Latest news with #lawfare
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
The IDF are supreme in warfare, so their enemies wage lawfare instead
Belgium this week detained and interrogated two Israelis at the Tomorrowland music festival. Perhaps the fictional Belgian detective Tintin would have been better tasked with handling the case, but it was apparently taken seriously by the equally cartoonish Belgian authorities. The allegations from anti-Israel campaigners were that the two Israelis served in the Israeli Defence Forces, arguably the most effective military in the world and, contrary to anti-Semitic histrionics, the most successful in avoiding civilian casualties. Statistically they are far better in their ratio of civilian to military deaths in conflict than either British or American forces, according to John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point Military Academy, who has spent a career analysing these things. It's curious, isn't it, that the hardline activists pursuing Israelis aren't targeting the 100,000 Druze or the several thousand Muslim and Bedouin Israelis who proudly serve in the IDF alongside their Jewish neighbours. But the IDF are predominantly Jewish and therefore treated differently. They can't be beaten on the battlefield so there are attempts to beat them on the field of lawfare. The seasoned legal antiheroes of the lawfare minefields, wounded occasionally by vicious papercuts and exploding judges, take no prisoners in their courtroom battles against Jews – as the International Criminal Court has shown. You might think the Belgians would be a little more cognisant of their own history before picking on any more minorities. The story of the Belgian Congo would have made Cecil Rhodes blush. The Second World War saw 28,000 Belgian Jews murdered during the Holocaust, from a total of just 66,000 living there in 1940. In Antwerp, in 1941, the Belgian authorities helped organise the conscription of Jews for forced labour in France and aided in the rounding up of Jews for the Nazis in 1942. But these lessons of the past are going unheeded. Won't anyone think of the hypocrisy? Quite a few Belgians join the French Foreign Legion. Has anyone ever prosecuted those soldiers? After all, the Legion's conduct in the Algerian Coup attempt of 1961 is hardly edifying. The UK of course is a world leader in lawfare. We have 147,000 serving military personnel but 177,000 practising lawyers! Our battalions of bewigged barristers vastly outnumber our bedevilled bearskins. The UK certainly isn't immune to this offensive targeting of Israel through the courts. A few months ago, British lawyers attempted to persuade Scotland Yard to prosecute some British Jews who have joined the Israeli armed forces. These are presumably young British Jews wanting to help protect fellow Jews from certain annihilation if no such force existed. Has anyone ever prosecuted Brits who joined the French Foreign Legion? Or those fighting for Ukraine today? Did anyone prosecute idealistic youths who went to participate in the Spanish Civil War? Of course not. Meanwhile, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy's posturing in the Commons this week demanding Israel adopt a ceasefire despite it being Hamas that has rejected multiple ceasefires, was itself akin to a pound-shop Lord Palmerston. Ironically of course Palmerston's reputation for 'gunboat diplomacy' originated in large part because he wanted to protect a Jewish British subject – Don Pacifico – from an anti-Semitic mob in 1850s Athens. Nowadays, by contrast, the only time the Foreign Office ever adopts an imperialist air is when it is disproportionately attacking the world's only Jewish state. Perhaps the Belgians should stick to making chocolates, although to be frank, if the originally Parisian Bond Street chocolatier Charbonnel et Walker are anything to go by, the French are better at that anyway.
