Printable View
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9400104/
What's going on with this? It appears there is a lot more to the story than is being told right now.
I'm inclined to reserve judgment until more details are available, but on the face of it this seems to fly in the face of efforts to help Iraq to become a sovereign nation.
The BBC reported this earlier. I thought about it and came to the (tentative) opposite conclusion. Nothing covert going on, just the Brits endearing themselves to the natives. Show them who's boss. Who said they could have their country back anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
That's exactly what I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
I had first heard it reported that the captives had been released after 'negotiations.'
I'd hate to see what their interrogations are like.
Right, sorry for the belated recognition of your point. Yes, in the sense that the new Iraqi authorities defy the Brits and need to be shown who's boss, this is new and there must be more to it. So much for caffeine boosts. This dim rectal aperture is now going straight to bed, in order to take a fresh look at things tomorrow morning (it is now 2 am in Woodenshoesia).Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
:bow:
It's not good, but there has been tension in Basra since the British forces arrested a leading member of a Shia 'militia' force, a fundamentalist group backed by Iran.
I'd say these guys are looking for British hostages to negotiate a swap. I understand that the British soldiers were taken by the militia and weren't in the police station, they were being held in a private house. They are very lucky to get out alive with their heads intact.
If this is right, it is a worrying sign because it means that the Shia militia has infiltrated and gained control of the police in Basra.
We are losing control there and I can't see it getting any better. I hope we get out soon.
Apparently according to diverse sources (NTB-Reuters, AP, CNN) the two Britons where arrested after being caught dressed as Arabs shooting at civilians, hurting several. Interrogations revealed that they where doing a “special security task”. The British troops attacked the prison because they were afraid that the two soldiers were held by a local militia, something that was confirmed when they were not found at the prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
AP reports that 150 Iraqi prisoners escaped.
LOL. Doesn't everyone bring a 30mm cannon to the negotiating table? Anyway in the old days it would have been a squadron of battleships.Quote:
I had first heard it reported that the captives had been released after 'negotiations.'
I'd hate to see what their interrogations are like.
Anyway, as it now appears the Iraqi interior ministry had orderd the soldiers release, to which the local police could not or would not comply, and the soldiers had been taken from the police and handed over to local militia. So no "Iraqi soveriegnty" rubbish please.
Under the circumstances driving a Warrior through the police station seems quite restrained to me.
If you want to bash the British this resuce isn't the thing to pick on. You should be asking how it is that the militia seem to be in de facto control of the police in Basra.
Iran....
Never mind if the Brits were caught dressed as locals and killing Iraqi policemen. That would be just more sovereignty rubbish, right? Instead, let us concentrate on blaming everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
BBC News
Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said the men - possibly working undercover - were arrested for allegedly shooting dead a policeman and wounding another. The arrests sparked unrest in which Army vehicles were attacked. In a statement, Brig Lorimer said that under Iraqi law the soldiers should have been handed over to coalition authorities, but this failed to happen despite repeated requests.
Why should soldiers gathering intelligence not be dressed as locals? And why, if they were threatened by a militia infiltrated police force, should they not defend themselves? Seeing as that police force handed them over to the militia anyway? A miltia that is upset because we have recently captured one of their leadersQuote:
Never mind if the Brits were caught dressed as locals and killing Iraqi policemen. That would be just more sovereignty rubbish, right? Instead, let us concentrate on blaming everyone else.
Hostage taking that picked on the wrong guys IMHO. No sovereignty issue here unless you think the militias are sovereign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Allegedly
Who says they shot to defend themselves? Assumptions, assumptions. According to The Independent they failed to stop at a police checkpoint and shot dead a policeman from their unmarked car.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Yes, everything in this case is alleged. Do you automatically trust the version of the British army after all we know about their provocations in Northern Ireland? Let us hold our fire and see what more we can learn. It has to be said that men without uniforms who fire at the police are nothing but insurgents and may be shot on sight. Those two should be very glad they are still alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
linkQuote:
On the evening of 19 September, Brigadier John Lorimer, Commander of 12 Mechanized Brigade, released the following statement:
"During the morning two British soldiers were detained at the Jamiat Police Station in Basra. Under Iraqi law, as MNF soldiers, they should have been handed over to the Coalition authorities. The Consul-General and I asked repeatedly for this but it did not happen.
