The fundamental issue on which the United Kingdom requires to be "brought to book" is that the Iraq War was unlawful in UK Law.

See, The Use of armed force by UK military personnel has been unlawful in UK law since 20th July 2000, for some relevant background.

And, with respect to Tony Blair's much vaunted "regime change", see Regime change by violence an "act of terrorism" in UK law since 1993.

The Iranian backed militias are responsible for far more killings and atrocities, aren't they?

@PaulShiner

we must act to ensure that our government faces up to its legal and moral responsibilities

That we have such a responsibility to act is one reason I recently sent to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee a written submission setting out the illegality in UK Law of the military adventure in Afghanistan. See, Submissions to UK Parliament Select Committees regarding the UK's terrorism in Afghanistan.

The legal arguments re Iraq and Afghanistan overlap in substantive ways.

Of course the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has an instinct to be eleven monkeys who "see no evil": Silence by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee - the silence of conspiracy or the silence of serious consideration?

Currently Richard Ottaway, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, is trying to dodge oral evidence about the legality in UK Law of the Afghan escapade on the grounds that the committee has too many submissions to justify examining the legality of the military adventure in public oral session.

When Parliament's "Police" are wilfully obstructive it become very easy to understand why so many of the British public hold our politicians in contempt.

Let's face it. The British government will never get clean.

What is this hypocritical pretense at morals.Just look at British post war history and the story of the British government's interventions and real politik.

What I find disgusting is the pretense that the British government is a moral government. Such vanity. All these gallant sons of empire, these establishment types feigning uprightness.

And when the British government does admit that it handed people over to be tortured and killed, surprise surprise. Will that wash it clean and allow it to pretend that it is moral enough to intervene in yet another conflict.

Of course there is no redemption and coming clean for British forces. You'd have to wipe history clean for that to happen.

What we are really talking about is the need to husband the little credibility Britain has ready for the intervention in Iran.

There is a huge body of evidence about killings, ill-treatment and torture of Iraqis while in custody with UK forces.

If this was evidence of a foreign military body committing these atrocities or a foreign government condoning these acts of violence, we'd probably be invading the country to show them how the British sense of fair play works & how we abhor these type of things going on.

Oh, wait...

Can you kindly define what you mean by "we must act to ensure that our government faces up to its legal and moral responsibilities". If by that you mean those who committed war crimes should face the appropriate tribunal, then I quite agree. If you however mean Britain's taxpayers should pay billions and billions of pounds in additional taxes to pay for these crimes, then I thoroughly disagree as I did not vote for the government who chose to go into the war and did not have to option to withdraw my funding at the time.

So please be clear as to what you are asking for.

Paradoxical, isn't. The Iranian militias are the scum of the Earth. Killers and destabilisers. Destroyers of Iraq. Much more so than the British and US adventurists and pillagers.

Despite the ignominious roleof the British and US forces in securing oil resources.

The real criminal in Iraq has been Iran.

The real atrocities are Iranian.

@thevirtualpimpernel

The Iranian backed militias are responsible for far more killings and atrocities, aren't they?

Are they?

Whether the "far more" question is correct or not:

Are you implying that it wasn't an effect of Blair and Bush's illegal war?

It's Blowback.

First the weapons of mass destruction justification of the war callapsed in a welter of lies and intimidation, and now, it seems, the fall-back justification that the Saddam regime was a pariah regime because of systematic murder and torture is also on the point of exploding. When will the tertiary justification be trotted out - and how long will it stand up to scrutiny?

I have a deep concern for the Guardian newspaper under these circumstances. It seems entirely likely that the US and UK governments will collude to criminalise the receipt of these documents, and my favourite window on the world will be closed.

However, we now know from the important work of Iraq Body Count that the war logs disclosed increase the previously known number of deaths by a staggering 15,000.

The Iraq Body Count missed 15,000 recorded deaths! Staggering isn't it. Makes you wonder how many more have been missed.

lawyers making always making money

Fascism using the mask of Democracy. Funny isn't it, these recent war mostly started by so called democratic countries....

Cest la vie.

And those that are killed by Iranian backed militias and other Iraq factions , they can get stuffed because there is no pay day that is going to generator your law firms ‘concern’ and no guilt trip blackmail approach their relatives to use where the ‘evidenced’ is patching to say the least.
Unjustified use of lethal force is an almost meaningless term where people long after and safe from harm can second guess what should have happed in an ideal world. But not as meaningless as

‘We act for hundreds of Iraqis who complain of being subjected to deeply disturbing coercive interrogation techniques at the hands of a secret squad of UK interrogators.’

An argument that can be made for any detention technique has be there nature there going to involve questioning, because that is how you investigate, with some form of loss of freedom. Lets be clear there will have be some practices which are not acceptable, but there will be those trying it on looking for ‘cash’. Using such open and meaningless terms is probable more to do with hunting for class action style pay offs , in the hope that embarrassment provides a more effect winning tool than having to fight each case on its facts .

