RINF.COM: 最新新聞選擇
星期六， 2008年7月12日
RINF.COM: 最新新聞選擇
|
|
最新新聞 |
人權在伊拉克： 回答的案件
星期三， 2007年5月30日 談論這個報告在RINF論壇 > 顯露： 怎麼Goldsmith閣下勸告軍隊院長充分否認被拘留者`』法律保護 由羅伯特・ Verkaik，法律編輯出版： 2007年5月29日檢察長， Goldsmith閣下，是飾面指責他告訴了它的戰士未由人權行動一定，當拘捕的軍隊，扣留和詢問伊拉克囚犯。 早先機要電子郵件，看見由獨立，在倫敦和英國的軍總部之間在伊拉克，在戰爭的開始建議之後Goldsmith閣下的忠告是採取「重實效的」方法，當處理囚犯時，并且跟隨」更高的標準」人權行動的保護是不必要的。 那，根據人權律師，是同等的對檢察長勸告軍事忽略人權行動和簡單地觀察日內瓦公約。 它與軍隊的資深律師提的建議也是相反的在伊拉克，敦促更高的標準是met。 今天，權利關於國際法的小組和專家將拜訪政府透露Goldsmith閣下的法律上的肯定意見，他們說可能幫助由英國的戰士創造伊拉克人惡習文化。 上個月，第一位英國的戰士被判罪戰爭犯罪被拘留了一年并且從軍隊被遣散了在被判罪虐待以後伊拉克平民，包括旅館工作者Baha Mousa，死於他的傷害由於英國的戰士的作用。 2005年，三位英國的戰士由一個軍事法庭在德國拘留在「戰利品」相片以後湧現了，顯示被濫用在援助中心的伊拉克被拘留者稱Camp Bread籃子。 有大約為法律索賠準備的惡習的60多指控由權利小組。 上星期，議會的聯合委員會在人權給政府在Baha Mousa軍事法庭寫請求「解釋」酷刑的證據。 安德魯Dismore MP，委員會的椅子，認為： 「我們要求國防部解釋什麼在證據看來是純然的不一致被提出對我們的委員會關於用途對殘忍和貶低的審訊技術一樣從前被禁止像1972年」。 But emails sent just after the invasion indicate Lord Goldsmith’s belief that British soldiers in Iraq were not bound by the Human Rights Act. The documents also show a wide differing of opinion between him and Lieutenant-Colonel Nicholas Mercer, the Army’s most senior legal adviser on the ground, who wrote to say he felt “the ECHR would apply” to troops in Iraq. On one occasion, Rachel Quick, the legal adviser to Permanent Joint Headquarters who had regularly sought and been given guidance from Lord Goldsmith on the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, wrote to Colonel Mercer giving her interpretation of the Attorney General’s advice. His view, she said, “was that the HRA was only intended to protect rights conferred by the Convention and must look to international law to determine the scope of those rights”. Ms Quick went on say that the advice of the Attorney General, supported by Professor Christopher Greenwood [the barrister who advised Lord Goldsmith on the legality of the war], was that, in the circumstances, the HRA did not apply. “For your purposes,” she wrote, “I would suggest this means no requirement for you to provide guidance on the application of the HRA. I hope this is clear.” Ms Quick, who in November 2003, was appointed OBE, added: “With regard to the detention of civilians - I will look at your documents in more detail and discuss with FCO, MoD legal advisers. Although my initial thoughts are you are trying to introduce UK procedures to a Geneva Convention IV context. Whilst this may be the perfect solution it may not be the pragmatic solution. Again we raised this issue with the AG and got a helpful steer on the procedures. I’ll aim to try to produce guidance, taking into account their advice on the detention of civilians.” Such were the concerns of legal advisers on the ground over the Attorney General’s views that the MoD arranged for the senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office, Gavin Hood, to visit Permanent Joint Headquarters to settle any worries. Crucially, the emails make clear Lord Goldsmith’s legal opinion was not shared by Colonel Mercer, who contacted his superiors in London to ask for guidance after he had witnessed the hooding of 40 Iraqis at a British PoW camp in March. The men were all forced to kneel in the sun and had their hands cuffed behind their backs. Worried this could leave the soldiers vulnerable to prosecutions, he told the MoD that in his view soldiers should behave in accordance with the “higher standard” of the Human Rights Act. But the response from the military’s Permanent Joint Headquarters in Qatar was that Lord Goldsmith had told the MoD the human rights law did not apply and soldiers should simply observe the Geneva Conventions. When Colonel Mercer said he disagreed with the Government’s most senior law officer he was told that “perhaps you should put yourself up as the next Attorney General”. Colonel Mercer also asked for a British judge to be flown out to oversee the procedures for the detention of Iraqi prisoners, but this also was blocked at a high level. Colonel Mercer’s interpretation of the law has since proved correct. Thirty months after he first raised his concerns during the Iraq conflict, the Court of Appeal ruled that British soldiers were bound by the Human Rights Act, which bans torture or degrading of prisoners. The emails, part of court documents being prepared to support a judicial review in the High Court this year, reveal considerable disquiet among the military about the Attorney General’s advice. The documents show that as early as March 2003, the International Committee of the Red Cross had begun investigating complaints of possible war crimes by British soldiers at the same PoW camp in south-east Iraq that had prompted Colonel Mercer’s original intervention. The Government was so worried about this that it flew out a political adviser from London to address the Red Cross’s concerns about hooding and other practices. International law * Torture is defined by international law as any threat or use of severe pain, physical or mental, against an individual with the intention of obtaining a confession or other information. Under the UN Convention Against Torture, 40 states - including Britain - have agreed not to engage in such practices. During military conflict the third and fourth Geneva Conventions protect prisoners of war and civilians who are held by soldiers. Torture is also defined as a war crime by the International Criminal Court, which describes it as the unlawful infliction of severe pain. Many of the incidents of abuse committed by British soldiers on Iraqi civilians may fall outside the strict definition of torture under international law. But under the European Convention of Human Rights, incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998, there is no requirement that the threat or use of pain should be severe for an act to fall foul of the law. Lord Goldsmith argued that because UK forces did not have full control of Iraq, the country was not part of its jurisdiction and therefore the Human Rights Act did not apply. He lost this argument when the Court of Appeal ruled that Iraqi civilians held in custody and the soldiers detaining them were subject to the Human Rights Act. The case is to be settled later this year by the House of Lords. If the Government loses then it is expected that full and independent inquiries will be held into the deaths, disappearances and torture of Iraqis by British soldiers. See More:IraqDiscuss this report in the RINF forums > Have Your Say: Human rights in Iraq: a case to answer This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 30th, 2007 at 5:14 am and is filed under Human Rights . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. |
Translations             
Free Newsletter
Related News
Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News Archive |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
