Eagle ¡¡¡ :), que bueno verte despues de tanto tiempo che.
Check, the first pages of this topic, there is several quotations of the Bramley s book.
Acá de nuevo, después de más de un año de ausencia… nuevamente presente tal y como ud. me lo pidió Sr. Moderador 
Vamos a ver qué pasó de interesante en este foro después de taaanto tiempo.
Paso mucho desde que te fuiste.
Bueh ahora escribo un pcoo en ingles sino…:rolleyes:
I started this topic obviously thinking in the well know facts of Monte Longdon, but I have include others as you might note like the “incident” of the assasination of Felix Artuso.
Also the new book “green eyed boys” have brought more evidence about the british war crimes, so there is more british sources now to talk about this topic.
As mentioned at the start of this banal thread, Green Eyed Boys" is not, can not and will never be seen as “evidence”.
The claims brought up in the book were investigated, thoroughly, by the British CIVIALIAN police.
As were Bramleys claims.
In case you are unaware, in Britain all our agencies are seperate. So, unlike France for example, the Fire Brigade is in no way connected to the military, nor is the Police.
The Civi police have just finished a high level investigation in to the British Government.
An investigation on the Falklands, which included popping over to Argentina, included interviews with British and Argentine veterans of the war AND Falklands civvies.
I would suggest that instead of propping up your fantasies that the Argentines were wronged in some way during the war you disist with this topic.
You will only make yourself look churlish, and you WILL bring more scorn on your countries behaviour. After all, it was you nation who commited war Crimes and near war crimes during non battle confrontations.
After all, the thug that your country landed on the Islands, Dowling, was heard and is on record by Argentine sources, saying it would be better to kill the residents. He also held a pistol to a young girls head for defying him.
It was a dark time for Argentines, and unfortuntly for yourselves, some of that darkness came over to the Falklands.
Most of the British, actual and make beleive, war crimes you talk of happened in combat.
On the other hand, please feel free, put up your “war crimes” and stand by to see them shreded.
PS Green Eyed Boys is now 11 years old in Britain. It may only have just come out in Argentina, I grant you, but 11 years is UK. It has been done to death.
Perhaps whilst posting your war crimes you will also explain why…
-
Mines were planted without markings or recording on maps (my beating drum)
-
Civis were kept in an unmarked house at Goose Green, with no facilties for toilet or food, and no defences. Other than the holes they dug themselves inside the house.
-
The treatment of the last detachment of Marines to be captured. WHich included the shaveing of their hair.
-
The Sniper of BIM 5, engaging a non marked heli conducting medivac in broad daylight. And after the battle had fizzled out, and BIM 5 were heading back to Port Stanley.
-
Any of the Thug Dowlings behaviour.
-
The presense of Thug Dowlings police detachment (aka the Argentine Secret Police, the ones with penchant for casual torture and throwing people out of hercs mid air.)
-
The treatment of the Islanders. inc internment, intimidation and loss of amenities. Includeing the forcing, by law, of an alien tongue on to the Islanders, alien names for places (malvinas and port argentina for example) and traffic rules.
-
Theft of Islanders properties by the Argentine occupiers. Particularly sheep to feed themselves, due to the lamentable logistics and Land Rovers for transport.
-
I think that will do for now. Please continue.
PS. All of the above is certified and known…
Do carry on with your mud pies, of the the unconfirmed and, sometimes, absolute drivel.
IF you wish to post a similar list as mine of British Crimes do so. I will enjoy smashing htem up.
I have said a few times and will say it again.
You have never experienced, on any level, the fear, terror and excitment of combat. You have never been involved in conflict.
You write (pretty much all) your posts from a very Black and White point of view.
This means two things.
Your posts on technology are outstanding, well informed and technically astute.
Your posts involving the men on the ground and their actions are similarly well informed and technically astute, which is bad. You have no template to place their actions in context. To you, for example, the shooting of the Sailer by the Marine on the submarine is abhorrent.
And it is. On first inspection.
It is only later, when you read the FULL description of what was going on and why it happened you realise that the Marine was doing what he could only do at the time.
You have to take the action, and put it up to the light, to see what has happened, in all the little corners of the story.
Likewise, bayonetting an enemy soldiers in his trench during battle is not a war crime, even if he has his hands up and is shouting “mercy”. He had plenty of time to do that prior, once the bayoneter is in his trench is too late.
Were the police investigating with a view to a civilian criminal offence being committed or as agents of the military for possible offences under military law?
Or just as an investigation independent of the military?
Presumably British law runs in the Falklands, so could a British soldier who murdered a POW be charged under civil law as well as military law?
I can’t think of any instance of a nation prosecuting its own troops for war crimes, per se, although this might have happened.
There have certainly been military prosecutions for murder such as Lt Calley in Vietnam and some recent ones for murder and rape by American troops in Iraq, but usually only after public exposure forced the military to act.
Any idea what course would have been taken if the British police had found evidence of war crimes, however defined? Military or civilian court?
EDITED TO ADD: Sorry misread at first.
If there are many cases of war crimes during the Falklands why havent they been taken to an international court? Maybe im missing something. My knowledge of this conflict is not so strong.