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
I was CO of the SAS. Here are four words our Special Forces need to hear from the PM
With war in Europe and new threats to this country around every corner, from autocratic tyrants like Putin, jihadists and deranged activists, we should be supporting and encouraging those who keep us safe not seeking new legal ways to artificially transform their past acts of military necessity into alleged human rights violations. The US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth spoke recently at the US Special Operations Forces (SOF) week outlining his nation's rock-solid support and admiration for those conducting complex counter-terrorist operations alongside their many allies, including the UK. For emphasis, and in recognition of the new threat of state-sponsored 'lawfare' against these guardians of our collective security, he passed on a personal note to their commander from President Trump which simply stated: 'I have your back'. This is exactly the unequivocal message our protectors need to hear as they advance towards a suspected suicide-capable terrorist hiding within a civilian population, without the blessing of perfect intelligence, time and resources. Contrast this to the way that our own leaders – political and military – stand silent as our own Special Forces are pursued by a toxic combination of creative journalists and lawyers, each keen to prove that historical state-directed operations in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan were done in ways that should now be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service. This in many cases not due to any new evidence, incidentally – that would be reasonable – but simply because of a crafty interpretation of international laws created far from our sovereign legislature and sponsored by those that have no respect for either the realities of close quarter combat, or our need to defend ourselves. To the general dismay of potential volunteers to our armed forces and of our American allies, our public or parliamentary debate seems to dismiss the blood-stained experience of veterans as unreasonable or even fanciful. Self-effacing descriptions of the realities of combat are dismissed as mere cartoon stories and trumped by the creative opinions of human rights lawyers who seem to value the lives of our enemies ahead of those of our soldiers sent to defeat them. Energetic, combative and very well paid, these legal professionals demonstrate great skill at retrospectively transforming descriptions of close quarter combat into revisionist suggestions of human rights violations and even war crimes. No wonder recruiting numbers are falling or that our soldiers start to hesitate, fearing the long-term legal consequences of taking decisive action in a combat situation. To the many practitioners within the vital transatlantic counter-terrorism alliance it appears that the UK's application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the British way of war is starting to critically restrict its ability to stop terrorists and other bad actors from attacking our citizens or those of our allies. Can these staunch allies of ours still rely on the UK to deal with these common threats or are we becoming that type of fearful partner that simply prefers others to do the dirty work? To them, have we become nothing but a soft, compromised underbelly to be watched rather than the respected, self-sufficient bastion of old; a vulnerability rather than a strongpoint? Have we become a risky partner in sensitive operations, whose participation in joint operations carries the risk of inviting follow-on lawfare back into the courtrooms of our allies, even the USA? Such are the whispered and worried questions being asked in the global targeting rooms when considering UK potential contributions to today's fight. In the confusing and murky world of counter-terrorism where threats fade in and out of view in an instant, hesitation always leads to failure and death. This is a brutal reality known to both enemies and allies alike; exploited by the former, feared by the latter. There are never any second chances, and this is no place for unreliable, indecisive or gun-shy allies. Recognising this, let us hope that our own national leaders can offer the same reassuring support to our forces as shown by the US President in that simple but powerful promise to his team: 'I have your back'. For without it, they risk allowing the effect of this escalating lawfare to weaken the hand and confidence of our very special guardians just when we need them the most.
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rogan reveals what persuaded him to finally interview Trump right before the election
