Lawyers Seek To Control The Battlefield

Anyone that has read the European Convention on Human Rights will realize that this ruling was inevitable. 

 

The EU needs to take a hard look at what they are doing to themselves.  They cannot capture pirates.  Now they will not be able to deploy troops in potential combat situations.  They are rapidly becoming a farce, and may soon be only worthy of contempt on the international stage.

Eh, neither can the US?  They have the same legal issues, as its an International Law issue, not a European one. 

 Yup, the EU, having brought development and good-ish government to c.200million people, having protected and developed internal markets, having organised and Succesfully implemented monetary union on a vast and never before done scale..is a "farce:". 

What garbage/. You obviously have not lived in the EU, have not read the Eus history and are totally unfamiliar with how the EU actually works. In short, you are totally ignorant of the EU other than whatever garbage headlines you pick out of FOX news, without bothering to follow up and investigate thing yourself.

Yet more, reptitive, baseless comments re the EU. 

Btw, the UK is in the EU, and is seriously looking at joining the Euro.

 

....you do know what the Euro is, right? 

No, no, its not a bird...

HDK. 

 

 

 

Wow the intellectual rigour of that response and the depth of supporting evidence were simply stunning....Uh No, HDK it might not apply to the US, as much of International Law is not self-enforcing...whereas the European Convention IS, it has an enforcement mechanism.  So this is INTERNATIONAL LAW, in that it IS Law and it does involve law between and among, not simply within one nation, but it is NOT "International Law"  as say the Hague or Geneva Conventions, it is EUROPEAN International Law.....and it is something that the British have inflicted upon themselves, or the British elites have.

 

Oh and when you want to deride someone for watching "Fox news" you need to call it "FAUX News." 

Eh, neither can the US?  They have the same legal issues, as its an International Law issue, not a European one. 

 Yup, the EU, having brought development and good-ish government to c.200million people, having protected and developed internal markets, having organised and Succesfully implemented monetary union on a vast and never before done scale..is a "farce:". 

What garbage/. You obviously have not lived in the EU, have not read the Eus history and are totally unfamiliar with how the EU actually works. In short, you are totally ignorant of the EU other than whatever garbage headlines you pick out of FOX news, without bothering to follow up and investigate thing yourself.

Yet more, reptitive, baseless comments re the EU. 

Btw, the UK is in the EU, and is seriously looking at joining the Euro.

 

....you do know what the Euro is, right? 

No, no, its not a bird...

HDK. 

 

 

 

well, my point was not so much that the EU has/hasnot laws regarding piracy, etc but that the US does also, or did. Also, the first post made it seem as if the EU was some blundering, ineffective blob, that cannot even protect its own citizens. 

The same vagueness and legal grey areas currently affect US policy regard the Horn pirates, as it does EU efforts to control them. 

im currently looking for an interesting post from informationdissemination.blogspot a while back that talked specifically about the grey legal areas and how the USN/NATO/EU was co-ordinating/biding its time until these were cleared up.

HDK 

nope sorry bout that, hadnt realised i'd posted twice.

Mea culpa. 

HDK 

I think this is the article I mentioned...

link

The headline seems to indicate "lawyers,"  those  generic evil doers, are

once again gratuitously  trying to mess with the military.  Then the article

makes it clear,  it is  the bereaved relatives of dead service members who

are bringing  lawsuits against their dead relatives former commanders. 

 

This is a common misguided approach - blame the agent for the acts

of the Principal.  The client brings the lawsuit, not the lawyer.  Under

the Common Law legal system used in England and the USA and

a very few other countries  anyone can hire a lawyer to bring any claim

they think up - and the lawyer is happy to take their money and do his

or her best to win their client's  case.  If the courts toss the case out - no

problem for  the lawyer who did his job advocating the position of the client.

 

 

In the US business people frequently complain about how "the lawyers"

are doing  something or another that is anti business - but those lawyers are

nearly always working for and according to the instructions of other business

people who are trying to get and edge in business or make some money

by suing their competitors. 

 

The English/US  Common Law legal system  is  adversarial in nature.

The vast majority of Americans would not have it any other way. When

we are injured in some way we like to seek compensation through the

legal system with our amateur, political appointee state and federal judges. 

Would we prefer an inquisitorial system run by professional judges who

went to graduate school  and intensive training to learn judging?   

 

Prediction:   In another 50-100 years we probably will be talking about

only the  US Common Law system because most aspects of the legal system

in  UK relevant to business will have gradually morphed into a "European"

legal system.  The rest of the former colonies will gradually follow the UK.

 

The title of the article should actually be: "British citizens  seek to use

British law to be compensated for the death of their relatives while in service."

But where is the fun in that?

  

 

The headline seems to indicate "lawyers,"  those  generic evil doers, are

once again gratuitously  trying to mess with the military.  Then the article

makes it clear,  it is  the bereaved relatives of dead service members who

are bringing  lawsuits against their dead relatives former commanders. 

 

This is a common misguided approach - blame the agent for the acts

of the Principal.  The client brings the lawsuit, not the lawyer.  Under

the Common Law legal system used in England and the USA and

a very few other countries  anyone can hire a lawyer to bring any claim

they think up - and the lawyer is happy to take their money and do his

or her best to win their client's  case.  If the courts toss the case out - no

problem for  the lawyer who did his job advocating the position of the client.

 

 

In the US business people frequently complain about how "the lawyers"

are doing  something or another that is anti business - but those lawyers are

nearly always working for and according to the instructions of other business

people who are trying to get and edge in business or make some money

by suing their competitors. 

 

The English/US  Common Law legal system  is  adversarial in nature.

The vast majority of Americans would not have it any other way. When

we are injured in some way we like to seek compensation through the

legal system with our amateur, political appointee state and federal judges. 

Would we prefer an inquisitorial system run by professional judges who

went to graduate school  and intensive training to learn judging?   

 

Prediction:   In another 50-100 years we probably will be talking about

only the  US Common Law system because most aspects of the legal system

in  UK relevant to business will have gradually morphed into a "European"

legal system.  The rest of the former colonies will gradually follow the UK.

 

The title of the article should actually be: "British citizens  seek to use

British law to be compensated for the death of their relatives while in service."

But where is the fun in that?

  

 

The Chain is insuring it will take steps to defend the commanders? I'm not a commander, just a line NCO, but I wouldn't trust that promise as far as I could throw a three star.

 

Advice to British officers, get out while you still can. Doing the right thing used to entail risking your life, then it entailed risking your life and your career. Now it entails risking your life, your career, your freedom, and your finances. Get out while the getting is good. 

Compared to the CRAP that goes on in some foreign  courts; our PROFESSIONAL judiciary exercises quite a lot of peer review, a feature sadly lacking in most non US legal systems (including the British one, all too often.)

 

Herald