Consider the travails of CPT Roger Hill ...
and his 1SG, with respect to your question:
Quote:
from JMA
The Captain admitted to kicking him twice. So the sgt punched him 3 or 4 times and the captain kicked him twice.
What would happen in the US military? Slap on the wrist, court martial, what?
Fine, demotion, dishonourable discharge, what?
Briefly, from his attorneys' webpage, CPT Roger Hill:
Quote:
What Happened?
Puckett & Faraj, PC are often called upon to defend the courageous and moral men and women of our military. In their service to their country, these young military members are called on to make difficult decisions to save the lives of those they lead. CPT Roger Hill did just that on the battlefield in the mountains of Afghanistan last fall. The Army charged him with wrongfully inflicting cruel and inhuman treatment to detainees under the 18 USC Section 2441 — War Crimes.
....
In August 2008, intelligence reports cited recent efforts by the enemy to plan and execute a complex attack against one of the three outposts. The Army set up an operation to screen the local nationals resulting in identifying 12 foreign nationals with confirmed ties to the Taliban. One of the most critical infiltrations included Noori Noorula, CPT Hill’s own personal interpreter, an Afghan who he considered a dear and close friend. Army rules required the detainees be transported to a central location for processing, however resources were not available to move the detainees. Dog Company was left with the responsibility of identifying, processing and securing each confirmed insider-threat detainee; a task they were not trained, equipped or manned to accomplish.
Dog Company processed the detainees under International Security Assistance Forces guidelines which directed that the US hand detainees over to the Afghanistan government with proof of Taliban links within 96 hours, otherwise they would be set free.
CPT Hill knew that the Army intelligence proving the Taliban links was not releasable to the Afghanistan government. He made the command decision to utilize a variety of shock tactics to intimidate and scare the detainees. His goal was to extract releasable and valuable intelligence identifying the detainees as Taliban loyalists, and allow them to be handed over to the Afghanistan government without fear they would be released.
CPT Hill took some of the detainees into the yard, leaving those who had critical information in the building. He fired shots into the ground, one shot for each detainee in the yard. These shots were some 20 yards or more from the detainees, but their fellow detainees in the building did not know this.
CPT Hill, a West Point graduate and highly decorated combat veteran of three overseas tours to include deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea, was held accountable in an Article 32 Hearing (similar to a grand jury). In an unheard of move in the military justice system, the results of that hearing have not been released to him. Instead, the Army processed him for separation, awarding him a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge..... [more before and after in statement]
See also, from same attorneys, Interrogating Army Justice, A Soldier’s Dilemma.
This case has been discussed here at SWC in a few threads, A War's Impossible Mission and in Law and the Long War, with links at posts #23, #27 & #28 (some technical stuff at #35). Of people who post here regularly, Greyhawk has done the most work in following this case. Also, some technical stuff on the Hill case, in The Kill Company (page 5), starting with post #84 and ending at #89.
CPT Hill's Facebook page. I don't have any update on this case beyond what has been posted.
Regards
Mike
Your British source dealt in rumors and innuendo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
My Brit source indicates that the US had an effective system for 'dealing' with such suspects whereas the Brits had both hands tied.
As do you. We didn't release them, the British often did. The implication that they were killed or otherwise disposed of, never to be seen again, is just stupid.
Quote:
You are free to interpret the word 'effective' anyway you wish.
Of course I am. You are equally free to interpret the word 'innuendo' any way you wish. :D
No secret prisons or "neutralization" methods ......
have surfaced from US military forces managing detentions in Astan. There are two paths, depending on whether the US forces are operating under ISAF or independently under OEF rules.
If under ISAF (from my post above re: CPT Roger Hill):
Quote:
... under International Security Assistance Forces guidelines which directed that the US hand detainees over to the Afghanistan government with proof of Taliban links within 96 hours, otherwise they would be set free.
If under OEF rules, detainees follow US military processing rules and will be released to the Astan government or detained at Bagram if of high enough value to US interests (subject of habeas cases now on appeal).
That's my general understanding of how detainees have been handled.
Regards
Mike
Nah, not really, stupid innuendo needs to be countered lest some dummy believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Ken you need to lighten up.
Some things said in jest or nearly so can develop legs if no one takes a tapanga to them.
Quote:
I can't see any point in detaining anyone unless you intend to do something with him. Like... get intel out of him.
That is done, then if they're released, they go right back to doing what they'd been doing, so they get 'tried' one way or another by someone or other.
Quote:
so hand him over to the Afghans and walk away and let the proper judicial process run its course.
That's what's done with most but the Afghan's tend to beat them up a bit and let them go, too expensive to keep 'em around. So we hang on to the hard core types that aren't handed over to the locals.
Nah, not really, stupid innuendo needs to be countered lest some dummy believe it.
Part II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
A shortage of helicopters, unnecessary road movement, and what have you all leads to yet more avoidable deaths.
A shortage of helicopters means, most likely, that not enough are available due to financial constraints. Lacking helicopters, more road movement becomes necessary so your comment is an oxymoron...
Your argument is, as always, with the politicians. Your comment, as is often the case, uses innuendo to impute that if you were in charge, it would all be different. Of course it would. It would also be different if I were in charge. Neither of us is and if we were there is absolutely no guarantee we would not make the errors you seem to see everywhere (without even being there or having reliable sources who are. Amazing) -- or even worse errors...:rolleyes:
War is stupid, it's the dumbest human endeavor -- yet silly humans will keep starting the darn things. All deaths in combat are avoidable only if the combat is avoided. If the combat is not avoided, there will always be both avoidable and unavoidable deaths. That was true in Rhodesia and is true today in Afghanistan. It will be true in any and all wars ongoing in 2020.
It's a fact of life (pun intended).
Perception is not always reality, JMA...
Re: your first paragraph above: Do you know that or is it an assumption?
Re: the second; as is true of ALL armies... :D
Re: the third. Not too general but an old truth; true on good tactics, etc; and I too do not see any point in sending out patrol whose only purpose is as you state.
Problem is you do not know that is the case, you have, for reasons of your own based on flawed and fragmentary media reports coupled with annoyance at the UK and the US elected to assume that it is the case. ;)