 | This articlepossibly containsoriginal research. Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(March 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
British war crimes are acts committed by thearmed forces of the United Kingdom that have violated thelaws and customs of war since theHague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, from theBoer War to theWar in Afghanistan (2001–2021). Such acts have included thesummary executions ofprisoners of war and unarmed shipwreck survivors, the use ofexcessive force during the interrogation of POWs andenemy combatants, and the use of violence againstciviliannon-combatants and their property.
War crimes are defined as acts which violate thelaws and customs of war (established by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907), or acts that are grave breaches of theGeneva Conventions andAdditional Protocol I andAdditional Protocol II.[1] TheFourth Geneva Convention of 1949 extends the protection ofcivilians andprisoners of war duringmilitary occupation, even in the case where there is no armed resistance, for the period of one year after the end of hostilities, although the occupying power should be bound to several provisions of the convention as long as "such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory."[2][3]
The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict published by theUK Ministry of Defence[4] uses the 1945 definition from theNuremberg Charter, which defines a war crime as "Violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."[1] The manual also notes that "violations of the1949 Geneva Conventions not amounting to 'grave breaches' are also war crimes."
The 2004Laws of Armed Combat Manual says
Serious violations of the law of armed conflict, other than those listed as grave breaches in the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol I], remain war crimes and punishable as such. A distinction must be drawn between crimes established by treaty or convention and crimes under customary international law. Treaty crimes only bind parties to the treaty in question, whereas customary international law is binding on all states. Many treaty crimes are merely codifications of customary law and to that extent binding on all states, even those that are not parties.
The 2004 publication also notes that "A person is normally only guilty of a war crime if he commits it with intent and knowledge."[5]
As part of the strategy to defeat theguerrilla warfare of theBoer Commandos, farms were destroyed to prevent theBoers from resupplying from a home base. This included the systematic destruction of crops and slaughtering of livestock.[6][failed verification]
On 26 October 1900, the Britishjustice of the peace atVentersburg (in the formerOrange Free State), William Williams, relayed a secret message to Field Marshal LordFrederick Roberts alleging that Boer Commandos were concentrating in the village. Roberts decreed that "an example should be made of Ventersburg".[7] On 28 October, Roberts issued orders to GeneralBruce Hamilton that all houses belonging to absent males were to be burned down. After burning down the village and itsDutch Reformed church, Hamilton posted a bulletin stating: "The town of Ventersburg has been cleansed of supplies and partly burnt, and all the farms in the vicinity destroyed, on account of the frequent attacks on the railway lines in the neighborhood. The Boer women and children who are left behind should apply to theBoer Commandants for food, who will supply them unless they wish to see them starve. No supplies will be sent from the railway to the town."[8][failed verification]
On 1 November 1900, Major Edward Pine-Coffin wrote in his diary that the remaining civilian population of Ventersburg had been transported to concentration camps. He admitted to having families divided, with male and female Afrikaners sent to different locations "so that after the war they will have some difficulty in getting together."[8] The destruction of Ventersburg was denounced in theHouse of Commons byLiberal MPDavid Lloyd George, who said Hamilton "is a brute and a disgrace to the uniform he wears."[9][failed verification]
On 9 May 1901, Cols.Johan William Colenbrander and H.L. Grenfell rode intoLouis Trichardt ahead of a mixed force of about 600 men. In addition toKitchener's Fighting Scouts, the force included elements of the Pietersburg Light Horse, theWiltshire Regiment, theBushveldt Carbineers (BVC), a large force ofBlack South African "Irregulars", and six members of theWar Office's Intelligence Department commanded by CaptainAlfred James Taylor.[10]
Even though Louis Trichardt was "reeling from the annual effects ofmalaria", British and Commonwealth servicemen sacked the town and arrested an estimated 90 male residents suspected of links to theZoutpansberg Commando.[11]
On 11 May 1901, the remaining residents of Louis Trichardt, including both theAfrikaner and "Cape Coloured" populations, were ordered to evacuate the town. According to local resident E.R. Smith, British and Commonwealth servicemen helped themselves to whatever "curios" they wanted and allowed the civilian population only a short time to gather their things. The town of Louis Trichardt was then burned down by Native South African "Irregulars" under the supervision of Captain Taylor. The civilian population was force marched between 11 and 18 May to the Britishconcentration camp at Pietersburg.[12]
According to South African historian Charles Leach, Captain Taylor "emphatically told" the localVenda andSotho communities "to help themselves to the land and whatever else they wanted as the Boers would not be returning after the war."[13]
.jpg)
As a further strategy, GeneralLord Kitchener ordered the creation ofconcentration camps – 45 for Afrikaners and 64 for Black Africans.
According to historianThomas Pakenham, "In practice, the farms of Boer collaborators got burnt too – burnt by mistake byTommies or in reprisal by the commandos. So Kitchener added a new twist to farm-burning. He decided that his soldiers should not only strip the farms of stock, but should take the families, too. Women and children would be concentrated in 'camps of refuge' along the railway line. In fact, these camps consisted of two kinds of civilians: genuine refugees – that is, the families of Boers who were helping the British, or at least keeping their oath of neutrality – and internees, the families of men who were still out on commando. The difference was crucial, for at first there were two different scales of rations: little enough in practice for the refugees, and a recklessly low scale for the internees."[14]
Of the 107,000 people interned in the camps, 27,927 Boer women and children died[15] as well as more than 14,000 Black Africans.[16]
The Boer War also saw the first war crimes prosecutions inBritish military history. They centered around theBushveldt Carbineers (BVC), aBritish Armyirregular regiment ofmounted rifles active in theNorthern Transvaal. Originally raised in February 1901, the BVC was composed mainly of British and Commonwealth servicemen with a generous admixture of defectors from theBoer Commandos.[17] After more than a century, the ensuing courts martial remain controversial.[citation needed]
On 4 October 1901, a letter signed by 15 members of theBushveldt Carbineers (BVC) garrison atFort Edward was secretly dispatched to Col. F.H. Hall, the British ArmyOfficer Commanding atPietersburg. Written by BVC Trooper Robert Mitchell Cochrane, a formerjustice of the peace fromWestern Australia,[18][19] the letter accused members of the Fort Edward garrison of six "disgraceful incidents":
1. The shooting of six surrenderedAfrikaner men and boys and the theft of their money and livestock atValdezia on 2 July 1901. The orders had been given by CaptainsAlfred Taylor and James Huntley Robertson, and relayed by Sgt. Maj. K.C.B. Morrison to Sgt. D.C. Oldham. The actual killing was alleged to have been carried out by Sgt. Oldham and BVC Troopers Eden, Arnold, Brown, Heath, and Dale.[20]
