A coverup of torture, racism and complicity in war crimes一企图掩盖酷刑，种族主义和共谋战争罪行

The evidence of British abuse and killing of Iraqi civilians is part of an iceberg of disgrace which demands a public inquiry 证据的英国虐待和杀害伊拉克平民的一部分，冰山的耻辱，要求公开调查

Phil Shiner 菲尔shiner
Monday April 23, 2007 周一07年4月23日
The Guardian 卫

Images of the battered, bloodied, bruised face of Baha Mousa, tortured to death while in detention with British troops under the Iraq occupation, should have shocked the nation when they appeared last week.图象的受虐，血迹斑斑，青肿面对巴哈穆萨，折磨致死，而被拘留的英国部队对伊拉克的占领，应该有震惊全国的时候，他们似乎是在上星期。 Instead, most media outlets chose to ignore them.相反，大多数媒体选择不理会他们。 By comparison, when Canadian troops meted out similar treatment to a prisoner in Somalia in the 1990s, the result was a five-year public inquiry and spring-clean of the military justice system.相较之下，当加拿大部队在平时类似的待遇，以一名囚犯在索马里，在20世纪90年代，其结果是一项为期五年的公开调查和弹簧干净的军事司法制度。 What is going on?怎么回事呢？

To answer that question is to dig into what was described as a cover-up by the judge advocate at the conclusion of the court martial into the incident.要回答这个问题，就是要挖成什么被描述为隐瞒事件真相的行动，由法官主张在总结该军事法庭到这一事件。 What follows arises from publicly available material, most of it in the House of Lords case, which finishes tomorrow, into whether the Human Rights Act applied to protect Mousa and others.以下出自公开提供的材料，其中大部分是英国上议院的案例，其中饰面明天，是否人权法令适用，以保护穆萨等。 There are four clusters of issues we have to face.First, the incident led to more than just a single death.有四组问题，我们要face.first ，这一事件导致了不止一个单一的死因。 Photographs and medical evidence show our troops nearly killed another civilian, and badly injured five others.照片和医学证据显示，我们的部队几乎打死了另一名平民，并严重受伤，另外五人。 The judge found that a group of soldiers had engaged in systematic torture and humiliation, but none had been charged because of an “obvious closing of ranks”.法官发现，一组官兵进行了系统的酷刑和侮辱，但没有一个被起诉的原因是"显而易见闭幕的职级" 。 Who were the torturers?谁是刽子手？

Second, the torture included the use of four techniques banned by the government in 1972: hooding, stressing and sleep and food deprivation.第二，酷刑，包括使用的四个技术，禁止该国政府在1972年：戴头罩，并强调与睡眠及食物匮乏。 And it was not just one rogue battalion, 1st Queen’s Lancashire Regiment (QLR), but others.它不只是一个无赖大队，第一女王的兰开夏团（ qlr ） ，但别人。 Further, we are asked to believe that only a single battalion relied on senior brigade legal advice, which said it would not be breaching international humanitarian law to hood and stress civilian detainees.此外，要求我们相信只有一个单一大队依靠资深旅法律咨询，其中表示他们不会违反国际人道主义法的遮光罩，并强调平民被拘留。 Is this credible?这是否可信？

Third, the facility where Mousa and others were tortured was small.第三，设施而穆萨和其他人被折磨很小。 The soldiers’ shouting and detainees’ screaming were audible to anyone on the site.士兵们高喊和被拘留者凄厉的惨叫声向任何人对网站。 So, who are those in command who knew, or ought to have known, what was going on in the critical 36 hours before Mousa’s death?因此，谁是那些在指挥者知道或理应知道，什么事在危急36小时之前，穆萨之死？ Even more potentially damning to the chain of command responsibility, who knew, or ought to have known, of the complete breakdown in the system of training troops?更潜在的谴责，以指挥链的责任，谁知道或理应知道的完全破裂，在该系统内的练兵？ There was a failure to train troops to observe the law and also, it seems, to teach them the basic principles to enable them to fulfil their role.有一个失败的练兵活动，以遵守法律，同时，它似乎是，教导他们基本原则，使它们能够发挥其作用。

The evidence on the training of tactical questioners is striking.证据就培训的战术提问令人吃惊。 They have an important balance to strike.他们有一个重要的平衡，要罢工。 They need to obtain evidence from detainees that may, for example, save the lives of our troops.他们需要获得证据，从被拘留可能，例如，拯救生命，我们的部队。 And they must do so without using torture or ill-treatment.他们必须这样做，不使用酷刑或虐待。 This is about prisoner handling.这是关于战俘处理。 The evidence shows the tactical questioners in the Mousa incident had precisely 1.25 hours training on this.证据表明，战术提问，在穆萨事件正好1.25小时训练这一点。 Further, those responsible did not ensure that rules of engagement appropriate to an occupation, not a war, were promulgated to reflect the change for 10 weeks.此外，责任者并没有保证的交战规则，以适当的职业，而不是一场战争，颁布实施，以反映这种变化，为10个星期。 There is a risk that during this period our troops were following the wrong rules.有一种风险是，在此期间我们的部队之后，错误的规则。

