Iraq War Crimes Case Targets British Government and Military Leaders as US Commander Says: Close Guantánamo

Posted by Stephen Cook

British General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the British Army; former defence secretary Geoff Hoon; and former defence minister Adam Ingram are among those named in the report.

By Jonathan Owen, The Independent – January 12, 2014
http://tinyurl.com/qbzb2ks
Senior UK military and political figures could end up in the dock as 400 victims denounce ‘systemic’ use of torture and cruelty
A devastating 250-page dossier, detailing allegations of beatings, electrocution, mock executions and sexual assault, has been presented to the International Criminal Court, and could result in some of Britain’s leading defence figures facing prosecution for “systematic” war crimes.
General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the British Army; former defence secretary Geoff Hoon; and former defence minister Adam Ingram are among those named in the report, entitled “The Responsibility of UK Officials for War Crimes Involving Systematic Detainee Abuse in Iraq from 2003-2008″.
The damning dossier draws on cases of more than 400 Iraqis, representing “thousands of allegations of mistreatment amounting to war crimes of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”.
They range from “hooding” prisoners to burning, electric shocks, threats to kill and “cultural and religious humiliation”. Other forms of alleged abuse include sexual assault, mock executions, threats of rape, death, and torture.
The formal complaint to the ICC, lodged yesterday, is the cumulation of several years’ work by Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) and the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR). It calls for an investigation into the alleged war crimes, under Article 15 of the Rome Statute.
The dossier, seen by The Independent on Sunday, is the most detailed ever submitted to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor on war crimes allegedly committed by British forces in Iraq. The court has already acknowledged that there was little doubt that war crimes were committed. In 2006, it concluded: “There was a reasonable basis to believe that crimes within the jurisdiction of the court had been committed, namely wilful killing and inhuman treatment.”
At that time, prosecutors cited the low number of cases – fewer than 20 – as a reason for not mounting an investigation. But, since then, hundreds of other claims have come to light – prompting consideration of the complaint now. It is the start of a process which could result in British politicians and generals being put in the dock on war-crimes charges.
The sheer scale and seriousness of the allegations passes the “gravity” threshold to justify an investigation, according to the complaint. It continues “those who bear the greatest responsibility” for alleged war crimes “include individuals at the highest levels” of the British Army and political system. It concludes the evidence “justifies further investigation” into the criminal responsibility “of senior individuals within the UK military and government”.
It adds British military commanders “knew or should have known” that forces under their control “were committing or about to commit war crimes”. And “civilian superiors knew or consciously disregarded information at their disposal, which clearly indicated that UK services personnel were committing war crimes in Iraq”.
The complaint argues that “the pattern of abusive treatment by UK services personnel in Iraq continued over almost six years of military operations”.
A number of top British officials face serious scrutiny, according to Phil Shiner (inset, left) of PIL. He said: “I think we easily meet the threshold for these issues to be looked at, I would be gobsmacked and bitterly disappointed if they don’t look at this.”
Only a handful of courts martial relating to the conduct of British forces in Iraq have been held to date. Just one has resulted in a conviction – Corporal Donald Payne was jailed for a year in 2007 for the inhuman treatment of Iraqi civilians. This one conviction aside, “Nobody has been found guilty of anything of any seriousness at all,” said Mr Shiner.
The complaint being considered by the ICC presents evidence of the “systematic use of brutal violence, that at times resulted in the death of detainees, while in the custody of UK Services Personnel”. And it claims “there is evidence of brutality combined with cruelty and forms of sadism, including sexual abuse, and sexual and religious humiliation”.
It points to the widespread use of “hooding”, forcing people to remain in painful “stress positions”, sleep deprivation, noise bombardment and deprivation of food and water. These interrogation techniques were used by British soldiers in Northern Ireland before being banned in 1972. There are “clear patterns” of the banned techniques being used “in a variety of different UK facilities [in Iraq] … from 2003 to 2008,” says the complaint. And evidence “suggests that failures to follow-up on or ensure accountability for ending such practices became a cause of further abuse. The obvious conclusion is that such mistreatment was systematic.”
The report will be publicly released at the Law Society, London, on Tuesday. It comes as the ICC is under mounting pressure to demonstrate a willingness to act against war crimes committed by Western countries – and not solely focus on African nations. Last October, the ICC was criticised by the Ethiopian foreign minister, Tedros Adhanom, who accused it of being “a political instrument targeting Africa and Africans”.
Professor William Schabas, a renowned expert on human rights law, based at Middlesex University, said: “What this application does is throw down the challenge to the court to show there are no double standards.” He added: “There is definitely a case for an investigation by the ICC,” and claimed “there’s no doubt” that war crimes were perpetrated by British forces in Iraq. “People should be worried,” he added.
The complaint amounts to “a prima facie investigation mapped out for the prosecutor”, and is “supported by sophisticated legal argument which adheres to the requirements of the [ICC],” according to Professor Andrew Williams, a law expert at the University of Warwick and author of A Very British Killing: the Death of Baha Mousa.
In a statement, an MoD spokesperson said: “These matters are either under thorough investigation or have been dealt with … further action through the ICC is unnecessary when the issues and allegations are already known to the UK Government, action is in hand and the UK courts have already issued judgments.”
The spokesperson added: “We reject the suggestion the UK’s Armed Forces – who operate in line with domestic and international law – have systematically tortured detainees.”
But Wolfgang Kaleck, ECCHR secretary general, said: “With the current communication to the ICC we want to move forward the criminal prosecution against those political and military leaders in the UK who bear the most responsibility for systematic torture in Iraq.”
He added: “The International Criminal Court in The Hague is the last resort for victims of torture and mistreatment to achieve justice. Double standards in international criminal justice must end. War crimes and other severe violations of human rights must be investigated and prosecuted, regardless of whether they are committed by the most powerful.”
General Sir Peter Wall, Geoff Hoon and Adam Ingram did not respond to requests for comment.
Allegations of torture
Testimonies of hundreds of Iraqis who say they were tortured by British soldiers are being considered by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Here are a few of the accounts submitted (all names have been withheld).
A man who was beaten in front of his family said: “They made me sit in a kneeling position with my head pushed downwards and then they started to beat me. They beat me on my face, back and stomach.”
Another, who suffered more than 60 punches to his head, stated: “There were many soldiers pushing and throwing me… As each soldier caught me they would punch me.” He described how his son was also abused: “A soldier brought my eight-year-old son into the room. The officer started slapping my son round his face and shouting at him… I was on the floor in a terrible condition and couldn’t move.”
Another man who was hooded stated: “Sand kept coming into the hood. It was extremely uncomfortable and difficult to breathe… We were left to kneel in the sun for hours. If I moved position and bent my head forward at all, a soldier would come and kick me hard.”
A young detainee recalled: “The soldier put his boot on my chest and pulled my trousers down…. I was shouting and was curled up against the wall. Then the soldier pulled me by my legs away from the wall. He turned me over on my stomach. He started rubbing his penis on my back, while the other soldiers watched. Then I felt him ejaculate on my back. I was trying to move away but another soldier came and pressed his foot on my legs.”
Another man said: “Interrogators spent a lot of time insulting my sister and other family members. They threatened to rape my sister and force me to watch and said they would also arrest my old mother and father.”
And an individual held in solitary confinement said: “I was beaten regularly, and was not allowed to go to the toilet or to shower. The psychological suffering during this period is indescribable.”
Rights Violations:
March 2003: US and British forces invade Iraq.
September 2003; Baha Mousa dies in British Army custody in Basra. Inquiry finds death was caused by factors including lack of food and water and stress positions used by British troops.
April 2004: US forces launch assault on the city of Fallujah. It later emerges napalm and depleted uranium were used in the attack. Human rights abuses, including the sexual abuse, rape and killing of prisoners by US forces at Abu Ghraib prison are made public.
May 2004: In aftermath of the Battle of Danny Boy in Basra, British troops allegedly abused the human rights of a number of Iraqi nationals – allegations being examined by the Al-Sweady inquiry. British troops deny they murdered any prisoners after they were captured.
September 2007: Seventeen Iraqi civilians killed and 20 injured in Baghdad by troops from the private security firm Blackwater Security Consulting.
2013: Iraq experiences its deadliest year since 2008.

