Bad Handwriting Aside

Yesterday the Ministry of Defence announced that British forces may take more than the Nato limit of 96 hours’ detention to extract vital intelligence from Afghan detainees before they have to be released from UK facilities.

Nb. The link is not wrong that passage was in the article but it has now been changed by The Independent, so instead the Guardian has it here

Under Nato guidelines, captured insurgents should be handed over to the Afghan authorities or freed within 96 hours. British forces will be able to override the guidelines and commanders in Afghanistan will review cases every 72 hours.

10 Responses to “Bad Handwriting Aside”

  1. earwicga Says:

    This stinks. Only a few hours ago I was saying to my mother that I thought the reporting over the letter wasn’t news and wasn’t fair. I was surprised that the PM was hand writing letters anyway.

    But on reflection, the PM authorises illegal warfare, torture, murder and complete abandonment of the Geneva Convention, so I take that sympathy back.

  2. jim Says:

    War with one hand tied behind your back! Great recipe for a protracted, drawn out failure. If you decide that you want to win a war then all out it is. Geneva convention: we would never have defeated Hitler had we operated by anything like that. Taliban failed to sign it, ira failed to sign it, neither did the Viet cong. Besides, even countries who have signed it such as Britain flout it with impugnity. Toothless tigers like the league of nations and its later incarnation, United Nations something which you seem to hear very little of these days. War is dirty, best not to have it. But , like capitalism and more pleasurably sex, I think it’s here to stay!

  3. RickB Says:

    Jim, wars are an obscenity, if we accept one objective in Afghanistan is to get the people on the occupier’s side then abusing their human rights will defeat the objective. And in fact in wider context the side that displays greater humanity will win the propaganda war, total scorched earth warfare might succeed in the short term but eventually such behaviour will mean all that stems from it is -rightly- reviled and rejected in the long term. And there is the human cost, if you tell forces there are no rules they will become damaged humans through their excesses who will come home and beat, rape, kill and torture there own families, so the damage is not just to the enemy but to the homeland. The one signifier of wars damaging effects is…we keep having them because we have never gone enough generations without war to escape their abuse spreading effect. If you mean we should become without rules as a means to expose the true horrors and thus end wars that is a debatable point, however I think in reality what would happen is the horrors will be hidden through brutal censorship and the wars will continue , so to have the concept of war crimes begins to make wars less easy to have and conduct and they will be less profitable so we might tend towards other means of solving issues. What is also interesting is if we take a minority who are attacked and they defend themselves with any means, we powerful nations call that terrorism.
    eg. If the UK was invaded by the US and we fought in a resistance should we then be subject to the same torture the US inflicted on captured Muslims? And would that mean a UK leader who accepted the US occupation and the torture and killings be popular with Britons? Or would that enrage us even more as drone attacks wiped out funeral parties and family gatherings? Should we do anything to resist including the torture and murder of US children? As they do to us in your all rules are gone scenario? They are criminals in war and there are fighters who have a system of honour, propaganda is made to tell us we are the honourable ones and ‘they’ are the criminals, the truth is all sides have a mixture of both, however war is always crime. If we ‘have at it’ the logical end state is one human left alive atop a pile of 6 billion bodies, hurray they won!

    • jim Says:

      You’ve got yourself worked up into a sweat. I did comment that it was best not to have wars. That’s the end of that. Anybody that has voted for the 3 main parties in the last 8 years has propped up the war. I have not. Do you comment for earwigca, she attacked me, cannot she respond?

      • earwicga Says:

        Wasn’t really an attack was it Jim! I stated the way your comment made me feel. If you take it as an attack then presumably you know you were on dodgy ground with your comment.

  4. RickB Says:

    No I don’t comment for anyone, I was just in the mood to respond!

  5. Carnival of Socialism « Harpymarx Says:

    […] the handwritten letter to Jacqui Janes though let’s not forget the whole picture as RickB  emphasises with the fact that British forces may take more than the Nato limit of 96 hours’ […]


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: