UK

Partly Sunny with Showers 10° London Hi 14°C / Lo 9°C

Iraq abuse

Army faces 20 more abuse claims from Iraqi civilians

High Court to hear cases against soldiers accused of shootings and beatings

By Robert Verkaik, Home Affairs Editor

A British soldier on patrol in Basra. The Army faces a judicial review over abuse claims

PA

A British soldier on patrol in Basra. The Army faces a judicial review over abuse claims

The British Army faces 20 fresh claims of torture and abuse of Iraqi civilians in a series of damaging cases being prepared by human rights lawyers in the High Court in London.

These new claims lend support to the accusation that the ill-treatment of scores of detainees in Iraq in the first four years after the invasion was systemic rather than the work of a few "rotten apple" soldiers.

Next month a public inquiry will begin hearing evidence about the killing of a 26-year-old Basra hotel worker, Baha Mousa, who was kicked and beaten to death by British soldiers in 2003. The Ministry of Defence has already paid nearly £3 million to Mr Mousa's family and nine other victims of abuse detained at the same time.

The new cases could lead to a similar-sized Government pay-out for loss of life, personal injury and abuse.Among the claims is an allegation that a group of eight Iraqi men were "violently beaten" when a home was visited by British soldiers in August 2003.

The following year a son and his father allege they were shot and wounded by soldiers after a raid on their home. The son subsequently died of his injuries and his father lost his arm. Eight of his other sons were beaten "so ferociously by the soldiers that at least one brother lost consciousness," say the lawyers who took witness statements from the men this year.

In 2006 it is alleged that three more Iraqi civilians, held in separate incidents, were arrested and violently beaten.

In March 2008, the former Defence Secretary, Des Browne, admitted to "substantial breaches" of the European Convention of Human Rights over the killing of Baha Mousa. In July the same year the Ministry of Defence agreed to pay £2.83 million in compensation to Mr Mousa's family and nine other men.

The new cases are all being brought by human rights law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, who are acting for the family of Baha Mousa at the judicial inquiry as well as many other Iraqis who have brought cases against the British army for ill-treatment.

A statement from Public Interest Lawyers said: "In May of this year, lawyers from PIL travelled to Beirut to take witness statements from a number of other Iraqis who allege to have been ill-treated, arbitrarily detained and in some cases religiously humiliated and sexually abused by the British military. The cases documented span from the start of hostilities in March 2003 through to 2007 and it is understood that there are many more cases which are yet to be documented."

Phil Shiner, of PIL, said: "The details of the abuse and the use of coercive interrogation techniques (hooding, stressing, food and water deprivation) are all too familiar. With the ever-mounting evidence of repeated systemic abuse, the protests that these atrocities have been caused by a few rotten apples ring ever more hollow."

Mr Shiner now wants a broader judicial inquiry that will investigate all the allegations of abuse and the military practices used to arrest and detain Iraqis in the years after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Said Mr Shiner: "On 15 June 2009, the Prime Minister announced the long-awaited inquiry into British involvement in Iraq. There has been very little comment since then of the need to address officially-sanctioned mistreatment and torture of detainees. This issue should not escape attention.

It is essential to evaluate what is now known of British military and intelligence practices in Iraq and elsewhere, so that they can be altered and further breaches forestalled."

Mr Shiner claims that the case of Baha Mousa exposed the "deficiencies in the military investigative apparatus and justice system." He says: "Soldiers investigating other soldiers' crimes only to be prosecuted by other soldiers before a panel of yet more soldiers is an insufficient way to satisfy modern calls for accountability."

Baha Mousa died in British custody in September 2003 after suffering 93 separate injuries including fractured ribs and a broken nose.

Mr Mousa's children, who were aged five and six at the time of his death were both left orphaned as their mother had died from cancer only a short time before his arrest. The Ministry of Defence said an amicable settlement had been reached which represented an admission of liability and had been accompanied by an apology to the men and their families.

During the discussions Lt Gen Freddie Viggers, the adjutant-general, told the families: "The British Army apologise for the appalling treatment that you suffered at the hands of the British Army. The appalling behaviour of British soldiers made us feel disgusted."

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said last night: "Over 120,000 British troops have served in Iraq and the vast majority have conducted themselves to the highest standards of behaviour. All allegations of abuse are investigated thoroughly and where proven, those responsible are punished and the complainants compensated. Allegations must not be taken as fact and formal investigations must be allowed to take their course without judgements being made prematurely."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]world_of_water wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 01:29 am (UTC)
Half of them join 'cos they love violence or because it's the only way they can pull.

