Death in RAF Chinook in Iraq

[racedo]

RAF helicopter death revelation leads to secret Iraq detention camp | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/iraq-death-secret-detention-camp)

Difficult to read, harder to stomach.

Has the venerable service come to this at the behest of politicians.

If true and it appears well researched, its letting down a century of heroes.

[NutLoose]

Disgusting, and those involved should hang their heads in shame... At least one of the crew had the balls to speak out, but only one?..
All this does is bring the RAF into disrepute, I wonder how many future terrorists were produced over acts like this...
One hopes those involved have trouble sleeping at night.
It amazes me in this day and age when we as a Nation fervently show our abhorrence to the likes of Hitler and his Jew murdering cronies, the ethnic cleansing in the likes of Bosnia, the genocide in Rwanda, that it appears OK for us to be involved in murder and torture.

[orca]

Completely agree. Transporting people for interrogation is completely acceptable.

Transporting people to inhuman interrogation is not, neither is doing it in an inhuman manner.

The key to COIN is to alienate the insurgents, not yourselves.

[Finnpog]

FFS. If true, then people should hang their heads in shame.
War crimes allegations should start with the PM of the time and cascade down.
:ugh:

[Harley Quinn]

Before I jump on the outrage bus and lay the blame on anybody can we sort out what the jumbled report says?

Australian SAS detain 64 personnel
Responsibility for detention given to a lone US Serviceman.
Chinook called in to transport detainees in groups of 8
RAF Regiment provide detainee handling on Chinook
Detainees restrained, hooded, made to lie down on floor of helicopter for transit.
2/3 detainees struggle and are forced to floor and knelt on to restrain them.
On arrival at destination 2 detainees were 'unresponsive' it is not clear whether these were the same ones who were restrained.
One detainee was found to have died because hood was taped too tight around the neck.
Investigation was c/o by US authorities and concluded: **** happens.
A year later crewman on Chinook raises a complaint.
It takes a year for UK authorities to start investigation.
There is a disagreement between expert witnesses on the validity of exhumation and insinuation by one that deliberate mistreatment occurred.
Questions have been raise over the competency of the RAFP investigation.
The US detention centre was unknown to The Red Cross and had not been inspected by them.
The senior British lawyer was unaware of the existence of this detention centre.
There are insinuations that people were murdered by the US authorities at this detention centre.
Movement of prisoners was always conducted at night and therefore the insinuation is that it was illegal.
The MoD responded with its' normal inefficiency, possibly due to lack of records, lack of sufficient time to deal with a reporter, lack of information from our allies who had declared the man dead, written the death certificate and buried him.

There's a lot more about the US operation of the detention centre; some of which may be true, equally, it may not.

By my reckoning this one event required the use of 8 Chinook, the aircrew may or may not have been used to seeing detainees who resist being forced to the floor and restrained; the description in the article is no different to footage one sees of UK police officers detaining a fleeing suspect (minus the hood of course).
I suspect movement of prisoners at night was not through sinister motivation but part of self protection tactics for the helicopter.
Handling of prisoners; the UK takes a bunch of soldiers, gives them 2-3 weeks detainee handling training and expects no problems.

I am not defending the death in custody, I am trying to bring a little clarity to what I feel is a sensationalist report.

[500N]

Harley

Don't disagree with your good clarification and I am no bleeding heart when it comes to these type of things, but, if we (UK, USA et al) want to take the high moral ground, then I think the world expects us to behave in a way that justifies it.

Certain elements of all forces have shown that they are not capable of that in Iraq.


""One detainee was found to have died because hood was taped too tight around the neck.""
Isn't it our responsibilty to check on the welfare of the detainees.
After all, they held them as they thought some were senior Baath Party so
possibly useful info to be obtained. That can't be obtained if they are dead.

Interesting what Ben Griffin said "My commanding officer at the time expressed his concern to the whole squadron that we were becoming the secret police of Baghdad". I would have thought an SAS Major or above would be able to say what was on his mind to higher authorities ?

I wonder what the Aust Gov't is going to say about this. They will not be happy.

[P6 Driver]

If only we knew the truth of it all. It's probably a good thing we don't and never will really. If we had knowledge of how many times a "blind eye" has been turned to incidents such as this, we may well be stunned rather than shocked.

At least in private, and to themselves, I would hope that people involved in incidents such as this have a troubled mind when they cast their minds back over their career if they have been involved in the mistreatment of others in any way or helped others in their own involvement.

[A2QFI]

Lots of "Blind Eyes" here. A shameful incident from 2003.

Death of Baha Mousa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Baha_Mousa)

[high spirits]

Thats right fella, climb aboard that outrage bus. 'one of the crew had the balls to speak out' ' but only one'.

Consider this. The aircraft pitches up rotors turning. The crew have not been told where they are going to on final destination. It's dark. The cab has a large internal fuel tank that blocks out most of the cabin. One crewman works in front of it and one works behind it. The front crew are unlikely to witness any abuse at all. One crewman may not be in a position to see it.

