| |
Former SAS soldier Ben Griffin blows apart Miliband denial of UK torture involvement.
Written by Stewart office Monday, 25 February 2008 ...The use of British Territory and airspace pales into insignificance in light of the fact that it has been British soldiers detaining the victims of Extraordinary Rendition in the first place.
Since the invasion of Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001 UKSF has operated within a joint US/UK Task Force.
|
This Task Force has been responsible for the detention of hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Individuals detained by British soldiers within this Task force have ended up in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, Bagram Theatre Internment Facility, Balad Special Forces Base, Camp Nama BIAP and Abu Ghraib Prison.
...These secretive prisons are part of a global network in which individuals face torture and are held indefinately without charge.
All of this is in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions, International Law and the UN Convention Against Torture.
...Camp Nama at Baghdad International Airport during 2004... this facility was used to interrogate individuals captured by the joint US/UK Task Force.
In it are the details of numerous breaches of the Geneva Convention and accounts of torture.
These breaches were not the actions of rogue elements.
The abuse was systematic and sanctioned through the chain of command.
...Throughout my time in Iraq I was in no doubt that individuals detained by UKSF and handed over to our American colleagues would be tortured.
Complete Article |
|
At another time, Jeff saw a British SAS officer beat a detainee:
[It] was a beating in a kind of a bunker behind the main facility. . . .
this British guy actually who wasn’t supposed to be interrogating anybody — a British soldier.
SAS. That’s all I know about him. I don’t know his name or anything.
But we went back there and he gave the guy a pretty good pounding.
Nothing really in the face.
A lot of stomach shots, and I would say two or three groin shots, very harsh.
A knee to the abdomen.
Thrown against the wall and so forth.
Human Rights Watch — Soldiers’ Accounts |
Torture Jet Revealed: MI5's role in torture flight hell |
|
“Three soldiers were convicted Wednesday of abusing Iraqi detainees by forcing them to perform simulated acts of oral and anal sex.
|
|
“The abuse occurred in May 2003 and was photographed by fellow soldiers. Convicted were three corporals.
Meanwhile the commanding officer at the prison, Captain Dan Taylor, has since been promoted. His promotion came three months after the photographs were reported to the police.
Another higher ranker official, Sergeant Thomas Symon, has also since been promoted even though he witnessed two naked Iraqis being forced to simulate sex, but did not tell anyone higher up.” |
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
"They started torturing us before they posed any questions.
Basically they were kick boxing us and looked to be really enjoying it."
Throughout the detention he witnessed beatings inflicted on his friend, the hotel receptionist Baha Mousa
"Baha was with me from the moment we were arrested.
We were also put in the same cell.
He suffered a lot at their hands.
They were very cruel.
I do not believe they had any feelings.
I would say they were not human." |
Kidnap and torture: new claims of Army war crimes in Iraq Robert Verkaik reveals evidence of systemic ill-treatment of civilians by British soldiers in the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Published: 18 May 2007 The British Army is facing new allegations that it was involved in "forced disappearances", hostage-taking and torture of Iraqi civilians after the fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein. One of the claims is made by the former chairman of the Red Crescent in Basra, who alleges he was beaten unconscious by British soldiers after they accused him of being a senior official in Saddam's Baath party.
The family of another Iraqi civilian claims he was arrested and kidnapped by the British in order to secure the surrender of his brother, who was also accused of being a high-ranking member of the party. He was later found shot dead, still handcuffed and wearing a UK prisoner name tag.
Both cases are being prepared for hearings in the High Court in which the Government will be accused of war crimes while carrying out the arrest and detention of alleged senior members of the Baath party.
Last month, the first British soldier to be convicted of a war crime was jailed for a year and dismissed from the Army after being convicted of mistreating Iraqi civilians, including the hotel worker Baha Mousa, who died of his injuries at the hands of British soldiers.
Six other soldiers, including Col Jorge Mendonca, were cleared of all charges.
Lawyers and rights groups say the worrying aspect of these latest allegations is that they show evidence of systemic abuse by British soldiers soon after the fall of Saddam.
Fouad Awdah Al-Saadoon, 67, chairman of the Iraqi Red Crescent in Basra, alleges he was visited by British soldiers at his offices in the city on 12 April 2003 and was taken to the British base at the former Mukhabarat [intelligence] building.
In his witness statement, Mr Saadoon said he was accused of being a member of the Baath party and of using his organisation's ambulances secretly to transport Iraqi militia.
In a detailed account of the abuse that he alleges he suffered, Mr Saadoon recalls: "As soon as I went inside they started beating me.
They used electric cables and wooden batons and they harshly punched me with their hands and boots. I had a heart problem, I was a diabetic and had high blood pressure.
I was hit repeatedly on my eyes which made me collapse unconscious."
|
Mr Saadoon was later transferred to the joint American/British-run detention centre called Camp Bucca, in southern Iraq, which the British had set up to process prisoners at the start of the war.
He was interrogated for five days.
Because of the injuries sustained during the beatings his condition worsened and he claims the British flew him to Kuwait for a heart operation.
There he claims he was visited by the International Federation of the Red Crescent whose representatives expressed concern at his alleged treatment by the British.
In the second case, a 26-year-old Iraqi civilian, Tarek Hassan, was arrested in a dawn raid by British troops involved in the rounding up of Baath party officials on 24 April 2003.
His family allege he was held hostage by the British in exchange for the surrender of his brother, Kadhim Hassan, a member of the Baath party.
Five months after his arrest, his family received a phone call to say his body had been found dumped in Samarra, north of Baghdad and 550 miles from the detention centre where he had been held.
