The Issues

If the Nuremberg laws were applied today to the British Army’s crimes in Ireland or Iraq many British Army officers would follow Saddam Hussein to the gallows.

In the north of Ireland between 1970 and 2000 British military personnel were responsible for killing over 400(1) men, women and children. All of the victims were unarmed, and none posed a threat to the life of the British soldier who carried out the shooting. Among the victims are Catholic priests, elderly women, children, and even teenage girls such as Annette McGavigan age 14, who was shot in the back of the head at close range by a member of the British Army.  

However, the number of illegal killings of civilians by British troops in the north of Ireland is relatively minor in comparison with the Iraqi and Afghan civilian body count(2) which certainly runs into thousands since the invasion by UK and US military forces in 2003.  As of September 2011 there are currently over 200(3) claims against the British Government in relation to the illegal killings of civilians in Iraq, some of whom were tortured and killed in horrific circumstance while in British Army custody(4).

The Baha Mousa(5) and Bloody Sunday(6) Inquiries for all of their bias and shortcomings, have certainly underlined the fact that the British Army has for decades operated, and continues to operate with complete contempt for the UN charter of Human Rights(7), and appears to be totally incapable of ensuring that British troops adhere to national and international law. It is this very refusal on the part of the British Army to recognise that it has any legal and moral responsibilities to the civilian population that is at the very core of the problem.  

The overwhelming majority of these human rights abuses may have been carried out by British Army NCO’s (8) and junior officer, but the culture, and in many cases the actual orders, such as the orders to collude in the murder of the human rights lawyer Patrick Finucane(9), and the order to assault and use illegal torture techniques on prisoners(10), originated from senior figures in the MoD with the sanction of such actions (if only by turning a blind-eye to it) coming from Downing Street itself. The infamous “Shoot-to-Kill” policy in the north of Ireland may have been carried out by British Army  / RUC / SAS operatives but the policy itself was approved and sanctioned by the British Prime minister Margaret Thatcher(11).

The actions of Brigadier Gordon Kerr and the murderous “Force Research Unit” that operated in the north of Ireland(12) weren’t undertaken without the approval of General Everson at the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, based at Chicksands, Bedfordshire. Everson and Kerr may be as close to human vermin as one could get, but they in turn weren’t operating without the full approval of key figures in the MoD, Whitehall, and probably Downing Street. 

War Crimes and Criminals
To date, some of the crimes against civilians carried out by members of the British Army include:-
• The planning, collusion, and participation in the murder of Irish, UK, and Iraqi citizens(13)
• The murder / illegal killing of unarmed men women and children (14)
• The assault, torture, and murder of civilian prisoners (15)
• The torture, mutilation and murder of captured “insurgents” (16)
• The supply of weapons, explosives, and intelligence to paramilitary “death squads” (17)
• Perjury, and the destruction / fabrication of evidence in order to protect the guilty (18).        

It is this institutional and deep rooted contempt for upholding the law, which is also reflected in the  scant and superficial manner that the British Army investigates such crimes (19), that is the very reason why such crimes not only occur, but are allowed to be repeated again and again.

The consequences are not just the denial of justice to the victim’s family and dependants, but the denial of closure that the victim’s families find the hardest to come to terms with.  

The Denial of Liability
Under UK law, the British Army has a legal duty to investigate all such crimes, yet out of the hundreds of reported killings there have only been a handful of cases that have led to criminal charges being brought against any British Army personnel.

The standard British Army response to every one of these killings has been to deny any liability, and explain away each and every one of these killings of unarmed civilians as "mistakes", or to put them down to “combat situations” where young British soldiers are doing a difficult job, etc, etc, or simply in an attempt to justify such murders, as they did with "Bloody Sunday", by claiming that the British military units that carried out the murders did so in self defence.

The lack of accountability
Despite the findings of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, and an admission from the British Government of the British Army's illegal killing of 14* innocent civilians who took part in a civil rights protest in Derry, the British Army still refuses to admit any liability for the Springhill or Ballymurphy massacres (20), preferring as it does to continue to explain away the shooting of unarmed men, women, children - and even a Catholic priest who was waving a white handkerchief as he sought to come to the aid of the dying – as nothing more than innocent mistakes.  This is despite the fact that British Army snipers devoted two days to shooting anybody unfortunate enough to come within range. The fact is, as with Bloody Sunday, these killings of unarmed civilians were anything but mistakes – they were cold blooded murder. The survivors of Springhill and Ballymurphy know it, and so does the British Army.

The Posture of Cowards
Not once in its history has the British Army had the moral courage to carry out a thorough  investigation into such crimes and seek out the truth. It did not do so with the massacres and murders it was responsible for in Ireland, and it has not done so with similar atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The pattern of misinformation, denial, cover-up, superficial Investigation, and further denial, has been the standard British Army response to every atrocity it has been accused of.