2. The shooting of BVC Trooper B.J. van Buuren by BVC Lt.Peter Handcock on 4 July 1901. van Buuren, an Afrikaner, had "disapproved" of the killings at Valdezia, and had informed the victims' wives and children, who were imprisoned at Fort Edward, of what had happened.[21]
3. Therevenge killing of Floris Visser, a woundedprisoner of war, near theKoedoes River on 11 August 1901. Visser had been captured by a BVC patrol let by Lieut.Harry Morant two days before his death. After Visser had been exhaustively interrogated and conveyed for 15 miles by the patrol, Lt. Morant had ordered his men to form afiring squad and shoot him. The squad consisted of BVC Troopers A.J. Petrie, J.J. Gill, Wild, and T.J. Botha. Acoup de grâce was delivered by BVC Lt.Harry Picton. The slaying of Visser was in retaliation for the combat death of Morant's close friend, BVC Captain Percy Frederik Hunt, atDuivelskloof on 6 August 1901.[22]
4. The shooting, ordered by Taylor and Morant, of four surrendered Afrikaners and fourDutch schoolteachers, who had been captured at theElim Hospital in Valdezia, on the morning of 23 August 1901. The firing squad consisted of BVC Lt.George Witton, Sgt. D.C. Oldham, and Troopers J.T. Arnold, Edward Brown, T. Dale, and A. Heath. Although Cochrane's letter made no mention of the fact, three native South African witnesses were also shot dead.[23]
The ambush and fatal shooting of the ReverendCarl August Daniel Heese of theBerlin Missionary Society nearBandolierkop on the afternoon of 23 August 1901. Heese had spiritually counseled the Dutch and Afrikaner victims that morning and had angrily protested to Morant at Fort Edward upon learning of their deaths. Cochrane alleged that the killer of Heese was BVC Lt. Peter Handcock. Although Cochrane made no mention of the fact,Heese's driver, a member of theSouthern Ndebele people, was also killed.[24]
5. The orders, given by BVC Lt.Charles H.G. Hannam, to open fire on a wagon train containing Afrikaner women and children who were coming in to surrender at Fort Edward, on 5 September 1901. The ensuing gunfire led to the deaths of two boys, aged 5- and 13-years, and the wounding of a 9-year-old girl.[25]
6. The shooting of Roelf van Staden and his sons Roelf and Christiaan, near Fort Edward on 7 September 1901. All were coming in to surrender in the hope of gaining medical treatment for teenaged Christiaan, who was suffering from recurring bouts of fever. Instead, they were met at the Sweetwaters Farm near Fort Edward by a party consisting of Morant and Handcock, joined by BVC Sgt. Maj. Hammet, MacMahon, Hodds, Botha, and Thompson. van Staden and both his sons were then shot, allegedly after being forced to dig their own graves.[26]
The letter then accused theField Commander of the BVC, MajorRobert William Lenehan, of being "privy to these misdeamenours. It is for this reason that we have taken the liberty of addressing this communication direct to you." After listing numerous civilian witnesses who could confirm their allegations, Cochrane concluded, "Sir, many of us areAustralians who have fought throughout nearly the whole war while others areAfricaners who have fought from Colenso till now. We cannot return home with the stigma of these crimes attached to our names. Therefore we humbly pray that a full and exhaustive inquiry be made by Imperial officers in order that the truth be elicited and justice done. Also we beg that all witnesses may be kept in camp at Pietersburg till the inquiry is finished. So deeply do we deplore the opprobrium which must be inseparably attached to these crimes that scarcely a man once his time is up can be prevailed to re-enlist in this corps. Trusting for the credit of thinking you will grant the inquiry we seek."[27]
In response to the letter written by Trooper Cochrane, Col. Hall summoned all Fort Edward officers and non-commissioned officers to Pietersburg on 21 October 1901. All were met by a party of mounted infantry five miles outside Pietersburg on the morning of 23 October 1901 and "brought into town like criminals". Lt. Morant was arrested after returning from leave inPretoria, where he had gone to settle the affairs of his deceased friend Captain Hunt.[28]
Although the trial transcripts, like almost all others dating from between 1850 and 1914, were later destroyed by theCivil Service,[29] it is known that a Court of Inquiry, the British military's equivalent to agrand jury, was convened on 16 October 1901. The President of the Court was Col. H.M. Carter, who was assisted by Captain E. Evans and Major Wilfred N. Bolton, theProvost Marshal of Pietersburg. The first session of the Court took place on 6 November 1901 and continued for four weeks. Deliberations continued for a further two weeks,[30] at which time it became clear that the indictments would be as follows:
1. In what became known as "The Six Boers Case", Captains Robertson and Taylor, as well as Sgt. Maj. Morrison, were charged with committing the offense of murder while on active service.[31]
2. In relation to what was dubbed "The Van Buuren Incident", Maj. Lenahan was charged with, "When on active service by culpable neglect failing to make a report which it was his duty to make."[32]
3. In relation to "The Visser Incident", Lts. Morant, Handcock, Witton, and Picton were charged with "While on active service committing the offense of murder".[33]
4. In relation to what was incorrectly dubbed "The Eight Boers Case", Lieuts. Morant, Handcock, and Witton were charged with, "While on active service committing the offense of murder".[34]
In relation to the slaying of Rev Heese, Lts. Morant and Handcock were charged with, "While on active service committing the offense of murder".
5. No charges were filed for the three children who had been shot by the Bushveldt Carbineers near Fort Edward.[35]
6. In relation to what became known as "The Three Boers Case", Lts. Morant and Handcock were charged with, "While on active service committing the offense of murder".[34]
Following the indictments, Maj. R. Whigham and Col. James St. Clair ordered Bolton to appear for the prosecution, as he was considered less expensive than hiring abarrister.[36] Bolton vainly requested to be excused, writing, "My knowledge of law is insufficient for so intricate a matter."[37]
The first court martial opened on 16 January 1901, with Lieut.-Col. H.C. Denny presiding over a panel of six judges. Maj. J.F. Thomas, asolicitor fromTenterfield, New South Wales, had been retained to defend Maj. Lenahan. The night before, however, he agreed to represent all six defendants.[30]
The "Visser Incident" was the first case to go to trial. Lt. Morant's former orderly and interpreter, BVC Trooper Theunis J. Botha, testified that Visser, who had been promised that his life would be spared, was cooperative during two days of interrogation and that all his information was later found to have been true. Despite this, Lt. Morant ordered him shot.[38]
In response, Lt. Morant testified that heonly followed orders totake no prisoners as relayed to the late Captain Hunt by Col.Hubert Hamilton. He also alleged that Floris Visser had been captured wearing a British Army jacket and that Captain Hunt's body had been mutilated.[39] In response, the court moved to Pretoria, where Col. Hamilton testified that he had "never spoken to Captain Hunt with reference to his duties in the Northern Transvaal". Though stunned, Maj. Thomas argued that his clients were not guilty because they believed that they "acted under orders". In response, Maj. Bolton argued that they were "illegal orders" and said, "The right of killing an armed man exists only so long as he resists; as soon as he submits he is entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war." The Court ruled in Maj. Bolton's favor.[40] Lt. Morant was found guilty of murder. Lts. Handcock, Witton, and Picton were convicted of the lesser charge ofmanslaughter.[41]
On 27 February 1902, twoBritish Army Lieutenants — Anglo-AustralianHarry Morant and Australian bornPeter Handcock of theBushveldt Carbineers — were executed byfiring squad after beingconvicted of murdering eight Afrikaner POWs. This court-martial for war crimes was one of the first such prosecutions inBritish military history.
