Talk:Death of Baha Mousa/Archive 1

Update following enquiry report
This desperately needs updating based on the published enquiry findings.Gymnophoria (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Misleading link in Controversies surrounding people captured during the War on Terror Template
The link that says Prison uprisings and escapes is misleading (it leads users to The article on Prison Break), could someone please correct that? 220.239.208.24 (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Article title
I find it pretty strange and a little morbid that this article's title is "Death of Baha Mousa," indicating that the article focuses not on the person but on the event of death, yet begins with "Baha Mousa was a 26-year-old Iraqi hotel receptionist..." as if it were a biographical article. Especially when there is no biographical article on Mousa himself; it seems almost disrespectful.

Does anyone else agree with this, or am I just being weird? Helios Entity 2 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is how a lot of "Death of" articles work, when you're talking about a person who is not otherwise notable, as the biographical information must be contained in the Death of article since the subject doesn't have a main article on themselves. Examples (both of which i've been involved in) include Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed and Death of Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb. Murder of articles work the same way as well, such as Murder of James Bulger and Murder of Laci Peterson. It's just how it works. Silver  seren C 05:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, I guess. Thanks for clarifying. Helios Entity 2 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Murder

 * I think it should be "Murder" not death. Anyone disagree?Keith-264 (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Most certainly. Nobody was charged with murder (which basically would mean proving intent to inflict death or serious injury). Nobody - rightly or wrongly - was convicted of manslaughter. This isn't a political platform. Sloppy and intemperate language would detract from the credibility of the article.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So would euphemism. How about "tortured to death"?Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a euphemism. If there were enough evidence he had been "tortured to death" the soldiers would have been charged with murder. They were charged with (presumably involuntary) manslaughter -basically killing through gross negligence towards someone towards whom they owed a duty of care and/or an assault from which death was not objectively foreseeable. That charge did not stick. And this isn't a political forum.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To trust the judicial process is political soapboxing writ large and an example of breathtaking credulity.Keith-264 (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Bombastic language gets us nowhere, and neither do exaggerated and ill-founded accusations, aimed either at me or the soldiers in this case. Court cases are based on facts. The known facts are that the man was kicked and beaten, resulting in injuries – broken ribs etc – which would not normally be life-threatening, and these injuries contributed “in part” to his death. It should not have happened, but that does not make it “murder” or “torturing to death”. If there is a further prosecution and/or further evidence comes to light, we shall be able to say more, but as it stands at the moment accusing somebody of a crime more severe than the facts support is no more justice than giving a prisoner a good kicking. Nothing in your posts so far suggests that you are likely to have an informed opinion about which aspects of our judicial system fall short of perfection – other than not giving the answer you’d like – but in this case the fault, if any, lies not with “the judicial system” but with the difficulty of getting soldiers to give evidence against one another and the claim that softening-up techniques were permitted by the chain of command after guidance from the then Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith, who has of course denied giving such guidance.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a conflict of interest? As for your appeal to authority, do you accept these rulings?

On 27 March 2008, British Defence Secretary Des Browne admitted to "substantial breaches" of the European Convention of Human Rights over the death of Baha Mousa.[15] In July 2008 the Ministry of Defence agreed to pay £2.83 million in compensation to the family of Baha Mousa and nine other men, following an admission of "substantive breaches" of articles 2 and 3 (right to life and prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights by the British Army.[16]

As for "soldiers" refusing to give evidence, who let them? CPS? Judges? The army? He was murdered, admit it.Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks on people who don't tell you what you want to hear. "Murder", as per my initial post, means proving intent (and it has to be intent) to kill or inflict very serious injury, e.g. stabbing somebody. The known facts are that the man was mistreated, and that mistreatment contributed to his death. That, in itself, might be manslaughter but is not enough to constitute "murder" - a lot of other prisoners, one suspects, were just as badly treated and survived. If the now ex-soldiers end up getting charged with murder, that can be posted, but as it stands at the moment one should not be bandying that term around as if, to coin a phrase, one were on a political soapbox. As for your other points, breaching his human rights is not the same as "murder" and proving that witnesses have lied or not told the whole truth is very hard to do - unless they blatantly contradict themselves or one another. Witnesses do often genuinely remember events differently.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please try to practice what you preach and be so kind as to answer the question. Keith-264 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Death of Baha Mousa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070619121716/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2666413.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2666413.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150315042039/http://www2.warwick.ac.uk:80/fac/soc/law/people/furtherpublications?ssn=Mr/4sdjBEsg=&inst=WARWICK to http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/people/furtherpublications?ssn=Mr/4sdjBEsg=&inst=WARWICK

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)