Tag Archives: British Armed Forces

Britain, Government, Iraq, Legal, Military, Society

Iraq: ‘Single inquiry called for over British abuse allegations’…

Intro: On February 8, 2010, the writer penned an article that was visited several thousand times over by interested readers. That article is reproduced here:

ABUSE CLAIMS

A SENIOR JUDGE has told ministers to consider opening an independent inquiry into all allegations of abuse made by Iraqi civilians against the British Army. The move could lead to the biggest investigation into military malpractice ever heard in Britain.

Mr Justice Silbert, in a note written to counsel acting for Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, has told the Government:

… ‘My provisional view is that I am uncertain what is to be gained by the Secretary of State continuing to contest these claims for investigation.’

The judge, who is responsible for the management of claims before the court, says he is concerned about the cost to the taxpayer of hearing 46 outstanding individual cases, and the likely impact this would have on the resources of the High Court. It is estimated that the cases will take a decade to go through the courts at a cost of tens of millions of pounds to the taxpayer and warns that not holding an independent single inquiry could lead to a “further waste of valuable court time”.

Mr Justice Silber says the Ministry of Defence has already shown itself to be “unable to give proper disclosure” in the case of the Battle of Danny Boy in 2004 in southern Iraq, where it is alleged that British soldiers murdered Iraqi civilians.

The judge’s note emerged at the same time as the Government was served with the first claim of abuse brought by an Iraqi woman.

Samahir Abbas Hashim, (32), six months pregnant at the time of the alleged assault, claims she was so badly beaten by British soldiers that she lost her baby.

At 2am, on 21 June 2006, Mrs Hashim says she was sleeping with her children on the roof of her home in Al-Zubayr, Basra. Her husband was sleeping downstairs.

She alleges she awoke to the sound of a large explosion which blasted open the front door of her house and heard British soldiers running inside, shortly after. Some of them pinned her husband to the ground while others rushed to the roof top where she had been sleeping. Mrs Hashim says she was frightened and rushed to protect her youngest child. At this point, she declares, a female British soldier kicked her in the back. As a result, she says, she suffered a miscarriage the next day.

Lawyers acting for Mrs Hashim have written to the Ministry of Defence claiming that her case is clear evidence of “systematic and gratuitous abuse and degradation of Iraqi women by British forces”. Further allegations have been made in eight other cases brought by husbands and relatives of women who say they have been assaulted. The allegations include claims that British troops subjected Iraqi prisoners to rape, sexual humiliation and torture.

Public Interest Lawyers, a firm which is representing 66 Iraqis in 46 separate cases, argues that the Government must hold a single inquiry into the UK’s detention policy in south-eastern Iraq.

…’There are so many cases and so many have so much in common – similar allegations at similar facilities, often involving the same people. We can’t have these dragged out over 10 or 15 years. This is the only rational option.’

..

TWO public inquiries have already been launched. The first, into the death of hotel worker, Baha Mousa, (26), in British military custody in September 2003, began hearing evidence last July. It is looking specifically at how ‘prisoner-handling techniques’ banned by the Government in 1972 – including hooding, food and water deprivation and painful “stress positions” – came to be used in Iraq.

And, in November, the Ministry of Defence announced details of a second inquiry into allegations that Hamid Al-Sweady, (19), and up to 19 other Iraqis were unlawfully killed and others ill-treated at a British base in May 2004 after the Battle of Danny Boy.

Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, has so far resisted calls for a public inquiry into the treatment of detainees by British forces. However, an MoD spokesperson said that Government lawyers were actively looking at complying with the wishes of the Iraqis.

On the claim being made by Mrs Hashim, Mr Rammell said:

… ‘The MoD recently received a letter alleging the abuse of an Iraqi woman, but has not yet been given any evidence. Abuse allegations are thoroughly investigated, as this one will be, and – where proven – those responsible are punished. However, these are allegations and must not be taken as fact.’

Standard
Afghanistan, Britain, Government, Military, National Security

The court martial of a Royal Marine sergeant and two others…

VERDICTS

Society’s norms are cast adrift in a world of firefight and ambush, where air strikes leave disfigurement and random death in its wake. Protagonists could argue that society has no real business judging people who live and operate in a world of war-torn combat.

That is why it has been imperative that the Royal Marine Sergeant found guilty of murdering a wounded Afghan insurgent in September 2011 was tried in a court martial. Some may suggest the guilty verdict is an outrage; after all, there was no disagreement that the victim was an armed enemy combatant sworn to kill British soldiers if he could.