You know I'm right.
More "Freedom" mongered, I see?
[info]reiksares wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 02:27 am (UTC)
No doubt our resident cyber-bully and troll will be telling us all soon how Iraqi people love being beaten-up, threatened and shot, and that it does them good??
Notice how...
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 03:29 am (UTC)
... the MoD pay out huge sums but allow the perpetrators to walk away unscathed and with careers intact?

Once upon a time the Provost's were to be feared as were SIB, if you crossed the line, you were in the crap up to the chinline, you would face longer than civilian comparison prison sentences, loss of job, pension and other benefits, they banged you up and threw you out and into a world where employers would want nothing of you...

But now, it seems, the agents of the state are above the law, nevermind that we, the taxpayer get stiffed for the compensations, but our people are out there butchering and murdering people and getting away with it and as it becomes the norm, it becomes more often.

Think about it, compare it too, to Stockwell, EVERY officer involved in the butchering and execution of that Brazilian has been promoted, secretly given awards, compensated and basically told they got away with murder, this is what we will see in the inquiries to the 20 new claims, more bloody whitewash, cover up and spin.

And speaking as an ex soldier myself, any British soldier that feels the need to lash out at unarmed civilians and brutalise them is just a gutless, prickless, worthless maggot bereft of honour or morality and deserves no safe harbour or quarter in our society.
Re: Notice how...
[info]icihiboo wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 12:06 pm (UTC)
Thank you for so beautifully saying what most civilized people think. It seems that the US and UK decided that living under a despot the people must be destroyed as well as their country. We are as guilty as the gutless monsters that will beat and kill the helpless. We sat and let the lie happen.
Thank you.
Icihiboo
It's no Nuremberg
[info]giuseppesaponi wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 06:36 am (UTC)
When we tried the Nazis we made sure they were found guilty. When we try our boys we make sure they are found innocent.
Anti Army
[info]adullamite wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 06:51 am (UTC)
Is this main story a desire for justice or just having a 'go' at the army?
If the allegations are found to be lies, and I suspect some will not be lies, will that be a major headline in this paper or hidden away?
compo
[info]sidgreenstreet wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 08:06 am (UTC)
In the next armed conflict we could send in the human rights activists and lawyers, with a platoon of religious thinkers and leaders. If this strategy fails we could back them up with a rapid reaction force of our fearless political leaders. They could then demonstrate the correct way one should conduct oneself when acting as a target for suicidal murdering maniacs pretending to be law abiding civilians. Patrolling in soft top land rovers and baseball caps of course is mandatory. From the resultant carnage we can then claim millions for the death and torture of our fearless activists from the; bombers, snipers their supporters and their governments. In their haste to avoid being deployed to the conflict zone our legal class will deny they are human rights lawyers, this will lead to a shortage of suitably qualified people to pursue our claim in the courts. The activist will naively believe that every body will love them and welcome them with open arms so their will be no shortage of victims to claim for.
Re: compo
[info]drahcir38 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 11:24 am (UTC)
"suicidal murdering maniacs pretending to be law abiding civilians"

So thats how to do it sidgreenstreet is it? You first of all make out that everyone that was murdered, brutalised, tortured and permanently traumatised was basically out to kill all troops. That reduces them down to sub human and then you can whip in and justify your arguements that they somehow got what they deserved. Twisted logic from a twisted mind.
Re: compo
[info]adullamite wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC)
Indeed those who oppose the armed forces are the first to demand protection when endangered - if they are ever near danger that is. They are certainly not in Iraq or Afghanistan helping the people!
[info]nomadicnomad wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 08:55 am (UTC)
Seems to me there a few Cowards on these message boards.

Back in the day you'd be shot for your talk.

I look forward to them days returning, you cretins.
[info]world_of_water wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 09:18 am (UTC)
Nuff said!

Say what you want, as long as it's what we want to hear.
[info]reiksares wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 05:24 pm (UTC)
What a load of cobblers. When you and your One-Eyed Fuhrer come to power, you mean? ROFL!!
War Crimes
[info]robert_hardy wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 01:11 pm (UTC)
If a Naval Captain lets his ship run aground he is court marshalled. I do not understand why Army officers are allowed this 'McCavity was not there' leniency. They should explicitly be responsible for the discipline of their men and that should include the responsibility of their men to surrender war criminals amongst their ranks. The people responsible for this disgusting murder must be known, if not as individuals, then as a squad or other small group. If they will not give evidence then they should all be prosecuted as war criminals. If not then lets not have any more crap about the British Army being the best in the world.
Army abuse claims
[info]chris_aust wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 11:15 pm (UTC)
What's new ? The Brits had been doing in Northern Ireland for years, but were and still are being protected by the goverment, so much for british justice. the only reason the sun never set on the british empire was because GOD wouldn't trust a POM in the dark

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date