Justice for Baha Mousa

[sheilarose]

An inquiry has found that Iraqi hotel worker Baha Mousa died after suffering "appalling" and "gratuitous violence" in a "very serious breach of discipline" by UK soldiers. Yet only one soldier has served one year's imprisonment for these crimes. I really do not believe that justice has been done in this case, and join the injured detainees' solicitor in calling for all those responsible to be prosecuted.

[dbboy]

Start with Mr.T.Blair

[Marmora Man]

The army has suspended the soldiers identified if they are still serving and asked the military police to investigate whether charges can be brought against them, and those that have since left the the army.

[northlondoner]

Jupiter's dick, I'm TIRED of this by rote cant about Blair and his supposed crimes. . He sent us to war on a mistaken premise - that doesn't absolve the soldiers responsible for specific acts of violence against a specific individual from personal liability . Yes they must be brought to justice and prosecuted under UK and international statutes.

Exactly what should Blair be tried for in this or any other instance? Don't give me some vague old pony about "war crimes" . Name the specific statutes or precedents he has violated and the forum which would be competent to try these alleged violations.

[mockney piers]

The Bahamas mousa is non sequitur, the illegally invading a country that suffered half a million deaths? I'm thinking that, on the whole, is a pretty bad thing to do.

We suffered fewer than that in world war two.

[northlondoner]

I am not asking whether Blairs actions were right or wrong. Everyone has their opinion on that . I am merely trying to find out which specific legal provisions were allegedly violated.

[LadyDeliah]

northlondoner, sorry that this is from Wikileaks, but it accords with what I studied in International Public Law:

"A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of "might makes right", under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest. Since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law.

Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council) can be considered wars of aggression; however, this alone usually does not constitute the definition of a war of aggression; certain wars may be unlawful but not aggressive (a war to settle a boundary dispute where the initiator has a reasonable claim, and limited aims, is one example).

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[1] Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the ?most serious crimes of concern to the international community?, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the Rome Statute stipulates that the ICC may not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted."

[LadyDeliah]

If the war was illegal, then the deaths of the combatants and obviously the civilians, is a war crime also under either genocide or mass murder which is a crime against humanity.

[northlondoner]

Yes but what actual law was broken? Which actual law says it's illegal to start a war without UN Sec Council approval or not in self defence.? I see a lot of strong opinion expressed in the above wiki extract but no actual legal provisions.

[LadyDeliah]

It's Customary Law, sort of like Common Law on an international level that built up over centuries. It's been codified by various UN Conventions and the International Criminal Court treaty more recently.

I'm sure if you do a bit of digging you will be able to fund the actual bits of the various treaties that refer to it if you want to. I can't remember off the top of my head but might dig out my old International Public Law books if I can be arsed!

[Huguenot]

The whole debate is petulant.

If it was obviously a crime, then charges would already have been leveled. They haven't because it's not clear.

Snooty bulletin board legal heroes may attribute this to the 'New World Order' preventing justice, but given the track record of European socialist litigants that's unlikely to be the reason.

Trotting out definitions from Wikileaks is irrelevant. Last time I checked Wikileaks wasn't a global regulator, but a crowd of spotty revolutionaries with egos that eclipsed their intellect.

That aside, arguing about legality is evidently fruitless when using it to judge issues of this import, actions of this scale, that are instigated by the same people who write the rulebooks.

Why Piersy keeps pursuing this I have no idea. It seems petty. It feels like using 'law' as a comfort blanket. ;-)

[northlondoner]

Rather more trenchantly put than I would have expressed it perhaps, but ....what H said.

Common law only really works as an amswer here if you are dealing with a unified national legal system - remember common law is defined and enforced by a country's courts. In the absence of that you'd need to have a specific internationally agreed and enacted instrument or treaty, surely ? I aint no legal expert , but in all the heat and emotion of this I have never seen anyone even mention the law under which Blair et al should be tried.

[Huguenot]

I guess it would be under the Rome statute of the ICC.

'War crimes' would be a daft charge. There might be an option under 'crimes of aggression', but I doubt it would stick. I also doubt there would be much support for it.

The main question was whether an additional mandate from the UN was required for the invasion. The real answer is nobody knew for sure, and nobody can prove it was.

I suspect a lot of countries publicly protesting about the invasion were secretly pretty relieved.