How many of the post war Iraq deaths were actually caused by the US and UK troops? Actually caused.

How many deaths were caused by the Iranian backed militias?

No contest.

And how strange this pathetic chest beating of the British establishment. What kind of a country do you think we really live in? A civilised one? Since when has Britain's foreign policy been a 'moral' one. The British government supported Apartheid until the mid 80s, for God's sake.

Stop pretending. It's embarrassing.

The British narrative that these actions represent 'lapses' in an otherwise barely blemished record is a propaganda atrocity itself.

Such is the concern from the medical profession that parents are being warned not to have children because of the risks.

As if the illegal invasion wasn't disgusting enough, now these people are being denied the joy of having their own children. It's despicable.

Why are the guilty politicians living free?

The real atrocities are Iranian.

I thought the real atrocities were by AQ and Iraqi Shia, the latter got funding and weapons from Iran.

The whole thing was a complete mess from the moment the Coalition refused to allow any Baathists help run the country.

We also act for families in Falluja, where there has been an alarming increase in the rate of birth defects since the attacks on the city in November 2004. Such is the concern from the medical profession that parents are being warned not to have children because of the risks. It is suggested by many professionals that the health problems plaguing the population have been caused by the weapons systems used by coalition forces during the attacks.

Depleted uranium shells from the original Gulf War still litter the ME causing increased rates of birth defects and cancer in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and even Kuwait. It's all hushed up of course. They know better than to bother the Americans with their complaints.

thevirtualpimpernel
23 October 2010 10:18AM

Paradoxical, isn't. The Iranian militias are the scum of the Earth. Killers and destabilisers. Destroyers of Iraq. Much more so than the British and US adventurists and pillagers. Despite the ignominious roleof the British and US forces in securing oil resources. The real criminal in Iraq has been Iran. The real atrocities are Iranian.

Iran did exactly what could have been expected of them under the circumstances. They made damn sure that America's (uninvited) power in Iraq was going to be balanced by their own.

Remember the Iran-Iraq war? ...America's proxy revenge on the Ayatollah for daring to overthrow their puppet in Tehran? First, they managed to persuade Sadam to mount the invasion with the sweetener of billions of dollars of cheap credit for American military hardware. Then Ollie North and his band of drug runners stoked the other side with their own shipments of weapons. While American arms manufacturers rubbed their hands with glee, millions of young Iraqis and Iranians lost their lives.

If America pokes its nose into Middle Eastern affairs, an Iranian fist is always likely to be there to meet it.

globalgypsy

Politicians are not 'guilty'.

Ask yourself who do these 'guilty politicians' work for? Who has the economic power in our society? Politicians are just patsies, for the most part - unless you go way back to giants like Lincoln. They don't work for the people who elected them they work for the people who have power in our society.

Let dead American presidents explain it to you.

It was Woodrow Wilson who said in 1913 that:

'An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.'

It was Eisenhower who said:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.'

So don't talk of politicians as independent agents capable of taking action based on their views of the world.

Of course politicians aren't independent they are employees, flunkies of big business and the financial sector. Some are more competent, some less so. Some will flannel you more effectively, some less.

@stealthbong

By which mechanism does depleted uranium cause birth defects and cancer?

US and UK forces cannot turn a blind eye on the basis it wasn't their forces doing the torturing. That they did not take action makes them complicit.

I wonder if the authors thinks, too, that had they not intervened to prevent Saddam's brutal murders, torture and general thuggery, the US and the UK would have been complicit also.

Just askin'.

Txtract from Phil's PIL web site.

At Public Interest Lawyers, we undertake high-quality legal work on behalf of its clients at extremely competitive rates.

We are also a contracted Legal Aid service provider. This means that we may be able to obtain public funding for your case, provided it relates to public law and you meet the Legal Services Commission's eligibility criteria. More information on public funding can be obtained from the LSC's website where you can access the Legal Aid Eligibility Calculator:
http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/civil/guidance/eligibility_calculator.asp

virtualpimpernel

Of course politicians aren't independent they are employees, flunkies of big business and the financial sector

.

That's fine by me. I'd rather have that than people like you directing them.

Incidentally, there is a conflict of interest going on here, Mr Shiner. You specialise in representing Iraqi grievances against the UK government. Rather like solicitors advertising for injuries claims, the bigger your case book the fatter your profits.

I don't think we should necessarily trust your word on the matters about which you speak: they are transparently self-serving.

I think Iran wants a conflagration. It's actions in Iraq are provocations. The morality of British troops is a red herring.

Don't invoke arguments of law and morality about the behaviour of the British forces in Southern Iraq. Let's call a spade a spade. In difficult conditions they behaved intelligently and with restraint. This does not make them 'moral' but they should not be the target of criticism.

