ever expected - except for those of us who knew all along that Bush had no idea what he was getting into.

You make the invasion of Iraq sound like some kind of noble cause. You're joking, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 04:01 AM

The minimum timeline Kevin was 2 years from the end of hostilities in relation to the Iraqi armed forces under the command of the Ba'athist regime. Since 1-May-2003, the political and military leaders have steadfastly stated that they will remain in Iraq and in Afghanistan for as long as the governments of those countries want us to remain, not a day longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 07:45 PM

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. By Ken Adelman (assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977, and arms control director under President Ronald Reagan) in the Washington Post Wednesday, February 13, 2002.
.....................

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that." Donald Rumsfeld, Sect. of Defense, Nov. 14, 2002.
....................

"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991."

"But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder.        Richard Perle, recently resigned chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002
...................
"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.

"The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling ... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on. Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair writer, in a debate Jan. 28, 2003:

I could chase around and find more. Of course, so far as the actual initial victory goes, they are accurate enough (which is hardly surprising given the disparate of military resources of the two sides - though that kind of confidence does seem to indicate that those fampous "Weapons of Mass Desruction" were not always seen as constituting a real threat, by those in the know). But the clear implication of those quotes was that this blitzkrieg victory would mean a rapid the end of the war and transition to peace.

And when Bush went to Iraq on that visit where he drssed up as a pilot and declared victory back in May 2003 there was the same clear assumption that things were pretty well sorted out. Whereas in a real sense they were only starting.

I don't think there were too many advocates of the war who said before it started that they thought it would last for many long years, and mean thousands of dead among the occupying armies. (Let alone the far higher numbers of Iraqi dead.)

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 06:13 PM

No names or examples to offer then McGrath - Though not

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 12:25 PM

I'm with you on that, greg. Looks horrible, feels horrible. Naming that format after a sausage flatters it unduly. And to add insult to injury, it is smug to buggery about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 12:18 PM

I certainly wouldn't want to wipe my arse with the Telegraph.
Pretty pointless exercise....

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 08:17 AM

Teribus: I think you're probably right in deciding not to wipe your arse on the Guardian. The new style paper that they have just changed to, being shinier thsn the old kind, is already attracting criticism for being less good for lighting fires; it is similarly of substantially less use as an aid to anal hygeine.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 08:00 AM

I certainly don't recall any.

Sometimes our recall button goes off-line...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 09:09 PM

"The conventional way for politicians to try to claim the escape route of naivety is to start talking about "the luxury of exercising hindsight", when the actual point at issue is whether they actually exercised foresight, which isn't a luxury, but a duty"

Brilliant McGrath!!....An epithet among epithets

Problem is Teribus, our method of "sorting things out" in Iraq is certain to make a bad situation much worse.
A bloody civil war seems inevitable,leading to an Iranian backed Islamic Rep in the south and an autonomous kurdish area in the north, continually under siege.

From our standpoint, the war in Iraq has definitely made the world a more dangerous place

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 08:32 PM

Nice to be back McGrath,

Only thing is you and quite a number of people posting here don't take anything that is said on its part or on its behalf at face value.

I would be interested in hearing the names and reading the statements of the public figures who claimed that it could all be sorted out rapidly - I certainly don't recall any.

The MNF troops were initially welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi population. By and large that good will still exists between the population in and around Basra and the British Forces. Just to put it into perspective the UK has more troops in Northern Ireland in aid to civil power for a population of around 500,000, than in Basra population around 2,500,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 07:38 PM

I'm glad to see you back, Teribus - but there really isn't any need to go lashing out in that petulant way.

"...the British Army have got one of the best "dirty tricks" departments in the business." True. So it's better not to take all that is said on its part or on its behalf at face value. That's a pretty good rule generally. Press officers spin stories, papers spin stories, witnesses get all subjective in what they recall and say...

There's a story in the papers today about a gorilla using a walking stick while wading through a swamp, to avoid falling down a hole. I think that shows the right attitude. (And the fact I take that link from the Houston Chronicle doesn't mean that I necessarily see the Houstion Chronicle as my media source of choice, Teribus, just that it's a convenient source here.)

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

"The problems in Iraq were never going to be solved overnight and any who ever thought that was being terribly naive." The interesting question is how many of the public figures who claimed that it could all be sorted out rapidly, and that the invading forces would be welcomed were being naive, and how many were lying. I'd say that, on balance, there was more of them lying than naive.