Kadhim Hassan, 37, has spent the past three years trying to establish the circumstances that led to the death of his brother.
Now Iraqi human rights workers and British lawyers have uncovered vital witnesses to his arrest and detention.
They have also recovered Tarek's UK identity tag, which indicates he was a British prisoner.
In his witness statement, Kadhim recalls the night his bother was arrested.
"The British were looking for me as I was a high-ranking member of the Baath party," he said.
"I suspect that a financial dispute with one of my neighbours made him inform the British of my rank and he possibly told them some lies which made them look for me."
Kadhim had left the family a few hours before the armoured vehicles carrying the soldiers arrived.
When his sisters contacted the British to find out where the British had taken Tarek, they were told that he would only be released if Kadhim gave himself up.
That was the last they heard of him until five months later.
"He was found," said Kadhim:
"by locals in the countryside ... We went to collect him from the morgue in Samarra, where we found him with eight bullet wounds to his chest.
They were Kalashnikov bullets.
His hands were tied with plastic wire and had many bruises."
|
He was very scared and confused
Now it emerges that Mr Saadoon, who has left Iraq and is working as a businessman in Dubai, met Tarek shortly after he was flown back to Camp Bucca from Kuwait, where he had been receiving medical care.
"I was brought back to Camp Bucca in a van on 21 April and placed in a tent, which held 400 prisoners.
On 24 April Tarek Hassan was brought to our tent.
He was very scared and confused.
He told me British troops had raided his house and were looking for his brother who left the house before the soldiers had arrived.
As I was in bad health, Tarek used to bring me food and care for me.
Tarek was never interrogated while I was at Camp Bucca."
On 27 April the International Federation of the Red Crescent requested the British to free Mr Saadoon and that night he and all 200 others were released in the middle of the night on the highway between Basra and Zubai.
"We had to walk 25 miles to reach the nearest place where we could hire cars," remembers Mr Saadoon.
The Government denies being involved in the injuries suffered by Mr Saadoon or responsibility for Tarek's death.
In letters to the family, the Ministry of Defence makes the point that the bullets that may have killed him were fired from a Kalashnikov weapon and that the area where his body was found was not an area of operations associated with British forces.
But the Hassan family's solicitor, Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, said the evidence showed Tarek disappeared at the hands of UK forces and that the circumstances of his release "significantly increased the risk to his life".
In recent correspondence, the MoD has admitted to the Hassan family that Tarek was held at Camp Bucca but claims that it is a US-run camp and so not the responsibility of the British.
It is a matter of public record that our agents were torturing Iraqis at Camp Bucca
Mr Shiner, who is acting in both cases, said:
"The Government deny any responsibility in a case where a man has been kidnapped by UK forces and killed.
It is a matter of public record that our agents were torturing Iraqis at Camp Bucca and continued to hand over detainees to the Iraqi criminal system even though there was a serious risk of torture or death in detention.
This case is important because if the UK have jurisdiction it cannot allow these incidents to continue and must properly investigate previous incidents".
Mazin Younis, chair of the Iraqi League, a UK-based rights group, said:
"The cases we have reported so far may only be the tip of an iceberg of systematic abuse procedures devised high up the command chain in the Army.
The scale of such cases greatly necessitates the need for the Government to start a public inquiry."
|
| Ten members of Rogers' unit gave evidence in court.Their most frequently used phrase: "I can't remember."They said it six hundred and sixty-seven times! |
Camp Bucca, a 'holding facility' with a history of allegations
The secure holding facility in the desert near the city of Umm Qasr, close to the Kuwaiti border, was originally called Camp Freddy and used by British forces to hold Iraqi prisoners of war.
But in April 2003 control of the camp was transferred to the Americans, although there was a "secure and discrete" unit within the camp that remained exclusively British.
In 2003 the British had control of two tent compounds, holding roughly 400 prisoners each.
The Americans had six similar compounds.
The camp is designed to hold between 2,000 and 2,500 prisoners but figures released in March 2006 estimated that it held 8,500 Iraqi detainees.
There have been a number of inquiries into alleged abusive treatment at the camp, mostly related to the Americans.
In February 2005 American soldiers killed four detainees and injured six others to quell a riot in which prisoners were armed with stones.
But the British have also been accused of abuse, specifically the hooding of prisoners, which led to concerns being raised with the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Six of the men detained with Baha Mousa were later taken to Camp Bucca.
Conditions in the camp are known to be primitive, with open trenches used as lavatories.
The prisoners were forced to sleep on the desert floor, at risk from scorpions and snakes, and were only given one blanket at night when temperatures can fall below zero.
Since May 2003, 27 prisoners have escaped from Camp Bucca, 18 of whom have been recaptured.
A number of attempts at mass escape have been foiled.
The Ministry of Defence says that apart from two spells in 2003, Camp Bucca has been run by the Americans.
Soldiers in the dock
Camp Breadbasket
On 15 May 2003 the 1st Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers captured Iraqis looting an aid camp in Operation Ali-Baba.
They were detained for a brief period during which they were beaten, forced to simulate oral and anal sex and suspended from a forklift truck.
Later that month, Fusilier Gary Bartlam, 20, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, took a film to be developed containing 22 photographs of abuse taking place.
This triggered a lengthy court martial at a British Army barracks in Osnabruck, Germany. Bartlam pleaded guilty to three charges of ill treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
Cpl Daniel Kenyon, 33, from Newcastle, denied six charges of abuse.
He was convicted of three, cleared of two charges and the remaining charge was dropped.
L/Cpl Mark Cooley, 25, from Newcastle, denied two charges of abuse but was found guilty of both. L/Cpl Darren Larkin, 30, from Oldham, Greater Manchester, admitted to one charge of assault but denied another.