Although Morant left a written confession in his cell, he went on to become afolk hero in modern Australia. Believed by many Australians to be the victim of akangaroo court, public appeals have been made for Morant to be retried or pardoned. His court-martial and death have been the subject of books, astage play, and an award-winningAustralian New Wavefilm adaptation by directorBruce Beresford.
Witton was sentenced to death, but reprieved. Due to immense political pressure for his release, he was released after serving 32 months of a life sentence. Picton was cashiered.[42][43]
The production and use ofchemical weapons was strictly prohibited by the1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Asphyxiating Gases and the1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which explicitly forbade the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare.[44][45]
Even so, the United Kingdom used a range of poison gases, originallychlorine and laterphosgene,diphosgene andmustard gas. They also used relatively small amounts of the irritant gaseschloromethyl chloroformate,chloropicrin,bromacetone andethyl iodoacetate. Gases were frequently mixed, for examplewhite star was the name given to a mixture of equal volumes of chlorine and phosgene, the chlorine helping to spread the denser but more toxic phosgene. Despite the technical developments, chemical weapons suffered from diminishing effectiveness as the war progressed because of the protective equipment and training which the use engendered on both sides. By 1918, a quarter of British artillery shells were filled with gas and the United Kingdom had produced around 25,400 tons of toxic chemicals.[citation needed]
TheBritish Expeditionary Force first used chemical weapons along the Western Front at theBattle of Loos. On the first day of the Battle,Chlorine gas, codenamedRed Star, was deployed (140 tons arrayed in 5,100 gas cylinders) and aimed at theGerman Sixth Army's positions on theHohenzollern Redoubt. The wind, however, proved fickle and the gas either lingered inno man's land or blew right back into British trenches.[46]
Following theImperial German Army's use of poison gas at Ypres, the commander ofII Corps,Lieutenant General Sir Charles Ferguson, had said of poison gas:
It is a cowardly form of warfare which does not commend itself to me or other English soldiers ... We cannot win this war unless we kill or incapacitate more of our enemies than they do of us, and if this can only be done by our copying the enemy in his choice of weapons, we must not refuse to do so.[47]
Mustard gas was firstused effectively in World War I by the German army against British and Canadian soldiers nearYpres,Belgium, in 1917 and later also against theFrench Second Army. The Allies did not use mustard gas until November 1917 atCambrai, France, after the armies had captured a stockpile of German mustard-gas shells. It took the British more than a year to develop their own mustard gas weapon, with production of the chemicals centred onAvonmouth Docks. (The only option available to the British was the Despretz–Niemann–Guthrie process). This was used first in September 1918 during the breaking of theHindenburg Line with theHundred Days' Offensive.[citation needed]
According to author Alan Kramer, "The dominant scholarly (and popular) view is that the blockade was illegal and led to serious food shortages causing the mass starvation of German civilians".[48] The British policy is also described as illegal by other analysts[49][50][51] and "a violation of the maritime law".[52]
The agreed but unratifiedLondon Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War established that the only legal blockade was the close blockade of enemy ports, and not the long-distance blockade set up by Britain. This was so that blockades must be "effective", a clear stop on traffic, so as to avoid creating uncertainty and infringing on neutral rights. Further, after a series of tit-for-tat steps, the blockade was broadened to essentially all goods. This was contrary to the intent of the Declaration, which assumed a strict distinction between cargo of a military nature or destination and civilian items.[53][54] Neutral powers, including the U.S., disputed the legality of the blockade during the first stages of the war and sent protest notes to the British government. However, later in the war as a belligerent the US helped enforce the blockade rigorously, while neutral powers co-operated with the allies.[55]
A 1928 German academic study, sponsored by theCarnegie Endowment for International Peace, provided a thorough analysis of the German civilian deaths during the war. The study estimated 424,000 war-related deaths of civilians over the age of one in Germany, not includingAlsace-Lorraine, and the authors attributed the civilian deaths over the prewar level primarily to food and fuel shortages in 1917–1918.[56]
To counter the submarine threat, the Britisharmed merchant vessels for self defense and instructed civilian captains to evade submarines, or if the circumstances arise, to steer towards submarines on the surface in front of the ship to force them to submerge and call off their attack.[57] This latter instruction was interpreted as a suggestion to ram submarines, and overall the British efforts were challenged during the war as blurring the line between civilian and military vessels, potentially removing the protection afforded to civilian ships under international law. The Germans were aware of this, but being intent on unrestricted warfare, did not make an emphatic point of it, though civilian merchant seamanCharles Fryatt was executed for "illegal civilian warfare."[58][59]
Less legally gray were incidents of atrocities by theRoyal Navy. According to Article 16 of Hague X:[60] "After every engagement, the two belligerents, so far as military interests permit, shall take steps to look for the shipwrecked, sick, and wounded, and to protect them, as well as the dead, against pillage and ill treatment." This convention was not ratified by the United Kingdom, though large numbers of U-boat crew were rescued and captured as POW interrogations were often an important source ofmilitary intelligence. However there were a number of notable incidents whereRoyal Navy officers are alleged to have massacred unarmed U-boat crew-members after their submarines were sunk. Some major incidents are listed below.
