Why the inquiry announced into potential war crimes is interesting – very interesting
This inquiry cannot have been established lightly
Now this is interesting.
Very interesting.
As reported by Joshua Rozenberg, a senior judge has been appointed to head a full statutory inquiry to "investigate into and report on alleged unlawful activity by British armed forces in their conduct of deliberate detention operations (DDO) in Afghanistan during the period mid-2010 to mid-2013".
The terms of reference, which should be read carefully, are here.
There are usually formidable barriers to any such investigation taking place - legal, political, and cultural.
Of these, the cultural barrier is always the hardest to clear.
Any allegation of wrongdoing by our armed forces - and also our security and police forces - is usually first met by denialism: we are the goodies, and these things would not be done by us.
Then there is derision: how dare you criticise those in the battlefield and on the front line from the comfort of your armchairs.
(This response is often deployed even when the alleged wrongdoing is far away from the battlefield or the front line, and is in respect of the treatment captive non-combatants and civilians.)
Next will come the misdirections: counter allegations and smears about ambulance-chasing lawyers and compensation-seeking clients.
(And, indeed, there can be bad lawyers, just as there can be bad soldiers and bad police officers and security operatives, for there is good and bad in every profession - it is just that some professions are more accepting of this possibility.)
Once these barriers of denial, derision and misdirection are cleared, and the facts and evidence are incontestable, then there will come the shrugs of "so what?" and the assertions of moral equivalence.
Such things do not matter, we will be told, and everyone does it.
*
What there will rarely be is anyone actually being held properly to account.
The cultural presumption against any wrongdoing by our armed forces - and by our security and police forces - is so powerful that they hardly need any formal legal immunity.
But.
Something is up here which means the government is not even attempting to deploy denial, derision or misdirection.
Maybe the government knows that such things will not wash here.
The government has instead gone to appointing a highly-regarded judge with an outstanding reputation and given him the strongest possible legal powers.
This would not be done lightly.
*
This inquiry will be worth watching carefully.
Perhaps nothing is afoot.
Perhaps there is nothing to see here.
But for some reason the government does not think that denial, derision or misdirection will be enough for disposing of this matter.
So this inquiry is interesting.
Very interesting.
**
POSTSCRIPT
***
This has been cross-posted from my law and policy blog, where you and others can comment.