The conventional way for politicians to try to claim the escape route of naivety is to start talking about "the luxury of exercising hindsight", when the actual point at issue is whether they actually exercised foresight, which isn't a luxury, but a duty.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 06:44 PM

No Akenaton, the situation in Iraq was much worse under Saddam Hussein. Admittedly it's not all sweetness and light there at the moment and will in all probability get a bit worse before it gets a one hell of a lot better. That is based on things running their normal course (The insurrection in Malaya took just over fifteen years, Greece in the aftermath of the second world war took four years) The problems in Iraq were never going to be solved overnight and any who ever thought that was being terribly naive.

John Pilger is a well known journalist, trouble with investigative journalism is that it pays to invent something to investigate - if there is no news get out there and invent some - journalists do not rate very highly in my opinion, I know that I would never talk to one.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the New Statesman to the Guardian what the Spectator is to the Daily Telegraph?

On the contrary Akenaton, the British Army have got one of the best "dirty tricks" departments in the business - their old Soviet counterparts used to rate them very highly.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 11:40 AM

Has anyone else seen or heard this in the American media? I hardly bother to read or listen to the news anymore. Is it me who's just missed this issue (soldiers & policemen) or has this been out there for the American public to hear about? Maybe I should follow more closely again. I feel as if I get so much false or tilted shit that it turns my stomack though. I think I'm looking for a reality check. Thanks

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 11:15 AM

You're clutching at straws Teribus, the situation in Iraq has got much worse during your absence.
Your stance was always dodgy but now looks precarious....better to find firmer ground.

As I'm sure you know Pilger is very experienced and one of the top investigative journalists.   The article was printed in the New Statesman.

I suppose you believe that the British Army don't have a "dirty tricks" dept.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:53 PM

Oh - it's two policemen now - I do wish these TWATS would make up their minds.

As far as the photos of torture of Iraqi prisoners goes Dianavan they are all old news - absolutely nothing new - what's your point?

My views with regard to the Guardian are fairly well known - I wouldn't even wipe my arse with it, so please do not quote it as the fount of all truth and reason - because it damn well isn't, and has been proved as such many times in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:00 PM

Well it looks like Iraq has re-issued arrest warrants for the two British soldiers who are accused of homicide. They reportedly shot two Iraqi policeman who were trying to arrest them.

As far as photos of torture of Iraqi prisoners, looks like you will get to see the real thing sometime soon, Teribus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5311219,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 09:06 PM

Sort of simalar to credence you gave to Piers Morgans pictures of UK abuse of Iraqi prisoners that proved to be completely false - eh Mcgrath?

As to similar stories being carried by many other papers - that all depends on timeline and emergence of fact - if what you and others contributing to this topic contended was true it would be front page news - its not guess why, my reading and understanding of events is 100% correct.

MGOH you essentially do not make points you merely stir in an extremely genteel fashion - that comes from your daliance with socialist journalism within the confines of the British Isles.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:55 PM

My link was to a story by an AP reporter which was carried by the Guardian - which has a more convenient and accessible website than many other papers. Essentially similar stories were carried by a wide range of papers and broadcast media.

The only thing that is clear is that the facts of what actually happened were very unclear, with a range of often contradictory press statements, and statements by people who were on the spot in different capacities, being reported.

That essentially was my point. Just because the people on "our side" say something, that doesn't mean it should automatically be given greater credence than different versions by people on "the other side" - regardless of which side is "ours" and which is "the other".

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:33 PM

That wasn't an attack Bruce, that was a compliment.

I'll let you know when I'm making an attack...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:14 PM

ake,

try discussing the facts presented, rather than attacking the presenter...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:11 PM

Great thing supposition.....but surely a new departure for Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 02:51 PM

The Dissident Voice eh? No fear of biased reporting from them.

The author John Pilger discounts reports of those on the scene and writes authoritively from afar and that must be believed - maybe by the looney left but not by me. The BBC showed the police station they showed the house that was stormed, they interviewed the troops present, they showed the warrior personnel carrier being attacked. Although not a great fan of the BBC in this instance I am prepared to belive them.

Pilger asks a question regarding whether or not expolsives and a timing device were found in the car being used by the two soldiers, then carries on working on the premise that there was - total supposition on his part - not mentioned anywhere else - so Pilger must be correct - how bloody pathetic.

Ake, two points regarding the operation mounted to free the men.

Point 1 - why were they handed over to a militia group? Could it possibly have anything to do with the arrest the day before of the leader of one of the militia groups the day before. The soldiers were handed over to provide that group with some leverage, the soldiers would be no good to them dead.

Point 2 - the timescale of the arrest by police through to the mounting of the raid on the house was fairly swift and totally unexpected (It has not been done before).

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 02:43 PM

The Dissident Voice eh? No fear of biased reporting from them.

The author John Pilger discounts reports of those on the scene and writes authoritively from afar and that must be believed - maybe by the looney left but not by me. The BBC showed the police station they showed the house that was stormed, they interviewed the troops present, they showed the warrior personnel carrier being attacked. Although not a great fan of the BBC in this instance I am prepared to belive them.

