UK Soldiers Afraid to Open Fire

Has there been any updates on the allegations that now the British Army actually has an assault rifle that works, they are afraid to use it because of the military investigation and threat of prosecution that follows ?

Apparently there have been hundreds of such investigations resulting in lots of prosecutions, things have reached such a level that squaddies have hunkered down during several firefights in Iraq and not fired rather than face an investigation.

Ok so you’re saying British troops are armed, being attacked, and afraid of fighting?
They must ether be getting really frightened or really attacked.

Because if I was a soldier and if someone was trying to attack me, then I would fight them (if I had a weapon that works). And if anyone tried to prosecute me I would claim it was the self defence that it was. And I would like to see how it played out in court as well as in whatever "news"paper you got this information from.

To my mind you have read a peace of propaganda. What it wants is for British troops to be able to attack people (who aren’t attacking them) more easily. Because that's why people get prosecuted, it's for attacking people who didn't threaten them. If the paper really did do a survey of troops, and found that they were genuinely afraid of being prosecuted for accidently killing people, then we must ask ourselves "how often does this happen?"


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Certainly is not propaganda being it came from a MoD secret report:
UK Soldiers Afraid To Open Fire

The product of being afraid of being persecuted or "fear of prosecution."






seekerof

Ok so this "secret information" comes from an MOD report (that must not be published) before being published on the World Wide Web?

Well has anyone been prosecuted for starters?
No? No!!! No Let me guess they can't find who leaked it? That's the trouble with these "leakers" they never leave any trail.

I wonder could this "super secret MOD report, that must not be leaked" have been leaked by the MOD itself?

But hay imagine if the enemy found out our guys were too scared to shoot? I mean there could be carnage!!! British troops with their heads cut of because they were too scared to defend themselves against savages strapped with explosives, because they knew they would be prosecuted by the government back home.

Yeah I can see why the government wanted to keep this secret. But it's too late now isn't it? I mean now this information is all over the World Wide Web surely it will be only a matter of time before someone gets prosecuted? (or worse still) "in a soldier being killed because he was too scared to open fire" (direct quote from the Daily Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/04/30/nirq30.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/30/ixnewstop.html)

In my view there is one way to describe the contents of an article like that CRAZY. The idea of a soldier (with a wepon that acturally works) being too scared to open fire to save their own life has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with first degree propaganda. It's message was simple "our boys are right to fear justice because holding them accountable for wrongly killing people means our justice has become overzelous to the point of putting their lives at risk"

Really?
Hay imagine if holding me or you accountable for wrongly killing people put our lives at risk? Wouldn't that be cool (if only they could change the damn law)?
And there were of course the "good old days" (only a few decades ago) when a soldier could kill more or less anyone he liked and not face any realistic chance of prosecution for it. Perhaps this would help our boys pluck the courage to pull the trigger against the aggressor?

If you think the Telegraph's right why don't you email them? (Joke).


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

I suppose this depends on what angle one is coming from.

Anyone living in the UK is probably going to be well aware of the Telegraph's angle.

If UK soldiers are becoming even more aware of the need to be totally 'sure' of what they are doing when considering opening fire with live rounds in and around civillians then that doesn't strike me as a bad thing.

To claim that this is a total and blanket fear in all circumstances is just wrong and untrue.

Seekerof - thanks for the link, unfortunately the Ostriches still appear to be having diffculty pulling their heads out of the sand.

The only people with an 'Ostrich attitude' and their 'head in the sand' are those who continually pop up from time to time to complain that supposedly 'soldiers are afraid to do their job because of the law!'.

It seems it is obviously news to you that this is nothing new.

There were exactly the same fears and complaints being made about the possibility of legal complaints against British soldiers in Kenya in the 1950's all the way through to as recently as Northern Ireland during 'the troubles' 1969 - 1997!

The plain and true facts are that soldiers are not exempt from the law and they should always be mindful that their actions are at all times lawful.

God help and save us all from a time when the 'easy answer' crazies ever got the situation changed to the alternate one.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
There were exactly the same fears and complaints being made about the possibility of legal complaints against British soldiers in Kenya in the 1950's all the way through to as recently as Northern Ireland during 'the troubles' 1969 - 1997!

The plain and true facts are that soldiers are not exempt from the law and they should always be mindful that their actions are at all times lawful.

Problem is that who knows what the "law" is today or tomorrow. This whole problem comes from a lack of leadership, both military and civilian. The soldiers on the spot have no confidence in there leaders being willing to back up their descisions. A soldier could be tried for making a legal descision, that goes against the political viewpoint and his chain of command won't back him up, because they are too busy covering their own asses.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Problem is that who knows what the "law" is today or tomorrow.

- British soldiers are trained to know the legal rights and wrongs.