"During the day we went to exhaustive lengths to achieve the hand-over of the soldiers. And in fact, as a result, we understand that the Iraqi Interior Minister personally ordered the release of the soldiers. However, that order seems to have been ignored.
"From an early stage, I had good reason to believe that the lives of the two soldiers were at risk and troops were sent to the area of Basra near the police station to help ensure their safety by providing a cordon. As shown on television, these troops were attacked with fire-bombs and rockets by a violent and determined crowd.
"Later in the day, however, I became more concerned about the safety of the two soldiers after we received information that they had been handed over to militia elements. As a result I took the difficult decision to order entry to the Jamiat police station. By taking this action we were able to confirm that the soldiers were no longer being held by the IPS. An operation was then mounted to rescue them from a house in Basra.
"I am delighted that the two British soldiers are back with British Forces and are in good health. We will be following up with the authorities in Basra why the soldiers were not immediately handed over to MNF as Iraqi law (CPA Order 17) says that they should have been.
"I should put the scale of yesterday's disorder into context. British armoured vehicles being attacked by a violent crowd, including with petrol bombs, makes graphic television viewing. But this was a small unrepresentative crowd (200-300) in a city of 1.5 million. The vast majority of Iraqi people in MND(SE) are law abiding and value the contribution made by coalition forces to maintaining stability and security.
"Minor damage was caused to the prison compound wall and to the house in which our two soldiers were held.
"It is of deep concern that British soldiers held by the police should end up being held by militia. This is unacceptable and I should stress that we won’t hesitate to take action against those who are involved in planning and conducting attacks against coalition forces.
"Looking ahead, I should stress that the situation in Basra is now calm. We will continue to work closely with local authorities to maintain this calm, and with the Iraqi Security Forces who capabilities we are helping to develop. It was a difficult day yesterday, but we have put this behind us and will move on."
I had a really good laugh during lunch today. Whilst speaking of the current situation in Iraq, one of my co-workers exclaimed: "It's Texas down there!"...
I do, more or less. Rightly or wrongly.Quote:
Do you automatically trust the version of the British army after all we know about their provocations in Northern Ireland?
Its probably the feeling that it is better that they are alive and back with their unit than having their severed heads paraded on Al Jazeera that is part of the reason I am not too worried about Iraqi sovereignty. Gosh, it must feel like this being an American.Quote:
Those two should be very glad they are still alive
(Plus I admit a guilty little part of me does think its a bit badass busting into a jail with APCs)
The whole thing's curious. What happened exactly to cause the arrest in the first place? How did the soldiers end up with the Shia militia? The fact that a large portion of the police in the area basically consists of Shia militia and are hence difficult to control for authorities indicates this may not have been an official police action, but that assumption relies heavily upon trusting the BA version of the story. For the moment there really are too many unknowns to form a decent opinion, so I guess it'll have to wait.
'Good on them' I say, if your mates were kidnapped and you had the ability and the firepwer to get them back, would you?
p.s. that wasnt a political post, just me being my pro-military self.
If they were kidnapped, yes I would. If they were lawfully arrested by the legitimate civilian authorities, no I wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16
The problem with this case is that the info is too conflicting for us to be able to determine what was really going on.
Yeah, i considered putting in the p.s Didn't mean that the soldiers were kidnapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
my bad. ~:cheers:
The soldiers were working undercover, and it has been supposed that they are special forces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
The Interior Ministry ordered their release, but the local police didn't do as told, and handed them to a group of militia-men. The Army stormed the jail to confirm this, then proceeded to free the soldiers from a nearby house. I support the Army here, especially after the video of an army vehicle being firebombed, and the soldiers inside being pelted with stones and the like. The soldiers could not retaliate because the people were civilians, and various laws mean that they would be charged with something or another...