The only reason they are the target is that there are people in the UK who want Britain to continue to be a liberal interventionist and to continue to ally itself with US interests. In fact as far as I am concerned the effort to make the British army self critical and more upright is an attempt to keep Britain war mongering.

The people who ask for British forces to clean up their act are the real war mongers.

The whole Muslim world thinks the US is gearing up for war with it. All along the Afghanistan border with Iran there are US bases. All along the Iraq Iran border there are US bases. In Turkey too.

Iran is a stagnant, corrupt country with an elite that has no credibility with its own people. Aggression from the US would shore up that elite and open up all sorts of opportunities for expansionism. I think Iran wants a limited engagement with US forces. It wants the US to conduct air strikes and limited incursions. That would shore it up and help it create stronger alliances and mobilise support in the Middle East.

It seems the documents so far only reveal the US failing to bring Iraqi forces to book.
Who says the UK is involved?

Yes, it's true that Americans; Brits and their proxy militias killed thousands more people than previously reported, but what about whataboutery?

Stop looking at the motives of the people who the fingers are pointing at and look at the motives of the finger pointers.

CarefulReader

Come off it. The militias were not proxy militias of the US and UK. That's just untrue. That's rubbish.

As evidence of atrocities perpetrated in Iraq by UK forces continues to grow, we must act to ensure that our government faces up to its legal and moral responsibilities.

We must also recognise that our supposed morally superior liberal democracies are rooted in and perpetuating the most violent system ever devised...it is not because of their essential rightness nor their superior moral or value system...nor because of a kind of evolutionary modernism that puts us at the forefront of social or political development...

...the only reason for the continuation of our capitalist liberal democracies over and above other ways of organising our lives is that they are the is the most violent of all forms...

When this is realised the acceptance of appalling violence becomes far more understandable and in fact normalised...as it is in the minds of many posters here...

OK I guess now we will see an international inquiry committee investigating the UK and US? Is Goldstone available?
We will see arrest warrants in the UK for American officials, right?
I guess there should be about a 1000 law suites against the UK and US leaders in Hugh international court for war crimes, they should get their layers ready….
And oh my, maybe the UN committee for human rights will have their first resolution regarding something that is not related to Israel?
Is that even possible?

You know its not. All these are privileges that are kept for Israel and Israel alone.
I bet everything that these unbelievable in scale war crimes will not even stay on the headlines for as long as the Gaza flotilla and the Marmara did (9 people got killed there, of course you all know that), and surely will not have same political consequences.

So you guys, when do we start boycotting US and UK goods?

By which mechanism does depleted uranium cause birth defects and cancer?

Firstly it's a highly toxic metal and secondly it's radio-active.

As a lump of metal it's relatively harmless, but when used as a shell the tremendous kinetic energy released by it's impact causes it to become essentially a fine dust that can be inhaled. In fact it's use in shells is designed to produce this effect of energy release and it's why it's used.

Afterwards it just sits there where the U238 has a half life of about 4.5 Billion years.

It's a very effectiv weapon system and it allows the nuclear industry to get rid of it's toxic waste by selling it rather than having to pay for "safe" storage.

It's use is, in my opinion, indefensible by so called civilised nations like the USA, UK and Russia. The sad thing is that only the "advanced" nations have the technology to use it and the lack of morals to do so.

However, we now know from the important work of Iraq Body Count that the war logs disclosed increase the previously known number of deaths by a staggering 15,000.

So Phil Shiner agrees that the Lancet estimates of the number of violent deaths in Iraq was rubbish

peterbracken

Incidentally, there is a conflict of interest going on here, Mr Shiner.

If you could just suggest how telling us about all this in the Guardian increases his case book.....

Given what's at stake legally, I wouldn't be surprised if the issue of conflict of interest had actually been considered before he wrote this piece for publication -- by people whose legal and moral sensibilities are, on the evidence, a smidge more evolved than yours.

Textbook ad hominen of the lowest order, M. Bracken. An argument devoid of rational substance, intended to rubbish the political and moral position presented in the article by baselessly attacking the motives of the author.

@Stealthbong

billions of dollars of cheap credit for American military hardware.

Well you state this old chap, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but where did it go, these billions? Saddam's army/ airforce was using Soviet tanks, planes, smallarms, vehicles, artillery....

The US and UK appear to have adopted an order that required them to take no action. This is completely contrary to international law. There is an absolute prohibition on torture: it may never be used.

PeterB

Are you saying that pointing out (as above) the bald fact that the US/UK apparently sat on their hands whilst torture and killing went on under their noses is 'self serving'?

thevirtualpimpernel

Stop looking at the motives of the people who the fingers are pointing at and look at the motives of the finger pointers.

And what agenda is that would you say?