The investigations were completely independant of the military and were only looking for the possiblility that the crimes had been commited. Further investigaions would follow on their findings, the courts to be used would be civil, I think, and open to the public.
Remember we have a very experienced war crime team. The officers of the British (Civie) Police Forces regularly deployed (don’t know if they still do) to Bosnia and Kosovo to help the civi police forces there develop and to carry out forensic investigations etc to locate graves and find evidence of atrocities.
They are good at their jobs, and have nailed more than a few war criminals. They would approach THIS job with similar professionalism and thoroughness. Indeed they would have the support of many soldiers.
The government were acting after the public exposure of these claimed “crimes” in the books of drivel that Panzerknacker is espousing. “Excursion to Hell - Brambley” and “Green Eyed Boys”.
I can’t think of any instance of a nation prosecuting its own troops for war crimes, per se, although this might have happened.
The British Army is highly scrutinised for such actions. Although not War Crimes, soldiers have been prosecuted and imprisoned for shooting civilians in Northern Ireland (I wont go in to thefull details, too long but these shootings had more in line with a Police shooting rather than executions by soldiers of civvies).
Likewise actions in Iraq and Afganistan have also been to court.
The British Army operates under the intense media spot light that is a truelly FREE press. Although the British Media is covered by rules on when they can publish they can publish pretty much anything. It is just a matter of time.
Hence, when the two Princes were growing up, the media was not to cover them. When they reached a certain age, it was weapons free. (Brought in to protect hte young boys, and in respons to the intense media intrusions in to the Princess’ (their mum’s) life.
Likewise, a military op, say the bombing of an Iraqi target, can be hushed but only for a limited time. THis was incidentaly in response to the BBCs gaff, when they reported the attack on Goose Green BEFORE it began.
Fortunatly, the Argentiens at Goose Green weren’t tuned in!!!
Thanks.
Do you still have D notices?
We do.
what are they?
D notice = (I think) Defence notice.
An informal scheme between the government and the press where the government issues a D notice to say something is off limits. The press won’t publish.
Very rarely used, for obvious reasons as the government wants to make sure they’re observed if issued.
Can’t think where I picked it up, but apparently we still have them. Even if they haven’t been used for ages.
The system started in Britain. Not sure when. Might have been as far back as WWI or between the wars.
P.S. To be used only for national security issues, not concealing which MP has been dressing up in nurse’s outfits etc or publishing tape recordings of Prince Charles talking to cabbages to make them grow faster.
The integrity of the system relies upon it being used very, very sparingly.
We have them but they are not used often.
Same as in Austrailia.
Plus I don’t think they are permanent.
Once something is out, it is out.
PS,
Welcome back Eagle, where have you been??
No.
Just for whatever time is necessary to get over whatever hump is involved.
If used unwisely the press will ingore them to get the story out.
Requires responsible use on both sides.
Must be a challenge for two groups of professional turds like politicians and journalists to be responsible and refrain from screwing everyone in sight to get an advantage.
K now I can kinda say what I was going to say. Why werent they turned in? If the Argies did do something the government should act! Even if they dont take it to an international court they should pursue it to the point that if these people enter UK territory then they should be quickly escorted to a court room! If all this evidence exists why is nothing being done with it? Is there a benchmark for the amount of war crimes you have to commit before its worth working with?
Sorry but this whole thing about war crimes is rather silly to me if your not going to do anything with it. I guess it just makes for good info for book writers. Doesnt matter if its UK or Argentinian war crimes. All this is a load of crap untill you prove something and in most cases thats proving it in a court of law.
Might add the both the UK are Argentina belong to the International Criminal Court system. The only thing I can think Argentina would be easily accused of would be crimes of aggression. Hell that would probably be the easiest to prove. Nothing has been brought up that I know about. If they had something to hide they wouldnt be there…maybe why a few key countries are missing on the map here under membership???
Events before 2002 aren’t within its jurisdiction.
Nor are isolated battlefield or other events. They have to be part of a larger scale plan or policy. Shooting the odd POW or raping the odd civilian doesn’t count.
Article 8
War crimes
- The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when
committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
Thanks for clearing that up for me RS!
Always happy to oblige.
The ICC is a court of last resort, after all domestic options have failed.
As for the Falklands stuff, and without wishing to upset those with a strong feeling about it (which now I’m probably going to do), nothing much happened that really justifies war crimes allegations, on either side.
It was a war.
Shit happens in war.
There wasn’t anything remotely like what happened day after day under the Germans in Russia or the Japanese everywhere they went, or what the Allies opposing them did on a daily basis.
The time is long past to get over such things.
As mentioned at the start of this banal thread
Banal ??..no man, there is nothing banal in shooting people in the head.
As for the Falklands stuff, and without wishing to upset those with a strong feeling about it (which now I’m probably going to do), nothing much happened that really justifies war crimes allegations, on either side.
It was a war.
Shit happens in war.
There wasn’t anything remotely like what happened day after day under the Germans in Russia or the Japanese everywhere they went, or what the Allies opposing them did on a daily basis.
The time is long past to get over such things
The british crimes and the alleged argentine ones remain unpunished, I dont think those must be forgotten.