Podcaster Joe Rogan spoke candidly about how a series of political revelations persuaded him to interview then-candidate Donald Trump in the 11th hour of the 2024 election. The 2024 presidential election was dubbed by some to be the "podcast election," as many suggested that Trump's appearances on numerous podcasts popular with young men swayed the outcome. The biggest example of all was Trump's interview on the "Joe Rogan Experience" in late October, which currently has 59 million views. In a newly released interview conducted earlier this year, "Ultimate Human" podcast host Gary Brecka noted how Rogan was initially hesitant to interview Trump on his show, and asked him what eventually changed his mind. "Well, there was a bunch of things that happened," Rogan said. "First of all, there was the lawfare. There was these lawsuits that they were trying to pin on him. They were trying to convict him and turn him into a felon, and they were doing it so blatantly and obviously. The case with the bookkeeping error or the bookkeeping, whatever it was. The misdemeanor that they had charged him with 34 felonies for, which isn't even a felony. It's a misdemeanor, and it's also past the statute of limitations. None of it made any sense. And people were cheering it on. 'He's a convicted felon.'" Democrats Seeking To Buy The 'Next Joe Rogan' Of The Left After 2024 Election Defeat "Hey, they can do that to you. Do you understand that?," Rogan warned. "If they can do that to a former president, a former f---ing president who's rich as s---, they can do that to him, they can do that to you, too. You can't cheer this on. This is insane." Read On The Fox News App The assassination attempt against Trump in Pennsylvania was another major factor that persuaded Rogan. He argued the incident could have been a "Lee Harvey Oswald 2.0." Another big influence, Rogan said, was the media bias against Trump. Because of the bias, he felt he needed to step up to provide a fair interview. "There's no real conversations with him where you're just treating him like a human being. Like everything, he's being grilled and then everything's taken out of context and I'm seeing him being taken out of context on the campaign trail and like it was just gross. It was just so anti-American," he said. He added, "If you're an American and you believe in our justice system and if you believe in our system of electing representatives, it should be [that] the best people should have this opportunity to express what their plan is, 'This is what I want to do. This is where I stand on the issues. This is how I think I could pull it off.' And then the American people are supposed to look at this person saying it and decide." Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture After he did the interview in late October, Rogan went on to officially endorse Trump on the eve of the article source: Rogan reveals what persuaded him to finally interview Trump right before the election
Fox News
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Rogan reveals what persuaded him to finally interview Trump right before the election
Podcaster Joe Rogan spoke candidly about how a series of political revelations persuaded him to interview then-candidate Donald Trump in the 11th hour of the 2024 election. The 2024 presidential election was dubbed by some to be the "podcast election," as many suggested that Trump's appearances on numerous podcasts popular with young men swayed the outcome. The biggest example of all was Trump's interview on the "Joe Rogan Experience" in late October, which currently has 59 million views. In a newly released interview conducted earlier this year, "Ultimate Human" podcast host Gary Brecka noted how Rogan was initially hesitant to interview Trump on his show, and asked him what eventually changed his mind. "Well, there was a bunch of things that happened," Rogan said. "First of all, there was the lawfare. There was these lawsuits that they were trying to pin on him. They were trying to convict him and turn him into a felon, and they were doing it so blatantly and obviously. The case with the bookkeeping error or the bookkeeping, whatever it was. The misdemeanor that they had charged him with 34 felonies for, which isn't even a felony. It's a misdemeanor, and it's also past the statute of limitations. None of it made any sense. And people were cheering it on. 'He's a convicted felon.'" "Hey, they can do that to you. Do you understand that?," Rogan warned. "If they can do that to a former president, a former f---ing president who's rich as s---, they can do that to him, they can do that to you, too. You can't cheer this on. This is insane." The assassination attempt against Trump in Pennsylvania was another major factor that persuaded Rogan. He argued the incident could have been a "Lee Harvey Oswald 2.0." Another big influence, Rogan said, was the media bias against Trump. Because of the bias, he felt he needed to step up to provide a fair interview. "There's no real conversations with him where you're just treating him like a human being. Like everything, he's being grilled and then everything's taken out of context and I'm seeing him being taken out of context on the campaign trail and like it was just gross. It was just so anti-American," he said. He added, "If you're an American and you believe in our justice system and if you believe in our system of electing representatives, it should be [that] the best people should have this opportunity to express what their plan is, 'This is what I want to do. This is where I stand on the issues. This is how I think I could pull it off.' And then the American people are supposed to look at this person saying it and decide." After he did the interview in late October, Rogan went on to officially endorse Trump on the eve of the election.
