1/ Some thoughts on General David Patraeus's article in today's Times thetimes.co.uk/edition/commen… (THREAD) 
2/ I acted for hundreds of soldiers in two war crimes inquiries re the Iraq War (Baha Mousa and Al-Sweady). Two very different stories. I'm not here to say that human rights laws are perfect or that their application in war situations has been straightforward.
3/ I sat through interviews where my clients, many of whom were teenagers in 2003/4, were in bits, broken by PTSD, alcoholism, broken marriages. I don't envy them but hugely respect their service in the most horrendous situations.
4/ But the fact that post-war investigations can be difficult isn't a reason not to have them. In the Baha Mousa case there was an egregious failure by the British Army. 9 men were tortured for 2 days in 2003 on a British base in Iraq, one of whom (Baha Mousa) was beaten to death
5/ The irony, if you can call it irony, was that the Army had 'forgotten' about a human rights judgment from the 1970s which prohibited the '5 techniques' used in Northern Ireland - prep for that conflict was terribly rushed. See this thread:
6/ The Baha Mousa Inquiry (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_…) prob only took place because our human rights laws (by 2003 newly bolstered by the Human Rights Act) required a thorough investigation into potential breaches of human rights. I don't think anyone could say that was a bad thing
7/ Al-Sweady was different (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Sweady…). There, the worst allegations against British troops were found to have been fabricated as part of a propaganda campaign by the Iraqi resistance in 2004. It was a travesty that soldiers were taken through that.
8/ Human rights laws don't apply to all battlefield situations - only where the UK is in effective control of an area (ukhumanrightsblog.com/2015/09/18/a-c…). Patraeus doesn't evidence his assertion that this makes it harder to fight.
9/ Take his point about the US. Is it really a good thing that US forces are not subject to international human rights standards? After all, it was Bush-era policy which led to Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay and the horrific re-introduction of torture as a *policy*
10/ One thing that has been clear to me working with the Ministry of Defence and soldiers is that at least the lawyers have the backstop of human rights law to rely on when dealing with the very difficult ethical situations which arise in conflict. That is a good thing.
11/ Ultimately, human rights laws protect soldiers too (rightsinfo.org/government-wan…) - and not just from being given equipment that doesn't work etc but also by ensuring they act within a moral framework which (when it works) minimises the bad stuff that happens in wartime
12/ I hugely sympathise with soldiers being taken through multiple repeated investigations. But, equally, the battlefield isn't a law-free or moral-free zone. Human rights laws provide useful minimum standards which can help prevent abuses.
