Leading article: Lest we forget Baha Mousa

More than any other newspaper, The Independent on Sunday has supported British troops. We salute the job that they are doing in the war that we did not support - Iraq - just as we do in the war that we do support - Afghanistan. Wherever they serve, we want them to be well resourced; we want them to be well paid; we want their families to be looked after; and we want them to be fully supported if they are physically injured or mentally scarred while serving their country.

We have campaigned for the British government to renew and better fulfil its part of the military covenant - the semi-formal contract between the British people and their armed forces willing to put life and limb at risk for our freedoms.

Related articles

• Robert Fisk: A cry for justice from a good man who expected us to protect his son
• A bloody epitaph to Blair's war

We would never say that those who have died in Iraq gave their lives in vain. However misguided the invasion was, once it had happened this country had a responsibility to the people of Iraq. The mission of British forces has always been to help and protect Iraqis. Since 2003, the plight of most Iraqis in the south of the country would have been even worse had it not been for the efforts of British soldiers. That is why we have not argued for hasty withdrawal from Iraq. However, the balance of advantage for Iraqis between our staying and going has been narrowing, which is why it makes sense for most British troops to come home this year.

It is precisely because we value and endorse our troops' good name that we have led the way in exposing those cases where their conduct has fallen short. The honour of the British Army is at stake in the documented cases of the torture and abuse of Iraqis, and in the allegations of further cases that we report today. Robert Fisk first reported the case of Baha Mousa in our pages in January 2004. Earlier this year, six soldiers had their cases relating to Mr Mousa's death dismissed by courts martial "as a result of a more or less obvious closing of ranks", according to the judge.

Last week, the Law Lords ruled that British soldiers were bound by the Human Rights Act while in Iraq, thus making it easier to bring legal actions against the Ministry of Defence. Today, we report new evidence from documents prepared for such a case, in which other people held at the same camp as Mr Mousa claim that they were abused - and in which they say that they heard Mr Mousa screaming for his life.

Of course, these allegations are unproven, and there was plainly insufficient evidence at the court martial to convict anyone of direct responsibility for Mr Mousa's death. But the attitude of the British authorities, from the Prime Minister down, via the Secretary of State for Defence, to the defence and chiefs, has lacked vigour. Politicians cannot interfere in legal processes, but they can insist that serious breaches of discipline, such as plainly occurred in the temporary detention facility at Basra in 2003, be thoroughly and independently investigated.

"Every time you treat an Iraqi disrespectfully, you are working for the enemy." That is what Colonel H R McMaster told soldiers in his command, the US Third Armored Cavalry Regiment. If only every commanding officer, British and American, and their political leaders, had been so explicit.

That failure to send a sharp message through the system has contributed to the stain of dishonour on this country and its armed forces. That dishonour is not as grievous as that with which the Abu Ghraib abuses stained the US and its military. But it is no use saying that we were not as bad as the other lot.

All of which adds to the terrible reckoning of Tony Blair's foreign policy. There is no causal link between the frailties of the legal and moral case for war and the misconduct of a tiny minority of British soldiers. The predictable hostility to foreign occupation, which was one of the reasons for thinking the invasion a bad idea, also created what is known as a non-permissive environment for our soldiers. But it was no excuse for mistreating people assumed to be ill-intentioned.

To most members of the armed forces, the conduct of a few British soldiers revealed in the Baha Mousa and related cases has been shocking. Instances of military indiscipline are more likely to occur where the justness of the war is doubted by those fighting it. Thus Mr Blair, having made the mistake of joining a war of dubious legality, cannot be surprised if there are lapses in the highest standards of conduct, inexcusable as that is.

For all these reasons, we welcome last week's House of Lords ruling, which drives home the message that our troops must respect human rights in whatever situations they find themselves. To do so is not to undermine the morale of our armed forces, but ultimately to strengthen it by insisting that the honour of this country and its troops is satisfied only by conduct of the highest possible standard.