This whole problem comes from a lack of leadership, both military and civilian.

- Not true.

All British soldiers are instructed thoroughly about what they can and cannot do and their legal responsibilities.

The soldiers on the spot have no confidence in there leaders being willing to back up their descisions.

- Again this is simply not so.

All British soldiers know they can expect a military hearing with legal council if their conduct is seriously called into question.

.....and you will find that the ratio of complaints to the number of those hearings - and particularly the numbers of British soldiers 'convicted' at those hearings - is tiny.

The truth is that this is a regular and continual right-wing (we're backing up 'our boys' even if the government/top brass isn't blah blah blah) 'newspaper' story that is not backed up by the facts.

A soldier could be tried for making a legal descision, that goes against the political viewpoint and his chain of command won't back him up, because they are too busy covering their own asses.

- Like I said the numbers would beg to differ.

......and when has that ever not been the case (in theory)?

There is no point trying to argue a way out of this, soldiers cannot just do as they like and are always to be subject to the law.
End of.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

There were exactly the same fears and complaints being made about the possibility of legal complaints against British soldiers in Kenya in the 1950's all the way through to as recently as Northern Ireland during 'the troubles' 1969 - 1997!

The plain and true facts are that soldiers are not exempt from the law and they should always be mindful that their actions are at all times lawful.

God help and save us all from a time when the 'easy answer' crazies ever got the situation changed to the alternate one.

No one is suggesting that soldiers should be above the law, you know that.

The suggestion is that the "law" has become absurd.

In case you have forgotten, this is a war we're fighting, the Marquess of Queensberry rules don't apply, you can be sure that our adversaries do not concern themselves with such niceties.

If these prevailing attitudes had been allowed their undeserved quota of oxygen in World War II we would now be speaking German, since the wholescale bombing of German cities would have been ruled to be inhumane by the bean curd munchers.

I don't believe the UK supports its military, and I don't believe they support the basic concept of armed conflict. Another symptom of a degenerating society that believes itself to be evolving.

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
If these prevailing attitudes had been allowed their undeserved quota of oxygen in World War II we would now be speaking German, since the wholescale bombing of German cities would have been ruled to be inhumane by the bean curd munchers.

- Not so.
In an environment where strategic targets were close to or within cities and the enemy was conducting exactly the same kind of warfare this is purely your own invention and not supported by any contemporary facts.

I don't believe the UK supports its military

- ....and this is the real root of what you are on about, a partisan political complaint.
But let's not kid ourselves it is any more than that.

Perhaps you'd care to say how many of those in the military have not been supported, hmmm?

How many faced a military tribunal in, oh say, the last 10yrs (and how many convicted)?
Contrasted with the actual facts this idea is frankly laughably absurd (but a typical story promoted every now and again by the right-wing).

and I don't believe they support the basic concept of armed conflict.

- This is simply yet more personal political opinion unsupported by the facts (have you noticed how many wars the UK has been involved in lately?).

Another symptom of a degenerating society that believes itself to be evolving.

- .....and once again, at last, here is Winchester's real agenda laid bare.

Nice try but you'll have to do much better.

For the record, your juvenile and abusive attitude in other threads precludes me from responding to the points raised here.

In future, please be so kind as to steer clear of my responses or threads, I really have no interest in dealing with you.

Mods - this otherwise excellent site really needs an ignore option, if I'm missing it, let me know.

Thanks

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Mods - this otherwise excellent site really needs an ignore option, if I'm missing it, let me know.

- There is one to the left on your avatar panel if you look closely.

Under your points total.

Still, that's one way to avoid defending your position and answering the awkward contrary points that arise, eh?





[edit on 18-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

I have no problem with reasoned debate, but your responses lose any value they may once have possessed with all the sneering insults you lace them with. You are plainly not in control of your emotions. Pity, I sensed some intelligence behind all that immaturity.

Thanks for the pointer on the ignore thing though, and adios.

I never intended my statements to imply that UK soldiers didn't know the laws. I also never ment to imply that the people of the UK do not support their military personel. What I did mean is the tendency for the politicians and senior military leadership to sacrifice some of their junior personel in the court of public opinion. I did mean to imply that this same group has a tendency to run for cover at the first sign of any criticism by the media. It is as true in the UK as it is in the US. Look at the prisioner abuse incidents by US personel in Iraq. No one asked why untrained, unqualified junior personel were assigned there in the first place. It was fry a few Privates, a couple of Sargents and a few junior officers and the whole thing goes away.

If you put people in a position where no matter what they do, they will gat hammered for it, there is a strange tendency to do nothing.

If I get mugged in the street and I defend myself then I might be doing the perfectly legal thing but there's still a small chance I could be wrongly convicted of GBH, manslaughter or even murder.
If I’m asleep and I hear an intruder in the house the same could be true
Or if I’m in Iraq the same could also be true.

