6 replies to this topic

[Still Waters]

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.

http://www.telegraph...ht-to-life.html

[Coffey]

This is going to sound harsh, but these men and women know what they are signing on to. So I don't understand how anyone can make a fuss about it.

[TheLastLazyGun]

If you are not willing to risk your life then don't volunteer of your own free will to join the armed forces.

[Taun]

So... If a soldier is killed in battle...  Will the EU send a cop to arrest the enemy soldier?....   Oh yeah...That'll stop 'em in their tracks....

[smurf0852]

the courts would be better deciding if soldiers come back with mental health problems its the states job to look after them .at the moment its left to charities and 10% of the homeless are ex soldiers .
its a national disgrace .soldiers are prepared to give there lives for whatever cause the goverment of the day decides is right but they should be looked after if it ****s them up.

[ealdwita]

I agree, a soldier signs up knowing he/she is putting their life on the line - that is not the issue here. As I see it, once a serviceman/woman has volunteered for active service, the Ministry of Defence/Government has a duty of care toward them. This means that no-one gets sent into harm's way lacking the proper kit (both defensive and offensive)! If service personnel lose their lives due to lack of items such as body armour, protected vehicles, correct intelligence and briefing etc, then the authorities must be held to account.

It states in that article that Private Hewitt's vehicle was an 'armoured snatch Landrover' - there was no such thing! The 'Snatches' were what they sound like - lightly constructed vehicles designed for a swift dash forward to capture or disable an enemy quickly and return immediately to cover, and were used extensively in Northern Ireland during the 'Troubles'. What they were not designed for was swanning around in a djebel bristling with IED's. (This is just one instance among many, stretching back to my time and beyond.)

Basically I'm with smurf on this one.

Edited by ealdwita, 13 November 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[Insaniac]

So, in regards to combat scenarios, the supreme court's essentially telling British soldier's they have no right to live?

Not sure I'm even understanding this correctly, to be honest...