The final cluster of issues is where it starts to get really ugly.最后一组问题，是它开始获得真正丑陋。 What are we supposed to make of material that shows it was standard to refer to Iraqis as “Ali Babas”?什么是我们要作的材料表明，它的标准是指伊拉克人为"阿里babas " ？ Or of military operations that had similar racist connotations from an earlier era?或采取军事行动表示了类似的种族主义内涵，从早先的时代？ Or material that indicates a remorseless disregard of Iraqis’ human rights, which dehumanised them in the eyes of the troops who were supposed to protect them?或材料表明remorseless无视伊拉克人民的人权，其中dehumanised在他们的眼中，部队，他们要保护他们？ When our troops were supposed to be exercising policing functions, we appear to have shot first and asked questions later.当我们的部队原本应该行使警察职能，我们似乎已先开枪，并询问后。

Uncomfortable questions about our complicity in war crimes with the US also lurk beneath the surface.不舒服的问题，对我们共谋战争罪行与美国还隐藏在下方的表面。 The evidence from prosecution witnesses in the court martial shows that the US was putting pressure on us to adopt its interrogation techniques.证据由控方证人在军事法庭上，显示出美国施加压力，我们能够通过它的审讯技术。

Consider that the facility involved in the Mousa incident was in the middle of an urban area and the abuse occurred in broad daylight.认为该设施在穆萨事件是在中东的一个市区和虐待发生在光天化日之下。 By comparison, our theatre internment facility, Camp Bucca in southern Iraq, was in the middle of nowhere.相比之下，我们的剧院拘留所，布卡营在伊拉克南部，是在中间的是行不通的。 But the government claims the US ran Camp Bucca.但政府声称，美国冉布卡营。 The evidence in the court martial is clear.证据在法庭上的武术是清楚的。 We had two compounds for UK detainees, they had six.我们有两个化合物为英国被拘留者，他们花了6 。 We had jurisdiction over UK detainees who were subject to questioning by our tactical questioners.我们有管辖权英国被拘留者受到质疑我们的战术提问。 So why the blatant denial of responsibility where it is obvious the UK did have jurisdiction?那么，为什么公然否认的责任，这亦是显而易见的，英国也有司法管辖权？ The MoD admitted in 2004 that six other Iraqis had died while in detention with British troops, and we know all British detainees were taken to Camp Bucca until Christmas 2003.英国国防部承认，从2004年其他6个伊拉克人死亡，在被拘留期间，与英国军队，而且我们知道，所有英国人被拘留者被带到布卡营，直到2003年的圣诞节。 We also know that US forces killed Iraqis during “riots” at the facility and that three US soldiers were discharged in 2004 after being found guilty of abusing prisoners.我们也知道，美军打死的伊拉克人中的"暴动" ，在该设施中，并且有3名美国军人在出院后，于2004年被发现犯有虐待囚犯。 If Mousa died in our custody where he did, what was happening in the British section of Camp Bucca?如果穆萨死于羁押那里他那样，发生了什么，在英国的第布卡营？

Most of this iceberg of disgrace will remain hidden unless there is an independent and public inquiry.大部分的冰山的耻辱将仍然隐藏除非有一个独立和公开调查。 What is our government’s response to Mousa’s death and its implications?什么是我们政府的反应，以穆萨的死亡及其含义？ Sadly, it knows no shame.可悲的是，它知道，没有羞耻。 Despite the shocking facts and images, it argues in the Lords that the Human Rights Act does not apply outside the territory of the UK.尽管怵目惊心的事实和形象，它辩称，在上议院表示，人权法令并不适用于领土外的英国。 If it succeeds in this argument, we can all give up hope of there being any proper domestic accountability for any human rights abuses by UK personnel outside the country.成功的话，在这样的说法，我们都可以放弃希望，有任何正当国内问责任何侵犯人权的行为，由人事英国以外的国家。 I can almost hear the howl of anguish from Baha Mousa’s grave.我可以几乎听不到嗥的痛苦，从巴哈穆萨的坟墓。

· Phil Shiner is a solicitor and acts for the family of Baha Mousa and in 40 other cases of torture, beatings and killings by UK forces in Iraq菲尔shiner是一名律师和行为，为家庭用户的巴哈穆萨，并在其他40个案件酷刑，拷打和杀害英国部队在伊拉克

Comment on 'A coverup of torture, racism and complicity in war crimes' : 评论'企图掩盖酷刑，种族主义和共谋战争罪行' ：

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL 跟踪 RUI

Related News: 相关新闻：