I am a solicitor acting in the cases of 20 Iraqis killed or injured by British troops during the occupation. Their stories, often substantiated by letters from the British military, depict culpability of many regiments over a period of months. All suggest that, were the truth revealed by an independent inquiry, it would have dramatic implications for the accountability of the Ministry of Defence. It would also involve those high up the chain of command, including in government, who knew or should have known that something went terribly wrong during Britain's occupation of Iraq. The evidence suggests that those responsible for the decision to go to war, and for the subsequent occupation, simply failed to plan properly, or at all, for the inevitable; namely, that the Iraqi population would not quietly accept the brutality of war and occupation. That brutality included the deliberate use of indiscriminate weapon systems, such as cluster bombs, in urban areas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1235232,00.html

At best, terrible mistakes have been made - and many of them, bearing in mind the written answer of armed forces minister Adam Ingram on May 28 that the government admits to 10 deaths in detention. At worst, British troops, and those who command them, can kill with impunity because there is no effective mechanism for accountability within domestic or international law.

Under the regulations passed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, there is immunity for these acts under Iraqi law. The US and Britain want immunity to continue after June 30, putting emphasis on domestic accountability where, in practice, there is none. If this legal analysis prevails, principles of democracy and the rule of law count for little in post-occupation Iraq.

While the US continues to assert that the ICC has no jurisdiction over it, its partners would be accountable under the principle of joint and several liability. Those making a decision to go to war would be bound to ensure that every member of the British armed forces is fully aware of the consequences of human rights violations. If the prison service in the UK cannot escape with impunity if a prisoner dies after ill treatment, or if police officers on the streets of Birmingham are not permitted to shoot and fatally wound unarmed citizens, why should there be a completely different regime if Britain is in occupation of another territory? Basic principles of justice and the operation of the rule of law dictate that this legal black hole, prised open after 9/11 by both the US and Britain, must now be closed. Otherwise, this current international lawlessness can only lead to a dramatic counterattack by those on the receiving end of this new world order.