This story has already dropped from BBC's new page and I had to try to find it.
Legal measures to protect UK troops from "spurious" claims of misconduct have been unveiled by the government.
The change in policy, announced at the Conservative conference, would mean parts of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could be suspended during future conflicts.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said the legal system had been abused "to falsely accuse our armed forces".
The MoD has spent more than £100m on Iraq-related claims since 2004.
Speaking at the Tory conference in Birmingham, Mr Fallon said: "This is not about putting our armed forces above the law, they wouldn't want that. They have to comply with the criminal law of this country and, of course, with the Geneva conventions.
"Serious claims must be investigated, but spurious claims will be stopped and our armed forces will now be able to do their job fighting the enemy and not the lawyers."
Two separate inquiries are currently examining about 2,000 allegations against troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Much of the litigation comes from claims under the ECHR, the government said.
The changes would mean that in future conflicts, subject to a vote of both Houses of Parliament, the UK would "derogate" from Article Two (right to life) and Article Five (right to liberty) of the ECHR.
Troops would still be subject to other articles of the convention, including a prohibition on torture, and the changes would not affect retrospective cases.
Two separate inquiries are currently examining about 2,000 allegations against troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Much of the litigation comes from claims under the ECHR, the government said.
The changes would mean that in future conflicts, subject to a vote of both Houses of Parliament, the UK would "derogate" from Article Two (right to life) and Article Five (right to liberty) of the ECHR.
Troops would still be subject to other articles of the convention, including a prohibition on torture, and the changes would not affect retrospective cases.
The planned crackdown has been criticised by Lt Col Nicholas Mercer, the former chief legal adviser for the Army in Iraq, who said it was wrong "simply to polarise it as money-grabbing lawyers".
"There are plenty of us who have raised our concerns without any financial motive at all, if indeed the other lawyers have got a financial motive," he said in January.
"The government have paid out £20m for 326 cases to date. Anyone who has fought the MoD knows that they don't pay out for nothing."
It was also recently revealed that an independent policing unit set up to investigate alleged war crimes by British troops in Afghanistan had received around 600 complaints.
The cases being probed are said to include that of a Taliban bombmaker who claims his arrest and detention was illegal.
The move was welcomed by Reg Keys, whose 20-year-old son Tom was killed while guarding a police station in Iraq in 2003.
He has been involved in a campaign against the legal cases, and said: "I would like to think that those already under threat of prosecution will be looked at again".
For Labour, shadow defence secretary Clive Lewis said: "Michael Fallon's speech was a smokescreen, designed to deflect from the Tories legacy of failure on defence.
"The reality is their devastating cuts since 2010 have weakened and demoralised our Armed Forces, leaving them poorly-equipped, over-stretched, under-paid and too often living in squalid conditions."
I find this to be despicable. You can't protect the troops from prosecution for doing things wrong. It will only encourage them not to care about the rules. You can't stop them from being prosecuted for fear of it being spurious or malicious. You have an investigation and you discard the spurious one's then. It rather err on them having to face vexatious accusations than on the side of guilty parties getting a free pass.