The second charge was dropped. |
|
Britain's first convicted war criminal
Baha Mousa
The hotel worker and son of an Iraqi police colonel died on 16 September 2003 while in custody of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment at a detention centre near Basra.
The building had formerly been the secret service headquarters of Ali Majid (Chemical Ali).
Cpl Donald Payne, 36, became Britain's first convicted war criminal when he admitted inhumanely treating civilian detainees.
Six other soldiers were cleared by a military court in Bulford, Wiltshire, of abusing Mr Mousa and other detainees.
©2007 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved |
| "I am bleeding, my nose is broken."
"Have mercy on me, I am going to die." |
| There was an old latrine, just a hall of cesspits, and there was a man who was bound and made to lie with his nose hanging over that latrine and he'd been thrown around and he'd soiled himself and he was lying in his own urine.
The detainee, nicknamed granddad, hooded in the next room, heard his friend's last moments.
KIFAH MUTAIRI — Iraqi detainee 'Grandad'
On the last night I could hear Baha's voice was further from me, but I could tell he was in the next room.
He was getting tortured and he would groan because the torture was so bad.
Panorama reporter PAUL KENYON:
There was a struggle.
Baha Mousa was at the end of his strength.
Corporal Payne was restraining him with his knee in his back.
A charge of manslaughter against Payne was thrown out.
KIFAH MUTAIRI — Iraqi detainee 'Grandad':
He was shouting: 'I am bleeding, my nose is broken.
'Have mercy on me, I am going to die.'
Then his voice disappeared.'
Panorama reporter PAUL KENYON:
He died of postural asphyxia.
In simple terms he'd been unable to breathe.
His ribs were fractured and he had 93 separate injuries.
Nobody has been convicted over the death of Baha Mousa. |
 |
July 13, 2007
Torture: the 10 claims against the Army Jenny Booth Lawyers for Baha Musa claimed today that the case had uncovered evidence that the Government approved the systematic torture of detainees.
Today a panel of five law lords ruled that Mr Musa, a hotel receptionist who died of multiple injuries after two nights in British military custody, was entitled to the protection of the UK's Human Rights Act while held by British soldiers.
The verdict has set a precedent that the rights of foreign detainees abroad must be protected against torture and abuse in the same way as British citizens in the UK.
But the Musa case is also predicted to have a heavy political fallout when it is remitted to the divisional court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court.
Today Phil Shiner, a lawyer for the Musa family, alleged that evidence had emerged at the court martial that high levels of the army and the Government were complicit in a systematic policy of torturing detainees in British military custody.
Mr Shiner claimed that the Government had since been trying to cover up the "shocking new revelations" which emerged in the six and a half month court case, including that:
In response to today’s ruling by the House of Lords, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, welcomed the ruling which he said provided "helpful clarification of the precise legal framework under which UK forces operated overseas".
“As the Chief of General Staff has already said, Baha Musa died after being held in UK custody and was subject to an unlawful conditioning process," said Mr Browne.
"We have never argued that the treatment of Baha Musa was acceptable or that his death should not have been investigated.
"Credible allegations of serious wrong-doing have to be, and are, investigated. Where evidence is independently assessed as justifying a prosecution, the application of a robust, fair system of military justice must follow."
Mr Browne said that the Musa case was not closed. "As is normal in any case of this nature, the case is currently being reviewed by the Royal Military Police and Army Prosecuting Authority. They will determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought."
The Defence Secretary did not respond directly to the allegation that the "unlawful conditioning process" was UK military policy approved by the Government at the time.
He went on: “Since 2003 we have reviewed our practices in relation to detention, and where necessary made changes. This is a complex judgment, some 60 pages long, and needs careful consideration. However if further lessons or action needs to be taken on board as a result of this judgement we will do so.”
 © Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd |
Iraqi mother of Nadhem Abdullah holds his picture in Farakah.
A court hearing the case of seven British troops accused of beating Abdullah to death, also heard that the same soldiers savagely attacked a taxi driver at the same time.
Charges against the seven British soldiers accused of murdering Iraqi teenager dismissed.
Judge ruled insufficient evidence — November 3, 2005 |
Brutal attack by soldiers left innocent Iraqi dead, court told
Seven paras accused of murder at court martial
Owen Bowcott Tuesday September 6, 2005 An army court martial yesterday heard the first graphic account of how seven British soldiers allegedly carried out a "brutal" and "unprovoked" attack on a group of Iraqi civilians that led to the death of an unarmed teenager from severe head injuries. The paratroopers, who appeared at the hearing in Colchester, Essex, and have been charged with murder, were alleged to have used rifle butts, helmets, fists and feet to batter the occupants of an intercepted Toyota pick-up truck. Two women who tried to intervene were "hit and hurt", the court martial was told. One of them was pregnant. A dog that barked at the patrol was shot dead. The hearing was told that witnesses had heard the soldiers laughing and clapping. On the opening day of the long-anticipated military case - which dates back to May 2003, three weeks after the formal end to hostilities - the chief prosecutor, Martin Heslop QC, gave a detailed narrative of the incident which allegedly led to the death of 18-year-old Nadhem Abdullah.
Corporal Scott Evans, 32, and Privates Billy Nerney, 24, Samuel May, 25, Morné Vosloo, 26, Daniel Harding, 25, Roberto Di-Gregorio, 24 and Scott Jackson, 26, all deny murder and violent disorder.
Before describing the event Mr Heslop asked each of them whether they pleaded guilty to murder and violent disorder.
