L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29520 posts, RR: 59 Posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2032 times:
Let me bring you up to speed here.
Piers Morgan was until today the editor of the Daily Mirror in England.
A few weeks ago that photo published what is claimed to be British troops of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment abusing and torturing Iraqi prisoners.
The photos immediately came under suspicion as a number of inconsitances appeared, including incorrect issue kit, a vehicle that was later located on a base in England and shown never to have been deployed to the middle east, and versions of Enfield rifles carried by the troops that where no longer in service.
Well yesterday the British Defense Minister Adam Ingram went before parliment and stated that the investigation into the photos showed, "categorically not taken in Iraq" meaning they where faked.
Today the Daily Mirror board fired Piers Morgan who authorized the photographs to be published for his role in the debacle, and issued a half-hearted appology on the part of the paper to the men of the regiment who's reputation they soiled.
Ok, so now that the background has been done, and I think that it can be safely conluded that the Daily Mirrors actions and those of it's now diposed editor Piers Morgan have significantly inflamed tensions in Iraq, and the middle east as a whole. And put all military members of the colation at risk for greater violence and attacks.
So now here is a definition I found on the internet.
High treason. In English law, treason against the king or sovereign, as distinguished from petit or petty treason, which might formerly be committed against a subject.
Treason-felony. Under the English statute 11 & 12 Vict., c. 12, passed in 1848, is the offense of compassing, devising, etc., to depose her majesty from the crown; or to levy war in order to intimidate either house of parliament, etc., or to stir up foreigners by any printing or writing to invade the kingdom. This offense is punishable with penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than five years, etc., under statutes 11 & 12 Vict., c. 12, § 3; 20 & 21 Vict., c. 3, § 2; 27 & 28 Vict., c. 47, § 2. By the statute first above mentioned, the government is enabled to treat as felony many offenses which must formerly have been treated as high treason
Now here is the question, Does Piers Morgans conduct merit a charge of treason against him to be leveled by the crown. None has as of now, and it would be a political football if it where. But I think that he clearly has attempt to assist those who would levy war against the crown through printing and writing.
Lets keep it nice, clearly if this where an american our statutary restrictions against treason charges would prevent this charge from being considered, but England does not operate under those restrictions.
And if anybody wants to come up with a better citiation for the definition of treason under English Law, I am all ears.
[Edited 2004-05-15 06:47:08]
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Trekster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2017 times:
The paper was duped by those very real looking pics
The people tat should face treason chages are the ones who gave the paper the pics in the first place
They even had a army chief look at the pics and confirm some of the pics were real, unless the paper was lying, which i hope they were not as it is my daily paper
Jaspike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 1 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2015 times:
The paper was duped by those very real looking pics
There were loads of things wrong with them. But that's a different discussion..
I'm glad Piers isn't at the Daily Mirror anymore. On the news yesterday there were the photos from the Mirror being waved around in Iraq.. if we say they are fake, they're not going to believe us. The damage has been done.. and if it wasn't for the Mirror publishing them, no damage would have been done.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2008 times:
You have to do a lot worse than that to get done for treason, the IRA bombers who attacked the 1984 Tory party conference did not go down for treason, though it was a direct attempt on the life of the PM and the lives of her government.
It is very hard to see a treason charge in anything less of a full scale war where the UK is directly threatened, I think the last to go down for treason was William Joyce, a Nazi who broadcast from Germany during the war, he was hanged.
Piers was duped, there by the grace of god go all newspaper editors, where he went wrong was in not sufficiently checking these pics, then letting ego get in the way of retraction.
The picture editor of the Guardian (as anti the Iraq war as the Mirror is) said when they first appeared that they looked wrong, he knew nothing of the presence of SA80A1 rifles, wrong webbing, wrong truck and boots laced wrongly (they are meant to be laced in a manner allowing them to be removed quickly with a knife slicing through laces if a soldier in injured in that area).
But the Guardian man, like many, saw the pics as too clean, too clinical, not like a dynamic situation taken by amateurs.
Frankly, the idea that these pics might lead to increased risk for UK forces might be a bit overdone, it seems that those really hostile to the West do not differenciate between various coalition nations.
Some more hostility in Basra maybe, but something very hard to prove in a court case.
Today that Shia cleric's army attacked UK forces, for that they lost 16 dead, several captured, two UK servicemen injured, is it really possible to prove that those photos inspired that attack?
Piers Morgan is sort of the man many love to hate, he will be missed, but we won't have seen the last of him in the media.
Under him, the Mirror has had some of the best scoops of recent times, clearly he was riding high on that success and that might have influenced how he handled these fake pics.
He has pointed out that he has a brother in the army, serving in Basra.
No, he was foolish, not a traitor, no chance of a treason trial, quite rightly.
Loosing a job he clearly loved, being escorted off the premises by security is punishment enough.
Personally, I'll find the likes of the Sun, Daily tits (sorry, Daily Star) and Daily Mail going on a moral high ground over this episode pretty nauseating, almost as wrong as Piers Morgan's error of judgment.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1982 times:
But there was no malicious intent, I'm not defending Morgan (like many, I'll enjoy seeing him contrite), but he did not deliberately aid an enemy, much less seek to destroy H.M. government or the Crown.
If none of the spies of the Cold War, or IRA members who were Northern Ireland citizens, therefore British, or any UK citizens involved with Al-Queda, have gone down for treason, Piers certainly won't.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1936 times:
Blair will have to answer in an election, has already had to answer to Parliament, he IS ultimately accountable.
Morgan thought he was above being accountable, no one elected him, however his bosses did and have used the ability to sack him.
If Morgan thought his job would have been on the line, he'd never have run those pics.