Should Britain apologise and hand over it's soldiers to Iraqi jurisdiction?

[riceplant]

I'm surprised no-one has brought this up already, as it seems to me to be a fairly big deal. As many may be aware, Iraq recently accused and subsequently arrested a number of British soldiers for firing at the Iraqi police, then after they were freed by British special forces, Iraq has demanded their return, and that the British government pay them compensation. Does anyone else think this is worthy of discussion?

[toms]

I'm not going to vote as, having seen a number of reports on this, I still have no idea whatsoever what realy happened. All the reports seem to change evey hour or two.

 

As I understand it they were undercover SAS men who refused to stop at a checkpoint and then may have fired on those trying to stop them. That is bad.

 

They were then held by iraqi police. That seems fair.

 

There were then negotiations whereby the main iraqi government agreed to had them over to the british forces. Apparently there is some form of agreement in place where troops are to be handed back to the forces to be dealt with internally.

 

This is where it all goes a bit weird.

 

It seems that the local police refused to hand them over. Then they were given to members of a local Shia militia by the local police. Then the british army stormed the house where they were being held and freed them.

 

Then the local mayor condemned this action. And there have been anti british riots ever since, including burning tanks etc..

 

(the situation wasn't helped by loads of disinformation and confusion from every side. reports of 100s of prisoners being freed int he raid, etc..)

 

It seems to me that the SAS men shouldn't have opened fire, but the local police shouldn't have handed them over to the shia militia, and once they did it became fair game for the british army to try and get them back.

 

Does bring up worrying questions on all sides though. Should the SAS be disregarding local law enforcement (much less firing on them). And how trustworthy is this police force that the forces are pinning their hopes on when it disregards orders from the government and has close links with local religious militias?

 

Of course the story may have changed again since i last read it.

 

PS/ As you might expect, some of the british press is less than impressed with having british soldiers handed over to shai militia, and the front page pictures of burning soldiers leaping from burning APCs haven't helped either. At least one paper has a "Bring our troops home now" type headline today. Of course that isn't going to happen, but given how much power the british press wields over public opinion it might be the start of a change in public attitudes.

[lukeskywalker1]

Man, I never even heard about this. Oh well... I don't live in England anymore... havn't for over 10 years :-\

 

I guess the question is, however, not relating to any particular country- If your countries troops screw up overseas, should the foriegn gov take care of it, or the homeland gov? IDK.

[riceplant]

Well, while toms is right, and we don't really know much, I voted no, as the following points are clear.

• Iraqi police arrested some British soldiers (who may/may not have fired on them)
• Iraqi police didn't hand them over to the appropriate authorities (in this case, the Royal Military Police seem likely)
• We got them back anyway

We don't know about whether their arrest was justified, and we don't know whether they were handed over to local militia, but the rumour that they were given to the militia would seem to be mutually exclusive to the rumour that hundreds of prisoners were freed in the raid that freed the soldiers, as one would assume that the prisoners would be in the jail, not held by militia forces. Either way, the Iraqi forces had no right to refuse extradition (if this term is even applicable here), soldiers cannot be tried in a civil court, certainly not while on active service. It is clear that the Iraqi police did not hand them over to the relevant authorities, otherwise they would be unlikely to ask for them back. I also wonder how the Iraqi police managed to capture members of the SAS, when by accounts they are not yet ready to defend their government from various opponents. I would say that anyone who can capture an SAS trooper is more than likely qualified to combat a few insurgents.

[ShadowTemplar]

Hmmm... "May you live in interesting times." - Ancient Chinese curse.

 

We have little in the way of information, so I'll decline to vote for the moment.

 

The way I see it, there are several things which might have happened.

 

1) The Iraqi police was in possession of evidence that the soldiers in question were linked with criminal activities, in which case the arrest would be absolutely justified and the proper treatment of the case would depend on whether one argues that Iraq is (legally) a warzone or not, and the nature of their crime. If Iraq is not a warzone and the troops didn't have diplomatic immunity, then clearly they are fair game for the Iraqi police and it is inexcuseable (but very understandable) that they resisted arrest. If Iraq is a warzone, the Iraqi government could demand their withdrawal (I guess) if they were involved in 'ordinary' crime (in which case they certainly couldn't be arrested legally) or simply shipped them off to Haag if they were involved in a warcrime (in which case they could arrest them legally). Either way, handing them over to lynch mobs, which seems to be the case, is inexcusable and incompetent. Since the lynch mobs could reasonably be classified as fascist terrorists, intercession by the British armed forces would be fully justified, and might even be legal.