After the sinking ofRMS Lusitania by the German submarineSM U-20 in May 1915,Lieutenant-CommanderGodfrey Herbert,commanding officer of theQ-shipHMSBaralong, was visited by two officers of theAdmiralty'sSecret Service branch at theRoyal Navy's base atSpike Island, nearQueenstown,Ireland. He was told, "ThisLusitania business is shocking. Unofficially, we are telling you ...take no prisoners from U-boats."[61]
On 19 August 1915, the German submarineU-27 sighted the British freighterNicosian, 70nautical miles off the coast of Queenstown. Unlike the German submarine commanders who had recently sunk theLusitania and theS.S. Arabic, theU-27'scommanding officer,Kapitänleutnant Bernhard Wegener, decided to attack in compliance withcruiser rules.U-27 surfaced, stopped the ship with a warning shot, and ordered theNicosian's captain and crew to take to the lifeboats.Nicosian was loaded with mules bound for theBritish Expeditionary Force in France.[62] Wegener commenced firing atNicosian (which may or may not still have had crew remaining on board), but then theBaralong arrived, flying the neutralAmerican flag as aruse of war. After steaming into firing range, lowering the American flag, and raising the BritishWhite Ensign in its place,Baralong's crew opened fire and sank theU-27.[63]
Twelve German sailors survived theU-27's sinking: the crews of her two deck guns and the sailors who had been on the conning tower. They swam toNicosian, attempting to climb up her hanging lifeboat falls[note 1] and pilot ladder. Herbert ordered his men to open fire with small arms on the men in the water.[64][65][66]
After a few German survivors managed to climb aboard theNicosian, Herbert sentBaralong's 12Royal Marines, under the command of a Corporal Collins, to board the sinking vessel. The German sailors were discovered in the engine room and shot on sight. According to Sub-LieutenantGordon Steele: "Wegener ran to a cabin on the upper deck – I later found out it was Manning's bathroom. The marines broke down the door with the butts of their rifles, but Wegener squeezed through a scuttle and dropped into the sea. He still had his life-jacket on and put up his arms in surrender. Corporal Collins, however, took aim and shot him through the head."[67] Collins later recalled that, after Wegener's murder, Herbert threw a revolver in the German captain's face and screamed, "What about theLusitania, you bastard!"[67]
In Herbert's report to the Admiralty, he alleged the German survivors were trying toboard and scuttle theNicosian, so he ordered theRoyal Marines on his ship to kill the survivors. The Admiralty, upon receiving the report, vainly ordered that the incident be kept secret.[citation needed]
After theNicosian's crew arrived atLiverpool, however, the American members of the crew gave sworn testimony to the United States Consul about the massacre ofU-27's crew. After their return to the United States, they repeated their testimony to American newspapers and before anotary public at the Imperial German Consulate inNew Orleans. As a result, the US State Department forwarded a formal protest by the German Empire to the British Foreign Office.[68]
The memorandum demanded that "Captain William McBride" and the crew of HMSBaralong becourt-martialed and threatened to "take the serious decision of retribution" if the massacre ofU-27's crew went unprosecuted.[69]
Sir Edward Grey, replied through the U.S. State Department, "His Majesty's Government do not think it necessary to make any reply to the suggestion that the British navy has been guilty of inhumanity, according to the latest figures available, the number of German sailors rescued from drowning, often in circumstances of great difficulty and peril, amounts to 1,150. The German navy can show no such record – perhaps through want of opportunity."[70]
Sir Edward further argued that the alleged massacre ofU-27's unarmed sailors could be grouped with three German attacks on unarmed sailors in the same 48 hours: the Imperial German Navy's sinking of SSArabic, their attack on astranded British submarine in neutral Dutchterritorial waters, and their attack on the crew of the steamshipRuel after they had abandoned ship. In conclusion, Grey suggested that all four incidents be placed before a tribunal chaired by theUnited States Navy. This was rejected by German authorities.[71]
A German medal was issued commemorating the incident.[72]
On 24 September 1915 HMS Baralong also sankU-41, which was in the process of sinking the cargo shipUrbino. According to the two German survivors,Baralong continued to fly theAmerican flag after opening fire onU-41 and then rammed the lifeboat carrying the German survivors, causing it to sink.[73] The only witnesses to the second attack were the German and British sailors present.Oberleutnant zur See Iwan Crompton, after returning to Germany from a prisoner-of-war camp, reported thatBaralong had run down the lifeboat he was in; he leapt clear and was shortly after taken prisoner. The British crew denied that they had rammed the lifeboat.[74] Crompton later published an account ofU-41's exploits in 1917,U-41: der zweite Baralong-Fall (Eng: "The second Baralong case").[75]
On 19 July 1918, while under the command ofKapitänleutnantWerner Fürbringer,SM UB-110 was depth charged, rammed, and sunk near theTyne byHMS Garry, commanded byCharles Lightoller. This was possibly the last U-boat sinking during the Great War.[76]
In his postwar memoirs, Fürbringer alleged that, after the sinking, HMSGarry hove to and opened fire with revolvers and machine guns on the unarmed shipwreck survivors in the water. He states that he saw the skull of his 18-year-old steward split open by a lump of coal hurled by a member ofGarry's crew. He also states that when he attempted to help a wounded officer to swim, the man said, "Let me die in peace. The swine are going to murder us anyhow." The memoir states that the shooting ceased only when the convoy that the destroyer had been escorting, and that contained many neutral-flagged ships, arrived on the scene, at which point "as if by magic the British now let down some life boats into the water."[77]
While Lightoller does not mention any massacre in his own recounting of the sinking, he does state that he "refused to accept the hands up air" business. Lightoller explained, "In fact it was simply amazing that they should have had the infernal audacity to offer to surrender, in view of their ferocious and pitiless attacks on our merchant ships. Destroyer versus Destroyer, as in the Dover Patrol, was fair game and no favour. One could meet them and take them on as a decent antagonist. But towards the submarine men, one felt an utter disgust and loathing; they were nothing but an abomination, polluting the clean sea." Lightoller claimed that he simply "left the rescue work to the others", and was more concerned about his own ship, which took serious damage in the ramming[78]
Lieutenant Commander Lightoller was awarded a bar to hisDistinguished Service Cross for sinkingUB-110. Contradictory information exists about the numbers ofUB-110's crew lost, with Lightoller claiming 15 survivors with 13 lost, while a German account claims 13 survivors with 21 lost, most in the post-battle massacre. Some historians suggest that Lightoller and his ship was not responsible for the killings, but rather it was due to the actions of smallmotor launches of theAuxiliary Patrol. It is significant, however, that local newspaper accounts of the action trumpet several German survivors were taken afterwards to hospital with gunshot wounds.[79]
According to American historianAlfred de Zayas, thePrussian Ministry of War established the "Military Bureau for the Investigation of Violations of the Laws of War", (German:Militäruntersuchungstelle für Verletzungen des Kriegsrechts) on 19 October 1914. The Bureau's stated purpose was "to determine violations of thelaws and customs of war which enemy military and civilian persons have committed against the Prussian troops and to investigate whatever accusations of this nature are made against by the enemy against members of thePrussian Army."[80]
The Military Bureau "had wide competence to establish facts in a judicial manner and to secure the evidence necessary for legal analysis of each case. Witnesses were interrogated and their sworn depositions taken by military judges; lists of suspected war criminals were compiled, which would probably have led to criminal proceedings if theGerman Empire had won the war. The material remained largely secret, though some excerpts from witness depositions were used in Germanwhite books." In these publicized pieces of propaganda, "adjustments" were made to make the material more convincing, making the white books significantly less reliable than the original accounts.[80]
By the summer of 1918, the Military Bureau had documented 355 separate incidents of violations of the laws and customs of war by British servicemen along theWestern Front.[81]