I think that upon being attacked with firebombs they would have had some cause to retaliate, but they chose not to, and I think this demonstrates great restraint on their part.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
DA
They were (as the BBC has just said) SAS men who were arrested and then handed over to the local militia for some reason, so we done the right thing.
I do. Its not a good idea throwing missles at soldiers and expecting them to do nothing like the PSNI at the minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Well, it is no use arguing with people who admit they automatically believe the official British version of events. Just for the record: do you guys believe the first official British version that said no violence was used to free the two, or the second official British version that said violence was indeed used to free them?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesPanther
do you guys believe the first official British version that said no violence was used to free the two, or the second official British version that said violence was indeed used to free them?
Don't get technical Adrian ~D ~D ~D
Assassin... No sovereignty issue here unless you think the militias are sovereign.
Unfortunately there is a soveriegnty issue here . There is a little ongoing process rather loosly termed Iraqification .
Part of this process has involved putting terrorists into government as political parties , as another part of this process militias attached to these "political parties" have been incorporated into the police and army .
So if the police and army are the militia then how can they be handed over to the militia when they are held by the militia in the first place ?
Oh my oh my , it does seem like a little bit of a quagmire , I wonder what the exit strategy is ? ~;)
Hey, I can read the official Army version too y'know. But this whole business about how and why the soldiers were released, and the demonstrations against british troops basically ignores what ignited the situation; namely, that british soldiers (apparently) killed an Iraqi policeman. What happened? Why did it happen? Until that is cleared up this whole issue will remain hazy, as will any judgement based on unreliable facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Regardless of that, if the soldiers were handed over to militants by police forces the british army was probably within their rights to do things the way they did. And the restraint of the british troops confronted with violent demonstrators is commendable.
Oh deary dear.. Speaking of emergency exits, do the words 'Northern Ireland' ring a bell, Mr President? If I remember correctly, the two soldiers would be old acquaintances of you and Mr Templar Knight. Think F.R.U., Det, 14th Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The Scotsman
Tue 20 Sep 2005
Defence sources have told The Scotsman that the soldiers were part of an undercover special forces detachment set up this year to try to "bridge the intelligence void" in Basra. The detachment draws on special forces' experience in Northern Ireland and Aden, where British troops went "deep" undercover in local communities to try to break the code of silence against foreign forces.
The troops are under the jurisdiction of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment that was formed last year by the then defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, to gather so-called human intelligence during counter-terrorist missions.
and the demonstrations against british troops basically ignores what ignited the situation; namely, that british soldiers (apparently) killed an Iraqi policeman.
The demonstrations predate the apparent shooting by several days .
The flash point prior to the alledged shooting was the refusal of the police to arrest a local leader, the leader is part of a party whose militia make up part of the police force .
So the British went out and made the arrest instead , which upset the locals who voted for the party , and the police that work for the government (and the party) of which the leader was a member and local representative .
Its all so simple really isn't it . ~:confused:
Has the quagmire turned into quicksand yet ?:help:
The detachment draws on special forces' experience in Northern Ireland and Aden, where British troops went "deep" undercover in local communities to try to break the code of silence against foreign forces.
OMG not Aden , there were never British forces in Aden after the withdrawel from east of Suez , honestly , it is on record in the House of Commons , they were never there and they certainly wouldn't have done any thing nasty if they had of been there .
Send them back to London so they can shoot a few more South American electricians instead . It causes less trouble .
Hey I wonder if those two murderers from the Scots Guards got transfered to this crowd after they were released from prison and promoted , they might fit in very well .
The McBride killers, of course! [Do I know my Northern Irish history or not?]Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
In response to Tribesman's second to last post: I agree that the arrest of the local leader started the trouble in the region, though I still need to catch up on that a little; however I was referring to the situation after the alleged shooting of an Iraqi policeman, to which King Malcolm's post was referring (I think).
Edit: damn, you two posted before me. Just clarifying what I was responding to.
The McBride killers, of course! [Do I know my Northern Irish history or not?]