Telegraph
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Starmer is sacrificing our troops on the altar of human rights law
Soldiers are known for marching, either in ceremonial array or drilling for battle, but they wouldn't normally be seen dead on a 'march'. They leave the protests to civilians. But things are not normal, alarmingly far from normal in fact, so here we all are. The Northern Ireland veterans who gathered in Parliament Square on Monday feel they are under attack from their own Government. Threatened repeal of the Legacy Act once again opens up the prospect of men in their 70s being prosecuted – I typed 'persecuted' which is nearer the mark – for serving Queen and country in Operation Banner over 40 years ago. It was a glorious afternoon in central London, but the threat of vindictive 'lawfare' cast a long shadow over the old boys, their faces etched with betrayal. Now, they came together for one last battle. In brief, the Government now claims that the Legacy Act, introduced by the Conservatives to draw a line under vexatious cases against military personnel, is 'unlawful' – incompatible with various articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), according to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. There is no obligation for Parliament to make amends to the Act. The move to do so appears to come from the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, and his commitment to adhere to international law at any cost, no matter if the British Parliament ends up shafting our own people. (Lord Hermer probably thinks it's 'far-Right' to even suggest there is such a thing as 'our own people'). Just to add insult to so many horrific, lifelong injuries, repealing the Act would open the door to compensation for hundreds of suspected Republicans who were imprisoned, including the former Sinn Fein leader, potentially totalling many millions of taxpayer-funded pounds. Gerry Adams, who is facing claims in the High Court that he sat on the IRA Army Council when it directed three terrorist attacks in England, was formerly represented in this case by – *checks notes* – Attorney General Lord Hermer. Don't worry, folks, I'm sure having had the now senior legal advisor to the Crown help Gerry Adams is no biggie. Unlike international human rights experts, British soldiers tend to be straightforward, patriotic souls: they prefer the fog of war to the bog of law. At least in war the enemy is clearly on the other side. What side are Sir Keir Starmer, Lord Hermer and the Labour Government on? Chatting to groups of comrades from the Parachute Regiment, Royal Artillery and Fusiliers, I was left in no doubt as to what they think. The mood towards the Prime Minster and Attorney General can best be summed up in two words: Fix bayonets. It is this latest, and perhaps worst, example of Starmer's two-tier justice that is causing so much resentment. A public petition was signed by over 175,000 people who feel strongly that those who served this country should not be treated worse than the murderers they defeated. The veterans were assembled for the debate in Westminster Hall, which that petition triggered. 'They let hundreds of IRA terrorists off, and we're being prosecuted for doing our job,' says Paul, who did 10 tours of Northern Ireland with the Parachute Regiment. 'It's a double standard. They want a fall guy, they want to put a Para inside – they're appeasing the terrorists.' 'It's revenge for Bloody Sunday,' his mate Jonno chips in. 'There have been so many investigations over the years and everyone was cleared. How many times do we have to be put through this?' Dave, the third member of the trio, impeccable in their bemedalled blazers and berets, reckons it all dates back to Starmer's visit to Stormont shortly after his general election victory last July. 'It's political,' he says curtly. 'The Labour Party is giving Sinn Fein what they want. They're out to get a scapegoat, and they won't stop until they get someone.' In what other profession are former junior employees held to account for their actions, threatened with imprisonment and judged according to entirely different standards almost half a century later? Not the law or politics, that's for sure. Paul, Jonno and Dave were scared kids when they were first posted to Northern Ireland. 'We were 17, 18 years old.' It was 1981, and the IRA hunger strikes were going on. There were months of riots, shootings and bombings, and the wet-behind-the-ears recruits had to deal with the uneasy ordeal of being hated and under attack on British soil. 'You didn't sleep for six weeks – just on constant duty,' Paul recalls. He says they grabbed what rest they could in the back of a bus in Andersonstown in west Belfast. 'I slept in a garden,' Jonno grimaces. They had a yellow card with strict rules for opening fire. 'We always had to give a warning – three warnings,' says Dave. ''Army! Stop or I'll fire!' If they were running away you couldn't engage them.' 'The terrorists didn't have any rules,' says Paul bitterly. No, they did not. Lest we forget, the IRA murdered 700 British soldiers (319 RUC officers lost their lives), and under Tony Blair's Good Friday Agreement they were granted immunity. So-called 'letters of comfort' protected terrorists from future prosecution. It was a bitter pill to swallow, but it was bearable as long as there was fairness. 