..the only reason for the continuation of our capitalist liberal democracies over and above other ways of organising our lives is that they are the is the most violent of all forms...

Tosh. The simple, stark-raving naked truth is that liberal democracies are superior to religious, totalitarian and other single-party dictatorships as a means of organising society. That's why they are successful and dominant.

It's unarguable. And it's why people vote with their feet in the millions. And why it's strictly one-way traffic.

The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces). The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths.That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period. For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivallent population size.

http://wikileaks.org/

sheffpixie

To be morally upright enough to allow another 'liberal intervention.' To wash clean so that British forces can be used again and again and again.

My firm, Public Interest Lawyers, is acting for many Iraqi civilians killed or tortured by UK forces.

As for you Phil Shiner, Let me stop you right there. I wish that someone else, without a financial interest, had written this column. Someone claiming a wider definition of the public interest than money

thevirtualpimpernel

The Iranian backed militias are responsible for far more killings and atrocities, aren't they?

That may be so, but it does not change the fact that under international law once the US led coaltion had removed the existing civil power in Iraq, the coalition forces were entirely responsible for the safety of all the people in the land it occupied.

So pointing fingers at Iran does not get the blood off the hands of the US and UK governments.

Iruka,

I'm at liberty to question motives and self-interest. And where one potentially feeds the other, as in this case, I'm equally at liberty to point it out.

I'm also instinctively more trusting of the UK and US military than I am of Iraqi insurgents, who are an enemy of the West and who might be counted on to find every possible means of undermining its moral authority.

I suggest Mr Shiner might be complicit in that endeavour. That's worth pointing out, too.

doughcnut

I wish that someone else, without a financial interest, had written this column. Someone claiming a wider definition of the public interest than money

FFS. The author has clearly stated his interest. Stop whining.

We also act for families in Falluja, where there has been an alarming increase in the rate of birth defects since the attacks on the city in November 2004. Such is the concern from the medical profession that parents are being warned not to have children because of the risks. It is suggested by many professionals that the health problems plaguing the population have been caused by the weapons systems used by coalition forces during the attacks. The UK provided material assistance to the US and bears a heavy responsibility to answer and address this emerging public health crisis. A case on behalf of those parents will be lodged at the high court in London shortly.

Part of the population in Britain has a rate of Birth Defects 13 times the norm, the cause is consanguineal marriage (Normal in Iraq), not depleted uranium. In fact in Iraq you have to obtain your cousins permission to marry outside your family.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237663.stm

The call for action was also supported by Labour MP Ann Cryer who raised the issue two years ago after research showed British Pakistanis were 13 times more likely to have children with recessive disorders than the general population.

peterbracken

Your Pavlovian response is unsurprising peter...I've read some of you posts defending anything in the name of liberal democracy and you were unconvincing...

...I'm sorry but saying something...and then saying it pretentiously...or saying it aggressively does not make it so...

As a matter of interest as far as capitalism is concerned the Chinese model is more successful than liberal democracy and as it happens the Chinese model is an authoritarian single party dictatorship of sorts...in fact if there were to be a kind of capitalism .4 it's far more likely to be generated within Asian authoritarian values than Western liberal democratic ones...you see it's always more complicated than you're making out...

Anyway...as I said...I find you unconvincing (and slightly fundamentalist) so unless you can make a more intelligent argument I'll just await your usual stream of invectives...

shrikandushma

In fact in Iraq you have to obtain your cousins permission to marry outside your family.

Absolute nonsense.

peterbracken
"The simple, stark-raving naked truth is that liberal democracies are superior to religious, totalitarian and other single-party dictatorships as a means of organising society. That's why they are successful and dominant."

Liberal democracy MAY be one of the better forms of government but didn't liberal democracies produce the fascist/nazi governments that embarked on the second world war?
Don't liberal democracies endevour to keep the developping world 'developping' and under-developped in order to rip them off for every cent they can?
Isn't that the reason for the present resource wars in the Middle East?
If the raison d'etre of liberal democracies is to be 'dominant' then they can take the 'War on Terror' as being a permanent part of their foreign relations policy, with all the associated backlash.

I don't need to resort to invectives to belittle you, LesterJones: I just need to quote you.

And it doesn't get much more self-belittling than this:

As a matter of interest as far as capitalism is concerned the Chinese model is more successful than liberal democracy and as it happens the Chinese model is an authoritarian single party dictatorship of sorts..in fact if there were to be a kind of capitalism .4 it's far more likely to be generated within Asian authoritarian values than Western liberal democratic ones..

Unadulterated, incoherent gibberish.

peterbracken

"moral authority", Ha ha ha! You crack me up.

Whilst I have very strong negative views of the actions by Bush supported by Blair I find the actions of ambulance chasing lawyers seeking money just as reprehensible.

Public Interest Lawyers. ffs, it's just the search for money.