The Military Bureau also compiled a thirteen-page "Black List of Englishmen who are guilty of violations of the laws of war vis a vis members of the German Armed Forces" (German:Schwarze Liste derjenigen Engländer, die sie während des Krieges gegenüber deutschen Heeresangehörigen völkerechtwidringen Verhaltens schuldig gemacht haben). The list, which survived the Allied firebombing ofBerlin andPotsdam during theSecond World War, contains a total of 39 names, including "Captain McBride" of HMSBaralong. In contrast, however, nine similar lists survive of alleged French war criminals and consist of 400 names.[82]
Also following the Armistice, the victoriousAllies pooled their reports, compiled a joint list of allegedGerman war crimes, and demanded the extradition of 900 alleged war criminals for trial in France and the United Kingdom. As this proved unacceptable to the German electorate, the Government of theWeimar Republic agreed to try them domestically in theLeipzig War Crimes Trials.[83] According to de Zayas, however, "Generally speaking, the German population took exception to these trials, especially because the Allies were not similarly bringing their own soldiers to justice."[80]
All except 11 volumes of the German Bureau's World War I archives were destroyed during the1945 Allied bombing raids on Berlin and Potsdam.[84]
 |
The British violated the neutrality of several countries on a number of occasions, including:
In violation of theHague Conventions, British troops conducted small scalelooting in Normandy followingtheir liberation.[90] On 21 April 1945, British soldiers randomly selected and burned two cottages inSeedorf, Germany, inreprisal against local civilians who had hidden German soldiers in their cellars.[91] On 23 May 1945, British troops inSchleswig-Holstein were alleged to have plunderedGlücksburg castle, stealing jewellery, and desecrating 38 coffins from the castle's mausoleum.[92] HistorianSean Longden claims that violence against German prisoners and civilians who refused to cooperate with the British army "could be ignored or made light of".[93]
AnMI19 prisoner of war facility, known as the "London Cage", was utilised during and immediately after the war. This facility has been the subject of allegations oftorture.[94] TheBad Nenndorf interrogation centre, in occupied Germany, managed by theCombined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre, was the subject of an official inquiry in 1947. It found that there was "mental and physical torture during the interrogations".[95]
Rape was committed by British troops during theBritish advance towards Germany.[96] During late 1944, with the army based across Belgium and the Netherlands, soldiers were billeted with local families or befriended them. In December 1944, it came to the attention of the authorities that there was a "rise of indecency with children" where abusers had exploited the "atmosphere of trust" that had been created with local families. While the army "attempted to investigate allegations, and some men were convicted, it was an issue that received little publicity."[93] Rape also occurred once British forces had entered Germany.[96] Many rapes involved alcohol, but there were also instances of premeditated attacks.[93] For example, on a single day in April 1945, three women inNeustadt am Rübenberge were raped.[96] In the village of Oyle, nearNienburg, two soldiers attempted to coerce two girls into a nearby wood. When they refused, one was grabbed and dragged into the woods. When she began to scream, in according to Longden, "one of the soldiers pulled a gun to silence her. Whether intentionally or in error the gun went off hitting her in the throat and killing her."[93]
Sean Longden highlights that "Some officers failed to treat reports of rape with gravity." He provides the example of a medic, who had a rape reported to him. In cooperation with theRoyal Military Police, they were able to track down and apprehend the perpetrators who were then identified by the victim. When the two culprits "were taken before their CO. His response was alarming. He insisted since the men were going on leave no action could be taken and that his word was final."[93]
The British, with other allied nations (mainly the U.S.) carried out air raids against enemy cities duringWorld War II, including thebombing of the German city of Dresden, which killed around 25,000 people. While "no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property" from aerial attack was adopted before the war,[97] theHague Conventions did prohibit the bombardment of undefended towns. The city, largely untouched by the war, had functioning rail communications to the Eastern front and was an industrial centre. Allied forces inquiry concluded that an air attack onDresden was militarily justified on the grounds the city was defended.[98]
When asked whether the bombing of Dresden was a war crime, British historianFrederick Taylor replied: "I really don't know. From a practical point of view, rules of war are something of a grey area. It was pretty borderline stuff in terms of the extent of the raid and the amount of force used."[99] HistorianDonald Bloxham claims that "the bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime". He further argues that there was a strongprima facie for trying Winston Churchill among others and that there is theoretical case that he could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation."[100]
The bombing of Dresden has been politicised byHolocaust deniers and pro-Nazi apologists—most notably in British writerDavid Irving'sThe Destruction of Dresden—in an attempt to establish amoral equivalence betweenNazi war crimes and the killing of German civilians by Allied bombing raids.[101]
On 4 May 1940, in response to Germany's intensiveunrestricted submarine warfare, during theBattle of the Atlantic andits invasion of Denmark and Norway, theRoyal Navy conducted its own unrestricted submarine campaign. TheAdmiralty announced that all vessels in theSkagerrak, even the neutral ones, were to be sunk on sight without warning. This was contrary to the terms of theSecond London Naval Treaty.[102][103]
According toAlfred de Zayas, there are numerous documented cases of theRoyal Navy andRoyal Air Force deliberately firing upon shipwreck survivors.[104]
In July 1941, the submarineHMSTorbay, underLieutenant CommanderAnthony Miers, was based in theMediterranean where it sank several German ships. On two occasions, once off the coast ofAlexandria,Egypt, and the other off the coast ofCrete, the crew fired upon shipwrecked German sailors and troops. Miers made no attempt to hide his actions, and reported them in his official logs. He received a strongly worded reprimand from his superiors following the first incident. Mier's actions violated the Hague Convention of 1907, which banned the killing of shipwreck survivors under any circumstances.[105][106]
On 10 September 1942, the Italianhospital shipArno was torpedoed and sunk byRoyal Air Forcetorpedo bombers north-east of Ras el Tin, nearTobruk. The British alleged that a decoded German radio message intimated that the vessel was carrying supplies to the Axis troops.[107] HSPo had been lost atValona, in theAdriatic Sea to British torpedo bombers on 14 March 1941[108][109] andHSCalifornia offSyracuse on 11 August 1942.[110]
On 18 November 1944, the German hospital shipHS Tübingen was sunk by twoBristol Beaufighter bombers offPola, in theAdriatic Sea. The vessel had paid a brief visit to the Allied-controlled port ofBari to pick up German wounded under the auspices of theRed Cross; despite the calm sea and the good weather that allowed a clear identification of the ship's Red Cross markings, it was attacked with rockets nine times. Six crewmembers were killed.[111] American author and historianAlfred M. de Zayas identifies the sinking ofTübingen and other German and Italian hospital ships as war crimes.[112]
On 12 December 1948, during theMalayan Emergency, theBatang Kali massacre took place which involved the killing of 24 villagers. Six of the eight British soldiers involved were interviewed under caution by detectives. They corroborated accounts that the villagers were unarmed, were not insurgents nor trying to escape, and had been unlawfully killed on the order of the two sergeants in command. The sergeants denied the allegations. The Government's position was that if anyone is to be held responsible, it should be theSultan of Selangor.[113][114][115][116]
As part of theBriggs Plan devised by British General SirHarold Briggs, 500,000 people (roughly ten per cent of Malaya's population) were eventually removed from the land, had tens of thousands of their homes destroyed, and wereinterned in 450 guarded fortified camps called "New Villages". The intent of this measure was to inflictcollective punishments on villages where people were deemed to be aiding the insurgents and to isolate the population from contact with insurgents. The British also tried to win the hearts of the internees by providing them with education and health services as well as piped water and electricity within the villages. This practice was prohibited by theGeneva Conventions andcustomary international law which stated that the destruction of property must not happen unless rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.[117][118][119]