In short we all need to be afraid of the law; because as yet no one has designed a law which makes you immune to miscarriages of justice.
But to argue that we should just get rid of the law because of that is more than absurd, it actually seems to verge on insanity.
Same is true of anything law related, anywhere else in the world. We have the law; we have to have live by it, as well as fear it, as well as perhaps (usually) be grateful to it.

I don't think it's the law that we need to be afraid of, I think it's the application of the law that is the problem.

No one is suggesting that the ability to charge a soldier with murder should be deleted from the statute books, but to actively spend time investigating all shootings with a view to bringing charges is a problem.

In the field, you should be able to place sufficient faith in the chain of command to accurately report and decide on the validity of any engagement where shots are fired. If there is an automatic investigation for every trigger pulled (as there appears to be) then you are demonstrating not only a lack of faith in your troops, but also in the chain of command that governs them.

That shows a lack of trust in, and respect for your military, and that's my point.

In the field, you should be able to place sufficient faith in the chain of command to accurately report and decide on the validity of any engagement where shots are fired.

There is a quote from someone who has never served. If you had you would know that you cannot place to much faith in the "chain of command" as anybody over the rank og major got there by covering his own arse.

If there is an automatic investigation for every trigger pulled (as there appears to be)

That last statement is nonsense.

What do you think we have ROE for?

The role of ROE is to protect our soldiers from malicous prosecution. If an incident occurs within ROE there is no investigation, end of.

If the incident falls outside ROE an investigation takes place, and if and only if as a result of that investigation it is held that an unlawful killing took place disciplinary proceedings will take place.

This has been the way the British Army has operated in every counter insurgency it has fought from Palestine in the 40s, to Iraq. It is the same system, nothing has been changed because nothing needs to be changed. The system works.

Of course there are always going to be borderline incidents.

For example an insurgent runs into the street opens up on your section with an AK and drops two of your mates, then instantly throws down his weapon and surrenders?

What do you do?

Well speaking as a former servicemen with six years experience in a British Army regiment I know exactly what I would do. I would immediately and without any fear as to the consequencies slot the f##ker.

Yes there maybe an investigation. There maybe a finding of an unlawful killing I maybe courtmartialed. So what?

A courtmartial is an opportunity to state your case.

In this instance my case would be:

"Sir I was in fear for my life, and in fear for the lives of my comrades."

My case is evidenced by the fact that the rag-head has already knocked over a couple of my mates.

Evidence to the contrary.

I have no doubt that a British squaddie in a similar position would be acquitted (as has happened this week with three members of my former division) sell his story to the tabloids so that they can continue to print headlines like;

"BRITISH SQUADDIES AFRAID TO OPEN FIRE"

for gullible idiots to swallow, and live happily ever after.

Yes there maybe an investigation. There maybe a finding of an unlawful killing I maybe courtmartialed. So what?

A courtmartial is an opportunity to state your case.

And if the media picks up on the story? Because I seriously doubt they will back you up, after all bad news is good news.

In this instance my case would be:

"Sir I was in fear for my life, and in fear for the lives of my comrades."

What if the story was covered by the media? What if that person had thrown a grenade and ran, what would you do? Shoot them? As soon as they have thrown the weapon and tuned they are no longer a risk. The Iraq war has serious media coverage (fair enough many cases go unnoticed) but many are reported on. Is it worth the risk of firing back?

Now I know many, many squaddies.. all have said similar things, fair enough infront of your mates giving yourself a 'manly boost infront of your mates or infront of others, but when it comes down to it is it really worth it?

And if the media picks up on the story? Because I seriously doubt they will back you up, after all bad news is good news.

We are not tried by the media. We are tried by the courts.

What if the story was covered by the media? What if that person had thrown a grenade and ran, what would you do? Shoot them?

Yes.

As soon as they have thrown the weapon and tuned they are no longer a risk.

Fortunately ROE is not that strict. The terrorist would remain a threat despite the fact that he had thrown the grenade.

How do you know that is his only grenade?

How do you know he is not rigged?

You are not in a situation where you have the luxury of weighing up all the probabilities and making an informed decision.

You have to make a judgement call.

Go one way, and you could end up in front of a courtmartial (where at least you will recieve a fair hearing, and an opportunity to state your case. Although I believe the scenario you have described falls within ROE so there would ne no need for that.)

Go the otherway, you and your comrades end up dead.

I know which way I'd go.

Is it worth the risk of firing back?

Is not firing back worth the risk?

Now I know many, many squaddies.. all have said similar things, fair enough infront of your mates giving yourself a 'manly boost infront of your mates or infront of others, but when it comes down to it is it really worth it?

If it means you come home in one piece, well yes. What do you think?