Even when confronted with the corpses of priests, young women, mothers and children, witness statements, ballistic evidence, and even the mutilated and manacled bodies of civilian prisoners in its own custody – the British Army response from the outset has always been one of complete denial, and a reliance on the inevitable findings of an official “investigation” that is guaranteed to always completely exonerate British Army personnel of any wrongdoing.

From the infamous whitewash of the Widgery Report all the way through to the whitewash of the Aitken Report the British Army has always adopted the posture of a teenage delinquent despite the overwhelming evidence of guilt attempting to deny any responsibility for the robbery of an old woman. As with the street wise delinquent the British Army may actually believe the "I'm innocent - No comment", "I'm innocent - no comment", "no comment" response is the perfect defence strategy but in the real world the pattern of such denials not only lacks credibility, but it indicate a mindset that is totally devoid of compassion for the victim.

To the British Army and the MoD the only thing that matters is to be able to get away with the crime - there is never a desire to establish the facts to ensure those who are responsible are held accountable for the actions.  

Such a cowardly posture by the British Army may be acceptable to the “Hero” worshiping readers of The Sun, and The Mail – but to the rest of the world the image of the British Army cowering behind a whitewash such as that carried out by the senile (ex British Army Brigadier) Lord Widgery to exonerate the British Army of the murder of 14 innocent civilians in Derry was not only completely dishonourable, but said far more about the true character of the individuals who occupy senior positions in the British Army and the MoD. Whatever definition one may attempt to describe the posture and actions of such people - Heroic is not one of them!!

Heroes and Villains 
For all of the flag waving jingoistic nonsense in the British media, the act of serving in the British Army – or the Armed forces of any nation - does not in itself make military personnel “heroes”. Heroism is based on individual conduct of a higher or noble purpose – sadly, when it comes to the killing of unarmed civilians there are far too many in the British Army who lack even the moral courage to speak out against these injustices, such as Father Peter Madden (21), the padre for the Queens Lancashire Regiment, who witnessed the shocking torture and abuse to Iraqi prisoners and did not have the courage to try to stop it. 

The fact is moral cowardice is just one aspect of so many cases involving the killing of civilians by British Army personnel. Far too many British soldiers have been willing to withhold and fabricate evidence (22), and even lie under oath in order to ensure that their guilty colleagues are never held accountable for their crimes.

The Nuremberg Defence – I was only obeying orders.
I would argue that the very act of enlisting in the British Army (in the full knowledge that a subsequent posting to Iraq or Afghanistan would be almost inevitable) does not exempt the British Army volunteer from the accusation that their very presence as part of an occupying military force is not only immoral, but under international law it is illegal. The US and UK certainly did not obtain UN approval for the 2003 invasion, and in 2004 the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan made the position quite clear when he said "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, the war and invasion of Iraq was illegal." (23)

Under the UN Charter on Human Rights Article 2(4) provides: "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 in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." (24)

Article 1 also provides for the right of “self determination”, and the Charter makes it quite clear that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have the right to oppose and resist a foreign occupying military force. It is pure hypocrisy to condemn Iraqi or Afghan nationals for using force to oppose the continued US and British military presence in their country, while honouring other “resistance” movements of the past (such as the French Resistance in WW2, or the very same Taliban in Afghanistan when they opposed the Soviet invasion of their country in 1979, or even the Irish Republican Army its struggle for self determination for the people of Ireland).

When it comes to the moral high ground one can only question who the real heroes are in such conflicts. Civilian volunteers who are willing to take up arms to defeat a foreign military force of occupation? or the military personnel of foreign states who are paid (and are better trained and armed) to maintain the occupation.

While the British Army continues to ignore its moral and legal responsibilities in regards to the killing of civilians and prisoners of war it shall continue to be a discredited military force, and in reality operate with no more moral legitimacy than the Waffen SS, or the Soviet Army who were equally guilty of war crimes.

A Whitewash Too Far
As an example of the typical British Army whitewash when it comes to investigating these crimes, the report by Brigadier Robert Aitken into the torture and death of civilian Iraqi prisoners, after two years of "investigations" produced a 38 page report that concluded that the MoD and the British Army were certainly blameless, and that the injuries and deaths of the Iraqi prisoners were attributed to nobody in particular (25).

