Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

Court considers soldiers 'right to life'

7 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.