Military action does not begin with the soldier. It begins with a political decision.
Ministers authorise the use of force. Commanders turn political objectives into operational plans. Subordinate commanders translate those plans into tactical actions. Service personnel then carry them out within rules of engagement and the legal framework established for the operation.
Yet years — sometimes decades — later, it is often the actions of those at the end of that chain that are subjected to renewed scrutiny.
Under Orders, a Salus Archive film, examines Sir David Davis’s Military Operations Bill and the principle at its heart: authority and responsibility should remain connected.
Critics argue that the Bill could provide immunity for military personnel or allow ministers to escape scrutiny for operations they authorised. Davis rejects both claims.
The Bill expressly preserves criminal liability for serious offences, including war crimes and genocide. What it seeks to prevent is repeated investigation without genuinely new and compelling evidence.
And it asks a larger question about political responsibility.
Those who make the decision to send British forces into armed conflict exercise enormous authority. What responsibility should accompany it?
Featuring Sir David Davis MP and Dr Robert Parr.
For a deep dive, read: Warfare, Not Lawfare: A New Legal Framework for Military Operations, by Alexander Gray, Director of Sovereignty at the Prosperity Institute.
DOWNLOAD IT HERE
#JusticeForVeterans #MilitaryOperations #Veterans #MilitaryLaw #Defence
I address you 'Nitwits' in Parliament and your Cohorts! A battlefield is a consequence.! It's noisy, it's bloody, it's difficult, it's dirty, it's, scary, it's fearful! And it breeds death and destruction! But it's necessary! To save lives and save a country from its own demise! Do You Get That?? The responsibility in the field of combat belongs to the men and women on the ground. The Consequences for saving comrades lives is Just and Right, if that involves the shooting and killing of an armed and dangerous Foe then, that is a Just Consequence! So, deciding Consequences off the Battlefield, in a cosy office or even worse in a courtroom! This is Unjust! You the Government know the consequences of sending brave warriors into battle. You just don't won't to own that responsibility, or even acknowledged it! It's easier to pass the blame onto Soldiers who you've sent out on these missions, with high expectations, to do what's necessary in the course of their job! You have absolutely no Idea of the pain and suffering you're causing to veterans' and their families.Through your stupidity, arrogance, and zero real support with honest conviction, to our veteran community and to the serving men and women of this country. Mr Burnham, we vote you out! In fact; "Get Out!" And take your miserable lot with you!
OK, interesting film and I get the argument. Responsibility goes right the way up the chain of command to the politicians and the Bill alleviates the problem of repeated investigations for the same incident. Fine, hats off to Sir David. But how does it actually work? Maybe I’m missing something: When it comes to the acid test, it seems to me that the consequences may still eventually shift back towards the trigger-puller/s, however justified any lethal shots were.
Are we stuck in increasing legalism where one Bill attempts to trump another, which will provide a bonanza for lawyers? The wholly inappropriate strictures of peace-time civilian courts, including the ECHR, should be again subordinated to the Law of Armed Combat (LOAC) with its roots in the Geneva Convention. This would deal with the iniquitous process whereby veterans are repeatedly investigated for the same incident. DD’s Bill is intended to achieve that but in the face of the Troubles Bill, will it?
I understand that all member-states of NATO recognise and apply LOAC. But the government wants to add the onerous Troubles Bill to the current UK/ECHR/LOAC mish-mash, and I am surprised that NATO’s North Atlantic Council (NAC) or Military Committee (MC) has not, as far as I know, exerted any pressure on the UK government to halt the Bill with its insidious consequences. Maybe they need a poke. And through this route, if they were so minded, or encouraged, Washington, the USA’s DoD, and United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) could intensify that pressure on the UK government big time.
Assuming the (ideologically driven) TB gets through the HoC, let’s hope the HoL turns it into a dog’s breakfast and it gets binned.