No Public Inquiry Into Allegations Of UK Troops Abusing Iraqi Detainees

The UK Government and military establishment are keen to avoid any public inquiry into allegations of abuses involving UK soldiers in Iraq. They say they want to do it behind closed doors, with people we are expected to believe will be impartial. They claim it will undermine the reputation of the UK military currently serving. I actually agree that a public inquiry shouldn't happen, but not for the same reasons.

They have already given their conclusion, any inquiry will be to build a supporting case for that conclusion and dismiss anything which may contradict it. It's like the Bush / Blair "link 911 and Al Queda to Iraq and Sadaam" as the decision to invade and occupy has already been made. Those doing the inquiry will all close ranks are usual, and present a façade of complete innocence, where they may offer a little concession involving "a few honest mistakes only seen in hindsight and lessons have been learned". It would all be a waste of tax payers money when we already know the conclusion.

As soon as anyone admits anything, it'll move up the chain to who knew and how took the decisions, was it ordered specifically or others acting on what they perceived to be an order. All of this costs careers, pensions and compensation. None of those investigating have any reason to be impartial, in fact they have every reason to white wash the events clean, and hope that the public buy this inquiry / white wash.

The very fact that you now hear people connected to the UK military on the media claiming "this never goes on, it's all lies, UK soldiers would never do this" reminds me of Catholics who stick their heads in the sand and claim "he's a priest, he could never rape a child". There are others who rightly state that this does in fact go on, just wearing a uniform does not mean you are incapable of carrying out an alleged abuse, nor does it mean it's the norm for those wearing that uniform.

That's why it's an allegation, and needs to be addressed in a fair way, with all of the evidence presented to an impartial judge. Plenty of people either invent an allegation to get back at someone or some institution, while plenty of other guilty people get away with their abuse because of a blanket "he / she must be innocent, as this never happens" attitude.

For those who seem to believe soldiers are incapable of any wrong doing, why not have a public inquiry to show these people for the liars they are? Or do you know in the part of your mind where reality lives that yes it does happen, and some of these allegations will be true and you'd rather not have that fact be on public record? Look at how hard the military elite tried to make sure the abuses of trainees at Deepcut wasn't made public. The problem with investigating is that you will find some allegations to be true.

Any time there's a vacuum, people will find ways to fill it. We have plenty of evidence of abuses in all wars, some worse than others, some more widespread than others, so to claim it does not happen by UK soldiers at all is laughable. The UK military like every other institution are made up from people, in any group of people, there will always be a small proportion of people who will do things against the rules of their institution or laws of the country they're in.

We have video and photo evidence of abuses by US soldiers of Iraqi detainees, who also used the same "US soldiers don't do that" line up until these were made public, at which point the story changed to "most US soldiers don't do that, these are isolated cases" while no doubt sending out a payback order on the whistle-blower who did a public service in exposing it.

I've also seen people connected to the UK military claim they have a duty to report misconduct they witness, and do so. We all know how organisations deal with whistle blowers. They are smeared, set up on false charges, discredited and put their safety at risk.

The military all all about conformity, when someone pokes their head above that parapet they are pointing themselves out as someone who won't conform, and will find themselves the victim of abuses, which a blind eye is turned to. They will face false accusations themselves where a group of other conforming soldiers will all back up the accusations, and be found guilty by a panel who don't like people who refuse to conform. People who rock the boat are shoved overboard, sometimes wearing concrete shoes.

They will also claim that they would all speak out, parroting this line is also part of the conformation, you'd expect them to say no less. If they have witnessed abuses and didn't speak up, they will still claim that it's their duty to do so and would do so if it happened.

A low paid solder has the choice of throwing away their career, pension etc, being ostracised and slandered within the military community, very likely facing personal injury or worse, or just staying quiet and allowing the abuses to continue. Now remember that you're surrounded by a group of individuals who rely on for your life and who will turn on you for snitching. You are effectively confined to enemy territory. You can't just quit, and you're reliant upon those same people who are persecuting you for a transfer. The military set up is not designed for people with opinions of their own, it's set up for people to obediently follow orders. What would you do?

I notice too, that even those who are making the allegations are stating that it's a small minority of bad individuals. They are not claiming anything like a systematic policy of abuse is going on. From various things I've seen, read and heard that feels right, yet those who close ranks would rather not publicly root out those bad eggs? Yes, they could be rooted out behind closed doors, but nobody is going to accept it was done right if it's done in secret. It's why there are no secret trials in the UK, the public don't accept them as fair. What happens if allegations are pretty conclusive against a high ranking officer who is a friend of one of the judges? Do you really expect us to believe that wouldn't affect the inquiry? How dumb do you think we are? Justice not only has to be done, it has to be seen to be done.

You could of course point to every other public inquiry, held by the government of the day, which always mysteriously clears the top staff of any wrong doing, makes recommendations that the government mostly ignore, everyone walks away with a newly polished reputation, and the public are left wondering if the people holding the inquiry are senile, or corrupt. That pattern has gone on for decades, it will continue to go on in the system we have right now. The difference between a public inquiry and a private one is that we can see the corruption and bias for ourselves at various stages, in addition to the white wash conclusion.

The attempted cover up or refusal to even look at allegations will stain the reputation just as much, not only that but it looks like you have something to hide, which in turn suggests "guilty". MPs keep telling us "you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong" as a response to increasing privacy invasive laws.

For people who claim a blanket cheerleading of the troops is patriotic, I disagree. I'd rather see these allegations dealt with and the abusers (regardless of their rank) prosecuted if found guilty on the evidence placed in front of an impartial judge. If they are found guilty they shouldn't just be discharged, but stripped of pensions etc too. That way the UK army represents in reality what the patriotic cheerleaders like to claim it represents.

In domestic law we hold our system up as decent because we don't allow high ranking officials or lawyers to say to a judge "we don't do that, you can drop the case no like a good boy, and here's a present for you". We have a system where the evidence dictates whether or not it goes to trial where the allegations are then heard and defended. Why should that principle be thrown aside? If we do make exceptions to that principle then what message are we sending to countries we are supposedly trying to help? Can we really hold ourselves up as role models with a fair system than should be adopted if we say some things are untouchable? What's to stop others doing the same when "investigating" allegations of abuses towards UK citizens? "Yes, we will investigate behind closed doors, you can be assured it'll be fair and impartial".