Pilger asks a question regarding whether or not expolsives and a timing device were found in the car being used by the two soldiers, then carries on working on the premise that there was - total supposition on his part - not mentioned anywhere else - so Pilger must be correct - how bloody pathetic.

Ake, two points regarding the operation mounted to free the men.

Point 1 - why were they handed over to a militia group? Could it possibly have anything to do with the arrest the day before of the leader of one of the militia groups the day before. The soldiers were handed over to provide that group with some leverage, the soldiers would be no good to them dead.

Point 2 - the timescale of the arrest by police through to the mounting of the raid on the house was fairly swift and totally unexpected (It has not been done before).

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 01:25 PM

If the SAS men had really been held by people close to the insurgency, does any one really believe that they would have been recovered alive?

McGrath's version of events was widely reported in all the "quality" papers before the UK govts' spin machine got into gear.

Excellent articlehere

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 12:53 PM

This guy believes all of the Britsh Army reports, there is one born every day, do not be taken in by these liars, lying about such events is part of the war machine.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 04:27 AM

Sources - BBC World News (both from their own reporters on location and from interviews held with the Iraqi Interior Minister and Prime Minister); CNN (Same as for BBC); UK News Papers other than the Guardian which is well known for not letting facts get in the way of a good story.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 04:19 AM

Did I miss something"

Seems to me McGrath backed his statements with a source.

Teribus on the other hand...

doesn't seem to have a source.

Where did you get your facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:41 AM

Thank you for that Teribus. It's nice to see that 'trial by mudcat lefties' can sometimes be balanced out by the odd fact here and there!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:26 AM

MGOH'S link is of course to the Guardian.

It refers to British Tanks breaking down the walls of the prison/jail/police station, whatever (BBC reports and most other media outlets reported it as being a police station). In fact only one vehicle went through the perimeter wall. This was done only after it had become clear that those inside the police station were refusing to follow instructions to release the men

The troops used were not British Commandos.

There were no shots fired - in the face of extreme provocation the troops involved showed remarkable restraint.

Both British and Iraqi Authorities have been very clear that no prisoners escaped from the police station.

Having entered the police station and found that the two soldiers were not there, police officers present were questioned as to the whereabouts of the soldiers. They were directed to a private residence in the hands of a Shia Militia Group - this building was stormed and the men released, the house was then flattened.

In the past soldiers serving with the SAS and SBS were normally subject to summary execution if captured.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 10:58 AM

It's murky out there. I don't blame anyone for resisting arrest in that sort of situaiton. And nor do I blame anyone for thinking these guys were decidely suspicious characters.

Of course since these guys were carrying arms they were prepared to use, and were in civilian clothes, strictly speaking they'd have been what Bush calls "illegal combatants". There are people banged up in Guantanamo Bay who have done far less than they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 04:33 PM

With all of the reports of people being "arrested" by imposters dressed in police uniforms and then turning up dead, I think I'd be a little hesitant in allowing myself to be arrested, especially if I had been told that the local police weren't allowed to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 03:08 PM

A word to the wise McGrath.

You really must stop using such forceful epithets, you may upset your fellow posters...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 02:32 PM

I didn't say police station, I said jail.

"Aquil Jabbar, an Iraqi television cameraman who lives across the street from the Basra jail, said about 150 Iraqi prisoners fled as British commandos stormed inside and rescued their comrades."

From the report of an AP writer published on 20th Sept.

Soldiers in plain clothes who shoot policeman have to expect to be arrested. If there's some special agreement that says that it's OK for them to do stuff like that, it's the duty of the courts to decide if that is legal. Similarly if there is som3 agreement that they should be handed over for trial by the British military courts.

"Don't worry officer - I'm a British Soldier, you don't have to concern yourself about your colleague I have just killed."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 12:58 PM

Problem is ..Who's version of the "truth" do we believe.

I know our side are beyond reproach in that respect, but there's always a little niggling doubt....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Issues Warrant of British Soldiers
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 10:56 AM

With regard to McGrath's post:

The two civilians did identify themselves as British Forces personnel.

The standing agreement is that British Forces personnel arrested by civilian authorities are to be transferred into the custody of the British Military Authorities. In this case that was not done, even on specific instructions from the Iraqi Interior Minister, instead the two soldiers were handed over to a Shia Militia Group.

No prisoners were released, or allowed to escaped from the police station. Mainly due to the fact that the two soldiers were no longer there.

Yes Guest - "Great post McGrath of Harlow. Great answer."

Apart of course, from the fact that it was based on incorrect information.

By the bye - you don't have to have an independent investigation to determine what they were up to - it is blatantly obvious.