Each of the men, who were all members of the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, in turn answered: "No, sir."
"The Crown case is that [these men] entered a small Iraqi village in two vehicles," Mr Heslop said. Once in the village they brutally assaulted a number of unarmed Iraqis, causing fatal injuries.
"In the course of the assault they used helmets, rifle butts, fists and feet. Two women who tried to intervene were hit and hurt. One was pregnant. A dog that was barking was shot dead.
"This is not a case of soldiers responding to an attack nor being required to defend themselves in an operational engagement. This was nothing more than gratuitous violence meted out to unarmed civilians."
The assaults, Mr Heslop added, were "unjustified and wholly unprovoked".
Evidence against the men, he said, came from a number of sources. Iraqi witnesses could not individually identify them, but they saw British soldiers and vehicles. No other units were in the area at the time, Mr Heslop explained.
Boot marks on the clothes of the injured Toyota driver, Athar Saddam, matched those worn by several patrol members, the court heard.
Blood recovered from the screw recess of Private May's rifle butt matched the DNA profile of Mr Abdullah's family. Private May was second-in-command of the patrol, which was led by Corporal Evans.
Radio messages sent from the patrol that day confirmed they had followed a car from a checkpoint, Mr Heslop said.
Later two of the accused - Privates Di-Gregorio and Vosloo - acknowledged there had been an incident that day.
Mr Heslop said the men were all charged with murder on the basis of "joint enterprise" in that they had either "inflicted blows" or had later protected those who carried out the assaults.
The patrol, the court heard, had been out that day to stop so-called "Ali Ba Bas" trying to smuggle money through Iran. The soldiers, it was suggested, may have mistaken the Toyota pick-up for a similar vehicle.
The patrol followed the truck into Al-Ferkah in southern Iraq where it was dropping off locals who had been to market. The two army vehicles boxed in the Toyota.
"The deceased [Mr Abdullah] and the driver were dragged out and made to lie down," Mr Heslop said. "The men were assaulted. During the assault the driver's sister, Dalal, tried to stop it. She was struck by one of the soldiers on the mouth.
"Nadhem Abdullah was struck about the head and body. He and the driver were rendered unconscious."
Leaving them behind, the soldiers went on to assault two brothers who had earlier left the vehicle, Kazem and Zugraher Al-Mohamadawi, Mr Heslop told the court.
"Witnesses described the soldiers laughing and clapping their hands."
After the patrol left, Mr Abdullah and Mr Saddam were taken to a hospital in nearby Amara. Mr Saddam was suffering internal bleeding to the back of his head, thought to have been caused by a rifle butt.
No neurosurgeon was on duty so he was driven to Basra but he died on the way. His body could not be exhumed for a postmortem examination.
"However, the Crown has no doubts that Mr Abdullah died as a result of the battering he received from the soldiers," Mr Heslop added.
The men's commanding officer, Captain Andrew Blackmore, the court heard, interviewed the soldiers on their return to base that night.
He reported finding them excited and hyped up but they denied that anything had happened.
The court martial is being held in a converted military warehouse in the flagstaff compound in Colchester. The building was previously used for testing uniforms and equipment.
A visit by lawyers to Al-Ferkah was yesterday postponed because of deteriorating security. A video of the scene will instead be shown to the court martial next week.
The proceedings of a general court martial are similar to a civilian crown court. The judge advocate, Judge Jeff Blackett, is a civilian.
Instead of a jury there is a seven-member panel which delivers the verdict.
It comprises six men and one woman of varying ranks between brigadier and warrant officer.
If any of the accused are found guilty the panel, working with the judge, will also decide upon the sentence.
The seven former and serving soldiers accused are represented by civilian barristers and solicitors. The judge ordered that their home addresses should not be revealed.
Three of the soldiers who have since left the army are deemed to have been re-enlisted for the duration of the trial. If convicted, they will serve their time in a military prison.
The hearing was adjourned until next Monday.
· The seven men are charged with two offences each, murder and violent disorder. The accused, who appeared in court, were Corporal Scott Evans, Private Billy Nerney, Private Samuel May and Private Morné Vosloo. All four are still serving members of the 3rd battalion, the Parachute regiment.
The other three accused - Private Scott Jackson, Private Daniel Harding and Private Roberto Di-Gregorio - are all former members of the 3rd battalion, the Parachute regiment.
All seven men deny the charges.
The other cases
· Ahmed Jabber Kareem, a 16-year-old, died after being arrested by three Irish Guards on May 8, 2003.
It is alleged he and three other Iraqis were marched at gunpoint to a dock near the Shatt al-Arab waterway in Basra and forced to jump in. The Army Prosecuting Authority (APA) is considering charges.
· Said Shabram was herding sheep with another man in the former marine base in Basra on May 24, 2003.
A British soldier is is said to have told them to follow him to the dockside and, after they did so, they were ordered to stand at the water's edge before being pushed in.
Said Shabram drowned despite a rescue attempt by another soldier.
The APA is deliberating whether to charge an officer and two soldiers from 32 Engineer regiment. They could face joint murder charges over his death.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 |
An army whistleblower describes the investigation as "appalling" The full 29 minute Panarama segment While Google video still has it |
Circus of Torture Blood, stomach pumping, penis cut - Rendition - CIA MI6 Guantanamo, blinded and forced into restraints |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tuesday, 18 January, 2005
Charges against UK troops in full
Royal Regiment of Fusiliers soldiers Lance Corporal Darren Larkin,Corporal Daniel Kenyon and L/Cpl Mark Cooley are facing a court martial in Germany.