According to British historianJohn Newsinger, people transferred to live in the New Villages were "effectively deprived of all civil rights";[120] John D. Leary in his study of theOrang Asli during the Emergency argued that the forced resettlement used to create the New Villages brought "misery, disease and death" to many Malaysians.[121]
During the war, British and Commonwealth forces hiredIban (Dyak) headhunters fromBorneo to decapitate suspected MNLA members, arguing that this was done for identification purposes.[122] Iban headhunters were also permitted by British military leaders to take the scalps of corpses to be kept as trophies.[123] However, in practice this led to British troops taking the severed heads of Malayan people as trophies.[122] After the practice of headhunting in Malaya by Ibans had been exposed to the public, the Foreign Office first tried to deny that the practice existed, before then trying to justify Iban headhunting and conduct damage control in the press.[124] Privately, the Colonial Office noted that "there is no doubt that underinternational law a similar case in wartime would be a war crime".[125][126][124] One of the trophy heads was later found to have been displayed in a British regimental museum.[122]
In 1952, April, theBritish communist newspaper theDaily Worker (today known as theMorning Star) published a photograph of BritishRoyal Marines in a British military base in Malaya openly posing with decapitated human heads.[122][127] Initially British government spokespersons belonging to theAdmiralty and theColonial Office claimed the photograph was fake. In response to the accusations that their headhunting photograph was fake, theDaily Worker released yet another photograph taken in Malaya showing British soldiers posing with a severed head. However, Colonial SecretaryOliver Lyttelton (after confirmation from Field-MarshalGerald Templer) confirmed to parliament that the photos were indeed genuine.[128] In response to theDaily Worker articles exposing the decapitation of MNLA suspects, the practice was banned by Winston Churchill who feared that such photographs would give ammunition to communist propaganda.[122][129]
Despite the shocking imagery of the photographs of headhunting by British soldiers in Malaya, theDaily Worker was the only newspaper to publish them and the photographs were virtually ignored by the mainstream British press.[124]
Following the declaration of a state of emergency in 1952 after a period of increasing violence, Britain sought to re-impose imperial order in Kenya. In the ensuingeight-year conflict from 1952 to 1960 centred on theKikuyu people, who found themselves fighting on both sides, many were relocated. According to British authorities 80,000 were interned, whileCaroline Elkins estimated that between 160,000 and 320,000 were interned;[130] other estimates are as high as 450,000 interned. According to David Anderson, the British hanged over 1,090 suspected rebels. Another 400 were sentenced to death but reprieved because they were under 18 or women. The British declared some areas prohibited zones where anyone could be shot. It was common for Kikuyu to be shot because they "failed to halt when challenged."[131][132][133]
Torture and atrocities were committed during the conflict. According to Elkins:
[E]lectric shock was widely used, as well as cigarettes and fire. Bottles (often broken), gun barrels, knives, snakes,vermin, and hot eggs were thrust up men'srectums and women's vaginas. The screening teams whipped, shot, burned and mutilated Mau Mau suspects, ostensibly to gather intelligence for military operations and as court evidence.[134]
Historian Robert Edgerton stated:
If a question was not answered to the interrogator's satisfaction, the subject was beaten and kicked. If that did not lead to the desired confession, and it rarely did, more force was applied.Electric shock was widely used, and so was fire. Women were choked and held under water; gun barrels, beer bottles, and even knives were thrust into their vaginas. Men had beer bottles thrust up their rectums, were dragged behind Land Rovers, whipped, burned and bayoneted... Some police officers did not bother with more time-consuming forms of torture; they simply shot any suspect who refused to answer, then told the next suspect, to dig his own grave. When the grave was finished, the man was asked if he would now be willing to talk."[135]
More than a million Kikuyu were held in "enclosed villages" as part of the villagisation program; although some were Mau Mau guerrillas, most were victims of collective punishment that colonial authorities imposed on large areas of the country. Thousands were beaten orsexually assaulted to extract information about the Mau Mau threat. Later, prisoners suffered even worse mistreatment in an attempt to force them to renounce their allegiance to the insurgency and to obey commands. Prisoners were questioned with the help of "slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes". The use ofcastration and denying access to medical aid to the detainees by the British were also widespread and common.[131][132][133] Among the detainees who suffered severe mistreatment wasHussein Onyango Obama, the grandfather of formerU.S. PresidentBarack Obama. According to his widow, British soldiers forced pins into his fingernails and buttocks and squeezed his testicles between metal rods and two others were castrated.[136]
In June 1957,Eric Griffith-Jones, the attorney general of the British administration in Kenya, wrote to thegovernor,Sir Evelyn Baring, detailing the way the regime of abuse at the colony's detention camps was being subtly altered. He said that the mistreatment of the detainees is "distressingly reminiscent of conditions inNazi Germany orCommunist Russia". Despite this, he said that in order for abuse to remain legal, Mau Mau suspects must be beaten mainly on their upper body, "vulnerable parts of the body should not be struck, particularly the spleen, liver or kidneys", and it was important that "those who administer violence ... should remain collected, balanced and dispassionate". He also reminded the governor that "If we are going to sin," he wrote, "we must sin quietly."[136][137]
TheChuka massacre, which happened inChuka, Kenya, was perpetrated by members of theKing's African Rifles B Company in June 1953 with 20 unarmed people killed during theMau Mau uprising. Members of the 5th KAR B Company entered the Chuka area on 13 June 1953, to flush out rebels suspected of hiding in the nearby forests. Over the next few days, the regiment had captured and executed 20 people suspected of being Mau Mau fighters for unknown reasons. It is found out that most of the people executed were actually belonged to theKikuyu Home Guard – a loyalist militia recruited by the British to fight a guerrilla enemy.[citation needed]
All of the soldiers involved in the Chuka patrols were placed under open arrest at Nairobi's Buller Camp, but GeneralGeorge Erskine, Commander-in-Chief of theEast Africa Command, decided not to prosecute them. Instead, he would make an example of their commanding officer, Major Gerald Selby Lee Griffiths. And, rather than risk bringing publicity to the Chuka affair, Erskine was able to obtain evidence to have Griffiths charged with the murder of two other suspects in a separate incident that had taken place a few weeks before the Chuka massacre. However, the 5th KAR soldiers giving evidence at the courts martial in November 1953 refused to speak frankly against Griffiths. He was acquitted of the charge and rest of the soldiers were not charged either. Following public outcry, however, Griffiths was then tried under six separate charges of torture and disgraceful conduct for torturing two unarmed detainees, including a man named Njeru Ndwega. At his court-martial, it was stated that Griffiths had made Ndwega take off his pants, before telling a teenage African private to castrate him. When the private, a 16-year-old Somali named Ali Segat, refused to do this, Griffiths instead ordered him to cut off Ndwega's ear, to which Segat complied.[138] On 11 March 1954, Griffiths was found guilty on five counts. He was sentenced to five years in prison and wascashiered from the Army.[139] He served his sentence atWormwood Scrubs Prison in London.[140][141] None of the other ranks involved in the massacre has been prosecuted.[142][143][144]
