A decision of the UK House of Lords yesterday exposes more than a curious position argued by the British Government in the case before it - and the Government's total hypocrisy.
The Blair Government justified going into Iraq on the basis of the alleged WMD Saddam was said to have. When that reason fell flat as the rationale for joining the Coalition of the Willing, the tack the British Government then took was that the invasion was to restore human rights to Iraq. Yet, in the case in question before the House of Lords the Government took a totally opposite position - as The Independent reports:
"Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said the ruling means that there can "never be a British Guantanamo anywhere in the world". She added: "British soldiers died in a war fought in the name of human rights. Yet our Government argued that the Human Rights Act had no place in Iraq. This decision means that Government must now face up to its obligations to detainees. Individual soldiers will no longer carry the can for systemic hooding and beating and worse."
The background to what is already being seen as landmark decision is reported here:
"Iraqi civilians arrested and detained by British soldiers can rely on the protection of the Human Rights Act, the House of Lords said yesterday in a landmark judgment, which has far-reaching implications for future military operations abroad.
The ruling is also a victory for the family of Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old Iraqi hotel worker beaten to death by British soldiers six months after the invasion of Iraq. Mr Mousa's father, Daoud, a former colonel in the Iraqi army, said that he hoped his dead son would receive justice at a full and independent inquiry into the Army's actions."
The Blair Government justified going into Iraq on the basis of the alleged WMD Saddam was said to have. When that reason fell flat as the rationale for joining the Coalition of the Willing, the tack the British Government then took was that the invasion was to restore human rights to Iraq. Yet, in the case in question before the House of Lords the Government took a totally opposite position - as The Independent reports:
"Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said the ruling means that there can "never be a British Guantanamo anywhere in the world". She added: "British soldiers died in a war fought in the name of human rights. Yet our Government argued that the Human Rights Act had no place in Iraq. This decision means that Government must now face up to its obligations to detainees. Individual soldiers will no longer carry the can for systemic hooding and beating and worse."
The background to what is already being seen as landmark decision is reported here:
"Iraqi civilians arrested and detained by British soldiers can rely on the protection of the Human Rights Act, the House of Lords said yesterday in a landmark judgment, which has far-reaching implications for future military operations abroad.
The ruling is also a victory for the family of Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old Iraqi hotel worker beaten to death by British soldiers six months after the invasion of Iraq. Mr Mousa's father, Daoud, a former colonel in the Iraqi army, said that he hoped his dead son would receive justice at a full and independent inquiry into the Army's actions."
Comments