UK Judiciary extends Ruling to Afghanistan Authorities

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by trelawney126, Nov 3, 2012.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

    How ridiculous, troops arrest insurgents in Afghanistan but cannot hand them over to Afghanistan officials in case they're tortured. What's the alternative, bring the radicals back to the UK, then let them claim political asylum keep them on benefits, give them a house suitable for all 36 members of their household, which can also double as a bomb making factory. And then spend years trying to deport them when they're caught blowing up a bus or better still the Houses of Parliament.
  2. Fence sitting again? You'll be crucified for that one....
  3. Yep, don't I know it.....Just waiting for Finks now
  4. No think he will agree. If I had put that......
  5. Could,nt the chappies not take prisoners sort of.....just saying, y'know sort of not actually take insurgents prisoner..catch them but not actually......................................
  6. The main concern is that we operate by permission of the Afghanistan Government, the UK judiciary sets itself above the Afghanistan legal system which should be a matter for them and them alone. The UK. Judiciary gives its opinion and expect everyone to dance to their tune. Should the learned judges be sent out on patrols in Helmand to gain experience before giving their opinions on a subject that doesn't concern them and further strains the relationship between NATO's allies and the Afghanistan government.
  7. Tortured! It's more likely that baksheesh changes hands and they are released by the Afghans, as happened to the Taliban bomb layer who was wellington booted by Royal.

    Yet another example of the lunatics taking over the asylum.
  8. hackle

    hackle Badgeman Moderator

    Thanks for the link. Couple of additional thoughts:

    So the MoD had already suspended prisoner transfers in April, but was planning to resume them now after concluding it was safe to do so.

    According to the story, what has now happened is that the High Court has imposed a TEMPORARY ban on the resumption of prisoner transfers, pending the judicial review being held later this month.

    Seems to me that the High Court haven't interfered with the Afghan judicial system, as the order only applies to British forces operating under HMG authority.

    The alternative to UK forces coming under British law is that they come under Afghan law, and that sure as hell is not going to happen.

    Also seems to me that it is right for UK PLC to be doing what is reasonable to monitor the handling of UK-detained prisoners after being handed over, for various reasons including (a) its Geneva Convention obligations as originally detaining power in an armed conflict and (b) Finknottle's point about some prisoners being "inexplicably" released.
  9. Yes but what happens in 2014 if the high court say's we cannot hand over prisoners to the Afghans.
    Do we bring them back to the Uk ? I hope not because they will never be sent back.
  10. Then why are we there, if not to subdue the terrorists and ensuring that the Taliban do not overthrow the Government, wat is the point.
  11. The solution to all this seems to me to be a simple one.We hand them over to the Septics who don't have to cope with soaking wet judicery in the UK.
  12. If we are there to prevent the Taliban overthrowing the dodgy government we will need to be there forever.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
  13. hackle

    hackle Badgeman Moderator

    There's no reason or justification for bringing the prisoners to UK. If there is reason to have them in detention now, they can continue to be detained until the situation can be resolved, hopefully sooner rather than later.
  14. hackle

    hackle Badgeman Moderator

    Just putting another side to the argument. I would be surprised if we differ that much on the desired endstate.

    Handing over to US forces doesn't remove UK responsibility for our own detainees. Also, it isn't solely a British issue. NATO has also at various times suspended transfer of prisoners to certain Afghan jails. The US has also had its own, different issues about the transfer of detainees.

    It's arguable that the High Court's action actually strengthens the hand of UK PLC and the international community in bringing pressure on the Afghan Government to sort out their system.

    My own greatest concern here is that if the UK was to act illegally in the matter, there would be a risk of prosecution or, at minimum, endless investigations and inquiries into individual British personnel involved.
  15. If the detainees were Afhgans, why shouldn't they be handed across to the Afghan authorities, any others they catch, like the occasional tourist from Brum, or Bradford should similarly be handed across as they are illegals and as such need to be deported. Cannot see why the judiciary would want to get involved, after all they didn't seem too concerned when Bliar invaded Iraq.
  16. Sneaky Bliar didn't ask `em so they couldn't say no.There was no need in any case as George Bush had said it was all kosher.
  17. Im not sure how it works currently but last year we were not arresting that many prisoners as there was almost always an Afghan element and they would make the arrests to just bypass this situation in the first place.
  18. And that, surely, is the best solution all round - unfortunately it doesn't sell newspapers because there is no "gasp, shock, horror, outrage, mutter, mutter" in opting for common sense and the painfully bloody obvious (warts and all)

Share This Page