L/Cpl Larkin has admitted one charge of assaulting an unknown man at the camp but denied another charge. Cpl Daniel Kenyon and L/Cpl Mark Cooley have entered not guilty pleas. Here are the charges in full:
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Soldier says reporting abuse was 'pointless'
Press Association Thursday February 10, 2005 The most senior British soldier to be accused in the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal today told a court martial that he had thought reporting the alleged abuse was "pointless". Corporal Daniel Kenyon, 33, said he believed senior officers were allowing mistreatment to go on at the Camp Breadbasket aid camp, near the southern Iraqi city of Basra, where the alleged incidents are said to have taken place following a crackdown on looters in May 2003. When asked why he had not reported seeing one of his two co-defendants, Lance Corporal Mark Cooley, 25, driving a forklift truck with a captured Iraqi looter suspended from the forks, he said: "I was going to report something in my mind that wasn't really physically hurting people, to people who were allowing other Iraqis to be physically hurt ... it's a bit pointless. I don't think they would have been interested, to tell you the truth." Cpl Kenyon, from Newcastle upon Tyne, told the court martial, taking place in Osnabruck, Germany, that he had tried to stop the alleged abuse after witnessing the incident involving the forklift truck. He said he ordered L/Cpl Cooley, also of Newcastle Upon Tyne, to release the man after he realised what was happening. "I was shouting at L/Cpl Cooley, shouting at him to get the person down off the forks," Cpl Kenyon told the court martial. "I can't remember the exact precise words but, knowing myself, it would probably have been: 'You stupid fucker — what are you doing?"' Repeating his reasons for not reporting the abuse he had witnessed, Cpl Kenyon said: "There was no point in passing anything up the chain of command because it was the chain of command who were, in my eyes, doing wrongdoing, and they were passing Iraqis down to us to do the same thing." Cpl Kenyon described how he had discovered a number of his men gathered around two naked Iraqis who were simulating oral sex — a scene he said was "beyond belief". He said he had ordered the abuse to be stopped, and had given the men involved a "bollocking". The witness denied seeing a further incident in which prisoners were made to simulate anal sex. "I guarantee that no other photos, no other positions would have happened if I was there," he said. Cpl Kenyon told the court that a statement by one of his colleagues, Fusilier Gary Bartlam, which implicated him in the scenes of simulated sex acts was wrong. He suggested Fus Bartlam — who was convicted for taking photographs of the alleged abuse at an earlier court martial — had given evidence placing him at the scene for his own benefit. When asked why he thought Fus Bartlam, who he had only known for a day and a half, had been mistaken, he said: "It seems like he made a new statement to the fact that I was there, and all of a sudden he got let off four charges." Cpl Kenyon, a father of two, was giving evidence for a second day. The case arose after photographs emerged showing the apparent abuse of Iraqi detainees. Yesterday Cpl Kenyon described one photograph, which showed L/Cpl Cooley feigning punching a prisoner as "absolutely nothing". He also described the regime at Camp Breadbasket after the fall of Saddam Hussein as "unprofessional", and said soldiers had received no training in detaining civilians. The third defendant, Lance Corporal Darren Larkin, 30, from Oldham, Greater Manchester, has already pleaded guilty to assaulting an Iraqi prisoner. He was cleared of forcing prisoners to strip naked. Cpl Kenyon has also been cleared of aiding and abetting L/Cpl Larkin to force the Iraqis to strip. He still faces five further charges, including aiding and abetting unidentified soldiers to force Iraqi prisoners to simulate sex acts and failing to report the abuse. L/Cpl Cooley has been cleared of being photographed while posing as though kicking an Iraqi prisoner. He denies that it was cruel to drive a fork lift truck while a detainee was suspended from it, or that posing as though punching a prisoner was prejudicial to good order and military discipline. The court heard that Cpl Kenyon was in the top 7% of soldiers in his regiment but, despite repeated recommendations that he should be promoted, he had remained a corporal for nine years. Lieutenant Colonel Nick Clapham, prosecuting, suggested this was because Cpl Kenyon feared the challenge of promotion. "No, the only thing I fear is being a lesser soldier than what I am," Cpl Kenyon replied. Lt Col Clapham said: "I put my case not on the basis that you are a bad soldier. You have become involved with the matters with which you are charged and it is through a lack of self-confidence, identified in your reports, that you failed in command in effect on the one day it mattered. "On this one day, you failed in your duty as commander, do you accept that?" Cpl Kenyon replied: "No." The hearing continues. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 |
|
| “Three soldiers were convicted Wednesday February 23, 2005 of abusing Iraqi detainees by forcing them to perform simulated acts of oral and anal sex. The abuse occurred in May 2003 and was photographed by fellow soldiers. Convicted were three corporals. Meanwhile the commanding officer at the prison, Captain Dan Taylor, has since been promoted. His promotion came three months after the photographs were reported to the police. Another higher ranker official, Sergeant Thomas Symon, has also since been promoted even though he witnessed two naked Iraqis being forced to simulate sex, but did not tell anyone higher up.” For more on this case see section on: The Illegality of the Occupation Policy below. |
|
Illegality of Preventive Attack and Unilateral Use of Force
by Phil Shiner
Visiting Professor; London Metropolitan University
Fellow, London School of Economics In this paper I wish to address three issues:
However, before addressing these themes, I wish to put these matters in the context of a changing international legal order.
There is no doubt that the world has changed post 9/11.
And no doubt too that international law has been central to that change.
Much of the debate about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the so-called "war on terror" revolves around questions of legality.