Others, too, may consider the not guilty verdicts of two other Royal Marines in the dock also appalling. The cleared two had been present at the killing, did not try to prevent it, and therefore, by the standards applied by most criminal courts, equally guilty – even though they did not pull the trigger. This kind of scenario, however, is one that never gets put before a civilian court.

Afghanistan was a war zone in which the participants – British soldiers and Afghan fundamentalists – were not only trying to kill each other but also, in the case of the Royal Marines, had lawful justification for doing so when in a firefight.

What is more, Helmand is a notorious battlefield where the Royal Marines’ enemies do not obligingly wear uniform. One moment they can be innocent and virtuous civilians, the next a lethal and devastating enemy intent on murdering soldiers, a juxtaposition that makes counter-insurgency operations especially difficult. Amid such severe brutality and death there is an altered morality.  Because the rules of engagement that soldiers operate under may result in a killing and may seem bizarre to some, this could also generate sympathy for the marines caught up in a situation that has become ever-more bitter.

Nevertheless, rules do exist for a very good reason. Morality may be altered, but it still exists. The code of the Geneva Convention, to which British armed forces have long subscribed, says that combat ends when the enemy either surrenders or is incapacitated to such an extent that fighting becomes impossible. Killing the enemy after either of these points has been reached becomes murder.

The court martial heard recordings of the conversation held by the Royal Marines at the time the Afghan insurgent was murdered. They show that the soldiers knew of the rules, especially the one convicted who was a sergeant in command of the others. In an attempt to vindicate himself the sergeant assumed the victim would not have respected the Geneva Convention and would have happily murdered the Royal Marines had he been in a position to do so. He claimed, which was also recorded, that he believed the man was dead before he shot him through the chest.

As the outcome of the court martial has shown this was rightly rejected. There is no justification at all. The Royal Marines were deployed to Afghanistan in a humanitarian cause which was to aid the removal and suppression of a Taleban regime which not only supported and facilitated killing and the terrorising of other nations including ours, but also brutalised their own people. The Afghan insurgent murdered by the Royal Marine sergeant is in complete violation of his rules of engagement. And he knew it.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Military

Ministry of Defence introduces the residency rule for recruitment into the Armed Forces…

RESIDENCY TEST THAT WILL HIT CITIZENS FROM COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES

Soldiers from Commonwealth countries have been banned from joining Britain’s Armed Forces unless they have lived in the UK for five years.

The residency test, which came into force two days ago, will prevent overseas recruits joining immediately as they do now.

The Ministry of Defence reinstated the requirement, which was scrapped in 1998, as it attempts to reduce the size of the military by nearly 30,000 troops.

But the controversial move could lead to accusations of betrayal because Commonwealth troops have shed blood for Britain on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan – as well as in previous conflicts and two world wars.

In the past decade 24 Commonwealth soldiers have been killed in conflict. Dozens more have been wounded. If the rules had been in place when Sergeant Johnson Beharry arrived in Britain from the Caribbean island of Grenada in 1999, he would not have been permitted to join the Army in 2001.

And the soldier, who serves with the 1st Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, would not have been on the Iraq battlefield in 2004, when he won the Victoria Cross (VC) for twice saving comrades in ambushes.

Typically, 500 Commonwealth soldiers are among the 7,000 new recruits each year and the residency rule could leave the Forces perilously overstretched if they failed to recruit enough British soldiers.

Throughout the infantry, about one in ten soldiers is from outside Britain. Many join units that fail to recruit their full complement of soldiers at home.

Mark Francois, the Armed Forces Minister, said the new residency rule was unavoidable as the military coped with sweeping cuts. In a written ministerial statement he acknowledged the contribution of Commonwealth citizens serving in the British Armed Forces.

Mr Francois said:

… In order to deliver the future structure of the Armed Forces under the requirements of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, we are already reducing their size by adjusting our recruit intake and making some redundancies.

… We are confident that we will still be able to meet our recruitment targets.

The changes will not affect Gurkhas or those from the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta.

Labour’s shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy, said:

… When rightly recruiting those from the UK, ministers must never undermine the many sacrifices and commitments made by those from the Commonwealth who have served on frontlines across the globe in the name of British national security.

… The country will want to know this is based on the best possible military advice and nothing else.

Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British forces in Afghanistan, praised the long tradition of ‘sterling service’ that Commonwealth soldiers have provided in the Army.

Colonel Kemp said the Armed Forces had ‘depended heavily’ on Commonwealth troops to bring units up to strength and accused the MoD of using ineffective recruiting techniques.

But he also added:

… However, at a time when our Armed Forces are reducing to the lowest levels in more than a century, it is right that priority should be given to British citizens.

Standard