Skip to main content

Hypocritical British Government

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."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more