It is plain that the neo-cons and Bush and Blair wish to restructure International law to make it weaker but more flexible, and less concerned with the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Who can counter this fundamental challenge to all those who are concerned with peace, and that international law should underpin and support an absolute legal commitment by all member states that the use of force is, and should remain as, the option of last resort?It is my view that the War Tribunal on Iraq should have this fundamental ideological struggle in its sights.
It can make those responsible for the Iraq war accountable, and it can be part of a global struggle in response to the Bush/Blair agenda on International law.
The Crime of Aggression
International Law is surprisingly clear and easy to understand on whether the Iraq war was lawful.
First, war was abolished by the adoption of the UN Charter in 1947.
Thereafter, contracting states entered into a compact.
In return for giving up their right to wage war each vested the right to use force in the collective security provisions of chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Second, Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter provides that:
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
This has been described by the International Court of Justice as a peremptory norm of International Law, from which states cannot derogate.
Thus, the effect of articles 2 (3) and (4) is that the use of force can only be justified as expressly provided under the Charter, and only in situations where it is consistent with the UN's purposes.
Third, there are two limited exceptions to the requirement not to use force.
The first enshrined in Article 51, preserves states' rights to self-defence. As this was not an exception relied upon by the US or UK I need not dwell on it.
|
|
The second is where the Security Council have authorised the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter. That is the only relevant debate here.
I can remind the Panel that a consensus of international lawyers did not accept that such an authorisation existed here, or that the UK and US were entitled to revive Resolution 678 (November 1990) from the start of the first Gulf War.
The UK and US argued that the wording of Resolution 1441 (8 November 2002) allowed them to rely on Security Council Resolution 678 as they were entitled to interpret Iraq's behaviour post 1441 as constituting a further "material breach" of Resolution 678 (Article 1) in circumstances where Iraq had been given its "final opportunity" to disarm (Article 2) and was warned of the "serious consequences" of non-compliance (Article 13).
This is referred to as the revival doctrine.
Not surprisingly, that is not the way international law works post the UN Charter.
If the Security Council wish to authorise force, they do so in clear terms, latterly using the phrase "all necessary means" or "all measures necessary"
One example of that consensus is a letter from 16 international law professors and teachers from the UK, which made headline news on March 7 2003.
It warned that:
Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the Security Council must have indicated its clearly expressed accent. It has not yet done so. A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper Security Council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law.
What I have done is to footnote to this paper all the relevant legal material so that you, the jury, may be satisfied that this war did not have legal authorisation from the Security Council.
The jury need to address the consequences of that.
"Most people now realise that the war on Iraq was illegal and under international law, an illegal war amounts to a crime of aggression."
Others have said the same.
Here is the 18 March 2003 resignation letter of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Deputy Legal Advisor to the Foreign Office, who resigned because she did not believe the war with Iraq was legal:
"I cannot in conscience go along with the advice which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a [Security Council] Resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to a crime of aggression."
Over the last weekend the controversy over the legality of the war, at least from the UK Government's perspective, has flared up again.
This time the row focus on a number of leaked and secret memoranda between UK Government's members and top officials detailing what had been agreed between Tony Blair and President Bush and Condoleezza Rice as early as March 2002.
|
|
In particular, the following needs some explanation, if the UK Government are to continue to protest they went into Iraq because of the threat of WMD, rather than for regime change:
"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your [Blair] support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was different from anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we perused regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."
Thus, we are dealing with the crime of aggression.
And let us remind ourselves of the enormity of that crime.
This is the opening speech of Mr Justice Robert Jackson at The Nuremburg Tribunal:
"It is not necessary among the ruins of this ancient and beautiful city with untold members of its civilian inhabitants still buried under its rubble, to argue the proposition that to start or wage an aggressive war has the moral qualities of the worst of crimes."
In his opening speech, he also described aggressive war as "the greatest menace of our time", and made it clear that if International Law "is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment."
He also said:
"This trial represents mankind's desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world's peace and commit aggressions against the right of their neighbors."
Accountability for the Crime of Aggression and Proportionality
But how can the actions of the US and the UK in committing the worst of crimes be made accountable to International Law, and specifically the International Criminal Court (ICC)?
There are two routes that the ICC Prosecutor can take which would give him jurisdiction to examine the legality of the Iraq war notwithstanding that the US has de-ratified the ICC Statute, and that the ICC will not have jurisdiction over the "crime of aggression" until the necessary Elements of Crime have been agreed, which may not be for several years.
Here is how the first argument goes.
|
|
In addition to those who perpetrated the crimes, the ICC also has jurisdiction over those who may have ordered, solicited, induced, aided or abetted or otherwise assisted in their commission or attempted commission.
So the relationship between the US and UK in the coalition does need to be determined, and questions answered as to the criminal responsibility of UK nationals of acts jointly committed with the US.
In particular, did UK nationals have prior knowledge of any internationally wrongful acts?
The Peacerights Report records that the panel had concluded:
"The evidence presented (that UK commanders were informed by the US of their military activities, and the selection of targets, and that they were concerned about the use of cluster bombs) suggests that the UK did have knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act." (Para 3.8)
This leads us to the prospect of senior members of the UK Government being criminally responsible before the ICC for the commission of international crimes through joint criminal activities with individuals from the US, and this takes us into the illegality of the war.
It seems clear that the US and UK Governments — and thus senior members of both as individuals — acted with a common purpose in waging aggressive war against Iraq.
In simple terms, it is not necessary here that the participation of UK nationals be an indispensable condition, or that the ICC Prosecutor needs to be satisfied that the attacks or incidents would not have occurred at all without their participation.
Instead, the question is: were the UK nationals at least a cog in the wheel of events?
The London Tribunal members answered this question in the affirmative.