A "rotten barrel with a few good apples"
Those that claimed that the Aitken report was a typical British Army whitewash were later proved right when the same British Army investigators later admitted in court that they had colluded and coaxed witnesses, fabricated statements, and that one investigator (Captain James Rands, 1st Battalion the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment) had destroyed incriminating photographic evidence by dumping it in the English Channel. As one member of the British Military police was to say about the British Army's investigative system - "it is not a case of a few rotten apples - it is a case of a rotten barrel with a few good apples". (26)

As further evidence of how seriously the British Army regards the killing of civilians, and the contempt the British Army has for the British judicial system, Colonel Dudley Giles, who was found by British High Court judges to have committed perjury, of fabricating evidence, and even coercing his own investigators to lie under oath (in order to conceal the fact that British soldiers mutilated and murdered Iraqi civilian prisoners) should at the very least have been demoted or dismissed or even charged with perjury - the MoD's response however to the British Court findings was that Col Dudley Giles should retain his rank of Deputy Provost Marshal of the Royal Military Police, and continue to be responsible for carrying out future investigations into the deaths of unarmed civilians allegedly killed by British Army personnel. (27)      
 
Rewarding the Guilty
In only a handful of cases where the strategy of denial and cover-up has failed has it resulted in the accused facing prosecution in the British Courts - and even if the accused is found guilty the British Army refuses to regard a British Soldier who is convicted of murder or manslaughter as sufficient grounds for dismissal from the British Army. (28)  The spectacle of British Army servicemen convicted of murder or manslaughter (such as Guardsman James Fisher, and Ian Wright when General Sir Roger Wheeler, who sat on the original Army Board decided to allow the two guardsmen to remain soldiers despite the murder conviction)  continuing to receive their full British Army pay, and being reinstated by their regiment after serving on average just over two years imprisonment not only makes a complete mockery of justice, but simply confirms the mind-set of the British Army when it comes the value it places on the illegal killing of civilians.

From Ballymurphy to Baghdad
This pattern of superficial investigations followed by denial of liability has been the standard British Army response to every atrocity they have been accused of committing - from the mass shooting of civilians at Amritsar in 1919, and the atrocities of the "Black and Tans" (29) in 1920-22, through to the Ballymurphy massacre and Bloody Sunday, to the hundreds of innocent men, women, and children, who were illegally killed by the British Army in the north of Ireland since 1970, and it continues today with the superficial investigations into the killing of hundreds of Iraqi civilians, some of whom were hooded and manacled prisoners who died as a result of torture and beatings while in British Army “custody”. 

A psychopathic institution
Had the British Army not been such a recidivist and psychopathic organisation, it would have responded positively to the Bloody Sunday findings by taking the initiative to support an impartial and transparent investigation into such killings. It does not do so because there is a deep rooted culture within the British Army that refuses to acknowledge that it has any legal or moral duty towards civilians - if civilians are shot, tortured to death, or abused it is simply an inevitable consequence of war, regrettable but inevitable. Such an attitude may have been the norm when the British Army was founded but in an age when our society expects, at the very minimum, that the British Army adheres to national and international law - not least the European Convention on Human Rights - the British Army's attitude is not only socially unacceptable, but it undermines the very values that it claims to uphold, and as with similar behaviour of the psychopathic the British Army seems to not only lack the capacity for regret or remorse, but it appears to also lack the ability to learn from past mistakes.
 
*Of the 27 unarmed civilians who were shot by the British Army on Bloody Sunday only 13 survived. 13 died from their injuries on the day itself while a 14th (fifty nine year old John Johnson) died from his wounds four months later.

References and Sources
1. Deaths in the north of Ireland 
2. Iraq and Afghan Civilian deaths
3. UK legal claims by victims of British Army
4. Deaths in British Army custody
5. Baha Mousa Inquiry
6. Bloody Sunday Inquiry
7. UN Charter of Human Rights
8. Corporals convicted of murder and re-instated
9. FRU involvement in murder of Patrick Finucane
10. British Army torture of prisoners
11. Shoot to Kill sanctioned by Margaret Thatcher
12. Actions of the FRU
13. The planning, collusion, and participation in the murder of Irish, UK, and Iraqi citizens
14. The murder / illegal killing of unarmed men women and children
15. The assault, torture, and murder of civilian prisoners
16. The torture, mutilation and murder of captured “insurgents”
17. The supply of weapons, explosives, and intelligence to paramilitary “death squads”
18. Perjury, and the destruction / fabrication of evidence in order to protect the guilty
19. Superficial manner of investigating British Army killings
20. Sprinhill and Ballymurphy massacres
21. Father Peter Madden
22. The fabrication of evidence
23. Kofi Annan on legality of Iraq War
24. Purposes of the United Nations
25. The Aitken Report
26. A few good apples
27. Col Dudley Giles retains his job
28. Convicted British Army servicemen re-instated
29. The Black and Tans atrocities in Ireland