 

2) British and Iraqi forces exchange Blue on Blue fire at a checkpoint. That's a Bad Thing, of course, and may or may not count as a crime. If it does then the above considerations apply here as well. If it does not, then clearly the British forces couldn't have been legally arrested by the Iraqi police.

 

3) Iraqi forces have been infiltrated by fascists. That would come under the heading of Very Bad Things. The agent provocateurs manage to ambush a British troop deployment. In this case considerations of legality would go largely out of the window.

 

On balance, I think that the legality of the arrest is questionable at the moment and that the treatment described here (I'll have to take your word for it, I've not seen any reports on it yet), would be inexcusable and if they should be handed over then they should definitely not be handed over to the same part of the Iraqi police. It also seems that steps should be taken to uncover whether disloyalty or incompetence was the cause of the transfer of prisoners to armed mobs.

[lassev]

It was the right thing to do to free them, and they should be kept free as well. What use would freeing them have been, if they were handed over back to the locals? As members of an occupying force in a foreign country, it would have been a betrayal to leave them there. Unless they were acting as civilians and not soldiers, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

In time Iraq will get rid of foreign troops, and then they can do as they please. Until that day they should just thank Saddam and pals for the legacy they left.

[ShadowTemplar]

Just heard a broadcast from the Danish State Radio. Appearently the British soldiers were in civilian, driving a civilian car with lots of weapons in it. This would certainly make the arrest understandable.

 

What happened then, however is more dodgy. Appearently the Iraqi government demanded that they were released, and the Basra police refused. The British forces then knocked down the wall to the prison where the soldiers were supposed to be held, but the two soldiers weren't there. They were later found in a house controlled by a local fascist militia.

 

This seems to me to prove that at least some people in the Iraqi law enforcement agencies are in league with the insurgents. That's a Very Bad Thing.

[toms]

Indeed.

 

Under normal circumstances I'd have no problem with our troops being tried by local forces if they committed crimes there. But if there is (a) an agreement in place with the iraqi government that they won't be. And (b) the police are ignoring their own government and giving said troops to local militias. Then I think the british forces are entitled to get tem back.

 

Its still a mess up though, as its stirred up the local populace against the british and po-ed the local politicians. Ideally the SAS (who often travel undercover) wouldn't have fired on iraqi troops in the first place, just surrendered and relied on their government to get them out.

 

I'd think that, if its proved they DID commit any sort of crime then international law would still apply and they could be tried... though the USA may have vetoed that law to death a year or so back. Can't remember.

[ShadowTemplar]

The US may have, but the UK is a member of the EU, and I've got a bottle of beer that says that there'd be hell to pay in Bruxelles and Strasburg if the UK refused to try suspected war criminals.

[CapNColostomy]

I voted yes out of spite really, because I think everyone knows how the results of this poll would turn out if you replaced the word Britain with United States.

[ShadowTemplar]

If the situation was otherwise the same, I think that you are wrong. OTOH, we may have a tad more confidence in the British (or the EU's) willingness and ability to get to the bottom of any mistakes made by coalition forces, compaired to the Iraqi justice system. Certainly that's an argument in favor of not handing the British personnel over. Whereas I sometimes think that even the Iraqi version of a justice system trumps the American.

[CapNColostomy]

Whereas I sometimes think that even the Iraqi version of a justice system trumps the American.

 

Yeah, I'd like to see more beheadings in the streets of any given western European country as well, starting with...where did you say you were from again?

[toms]

I don't think the European Courts would have any juristiction over the matter. Except in that their framework affects UK law.

The Haag might decide to look into it, but I think that when a move was introduced to make all soldiers serving abroad subject to human rights laws and possible international prosecution the USA vetoed it (as they were worried about their soldiers being subject to malicious claims). So the bill never got ratified and it wouldn't affect UK troops either.

 

If the Iraqi government was calling for them to be handed over then we might have to address the question, but as it was the Iraqi government that made the agreement with the UK, and ordered them to be handed back, I don't think there is an issue to address.

 

Use of death penalty worldwide

Note that the only countries in red actively using the death penalty are The Middle East, China, Some parts of Africa and the USA.

[ShadowTemplar]

I don't think the European Courts would have any juristiction over the matter.

 

Not legally, no. But politically? Of course, this would only apply if they were accused of war crimes by some remotely credible source.