Building on this, the concept of "joint criminal enterprise" is now well accepted in international criminal law and is particularly useful in examining issues of liability when one of the parties in the joint criminal enterprise goes beyond what was originally agreed, even if the other party did not have full knowledge of this, provided that the act was a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the agreed joint criminal enterprise.
And of course, the joint criminal enterprise we are most concerned with here is that of waging aggressive war.
It does, however, need to be stressed as the London Tribunal did that, in examining these issues, in the context of aggressive war, it is not that the ICC would be attempting to actually hold any person accountable for that crime, as it must be recalled that the Elements of Crime have not yet been agreed.
Instead, "it would merely be reaching the view that the criminal enterprise of waging aggressive war had been committed as a preliminary circumstance to the prosecution of criminal acts over which it may exercise jurisdiction — namely, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes."
|
Other Issues of War Crimes and the Use of Force
In the above section I have touched upon issues concerning the use of an indiscriminate weapons system such as cluster munitions in residential areas; the risk that impermissible military objectives related not to the threat of WMD might have led to war crimes being committed because attacks were not justified (according to military objective) or were disproportionate; and lastly, the link between the "crime of aggression" and joint criminal enterprise.
These are three very important issues that I would invite the Panel to examine in detail and consider whether to refer these matters to the ICC.
There are others arising from the use of force (rather than the occupation which I deal with below).
They all arise from the London Tribunal and thus, the Peacerights Report.
I summarise them below with their references:
"I saw a young man of 14 years of age bleeding from his anus and lying on the floor. He was Kurdish and his name was Hama. I heard the soldiers talking to each other about this guy; they mentioned that the reason for this bleeding was inserting a metal object in his anus. I suspected that this was caused by a sexual assault but could not confirm it."
Second, the statement of an agricultural engineer;
"They have shown me in that room photos of certain people whom I knew and I was asked to make certain confessions against them.
Once they placed a detainee on a chair in front of me and asked me to say certain words that indicated that I had confessed against him.
They brought a man I knew who was fully dressed with a can of coke and some food in his hand, they pointed out that if I would confess I would be in pleasant status like that man.
I insisted that I had nothing else to say and I was innocent.
Then they advanced the chair I was sitting on very close to a wood fire that they lit which left burns on my leg (photographed).
They inserted some strange objects into my anus and asked me to take very humiliating positions while they messed with me and moved these objects in different directions.
They were calling these positions some names, which I did not understand.
They took many photos while I was in these positions, they were laughing and enjoying it.
There was also a male and a female soldier who sat behind me; they were messing with each other.
Their game was that the male soldier would aim at my injured and swollen leg with a piece of rock, as soon as he hit his target and I scream of pain she would reward him by letting him kiss her or fondle her.
The stronger my pain was and the louder my scream was, the more he would get from her."
We know now of the US efforts to redefine torture and, in particular, the memorandum of 1 August 2002, from Jay S Bybee, head of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel in which he wrote;
"We conclude that for an act to constitute torture it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions or even death."
We know also of the US interrogation techniques involving unusual methods designed not to leave marks.
|
|
What we do not seem to fully appreciate is how closely UK interrogation techniques resemble those of the US.
This is not rhetoric.
I am acting in three cases where UK troops have tortured Iraqi civilians to death, ten other torture in detention cases and additionally for nine victims of abuse and torture at Camp Breadbasket.
The statements of these victims makes it clear that like the US, members of the UK Armed Forces engaged in practices of sexual humiliation and systematic humiliation of male Muslims, routinely using women to sexually excite male detainees, devised games and routines to humiliate and disorient detainees, used methods of abuse designed not to leave marks, and, in fact, did everything we now know US troops did save for the use of bright lights and loud music.
To make this explicit, I read an extract from one of my client's witness statements from a successful High Court case of 14 December 2004.
His name is Kifah Taha al-Mutari.
He gives evidence about the death in detention of his colleague, Baha Mousa, as well as the torture that he suffered which led to acute kidney failure.
He says:
|
|
When I tried to have the victims' evidence heard, the Court Martial decided to ignore it and the Attorney General threatened me with contempt of court proceedings if I attempted to alert the public and media as to what had happened.
Additionally, I have complained to the UK's Attorney General that there is clear evidence that the UK had a systematic torture policy, which requires investigation.
The Attorney General has refused to recognise the importance of the issue and refused an investigation.Both the US and UK Forces have been responsible for large numbers of civilians deaths whilst carrying out policing functions.
It is important to emphasise that there is a different set of legal rules during an occupation, as compared to a war, and both the US and UK were bound by Geneva Convention IV which protects civilians.
Further, both had legal powers of policing through Security Council Resolution 1483 and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).
The CPA passed a huge amount of legislation during the period 22 May 2003 and 28 June 2004 through 11 Regulations (R1-11), 97 Orders (O1-97), 14 Memoranda (M1-14) and 11 Public Notices (PN1-11).
These included weapons control (M5, O3).
I have about thirty cases of deaths at the hands of UK troops during policing functions.
The following points can be made:
"She stayed for three days with the bodies of her family who were killed in her home.
When the soldiers entered she was in her home with her father, mother, 12-year-old brother and two sisters.
She watched the soldiers enter and shoot her mother and father directly, without saying anything.
They beat her two sisters, then shot them in the head.
After this her brother was enraged and ran at the soldiers whilst shouting at them, so they shot him dead."
Another report comes from an aid convoy headed by Doctor Salem Ismael. He was in Falluja in February 2005. As well as delivering aid he photographed the dead, including children, and interviewed remaining residents.
