This is Baha Mousa with his son

Baha Mousa was an Iraq civilian who was killed in 2003 by British soldiers

He was in detention and under restraint

He was tortured to death

A judicial inquiry found he had 93 separate injuries

- a thread (upsetting stuff warning)

1.

This was not a one-off

The same inquiry made a number of findings of fact against other British solders maltreating civilians under restraint

The report, of which you will probably not have heard, is the Gage report

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279190/1452_i.pdf

2.

The only difference is that Mousa died while the others did not

Had it not been for the death, we would know nothing now of the entire exercise

3.

This is a (disturbing, trigger warnings) video showed to that inquiry

These are British soldiers acting under order maltreating Iraqi civilians



4.

Again, if it were not for the judicial inquiry into Mousa's death we would know nothing of this

The maltreatment was deliberate and ordered from above

5.

A couple of things to note

This is not a battlefield situation but a detention centre

Those are not soldiers but arrested civilians

6.

Yet, despite the abundance of evidence which has been established as fact, only *one* soldier - a very junior one - was convicted of a war crime

A soldier so violent that the judicial inquiry described him as a violent bully

7.

The soldier's actions "constitute a dreadful catalogue of unjustified and brutal violence on the defenceless Detainees. His own use of violence on them was appalling....His part in these
events demonstrates him to be a violent bully"

8.

That is just how bad a British soldier has to act for their to be a conviction under war crimes legislation

Only one conviction of a British soldier since the offence was introduced into domestic law

9.

What of the other soldiers?

The senior ones, who either ordered it or could have prevented it?

Well

As the judge at the court martial stated: "there is no
evidence against them as a result of a more or less obvious closing of ranks”

10.

So two things can be safely said

First, some very bad things happened to detained/restrained civilians in Iraq because of conduct of British soldiers

Second, it is incredibly difficult - near impossible - to get a conviction of a British soldier under war crimes legislation

11

And what is the UK government now doing in respect of potential war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere?

The government is now actually proposing to make it *even harder* for a war crimes prosecution to be brought against past or present service personnel

12.

This is the Overseas Operations Bill currently before Parliament

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-21/overseasoperationsservicepersonnelandveterans.html

13.

Two things to note

First, making prosecutions for war crimes harder is not the same as dealing with compensation claims

There has been a problem with civil claims, and one lawyer struck off

The government has a legitimate concern about the abuse of civil claims against MoD

14

Second, the treatment of detained/restrained civilians is *not* a battlefield situation

This is not about inhibiting decision-making in the field, but about how civilian detainees are treated in detention centres

15.

The government wants to close down any viable possibility a war crimes prosecution for historic allegations of the torture of detained/restrained civilians by British soldiers

16.

In doing so, the government will will divert attention by complaining about compensation-seeking lawyers or grave points about battlefield situations

But you will note neither of those diversion tactics are relevant to torture of detained/restrained civilians

17.

And this is what my @FT video published today is about

Please watch, and support the work of @FreefromTorture in opposing this unwelcome government proposal

18.

You can watch here

Thank you

19 & ends. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1314465841954672642

ps

For any MPs or Peers following this matter, all that needs to done to put this right is to delete "(g)" from para 17(a) and make para. 17(b) apply to all of Article 8.2, Schedule 1

cc @DavidDavisMP
@DanJarvisMP

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0117/20117.pdf

ps 2

There would still be the protection of the AG consent to any prosecution

None of the Article 7 and 8 offences are or should be 'unexceptional' and so all should be in schedule 1

Cannot see how government can plausibly resist such a precise, surgical amendment