This investigation & potential charges by the British Military of British soldiers and their commander is a major development in the War in Iraq on the other side of the pond. While the US government stonewalls and refuses to completely investigate how high up the chain of command the abuses go, the UK gov’t is now under increasing pressure to do so… at home & abroad.
The ICC also has an investigation into British War Crimes during Iraq and with the release of the Downing Street Minutes the case grows ever stronger.
[more on the flip]
The story so far:
Military lawyers are considering the charges as part of a major inquiry into allegations that members of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment beat Baha Mousa, a hotel worker, to death in September 2003. As the IoS disclosed last week, the officers include the regiment’s commander, Col Jorge Mendonca, 41, who has been warned he could be tried for allegedly failing to control his troops effectively. There is no allegation that he took part in any abuse.
At least four QLR members, thought to be privates and NCOs, face specific charges of murder and abuse over Mr Mousa’s death from heart failure and asphyxia, allegedly due to multiple injuries, on 15 September 2003. But alongside another seven soldiers and officers, the four alleged assailants also face wider war crimes charges.
….
Army sources yesterday indicated there was disquiet throughout the service at the charges…. He said many soldiers suspect these charges were considered only after the court martial of three soldiers in February, for abusing alleged Iraqi looters at Camp Breadbasket, led to criticism that no one above the rank of corporal was charged.
I agree that it is a terrible and demoralizing decision to take when you charge your own soldiers with War Crimes. But if the crime fits the charge, it is necessary to maintain order, standards and always keep human rights at the forefront. But you have to charge the officers and the decision makers if the problem is systemic, which it most certainly is in the US and it seems the UK as well.
No one is above the law and “just following orders”, at any level of responsibility, is unacceptable.
Army prosecutors and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, are under intense legal and political pressure to investigate properly Mr Mousa’s death, after the High Court ruled last December the UK had broken the Human Rights Act by failing to prevent his death or prosecute his alleged assailants quickly.
The ICC is concurrently investigating the British government for its conduct during the War on Iraq.
The ICC has written formally to the Ministry of Defence, asking for comments on allegations raised in a detailed legal dossier submitted by the British legal group PeaceRights, and earlier complaints by the Athens Bar Association.
I stand behind this investigation and I sincerely hope that it is not limited to the rank-and-file. It is most likely much easier for the International community to pick the UK to start the War Crimes process on Iraq. They don’t have the same stature as the US in terms of pure military & economic might (although the economic might is tenuous at best thanks to W), Blair is in trouble politically, they’re part of the EU, people still remember their colonial days and they are signatories to the ICC.
But Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Tenet et al should be very very nervous anyway. Their time will come when the case is airtight and their ‘buddies’ like Blair start leaking to save their own asses.
I am a firm believer in global human rights standards and global accountability. This is a small planet and we are all responsible for its and eachothers well being. We cannot evolve to an equal and free reality if the countries with the highest ideals betray them without consequence whenever convenient or in self interest. That is why the neo-cons break my heart. I grew up believing in the ideals that were America… and I was born in Canada.
On a more positive note: Today is UN Peacekeeper Day. As a Canadian I think quite fondly of the Blue Helmets that blurs nationality and brings hope to those in war torn regions. Let’s say thank you to them today and celebrate the good the military can do as well as condemn the evil.
http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/peacekeepers/
And, how Canadian is this… one of our folk singer legends, Stompin’ Tom Connors, has a song called “We are the Blue Berets”… that sums up our military philosophy pretty well me thinks… 😉
So once again, a sincere thank you to all of those from different countries and nationalities wearing the “Blue Beret” today. You are doing good & it’s appreciated.
“Sherlock Holmes’ smarter brother”, I’ve always considered Canada our “More civilized northern neighbor”.
And you’ve got a much better anthem to boot.
Here’s hoping to one day see George W. Bush in the glass booth of a war-crimes tribunal.
The more these revelations come out, the more pressure will build on the Labour Party to throw out Blair. If and when Blair does fall, I suggest the next PM might pull out to cover his troops’ behinds.