He reports: `
"The accounts I heard will live with me forever. You may think you know what happened in Falluja, but the truth is worse than anything you could possibly have imagined."
Doctor Ismael relates the story of Hudda Fawzi Salam Issawi from Falluja:
"Five of us, including a 55-year-old neighbour, were trapped together in our house in Falluja when the siege began.
On 9 November, American Marines came to our house.
My father and the neighbour went to the door to meet them.
We were not fighters.
We thought we had nothing to fear.
I ran into the kitchen to put on my veil, since men were going to enter our house and it would be wrong for them to see me with my hair uncovered.
This saved my life.
As my father and neighbour approached the door, the Americans opened fire on them.
They died instantly.
Me and my 13-year-old brother hid in the kitchen behind the fridge.
The soldiers came into the house and caught my oldest sister.
They beat her.
Then they shot her.
But they did not see me.
Soon they left, but not before they had destroyed our furniture and stolen the money from my father's pocket."
|
US used white phosphorus chemical and thermobaric fuel-air weapons War Crimes — Fallujah |
| Father of loved ones |
|
|
|
Naomi Klein has also produced evidence about what she sees as the US Forces laying siege to Falluja "in retaliation for the gruesome killings of four Blackwater employees".
She speaks of hundreds of civilians being killed during the siege in April 2004, and of a deliberate tactic of eliminating doctors, journalists and clerics who focused public attention on civilian casualties previously.
All of the above acts are arguably "crimes against humanity" defined by section 7 ICC Statute) as "murder" (Article 7 (1)(a)), "extermination" (Article 7 (1)(b)) or "other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health" (Article 7 (1)(k)).
Further, they may be "war crimes" (defined by Article 8 of the ICC Statute) as a "wilful killing" (Article 8 (2)(a)(i)), "wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health" (Article 8 (2)(a)(iii)) or "intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities" (Article 8 (2)(b)(i)) or "intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such an attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated" (Article 8 (2)(b)(iv).
As for the latter, questions need to be addressed as to military objectives and proportionality.
If the force used was "clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated" then it would be disproportionate and unlawful.
However, it must be remembered that this was a lawful occupation authorised by Resolution 1483.
In its recitals, this recognised "the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of [both] states as occupying powers under unified command".
The UK and US had to respect Geneva Convention IV.
Thus decisions about military objectives and proportionality cannot be approached as if this were a time of war.
But even if they could, it is hard to see how the US could possibly justify these acts, if proven.
Further, liability does not stop with the US.
I have already set out the arguments about joint criminal enterprise and thus the responsibility of the UK for the acts of the US.
Legally, these arguments as to joint responsibility are enhanced during the occupation.
Not only were both states acting under de jure authority as occupying powers but also they were also senior partners within the CPA and thus responsible for all the legislative and administrative functions I have noted above.
Thus, a legal analysis of the issue of accountability for incidents such as these from Falluja, which may involve "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity", must begin by recognising, first, the lawful authority of the US and UK to both occupy and administer Iraq, and second, recognising the protection of civilians through international humanitarian law, specifically Geneva Convention IV, and international human rights law, especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the ECHR.
It is also critically important to appreciate that any proper accountability is entirely dependant upon a lawful independent investigation being conducted.
That is the importance of the protection given to the Right to Life (ECHR, Art2; IICPR Art 6) by the requirement to hold such an inquiry.
For example, if states know at the outset that killings and torture during an occupation will be investigated independently then this knowledge should be reflected in improved training for Armed Forces and thus more Human Rights compliant behaviour.
Further, the requirement for independence is not met by the military investigation.
It is only when such an independent investigation unearths who is responsible that one gets to deal with questions as to who, if anyone, should be charged with "crimes against humanity" or "war crimes".
Accordingly, one sees that it is pre-judging the issues arising from the incidents in Falluja to say that those responsible in a few incidents were acting within the rules of engagement and using proportionate force.
The US and UK should have been proceeding on the basis that a lawful approach to international humanitarian law and international human rights law relevant to the protection of civilians in an occupation would be expected of them and rigorously enforced by the international community through, for example, if appropriate, critical Resolutions of the Security Council.
But it is not too late for accountability, and this Tribunal may be part of a future process that leads to it.
Conclusion
The Iraq war and occupation challenges us all to face the threat to international law by the actions of the US, UK and other members of the coalition.
We must be resolute in our determination to make international law stronger and more concerned with peace.
There must be accountability for the dreadful numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties in this aggressive war and bearing in mind the use of indiscriminate methods of attack.
There cannot be impunity for the acts of torture in detention — and in some cases deaths — nor the wanton killing of civilians during the occupation.
In so far as US and UK interrogation techniques violate Article 1 of UN Convention on Torture, it cannot be acceptable that there be impunity.
Accountability — rather than impunity — rests on two building blocks:
|
US used white phosphorus chemical and thermobaric fuel-air weapons War Crimes — Fallujah |
Routine and systematic torture is at the heart of America's 'war on terror' Circus of Torture — 2003-2007 |
INDEX ON IRAQ: A JOURNEY IN HELL Sarah Meyer, INDEX RESEARCH |
UK Terror State Downing Street Memo — How Bush and Blair took us all for a ride Blair, Brown, Campbell, Goldsmith, Hoon, Straw |
|
Unspeakable grief and horror
...and the circus of deception killing continues...
|
An army whistleblower describes the investigation as "appalling" The full 29 minute Panarama segment While Google video still has it |
Circus of Torture Blood, stomach pumping, penis cut - Rendition - CIA MI6 Guantanamo, blinded and forced into restraints |
|
For archive purposes, this article is being stored on TheWE.name website.The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. |