Griffiths was put before a second court-martial following the McLean inquiry's findings charged with the murder of the first guide. On 11 March 1954, he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to five years imprisonment; he was cashiered from the Army and served his sentence in Wormwood Scrubs in London.[145][146][147][148]
TheHola massacre was an incident at a detention camp inHola, Kenya. By January 1959 the camp had a population of 506 detainees of whom 127 were held in a secluded "closed camp". This more remote camp near Garissa, eastern Kenya, was reserved for the most uncooperative of the detainees. They often refused, even when threats of force were made, to join in the colonial "rehabilitation process" or perform manual labour or obey colonial orders. The camp commandant outlined a plan that would force 88 of the detainees to bend to work. On 3 March 1959, the camp commandant put this plan into action – as a result, 11 detainees were clubbed to death by guards.[149] All of the surviving detainees sustained serious permanent injuries.[150] The British government accepts that the colonial administration tortured detainees, but denies liability.[151]
The Kiruara Massacre occurred on the 23 November 1952. British security forces were called to a crowd of Kikuyu who had gathered to hear the prophecies of a man who claimed to have seen a vision foreshadowing the end of colonial rule. After the crowd failed to disperse, the authorities opened fire with Sten guns. While the official death toll for the massacre stood at fifteen, it has been claimed that the death toll may have been as high as four hundred.[152][153]
The Troubles in Northern Ireland was a three-decade-long ethnic-nationalist conflict betweenUlster loyalists (primarily theUlster Volunteer Force andUlster Defence Association) andIrish nationalists (primarily theProvisional Irish Republican Army) in the region. Due to the escalating tension, the British Army was deployed into the region in 1969 to serve as a peacekeeping force under the task forceOperation Banner. The soldiers were initially welcomed by the Catholic population; the relieve of the RUC from some security duties and the disbandment of theB specials brought hope that discrimination and heavy-handedness would be rooted out. The confidence in the British army, however, had vanished by April 1970, when British forces used gas canisters to quell a Catholic demonstration at Ballymurphy and later in July imposed a curfew to search for weapons in the Catholic district of Lower Falls.[154] The main opposition to the British military's deployment came from the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA). It wageda guerrilla campaign against the British militaryfrom 1970 to 1997.
During the Troubles, British Army personnel have been accused of war crimes,[155][156][157][158] mainly in nationalist areas. The deadliest incident happened in January 1972 onBloody Sunday, when British paratroopers killed 14 civilians and injured several more at a protest held by theNorthern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA). Another major incident took place atBallymurphy, Belfast, where elevenIrish Catholics were killed by British Army snipers in August 1971.[159][160] In the course of the already mentionedFalls Curfew, in July 1970, four civilians were shot dead and at least 60 wounded.[161] Later in the conflict, there were other attacks against civilians involving the British Army, like theriots in Coalisland in 1992[162] or the killings ofMichael Naan and Andrew Murray inCounty Fermanagh in 1972,[163]Majella O'Hare inCounty Armagh in 1976,Aidan McAnespie inCounty Tyrone in 1988[164] and Peter McBride in Belfast in 1992.[165]
British security forces alsocolluded with loyalist paramilitaries throughout the conflict either as informants or by participating in criminal activities with them. One example was theGlenanne gang—a secret alliance of loyalist militants, British soldiers from theUlster Defence Regiment (UDR), andRoyal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officers—that carried out a string of attacks against Irish Catholics and nationalists in an area of Northern Ireland known as the "murder triangle" and also carried out some attacks in the Republic of Ireland.[166][167] Evidence suggests that the group was responsible for the deaths of about 120 civilians.[168] TheCassel Report investigated 76 killings attributed to the group and found evidence that UDR soldiers and RUC policemen were involved in 74 of those.[169] One former member, RUC officerJohn Weir, said his superiors knew of the group's activities but allowed it to continue.[170][171] Attacks attributed to the group include theDublin and Monaghan bombings (which killed 34 civilians, the deadliest attack in The Troubles), theMiami Showband killings, theReavey and O'Dowd killings and theHillcrest Bar bombing.[167][172]
TheStevens Inquiries concluded that theForce Research Unit (FRU), a covert unit of the British Army'sIntelligence Corps, helped loyalists kill civilians.[173][174] FRU commanders say their plan was to make loyalist groups "more professional" by helping them target nationalists and prevent them killing civilians.[175] The Stevens Inquiries found evidence only two lives were saved and that FRU was involved with at least 30 loyalist killings and many other attacks – many of the victims uninvolved civilians.[173] One of the most prominent killings was that of the Republican solicitorPat Finucane. FRU agentBrian Nelson also helped ship weapons to loyalists from South Africa;[176] the weapons were later used in loyalist atrocities, including theMilltown Cemetery attack andAvenue Bar shooting. From 1992 to 1994, loyalists were responsible for more deaths than republicans,[177] partly due to FRU.[178][179] Stevens would later claim that members of the security forces attempted to obstruct his team's investigation.[174]
InOperation Demetrius, the British government initiated a mass arrest andinternment (imprisonment without trial) of people suspected of being involved with Irish nationalist militants; due to faulty and out-of-date intelligence, many were no longer involved in or never had links with nationalist militancy. The introduction of internment, the way the arrests were carried out, and the abuse of those arrested, led to mass protests and a sharp increase in violence. Amid the violence, about 7,000 people fled or were forced out of their homes. In 2017, barrister Hugh Southey, representing 14 men who endured the "five techniques" interrogation method while interned in 1971, told the High Court that the mistreatment "was in the scale of a war crime".[180][181]
In March 1976, the British government announced that theSpecial Category Status, which granted paramilitary prisonersde factoprisoner of war (POW) status in accordance with the principles of theGeneva Conventions, would not be given to those convicted after this date.[182]
During the1980–1981 no wash protest at the all-womenArmagh Prison, protesting prisoners in February 1980 were subsequently beaten by guards in riot gear and confined to their cells for 24 hours, during which time they were denied access to the bathroom and given little food to eat. Over the course of their confinement, their chamber pots began to fill, forcing the women to dump the urine out of spy holes in their doors (these were subsequently nailed shut) and to throw the excrement out their windows (which were then boarded up). As time went on, the dirty protest changed the conditions within the prison from bad to worse, adding filth and stench to the already nearly insurmountable obstacles to daily life within the walls of Armagh.[183]
In the 1983Maze Prison escape, 38 IRA prisoners escaped from themaximum security prisonHM Prison Maze inCounty Antrim in Northern Ireland. Of the 38 who escaped, 19 were recaptured and returned to prison. It was there that severe mistreatment occurred upon the returning prisoners. During the extradition hearing of fugitive and Maze Prison escapee James J. Smyth at theU.S. district court in San Francisco, Maze prison governor John Baxter admitted that guards brutalised the returning inmates following the 1983 breakout and later lied in court by denying the prisoners had suffered dog bites. However, he said the officers involved had never been disciplined and there were no plans to do so.[184] U.S. district judgeBarbara A. Caulfield wrote under the "Maze prison" section of her finding that:[185]
6. The republican prisoners who escaped but were captured and returned were forced to run a gauntlet of guard dogs which were allowed to bite them. The guards ordered attack dogs upon the republican prisoners as they were moved to other cell blocks. The dogs bit several prisoners. The prisoners were denied medical care for several days. Many of the escapees were rounded up and returned to the Maze immediately after the escape. Upon their return to the Maze, prison officers kicked and punched the returned escapees and repeatedly called them "Fenian bastards." Numerous prison officers took part in the mistreatment of the returned escapees.