General Michael Lehnert, left, welcomes the then US secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld to Guantánamo Bay in 2002. Photograph: Joshua S Higgins/Getty Images

Close Guantánamo Prison, Says First US Commander on 12th Anniversary

By Martin Pengelly, The Guardian – January 11, 2014
http://tinyurl.com/kqkf5jb
On the 12th anniversary of the arrival of the first prisoners at the US detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, the first commanding general of the base has said that it should be closed.
In a statement released by the advocacy organisation Human Rights First, Major General Michael Lehnert – who has spoken out on the issue before – said: “While there were compelling operational reasons to stand up Guantánamo prison early in the war [in Iraq and Afghanistan], we squandered international goodwill and lost opportunities by failing to adhere to the Geneva Conventions and to our own rule of law. Those decisions turned Guantánamo into a liability.”
Last May, in a major speech at the National Defense University, President Barack Obama detailed his continuing determination to close Guantánamo. Nonetheless, the base still holds 155 prisoners, of whom 76 have been cleared for release.
Lehnert continued: “The objective of terrorists is to change our behaviour and make us live in fear. By those standards our adversaries have been successful. We must reclaim our moral position.”
Guantánamo, which has been the subject of international protest since it opened, is sited on land controversially leased by the US from Cuba under a 1934 treaty.
“The Constitution does not stop at the waters’ edge,” Lehnert said. “We can defeat terrorism only if we do so in a manner that is consistent with American values. Guantánamo does not serve America’s interests. As long as it remains open, it will undermine America’s security and status as a land where human rights and the rule of law matter.”
Administrative attempts to reform Guantánamo continue. On Thursday, a government review panel that was established by an executive order from Obama cleared for release Mahmud Mujahid, a Yemeni prisoner who has been held January 2002. Mujahid, who had been accused but not charged of being a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, is now deemed not to pose any danger to the US.
In December, after Congress passed a defence bill that cleared up transfer restrictions at the base, three Uighur detainees who had been held without charge for 12 years – and had been determined to pose no threat to the US – were transferred to Slovakia. The men could not be sent back to China, as their minority is persecuted there.
Such concerns are said to affect a number of prisoners remaining in Guantánamo, although December also saw two Saudi prisoners returned to their own country. One British resident, the Saudi citizen Shaker Aamer, remains in custody at Guantánamo.
In a statement accompanying Lehnert’s comments, Dixon Osburn of Human Rights First said: “The United States has a legal obligation to find lawful dispositions for all law of war detainees when the war in Afghanistan ends this year.
“The administration must vastly accelerate the administrative review boards and obtain appropriate security assurances from host nations so that those detainees cleared for release can be sent home or resettled. The clock is ticking.”