No no , that was the Germans . Poor Willie McBride , who joined the great fallen in 1916 . (Green Fields of France , great song) ~D ~D ~D
Hmmmno. That is what we are constantly being fed: Shiites have infiltrated the police force, that explains it all!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Let us take a closer look. The local police is effectively controlled by the Badr Corps, which is the armed branch of SCIRI, which is the political ally of Iran. The arrested gentlemen were from the domestic Madhi Army headed by the radical Shia cleric Muqtadaal-Sadr. The arrested men included Sheikh Ahmad Majid al-Fartusi, the Basra area commander, and his aide Sajjat al-Basri.
Now the Badr Corps and Madhi Army are fighting each other. The Mahdi is a maverick movement, in direct competition with the SCIRI for the eventual control of Basra as soon as the Coalition withdraws.
So tell me, Mr President: why would the Basra police, controlled by SCIRI, attack or kidnap British soldiers because they are holding their opponents from the Mahdi Army prisoner?
why would the Basra police, controlled by SCIRI, attack or kidnap British soldiers because they are holding their opponents from the Mahdi Army prisoner?
Maybe al-Fartusi and al-Basri are really Iranian backed double agents working for SCIRI all along ~;) Or maybe the Badr were aiming to dispose of them without the problems that arresting them might entail .
I don't want to be too technical of course, but there are some slight discrepancies between the latest official British version of the incidents and reports in the Washington Post. It seems that the situation is not under control as suggested by Brigadier John Lorimer, Commander of 12 Mechanized Brigade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorimer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Washington Post
[QUOTE=AdrianII]Well, it is no use arguing with people who admit they automatically believe the official British version of events.[QUOTE]
Or with people that would'nt even believe the official British version if it said they were on fire and they could smell the burning, pot and kettle my friend.
I've no doubt that the story will come out in time, at least I'm sure I'll hear it ~;)
[QUOTE=Ja'chyra]You believe the second official version, but you refuse to say why. I doubt certain statements and I give you the reasons why. That is quite different.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
I'd still like to know why soldiers were moving about in civilian clothing. Isn't that a violation of the codes that they should follow? Or is it a violation only when the other side does it?
Good point Spethulu , ship them off to Gitmo ~;)
They were in civilian clothing because they were undercover special forces, and they're not really violating any codes concerning uniform because they only really apply when in enemy territory or in a battlefield, which they are not (they are authorised to go dressed as civilians).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
Really?
So you can act as an undercover commando and shoot weapons but not be considered out of uniform?
Two rules...
If you are in enemy territory in civillian clothes you are considered a spy and can be shot (some people may remember the infamous vietnam video)but they are in Allied and supossidly friendly territory so really they should be alright as long as the goverment knows
Has the world gone mad? I dont often follow the right wing example of events - but like English Assasin Im all caught up in our ressurection of imperial affairs.
The 2 Soliders captured according to Iraqi law should have been immeditedltly turned over to the co-alition forces. They weren't. Instead they were turned over to a hard core millita group, all I can say is thank god the british army turned up in time.
(And storming A prison with AFV's is bad ass indeed!!!)
The Iraqi government ordered the police to hand the troops over (under the legal terms of the coalition), and this order was ignored, disobeyed, flaunted. The Iraqi government is a non-government and the country will descend into civil war as soon as the coalition pulls out.
I knew I was right about the hostage swap, it makes sense, but we must pull our lads out of there. We got rid of Saddam, now the Iraqis must do the best they can but with moral and economic support.
As for fools believing that the 'undercover' British troops just drive around gunning people down when 'undercover' -repeat for emphasis 'undercover'- well, you guys have a wacky understanding of 'undercover'. The very last thing these lads would have wanted was a shoot-out confrontation. They were compromised and must have considered it to be a life or death situation.
At least they weren't ripped apart by a frenzied mob like the two lads were in Northern Ireland years ago (and they weren't 'special forces', just two support troops). The Iraqis are more civilized than that.
