Ballymurphy Inquest

Rasczak

An amnesty would undermine the peace process, violate the GFA, possibly breach ECHR and undermine the rule of law.  So the Government won't do that.  I am unsighted on why you consider legal aid to be an issue.

Capability is generated by the relevant service.  If that capability is inadequate, that should have been articulated to ministers first.  And that is where the system fell down in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sonic67

And given to the IRA.

Tony Blair’s IRA amnesty should also apply to British soldiers | Coffee House

If the father of the RMP killed in Iraq didn't get it, and those who want justice for the Birmingham bombings didn't get it, I'm unsighted as to why you consider it won't be an issue.

The job of the armed forces is to carry out the wishes of a democratically elected government. The job of the government is to give them the tools to do the job.

Can't help yourself again though. Blaming the army.

Rasczak

That amnesty was part of the GFA and applied to both Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries.

The rules on what who and what legal actions qualify for legal aid are well defined and really have nothing to do with this thread.

Actually the 'job' of the Armed Forces is what is directed by the Defence Council which is formed by the Queen (who isn't elected at all) and incorporates political, Civil Service and military members. Had the latter two done their jobs properly, the former would have been much more alive to the risks of deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sonic67

Wait. I thought amnesty's "possibly preached ECHR and undermined the rule of law?"

So all you need to do is, if in the armed forces and accused, plant a bomb and have tea with Corbyn, you are now a terrorist and get an amnesty. Job jobbed.
Aaah, army to blame again. As usual. As apparently the government doesn't know about its own armed forces now.
Sorry, didn't know you were modding it.
I don't remember the Queen sending troops into Iraq, you might want to inform Chilcot. They got the wrong one.

Rasczak

You thought wrong - the GFA meets all those requirements. I have no doubt you understand the legal differences between the GFA and the unilateral actions you were talking about earlier.

You do not seem to understand that the GFA created a line in the sand for the paramilitaries.  Any acts of terrorism post the GFA attract the full force of the law.  Dony summarised the difference with the British Armed Forces earlier.

Considering the issues that cropped up in Iraq and Afghanistan, that would seem to be the case.

Sonic67

You thought wrong - we have a situation where we have an amnesty for terrorists and a witch hunt for pensioners.
You do not understand that people who serve their country deserve better than the terrorists who targeted women and children. I think you need to stop siding with terrorists like the IRA or those who join them like Shamima.
Perhaps the government and you could get behind equipping serving members with life saving equipment?

Trollslayer

Remember the MPs expense scandal?
While they were baying like a pack of wolves to get their money security was provided by soldiers between tours who needed to make money.
In some cases to buy their own body armour because the fat cats in the government and civil service refused to provide enough.

Rasczak

'Government' doesn't provide body armour, the MOD does. The role of Government is to articulate their defence/security priorities and then oversee the SDSR where all the forces articulate what major equipment and manpower requirements are for the job. The MOD then uses the money granted by the Treasury to implement and sustain those capabilities.

The MOD were happy to deploy troops without appropriate kit. They were also quite happy to do so whilst still spending millions on other areas - such as retinue functions for Senior Officers - and being grossly inefficient on other areas particularly in procurement.

The fault with Iraq/Afghanistan was predominantly with military and civil service personnel but it was - and still is - easy to blame the Government. The repercussions are that politicians of all sides are hard against using British ground troops in any scenario as they never want to expose themselves to that sort of political assault. And that is a very bad position for the UK as our national interests are often served by such intervention.

Getting this thread back on track, but in the same vein, blaming the Government for the investigations and inquiries into British troops is equally wrong for the reasons already outlined. Governments must operate within the law.

Sonic67

The MOD is a government department. What are you on about?

Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia

United Kingdom government department responsible for implementing the defence policy

The government was quite happy to deploy troops without appropriate kit.

It was Gordon Brown who finally loosened the purse strings after sending troops to a conflict while keeping them on peacetime funding.

If a government sends troops to war the government needs to fund it.

They tend to be expensive.
It was and still is - easy for you to blame the armed forces.

You never stop.
The government wants to fight wars on the cheap. Hence now dropping bombs from on high.
And equal to all sides.

Not treating terrorists better than their armed forces.

Sonic67

As another point. You can't have everything. It needs to come from government what the armed forces are actually for.

If it's a defensive force then you need missiles, infantry and plant to build defences.

If it's to be used as an offensive force to fight the Russians, then it needs tracked IFV, tanks, helicopter gunships, artillery.

If it's used for countering insurgency then it needs internal security vehicles, mineproof vehicles, ECM.

If it's for deploying overseas rapidly then it needs transport aircraft and ships.

It has to come from government what it sees the armed forces role to be so it can then procure what is needed.

The government got us involved in Iraq as Blair wanted to grandstand with the President.

Snatch land rovers bought for NI weren't that useful for a role that involved a lot of counter IED.

Now we have moved from insurgency to back to conventional war fighting. A lot of what was purchased for insurgency isn't that useful for that role.

And unless you buy off the shelf then it takes time to get it. If you want to kill lots of enemy tanks with smart artillery then you need to spend years developing it, training with it and deploying it. Or you buy an existing system but that means you are giving that money to others.