'If you're giving amnesty to the enemy, why wouldn't you do the same for our soldiers? It's contemptible,' says Col Nick Kitson (DSO) who served with the British Army in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and is a former 22 SAS Commander. A decorated war hero, suave, silver fox Col Kitson was part of a formidable group of SAS veterans at Westminster on Monday. You can tell things are very grave indeed when our Special Forces break cover. They were there because they can see how European human rights law is 'making good guys the bad guys', and putting national security in peril. Others in the group included George Simm, redoubtable Geordie, former regimental sergeant major of the SAS and my new favourite human. Put it this way, when the next English civil war breaks out, I'm going to be wherever George is, cowering behind his mighty, reassuring form. I've promised I'll make the sandwiches. Also striding across the road to the debate in Westminster Hall was Falklands War legend Aldwin Wight, commanding officer of 22 SAS from 1992 to 1994. Brigadier Wight wrote an excoriating open missive (missile, I should say) back in May, in which he took aim at a spineless establishment that is woefully ignorant of the extreme circumstances soldiers face in the line of fire. 'The trust between veterans and their former employer, the Government, is broken,' he thundered, pointing out the absurdity of a situation where 'the employer, the Government, gives funds to lawyers to take out cases against the soldiers that work for the Government.' An equally incredulous George Simm reports that the SAS sought legal advice and was told that Northern Ireland soldiers cannot benefit from human rights legislation that assists terrorists. In practice, this keeps the lawyers' gravy train (a richly-upholstered Orient Express rather than a Standard-class puffer) chugging along. George gave me an example of one SAS mission in Afghanistan. The objective was to extract a notorious bombmaker alive. The Regiment took pains to protect innocent people, putting themselves at greater risk, but there was 'a mad firefight in the dark, bullets zinging everywhere', and the bombmaker was killed. 'Investigators at the time found that what happened was reasonable in the context. However, years later, lawyers encouraged Afghan families to bring a prosecution, telling them they had a case under ECHR laws.' In other words, British human rights lawyers are actively touting for business among our enemies in order to enrich themselves and to hell with our armed forces. I call that treason. It's hard to think of any other country which would engage in such a wicked act of self-harm. Still, it seemed to get a thumbs up from Lord Hermer when he praised the disgraced solicitor Phil Shiner whose claims of war crimes by British soldiers were rejected by the High Court. In March 2015, when Shiner was placed under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after a judge said that his claims of soldier wrongdoing were 'deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility', Hermer enthused at a legal event that 'Phil has caused the Government a great deal of aggravation over the last 15 years. He's brought successfully some extraordinarily important cases that have exposed systemic use of torture, for example, by the British Army in Iraq.' (Allies of Hermer have pointed out that he subsequently condemned Shiner for his reprehensible behaviour.) With people in charge who revel in the shaming of our Army – with a few grim exceptions, one of the most honourable in the world – is it any wonder that the forces face a recruitment crisis? What parents are going to allow their son or daughter to sign up when they might face prosecution for simply doing their duty? So far, as Justice for Veterans points out, the Government is repealing an Act which is the only thing which gives soldiers protection, leaving them with anxiety and uncertainty. The campaign group is calling for an act that protects soldiers from the legal gravy train and vexatious pursuit. And for the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and International humanitarian law to supersede the Human Rights Act as the guiding principles for the 'rules of engagement'. Hear, hear, say the British people. The human rights of terrorists must not be allowed to hold our brave soldiers to ransom. As David Davis MP said later in a thrillingly good speech at the debate, 'The Prime Minister dismissed it as 'political point scoring'. He is wrong; it is a matter of justice, a matter of ensuring that those who risked their lives to protect our citizens during the Troubles know that the state stands behind them… Getting this right is not just a matter of historical justice. The legal witch hunt will not end in Northern Ireland; it will cast a shadow over every future conflict.' The soldier sitting next to me was clearly moved, but refused to cry. He turned to me and said, 'Normally, we wouldn't wear berets indoors, but we want them to know who we are.' Oh, they know who you are, and we won't let them forget you. One last thought. As a nation, we don't have many areas of expertise, bordering on genius, left. Acting is one, the SAS is another. Internationally renowned, relied upon and trusted in a way Starmer's far-Left Government could never be, the threat to the Special Forces is now ringing alarm bells amongst our allies. I am told the US is appalled by what is happening to the SAS: Generals Mike Flynn and Stan McChrystal have both expressed their concerns. It is outrageous that the Government is seeking to create some sort of moral equivalence between IRA killers and the SAS heroes who outwitted them, fighting with almost superhuman resourcefulness and courage. All the bombs that didn't go off, all those who might have died but who lived to tell the tale. We will never know what we owe them, but gratitude is the very least of it. Labour has upset the farmers, the fishermen, the pensioners, the disabled, the small business people, the rich, the oil and steelworkers… Well, this time, they picked a fight with giants.
