Skip to comments.Court to consider whether soldiers have 'right to life'
Posted on 11/16/2012 1:03:16 PM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
Britain's highest court is to debate whether soldiers in battle are entitled to the right to life under human rights legislation.
The Supreme Court will reportedly investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Private Phillip Hewett in Iraq in July 2005 and examine whether troops in war zones are covered by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Private Hewett's mother Sue Smith has fought for justice since the 21-year-old was blown up with two colleagues from the Staffordshire Regiment in a roadside bomb attack on their armoured Snatch Land Rover.
In October, the lower Court of Appeal ruled that relatives of soldiers who had been killed in action could pursue claims on negligence grounds, but not make damages claims under human rights legislation.
The judges accepted the Government's assertion that the battlefield was beyond the reach of litigation but the families' lawyers said the fight would go on and they would take the human rights battle to the Supreme Court.
Ms Smith, 51, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, said outside the court: "It is just so dismissive. It 'doesn't matter'. They are Action Men. If you break them, just bury them. But they are not just Action Men. People need to make a stand."
Currently servicemen and women on bases in Afghanistan are covered by human rights law, but this protection dissipates as soon as they walk out of the gates.
But last year the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that Iraqi citizens killed when the UK was effectively the occupying force in southern Iraq were protected by the European convention.
Speaking to The Independent, Ms Smith's solicitor Jocelyn Cockburn, said: "It is anomalous that, as the law currently stands, soldiers are capable of bringing others within UK jurisdiction but they are not within it themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Mom is mad because son was killed by an IED in a British vehicle that she felt wasn’t sufficiently protected. She’s trying to go after this as a Human Rights issue. She must have lost in British courts.
“When you take the Queen’s money, then you do the Queen’s bidding.”
I’m not understanding what the issue is here.
Are they looking for compensation from the UK Military or from the Afghan government?
Put this under the law of unintended consequences.
When the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg extended *its* human rights (as opposed to civil rights) laws to non-European foreigners in territories *occupied* by European military personnel, they really opened up a can of worms. That European soldiers are the *only* people in the theater with no “human rights” is obviously a gross injustice.
This is a problem not limited to Europe, either. In the early years of America, when the US Navy was fighting the Barbary pirates off the coast of Africa, US federal judges were so arrogant that they demanded that the Navy care for and transport pirates all the way back to the US to face civilian trial.
However, at that time, a British Navy Captain could hold his own trial of pirates, convict and execute them on the spot. So the US Navy started capturing pirates (officially), only when they were in British controlled waters, so they could turn them over to the British for prompt disposition, instead of having to take them back to the US.
In any event, the corner Strasbourg has painted itself into is that, if European soldiers also have civil rights, then violations of their civil rights must be tried in European courts. That is, ship several thousand Taliban and al-Qaeda to France to stand trial for violating the civil rights of European soldiers.
In case no one has noticed, soldiers, sailors, airmen & Marines tend to get wounded & killed in war.
What are these idiots wanting to do, keep everyone in the military out of harm’s way?
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” Orwell? Churchill?
The Snatch is being replaced by the Foxhound so it seems she is either too stupid to realize that it takes time and money to replace military vehicles or she is in it for the money.
Anybody else remember the F-16 and Kapton wiring issue?
The control wires of the FBW system were chafing and shorting out. It led to the death of a USAF captain and his wife sued General Dynamics and DuPont, IIRC.
Yes ma’am. Your son has a right to life. He put that right on the line when he put his neck in harms way voluntarily. We all have the right to life, and exercise it judiciously when we pass through life’s cross hairs.
The purpose of government, unbeknownst to many is solely to safeguard those rights.
I’m gonna ignore the insanity and pretend to take this seriously. They have a voluntary army over there, don’t they. I should say you waive your right to life by signing up to go kill people overseas. Certainly Iraqi citizens are another matter, as they didn’t sign up to be invaded.
“Well, she’s got a point there.”
No she doesn’t, whatsoever. Do you know, for instance, over here cops can kill people regular citizens can’t, and they say we live under the same laws. Well, we do, it’s just that the law treats different groups differently. For instance, a soldier’s death in battle is not the same as an innocent civilian’s.
The law may be an ass, but it is not a blithering moron. It can distinguish between those who sign up to go into harm’s way and those who have it thrust upon them.
What if they gave a war and nobody came.......
because a court issued an injunction.
"Nobody wants to see civilians harmed, but our soldiers shouldn't have the specter of human-rights prosecution hanging over their heads when they are otherwise fully doing their duty."
“our soldiers shouldn’t gave the specter of human-rights prosecution hanging over their heads”
They should have laws hanging over their heads somehow, though obviously military codes would be more appropriate. Part of me thinks thus is all absurd after Dresden, Hiroshima, and the rest. If nothing happened to those guys, why go after William Valley? Heck, we’ve applied the code of conduct wildly inconsistently since Shenandoah and Sherman’s March at least. Must be confusing to your average grunt.
Another part of me thinks this is payback on the British for roasting perfectly respectable Nazis merely for being on the losing side.
Valley = Calley
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.