7. There was no evidence that prisoners in the loyalist wing were similarly treated. That is, of the loyalist and republican prisoners who did not escape, only the republicans were moved, beaten, kicked, bitten by dogs, and subjected to religious and political insults.
8. Several prisoners brought actions for damages for their treatment following the escape. The court in Northern Ireland found that there was a widespread conspiracy to conceal the fact of the assault of the prisoners.
9. No disciplinary action was ever taken against the prison officers for their abuse of the prisoners in connection with the escape or for perjuring themselves. The current prison governor testified that there are no plans to discipline the prison officers involved and the "case is closed" as far as he is concerned. None of the testifying prison officials knew whether any of the prison officers who participated in the abuse of the returned escapees or who perjured themselves are still employed at the Maze prison. The Maze Prison governor, John Baxter, acknowledged that many of the guards who are at the Maze now have been there since the 1983 escape.
...
12. Ex-prisoners from the Maze are subject to increased scrutiny by the security forces. Several witnesses on behalf of James Smyth testified that ex-prisoners are frequently subject to harassment by the security forces.
13.Sean Mackin was arrested and charged with the attempted murder of a prison officer's daughter. Mackin testified that while he was in the Crumlin Road prison before trial, he was treated differently from other prisoners in that every time an officer was killed, he would either be beaten in his cell or put in solitary confinement.
...
15. Paul Kane was a 1983 Maze escapee who was extradited from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland in 1989. During the course of his extradition proceedings, he applied to theMinister of Justice in Ireland not to send him back because he feared being assaulted by the prison staff and members of the security forces. The Minister of Justice denied the application and guaranteed that Kane would not be abused upon his return. As soon as Kane was handed over to the security forces at the Northern Ireland border, verbal abuse, including anti-Catholic remarks, began. Once put in a holding cell in Belfast, handcuffs were placed very tightly on his wrists and despite numerous requests, the handcuffs were not removed or loosened. Kane also was roughed up by the security forces within hours of being returned to Northern Ireland.
TheHuman Rights Watch reported that theUK government sought the overseas operations bill to stop the prosecution of British soldiers for torture and other war crimes committed overseas. Under this bill the power of the attorney general, a member of the government, had more power to protect soldiers from prosecution whether with a genuine case or not.[186]
In November 2019,BBC News reported that the British government and military were accused of covering up the killing and torture of civilians and children during thewars in Afghanistan andIraq. Leaked documents allegedly contain evidence implicating British troops in killing children and the torture of civilians in these regions. TheIraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), which investigated British war crimes in Iraq, and Operation Northmoor, which investigated the same in Afghanistan, were dismantled by the British government in 2017 afterPhil Shiner, a solicitor who took more than 1,000 cases to IHAT, was struck off from practising law amid allegations he had paid people in Iraq to find clients.[187]
Some former IHAT and Operation Northmoor investigators said Shiner's actions were used as an excuse to close down the inquiries. No case investigated by IHAT or Operation Northmoor led to a prosecution. An IHAT detective toldPanorama: "TheMinistry of Defence had no intention of prosecuting any soldier of whatever rank he was unless it was absolutely necessary, and they couldn’t wriggle their way out of it". Investigators said they found evidence of murders by anSAS soldier, as well as deaths in custody, beatings, torture and sexual abuse of detainees. A senior SAS commander was found to have covered up the crimes committed by soldiers under his command.[187]
Corporal Donald Payne, a former soldier of theQueen's Lancashire Regiment of the British Army, became the first member of the British armed forces to be convicted of a war crime under the provisions of the International Criminal Court Act 2001. He was jailed for one year and dismissed from the army. In June 2020,Johnny Mercer said that Operation Northmoor had been completed and no more British troops would be prosecuted over alleged war crimes inAfghanistan andIraq.[188]
During theIraq War, the illegal use of thefive techniques by British service members contributed to thedeath of Baha Mousa.[189] On 19 September 2006, CorporalDonald Payne pleaded guilty to a charge of inhumane treatment to persons, making him the first member of the British armed forces to plead guilty to a war crime.[190] He was subsequently jailed for one year and expelled from the army. Six other soldiers were cleared of any charges.[191]Mr Justice McKinnon suggested that he believed there had been some level of covering-up with relation to the case.[192] In 2021, theSupreme Court of the United Kingdom found that the use of the five techniques amounts totorture.[193]
In September 2013,[194]Royal Marines SergeantAlexander Blackman, formerly ofTaunton,Somerset,[195] was convicted at court martial of having murdered an unarmed, woundedTaliban insurgent during theHelmand province campaign. On 6 December 2013, Sgt. Blackman received a sentence oflife imprisonment with a minimum of ten years before being eligible for parole. He was alsodismissed with disgrace from the Royal Marines.[196]
In April 2017, following an appeal that saw his conviction reduced to manslaughter, Blackman was released from prison having served three years of his sentence.[197]
In July 2022, a BBC investigation said that unarmed men were repeatedly killed bySAS operatives in suspicious circumstances, focusing in particular on a series of night raids conducted by one squadron over the course of its six-month tour inHelmand Province in 2010/11 which may have led to the unlawful killings 54 people.[198] The investigators also said that personnel at the highest echelon of the UK’s special forces including its former directorMark Carleton-Smith were aware of the allegations, but did not report them to the military police when they conducted two investigations involving alleged offences committed by the squadron, despite a legal obligation to do so.[198]
On 22 March 2023, aninquiry was opened into unlawful killings in Afghanistan.[199]
when some American muleteers who had been accompanying the mules returned to port, they spread stories of a massacre
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)More recently, the resurgence in loyalist violence that led to their carrying out more killings than republicans from the beginning of 1992 until their ceasefire (a fact widely reported in Northern Ireland) was still described as following 'the IRA's well-tested tactic of trying to usurp the political process by violence'……
