Chickenhawks Sans Frontieres
John Reid, ( yet another Scots MP, without whose assistance Blair’s cabinet would collapse) took yet another leaf out of the Republican playbook and implied today that any criticism of UK troops is potentiallly treasonous*:
[…]
My aim is certainly to explain and question. But it’s also to ensure that the chorus of voices rightly raised in condemnation whenever standards are violated are balanced by a commensurate chorus of willing recognition whenever our armed forces and those who serve in them bring comfort and aid, protection and stability, opportunities and freedom to millions in Europe and the world beyond.
[…]
Turning to lawyers, Dr Reid said that soldiers “have been left confused and unsettled by the perception that human rights lawyers and international bodies such as the international criminal court are waiting in the wings to step in and act against them”.
“And they believe that there has been an exponential growth in the numbers of lawyers actively looking for cases to bring against British troops by promising potential clients significant compensation payments.”
He adds; “The legal profession can’t always grasp the significance [soldiers’ fears] because they have no experience of being in those situations.”
And does Dr Reid have that experience? Well, no, actually. In fact he’s the archetypal chickenhawk. Reid has never been in the military, not even the TA – in fact he’s never done anything but politics. . The man’s never used his hands to work, let alone held a weapon – no military experience whatsoever, just like Mr Blair. Both seem mighty keen on the vicarious excitement of sending young men to their deaths, though. Must be a bit like playing Subbuteo when you’ve never seen a football.
So much for Reid’s ‘hard man’ image.
In the same speech, Dr Reid referred, obliquely, to the ongoing row over the mobile phone footage of British troops apparently beating Iraqis.
‘Apparently’? Looks a damned sight more than merely apparent to me. I guess the soldier on the soundtrack is only ‘apparently’ coming in his pants as he watches the violence, too.
Then he goes for the lawyers:
Of course the legal profession would argue that the fundamentals of law under which our people operate have changed little. That may be true from a technical perspective.
But from the soldiers perspective, the framework and the context in which they are fighting have changed.
Firstly, the changes I have already mentioned. Then they hear and read a great deal about the Human Rights Act and other international legislation – usually in sensationalist terms. And they believe that there has been an exponential growth in the numbers of lawyers actively looking for cases to bring against British troops by promising potential clients significant compensation payments.
And, of course, the conduct of the enemy, in systematically rejecting any previously accepted constraints, conventions or standards in combat, only makes this contrast all the more sharp.
And so, soldiers on the ground perceive the situation to have changed – something the legal profession can’t always grasp the significance of because they have no experience of being in those situations.
What, he thinks there are no lawyers in the forces? There are plenty, and they’d be a damned sight more qualified to run a a war and pontificate about legality and morale than Dr Reid’ll ever be.
Oh, and by the way, that ‘Dr’ is a PhD in Economic History. What a wanker.
*
Under English, and later British law, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Sovereign amounting to an intention to undermine their authority or the actual attempt to do so. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the Sovereign, raping the Sovereign’s consort, levying war against the Sovereign and adhering to the Sovereign’s enemies, giving them aid or comfort. Several other crimes have historically constituted high treason; they have included counterfeiting and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession.