Sorry, but no, if they were engaging in covert actions without uniforms, then according to the Bush government's very own, new rules for war, they no longer enjoy the protections of the Geneva Conventions or Laws of Land Warfare. You can't have it both ways: denying POW status to the Taleban abducted in Afghanistan when they were still the government there but arguing that when the exact same thing happens to Americans, that they're not 'really' breaking the rules. That's a double standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
And only those with heads stuck as firmly in the sand as Bush could deny that Iraq remains a war zone.
That is what the Brits say. The Iraqi Prime Minister's office denied it yesterday throughout the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
They must have, simply because their commander says so? There is no need to refer to Northern Ireland. In this Iraq war alone many British army communiques have turned out to be wrong. Gulllibility has a certain charm, Red Peasant, but it has no place in military matters.Quote:
The very last thing these lads would have wanted was a shoot-out confrontation. They were compromised and must have considered it to be a life or death situation.
And yet you have referred to NI a few times in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
If people choose to believe what their government tells them then they are no more gullible then those who believe what the media say.
Unfortunately all the media has to say on the matter right now is what they're getting from the army; until there are more sources it would be unwise to jump to any conclusions, particularly since it has been shown that governments aren't at their most reliable when it comes to actions by troops.
Yes, one could refer to NI, but it isn't necessary because in Iraq alone, there have been sufficient examples of mistaken military statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
Belief in any one source is extremely naive. Free media are the most important check on any government. News about a conflict from one source - in this case a government - is really no news at all.Quote:
If people choose to believe what their government tells them then they are no more gullible then those who believe what the media say.
So is disbelief in that source for the only reason is that it is the only source.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
However this turns out the scaremongering and half stories by the media won't help.
Whatever you say. Today The Times has some interesting tidbits from military sources. It seems the attack on the police station may have been a deliberate diversion to conceal the swift liberation of the two SAS men by their own squad from the nearby bungalow. It also says 'the two soldiers are believed to have been investigating a corrupt police unit in Basra who were colluding with Shia militia leaders. Some of the men who later interrogated them are believed to be part of this same unit.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
Interesting - weren't two American reporters recently killed in Basra while investigating, inter alia, militia infilitration of the police? There may be no connection, but there is a certain schadenfreude in visualising their murderers (or associates) biting off rather more than they can chew on this occasion. It's a shame that New York Times reporters can't call on the SAS, Warrior APCs and helicopters for backup.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Ahhem..Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
- 4 September 1992. Peter Mc Bride, 18-year-old father of two young daughters, is stopped and searched, then shot dead minutes later by members of a patrol of Scots Guards in the New Lodge area of Belfast. Two soldiers, Mark Wright and James Fisher, are taken to Girdwood Army Barracks, where the RUC are denied access to the men for at least 10 hours. The next day Guardsmen Wright and Fisher are charged with murder.
- 10 February 1995. The two are convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- 2 September 1998. The soldiers were released from Maghaberry Prison, Co Antrim, 2 days before the sixth anniversary of Peter's murder, in advance of other prisoner releases and outside the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.
- 3 November 1998. The Army Board decides that Wright and Fisher may continue their careers in the services under an 'exceptional circumstances' clause.
However, I admit defeat on the Basra police issue. It appears (from all sorts of news outlets and official reports) that the Mahdi Army after its lost fight with U.S. troops last April withdrew to Basra and the British sector in general, where they infiltrated the police to the point of replacing the Badr.
The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting take on the rise of the Mahdi Army.
While the British Army's strategy of appeasement has brought quiet to the Shiite-dominated south for some time, it has allowed militias such as Sadr's Mahdi Army to quietly regroup and flourish. Consequently, Sadr's followers - who have close ties to the city police - have more control of Basra's streets than British troops.
This control has also created a climate of fear among many residents not unlike that under Saddam Hussein. There are whispers that Sadr has established his own sharia courts, which issue rulings based on Islamic law. The Mahdi Army enforces its decisions, Basra residents say.
To build his network of loyal followers, Sadr offers payments to the families of his militia members who died in the fighting in August. Some 3,000 families are dependent on money or other help from the Sadr movement.