Spiderleaf, there are several differences between the American and UK cases of abuse and injury.
As far as we can tell from the information that has come out so far, the prison abuses do seem to have been isolated and confined to a small group of ill disciplined and frankly racially motivated soldiers. The one case that has come to court concerned ill treatment of a group of looters rounded up at a food depot. A junior officer told a squad of soldiers to “work them hard” (which in itself is contrary to the Generva Conventions). While they were cleaning the place up, there was some physical abuse which was caught on camera. This may have involved beating up though those tried claim it was staged. One Iraqi was lifted up using a fork lift truck. Comparatively minor to what went on in the prisons but still completely unacceptable and war crimes. In general the incidents do not appear to be the result of a “controlling mind” or systematic and therefore not comparable to the allegations in the USA where the orders to permit abuses seem to have come from the very top.
The most serious allegation is that the military authorties failed to investigate properly these and other incidents involving the shooting of unarmed Iraqis. These were undertaken by a branch of the military police who have a record of incompetence at best and complacency amounting to conspiracy at worse. This is not confined to the investigation of these incidents. An investigation of the deaths of several soldiers in the marshes round Basra was attributed to enemy action until a TV programme showed for certain the evidence was they were “friendly fire”. Investigations into suspicious deaths at a training centre in England were as badly handled, to the point that the called the death of one trainee a suicide when he had been shot in the head twice.
Apart from the case of the officer who gave the orders in the food store incident, we seem to be seeing the prosecution of all the individuals involved in the abuse and that would mean they would be immune from further action at the ICC under the “double jeopardy” rule. The officer could be prosecuted there if it could be shown that the UK authorities acted unreasonably lightly in just repremanding him. Further charges could arise from the shootings and again any trials would exclude further action by the ICC (which is why it may have been decided to bring prosecutions to officer level in the prison case)
If it could be shown that the senior officers in charge of the military police failed to ensure their competence, they could be prosecuted for their inaction at the ICC. In general any actions which would be legal in a legal war could not be prosecuted at the ICC even to the highest level. This is because they could claim they believed the war was legal as a result of the Attorney General’s Opinion of 17 March 2003. The Chiefs of Staff had demanded this as there was a doubt about the legality and they wanted the armed forces covered.
The main person who could be prosecuted for ordering the was is Blair. It was his information that caused the Attorney General to issue the final Opinion after the equivocal advice he gave on 7 March 2003. Basically he said “a war would be legal in these circumsances” and Blair wrote to him stating that those conditions had been met. In British law and despite the vote in Parliament, a decision to go to war is a Royal Perogative exercised by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Crown. His would be the greater of the Crimes against Peace, that of waging war, although all of those at the now famous “fitting up” meeting in Downing Street could be charged with conspiracy.
Thanks LondonBear for the additional info on the charges.
In terms of the ICC and Blair, what is your sense in the UK/ Europe around these crimes… so you see charges being brought?
I have had a quick look at the ICC web site which includes a document defining quite a variety of war crimes etcetera. It does not seem to be possible to copy extracts from the document but if someone is particularly interested they can (hopefully) follow the link.
http://www.un.org/law/icc/asp/1stsession/report/english/part_ii_b_e.pdf
Crimes against humanity, such as murder and torture, seem to have requirements for the offence to be committed as part of widespread or systematic attacks directed against a civilian population. Clearly the more individual incidents there may be the easier it may be to demonstrate the involvement of senior military and political leaders.
I would have thought, from what I currently know, that the potential case under these headings against President Bush is stronger than the one against Tony Blair.
Reading the definitions of the crimes against humanity and war crimes, national leaders should be very cautious indeed about starting a war. Those American leaders, who seem to want a state of permanent war, served their own interests well by not ratifying the ICC Treaty.
Blair would be charged with the Crime of Agression which is so far not fully defined except in that Article 5(2) states:
If howeveer he were to successfully argue that because the provision had not been laid out in detail, it was not in force, he could still be charged with causing the detailed war crimes like denying rights to the citizens of an occupied territory as “directing” is considered the same as “doing”