.UK military loses in court over troop protection
LONDON (AP) - Britain's second-highest court ruled Monday that soldiers at war are covered by European human rights law, a decision that could compel the military to give troops on the battlefield better equipment and medical care.
The case centered on the death of a British soldier, Pvt. Jason Smith, 32, who died of heatstroke while serving in Iraq in 2003. An inquiry found that the military failed to recognize and take appropriate steps to address the difficulty Smith had adjusting to Iraq's climate.
The court upheld an earlier ruling stating that British soldiers serving in military operations are protected by European human rights laws that enshrine the right to life. Sending soldiers into conflict with inadequate equipment could violate that right, the court said.
Smith's mother, Catherine, said she hoped the ruling would prevent similar deaths.
"This victory is not for me, nothing can bring Jason back, but it is for all those brave men and women who are still risking their lives in our name," she said.
The finding that troops are subject to human rights law wherever they are could have broad implications for Britain's military, which has around 8,000 troops serving in Afghanistan alone.
The ministry has already been sued by some families who claim inadequate equipment contributed to the deaths of relatives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Much of the recent criticism over equipment has been leveled at a type of spy plane that has sparked safety fears and patrol vehicles that have not withstood roadside bombs.
The military accepted that human rights laws were applicable in Smith's case, since he died at a medical facility on a British military base. But the Ministry of Defense argued it should not be required to apply human rights laws in all situations - such as when soldiers are involved in a battle.
The military has said that in the heat of battle, it is impossible to stop and ponder the intricacies of human rights law and that it might cause commanders to hesitate - leading to a further loss of life.
Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth said the government was "surprised and disappointed" by the judgment and warned the ruling could have serious implications for operations overseas. He said the military was considering whether to appeal to the House of Lords, the country's highest court.
Liam Fox, a defense spokesman in Parliament for the opposition Conservative party, called it "nonsensical and absurd to try to apply the same legal considerations on the battlefield that exist in non-combat situations."
However, Jocelyn Cockburn, a lawyer for Smith's family, said the ruling would not undermine the country's ability to go to war but would simply reinforce the rights of U.K. citizens.
"The implications of this judgment are simple - our armed forces now have the same protections as all the rest of us," she said.
MyWay
The case centered on the death of a British soldier, Pvt. Jason Smith, 32, who died of heatstroke while serving in Iraq in 2003. An inquiry found that the military failed to recognize and take appropriate steps to address the difficulty Smith had adjusting to Iraq's climate.
The court upheld an earlier ruling stating that British soldiers serving in military operations are protected by European human rights laws that enshrine the right to life. Sending soldiers into conflict with inadequate equipment could violate that right, the court said.
Smith's mother, Catherine, said she hoped the ruling would prevent similar deaths.
"This victory is not for me, nothing can bring Jason back, but it is for all those brave men and women who are still risking their lives in our name," she said.
The finding that troops are subject to human rights law wherever they are could have broad implications for Britain's military, which has around 8,000 troops serving in Afghanistan alone.
The ministry has already been sued by some families who claim inadequate equipment contributed to the deaths of relatives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Much of the recent criticism over equipment has been leveled at a type of spy plane that has sparked safety fears and patrol vehicles that have not withstood roadside bombs.
The military accepted that human rights laws were applicable in Smith's case, since he died at a medical facility on a British military base. But the Ministry of Defense argued it should not be required to apply human rights laws in all situations - such as when soldiers are involved in a battle.
The military has said that in the heat of battle, it is impossible to stop and ponder the intricacies of human rights law and that it might cause commanders to hesitate - leading to a further loss of life.
Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth said the government was "surprised and disappointed" by the judgment and warned the ruling could have serious implications for operations overseas. He said the military was considering whether to appeal to the House of Lords, the country's highest court.
Liam Fox, a defense spokesman in Parliament for the opposition Conservative party, called it "nonsensical and absurd to try to apply the same legal considerations on the battlefield that exist in non-combat situations."
However, Jocelyn Cockburn, a lawyer for Smith's family, said the ruling would not undermine the country's ability to go to war but would simply reinforce the rights of U.K. citizens.
"The implications of this judgment are simple - our armed forces now have the same protections as all the rest of us," she said.
MyWay
posted by madtom at 5:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home