When an Iraqi is in poor health in Baghdad, more often than not it's a Sadr movement member who provides aid. Sadr movement officials run the Health Ministry, extending influence from the hospitals to the ambulance service. Posters, stickers, and other memorabilia of Sadr are plastered on Ministry of Health checkpoints, hospitals, and the walls of Baghdad's main ambulance center.
At least they weren't ripped apart by a frenzied mob like the two lads were in Northern Ireland years ago (and they weren't 'special forces', just two support troops).
Would those be the two armed soldiers , out of uniform ,who were carrying out "routine technical maintainance of surveilance facilities" in a staunchly republican area at a time of heightened tension .
Who "mistakenly" drove into the path of a funeral cortege of a terrorist who had been killed while attending the funeral of three other terrorists (unarmed BTW) , who had been shot in the head while lying on the ground in the middle of the road by Special forces .
Or would these be just two unfortunate signals specialists that didn't realise that they were in a bloody war zone .
I do not condone the killings Red Peasant , but what would two "support troops" be doing driving round the area when the rest of the military was keeping itself a safe distance away ?
An interesting titbit of information for you , the person who was one of my lecturers on my apprenticeship used to be a signals specialist in the Corps of Signals in Borneo , he was also a sergeant in the SAS .
Damn , those support troops seem to get everywhere don't they ~;)
Ahhem..
I know , have you seen the campaign at the Finnucanne centre , against having convicted murderers serving in Iraq , as well as having them back in the army in the first place ?
But The Green Fields of France is my second favourite anti war song so I thought I would slip in a mention of a different McBride ~:cheers:
Well its even more of a good thing that we went and got them back then, no?Quote:
Sorry, but no, if they were engaging in covert actions without uniforms, then according to the Bush government's very own, new rules for war, they no longer enjoy the protections of the Geneva Conventions or Laws of Land Warfare.
The thread seems to be moving peacefully into a discussion of the Basra situation generally, which is no doubt good. With apologies for briefly going back over old ground, I would just add to the comment above that not only does Iraqi law require that the soliders were handed back, but that we have already put some of our soldiers on trial for war crimes so it is not as if handing them over was tantamount to them escaping justice. If they murdered an iraqi they will be tried.
Now to save AII the bother I will be the first to admit British justice has been known to be fallible, but as the alternative here was god knows what at the hands of a shadowy militia I still fail to see how anyone can see the events that started the thread, namely the rescue of the two soldiers, as anything other than an unequivocally good thing.
I still fail to see how anyone can see the events that started the thread, namely the rescue of the two soldiers, as anything other than an unequivocally good thing.
Possibly , but I doubt the local police , militia and citizens see it that way , so it isn't unequivocal is it .
edit ; Actually the militia and other groups may see it as a very good thing , propoganda wise .
There is no Iraqi law to that effect. There is only a CPA order that is upheld by the multinational force. I don't know exactly what (international) legal status it has, but it certainly leaves no room for 'sovereignty rubbish'.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
This Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 grants all MNF soldiers complete legal immunity (Section 2.3) on Iraqi soil and stipulates (Section 14) that they may wear civilian clothes and yet carry arms if the force commander authorises it.Quote:
Hansard 4 October 2004
Mr. Ingram: There are no plans at the present time to make a separate status of forces agreement with the Iraqi Government. Under Article 59 of the Transitional Administrative Law (the law for the administration of Iraq during the transition period—promulgated by the Iraqi Governing Council in March 2004) the Iraqi Interim Government has no powers to conclude any binding international agreements, which would include status of forces agreements. This power will belong to the elected Transitional Government. Until the Transitional Government is in place, Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 covers the terms of the MNF presence in Iraq, and includes those areas which would normally be covered in a status of forces agreement.
Link
Bush doesn't quite control all our policies quite yet. What the US administration did with the Taleban in Afghanistan is wrong, but that policy doesn't apply to Britain. The soldiers were undercover in an area that they have responsibility for. They were authorised to go undercover. In the same way that an undercover policeman helps to maintain order when authorised to in a more peaceful country, soldiers help to maintain order when authorised to in less stable countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Just to add my 2 cents into this discussion. If a soldier is performing a military mission - not in uniform, then he indeed would be considered a spy if he was facing an armed and organized military.
