The
Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent. The deployment of troops into
Afghanistan was purely voluntary, the first Gulf war however presented
necessitous circumstances, to stop and repulse a naked aggression. Is the
Supreme Court seriously suggesting that we should have waited five years to
develop the necessary equipment, during which the opposition would have been
developing their own countermeasures?
War, by
definition is uncertain and therefore regularly fought imperfect equipment.
Such rulings put a core area of sovereignty at risk, however given the way politicians
have usurped their power in such matters over the last decade this ruling was
inevitable. If we are to ask people to put their lives on the line we at least
should ensure to a reasonable level that they can defend and care for
themselves whilst they are doing it.
Following
from this judgement perhaps now, the police should be permanently armed.
Once
again our unelected judges show themselves to be a joke. In any event if anyone
should be sued over deploying troops with defective equipment it should be War
Criminal Tony Blair? Right?
