The House of Lords ruled June 13 that the Human Rights Act applies to those killed while in British custody outside the United Kingdom. This could open the gates for anyone in British custody to sue the Ministry of Defense under the Human Rights Act. This ruling removes needed authority from the military and could expose Britain’s courts to scores of legal entanglements.

The test case spent three years in court before a verdict was reached. In 2003, an Iraqi hotel receptionist, Baha Mousa, was allegedly beaten by the British military for more than 30 hours, sustaining 93 separate injuries; he died as a result of those injuries. Five other cases—cases where Iraqi civilians were shot—were dismissed because the victims were not actually in British custody at the time.

The senior law lord assigned to the case, Lord Bingham, wanted to dismiss this case as well, maintaining that Britain’s Human Rights Act does not apply abroad. “This does not mean that members of the British armed forces serving abroad are free to murder, rape and pillage with impunity,” Bingham said. “They are triable and punishable for any crimes they commit under the three service discipline acts … no matter where the crime is committed or who the victim may be.”

The other lords rejected that line of reasoning by a majority of four to one, ruling that the Human Rights Act does apply abroad—that the military does not have the authority to handle such situations autonomously.

Much has been made of the idea that, without this ruling, “a victim is left remediless in the British courts,” as Lord Rodger, who sided with the majority, put it. That is exactly the problem: The British courts are extending their jurisdiction to include the military. Armed forces have always handled these sorts of matters through military tribunals. This ruling strips military officials of the authority they need to deal with these problems internally and in a military environment. They—and British soldiers—now know that the civilian British court system can always second-guess their decisions.

With the ruling in, the director of the campaign group Liberty called for a full independent inquiry whenever detainees “suffer inhuman treatment, torture or death while detained in UK military establishments anywhere in the world.”

The British should know only too well how vulnerable this will make the British military. It was the British who seized an al Qaeda training manual that states: “At the beginning of the trial … the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison.” Terrorists are trained to cry torture, whether it occurs or not. In what the manual’s authors must consider a great victory, this ruling suggests that British authorities launch a full investigation—independent of the military—every time that happens.

Britain has experienced controversial claims at home too. For instance, the British Home Office awarded nearly 200 drug addicts a total of ₤750,000 because their forced detox in prison resulted in withdrawal symptoms. That sort of reasoning has no place in a military environment.

The U.S. court system has been choked with cases of this nature, using rights intended for U.S. citizens to protect some whose declared and unretracted goal is the destruction of that society and its legal system. This mentality forces the military to act with hypersensitivity to every action. It spreads fear that bureaucrats will ultimately deem any action taken in war illegal—after the fact. Britain’s enemies will use this ruling to hamper Britain’s military and its court system.

In one sense, though, this ruling is better than what might have been: The British government had argued that the case should go to the European Court of Human Rights, which would have still handcuffed the military and had the added bonus of handing more of Britain’s sovereignty over to Europe. Other European nations recognized the danger these laws pose: France, Spain and Portugal all specifically exempted their armed forces before signing the Human Rights Convention.

Adm. Alan West, retired head of the Royal Navy, expressed concerns that “legal encirclement” was hampering the military and that there are “more and more constraints on our people, who are trying to do their duty as best they can.” But the law is no longer encircling the military; with this ruling, the law lords have struck, establishing themselves as the ultimate authority in military affairs. But will they prevent misuses of the system? If precedent is our guide, no. If the legal train wreck the U.S. has suffered after Guantanamo is our guide, definitely not. And if the Bible is our guide, we know proper judges will disappear in the end time (Isaiah 3:1-2) and that the base will behave proudly against the honorable (verse 5). Certainly abuses should not be allowed, but neither should the military be hamstrung or Britain’s court system overrun. The House of Lords decision will result in exactly that.