What these two individuals were doing - I have absolutely no clue.
Where they attempting to conduct a combat recon to gather intelligence on the opposing force?.
Or where they functioning in an undercover police role to identify locations of individuals wanted by the current government of Iraq at the bequest of said government?
If you can answer that question - you have your answer about the Geneva Status of the soldiers in question.
The militia if they do not work for the government could they be classified as:
Either at war with the government or traitors?
And how would that change the situation if rebels who are not in a recognised uniform have captured soliders who are out of uniform?
Screwing around with the SAS though is a quick way for the Militia to find their heads on a platter.
That is why I wondered about the situation. If the Militia is opposing the government then they are in essence rebels or traitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
If they are to be classified as traitors - then the Geneva Conventions might not apply at all, only the Hague Conventions actually then apply to this situation.
If they are classified as rebels fighting a sponatous (SP) uprising against the occupation force - they don't need uniforms only a loose organizational structure. And the Geneva Convention definetly applies to them and so does the Hague Conventions regarding the rules of war.
That would be the Superman syndrome. There is only so much that a squadron of commandos can do in a city the size of Basra. Since 2003 there have been roughly 6000 British soldiers on 1.5 million inhabitants in the city, far too few to maintain law and order or even to know what's what and who is doing what to whom. It is becoming quite clear the much-vaunted 'relative peace' in the British sector was due to a policy of 'don't ask, don't tell' in which the local militias (there are several of them) were allowed to settle scores and divide the local spoils, not the lest of which was control of the police force. This they now seem to have achieved, and the ones who are keeping their heads down are the Brits. Officers are rather frank about it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
But British officers who served in southern Iraq say the price is now being paid for letting members of the Mehdi Army, led by the radical Shia cleric Muqtada Sadr, and the Badr Brigade, which has Iranian support, join the security forces. "There was little or no vetting", one officer said. "The idea was just because these were Shias and anti-Baath, they will be all right."
The Independent
Interesting point Redleg. Would that mean that any native Iraqi insurgents currently being detained at Guantanamo are being detained in contravention of the Geneva and Hague Conventions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
That is a distint (spelling seems off) possiblity. One would have to determine if they were members of a spontanous uprising or a criminal element? But in my understanding of both conventions - they should be accorded POW status until such a determination has been accomplished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
My understanding is that no detainee's are sent to Gauntanamo until a tribunal is initially held in the country of capture - be it Afganstan or Iraq. It would be interesting to research to see if the initial tribunals are still being held - or if an individual detaineed is immediately shipped to Gauntanamo? The answer to that question would determine indeed if the conventions are being violated would it not?
To be honest I have not looked into any of the Iraq detainee's for some time - so I don't know what the answer is.
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of terror and assassination syndrome as displayed in NI, where suspected militia members and particularly their leaders get knocked off in ambushes.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
God knows what those two SAS were up to in Basra. But I bet some of their superiors aren't too happy about it. Look at the fall-out. On the other hand, the militias were probably waiting for an occasion like this to call British bluff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
“Interesting point Redleg. Would that mean that any native Iraqi insurgents currently being detained at Guantanamo are being detained in contravention of the Geneva and Hague Conventions?” Well, they were declared illegal fighters to escape the debate… Either they were fighters defending their country, so they should have been released after the peace treaty or equivalent, and kept the right of soldiers (matriculation, rank and name). Either they were criminals and should be judged. After you have the problem of the court and country, but I think they should have better treatment in the US than in front of the people of the Northern Alliance. The Bush Administration created a vacuum. I think they will regret it. ~D
“God knows what those two SAS were up to in Basra.” Apparently, they were spying to find out where the flooding of weapons from Iran arrives. And, as a former soldier, I approve the action to free them. You don’t leave your men behind. Especially in this kind of environment…