UK Government Drops Bid to Shield Soldiers from War Crimes Prosecutions Committed in Iraq and Afghanistan

Overseas Operations Bill had sought to protect British soldiers, including those who served in Iraq, for crimes including genocide and torture

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).


The UK government has abandoned attempts to shield members of its armed forces from prosecution for murder and war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ministers agreed to amend its deeply controversial Overseas Operations Bill following stiff opposition from members of parliament’s upper house, the Lords.

The initial proposal – to shield soldiers from prosecution for torture or genocide as well as murder and war crimes – had also faced condemnation by human rights groups and retired senior officers.

This does not mean that soldiers and ex-soldiers will be prosecuted, however.

Just one British soldier pleaded guilty at court martial to committing a war crime in Iraq, after a Basra hotel receptionist, Baha Mousa, was tortured to death, despite there being video evidence that other soldiers were involved.

Separately, three soldiers were prosecuted and jailed after photographic evidence emerged showing the abuse of prisoners.

In other cases, soldiers were prosecuted and acquitted.

In the civil courts in London, evidence has emerged suggesting that British special forces in Afghanistan may have been running an “execution squad”, killing unarmed civilians.

The provisions in the Overseas Operations Bill were widely denounced as dangerous and damaging to the UK’s standing in the world.

The United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Michell Bachelet, warned Boris Johnson’s government that the proposals would put the UK “at odds” with the Geneva Conventions.

After the government’s final climb-down on Tuesday, David Davis, an ex-soldier and former Conservative government minister, told parliament’s lower house, the Commons, that the bill had raised the danger of British troops being prosecuted by the International Criminal Court: “A truly shameful outcome.”

Stephen Timms, a member of the Labour opposition, said it was bewildering that the government had “ploughed on” with a Bill that was so widely condemned.

Steve Crawshaw, director of policy and advocacy at the London-based NGO Freedom from Torture, said: “This is a historic win for torture survivors, and for Britain’s international standing.

“It is chilling how close Boris Johnson came in his bid to decriminalise torture and other crimes. It should never have taken so long for the government to abandon these immoral proposals, but today’s collapse of the government’s position is a reason for celebration.

“Even the most obstinate leaders must eventually give way to reason. We must work to repair this country’s damaged international standing, and to ensure that such dangerous attempts to weaken the global torture ban will never see the light of day again.”

The government had argued that the bill was intended to protect service personnel from repeated investigations. Some have faced many investigations over several years.

The bill’s critics say that this was done because many of the investigations were neither thorough nor effective, and that the proposed legislation did nothing to rectify this.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Articles by: Ian Cobain

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]