No excuse for the abuse of detainees. A good reason why only one of the crew saw it.



But you just crack on and sling mud around....
Ding ding, all aboard Le bus d'outrage.

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

I seem to recall that the chap who died had recently had major open heart surgery and had suffered a trauma when he was held down. How could the restraining troops have known in the heat of battle?

HPT

[dead_pan]

Sounds like more than one Brit knew what was going on at this facility. There's mention of MI6 and SF involvement, not to mention the presumably numerous RAF crews involved in transfers.

As for the 'un-responsive' detaineers, it beggars belief that they were simply given over to the Americans without checking on their well-being. As for the detainee with two prosthetic legs, WTF was going on there?

[dead_pan]

heat of battle

Err, what battle was that? They were guarding detainees on a helicopter.

[500N]

"heat of battle
Err, what battle was that? They were guarding detainees on a helicopter."


And it all started at a road block !!! Not exactly a fire fight.


deadpan

Re the "two prosthetic legs", yes, agree.

With all the easy restraints now available, I find it hard to believe that
they couldn't easily restrain 8 detainees.

[tucumseh]

Where have I heard all this before? Ah, Mull of Kintyre and the post-Nimrod Review investigation allegedly undertaken by RAF plod.



When the Guardian heard about it and began to ask questions, the MoD responded with an extraordinary degree of obstruction and obfuscation, evading questions not just for days but for weeks and months.
The RAF's own police examined ....... but this ended with some of the most salient facts remaining deeply buried. The alleged culprits faced no charges.
Asked where the men were being taken, the MoD had initially indicated .....

Later it became clear that this was not correct.
One of the first hints that something untoward had happened aboard one of the RAF Chinooks came six years later

This raised many other questions, which the MoD appeared sometimes reluctant to answer.
At this point in the inquiries, a report ..... was leaked.
Were it not for the anonymous complaint, this would have been the end of the matter.
After receiving the complaint, the RAF police moved slowly.
According to the MoD, they waited more than a year ......
After this advice was received the case was passed to RAF's prosecutors, who advised that there was insufficient evidence to bring any charges. They also concluded that any further investigation was pointless.
The RAF police investigation appeared to have been so superficial .......
...... there were some at the MoD who were concerned about the possible consequences of a more thorough inquiry.
... the MoD appeared to be stumped.

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

500N...Ever been on ops you muppet...?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

500N...Ever been on ops you muppet...?

I doubt half the bloody cheeseburgers posting on here have ever pulled on a uniform let alone strapped on a gun and gone into harms way :}

[500N]

No, but I can't help it if I was in during the great peace of the 80's.

But training during raids in restraining "exercise" prisoners (typically uncooperative as they usually are), loading them onto a helicopters, at night. OK, not active service so sorry if I offended.

[Courtney Mil]

To be honest, 500N, I'm not sure what you said to offend anyone. I thought the response to you was a bit abrupt.

[SASless]

I am not defending the death in custody, I am trying to bring a little clarity to what I feel is a sensationalist report.

We are supposed to accept this forum is the place for that?:uhoh:

We are supposed to operate with the information put forth in these posts?:rolleyes:

Talk about a Fool's Errand!:ugh:

What Tribunal operates on "Insinuations"?

What Tribunal operates without benefit of a proper investigation?

At what point after the multiple investigations are reported out does One have to accept the conclusions of those multiple investigations?

Can one be totally satisfied with a result of an investigation if one has one's very own mind made up to question those results?

[NutLoose]

high spirits (http://www.pprune.org/members/18891-high-spirits) point taken, but then again they are all on intercom, and by the report no one appears to have attempted to do anything about it, the bagging was banned so should never of happened and the crew no doubt talked about the issue afterwards. Suprised that nothing was done at the time when the death was known...

Agree with CM. don't see what you said wrong 500

[Airborne Aircrew]

Why the outrage? Prisoners die in custody all the time - in civilian police stations all across our oh so civilized western world. They aren't facing "inhumane torture" they are slapped in the nick high on booze, drugs or just plain out of control angry. I don't see any of the outrage bus riders here going off at that when it happens. Why would that be? Perhaps because you understand the intent of the police officers was not to kill but to simply do their job.

Those with a clue will understand who the II Squadron lads most probably were. They are very professional, highly trained men. They do not apply more force than necessary so they can get their jollies. They try to do their job. If the man's legs fell of because he was struggling, (why would you struggle if you're an innocent cripple?), then what better way to restrain him with minimum force than not give him his legs back????

If the dead man had had an operation recently kindly explain how the Rocks could have known that in the dark and the noise in the back of a Chinook with 64 prisoners to deal with. Even if he was healthy he had clearly made sufficient of a spectacle of himself to be treated more firmly.

As to the MoD and their "stalling"... It's quite possible that, (for once - I'm no great fan of the MoD), they saw this for what it was - an accidental death - and tried to prevent it from becoming what it is now, an over sensationalized news piece for the Media to profit from.

There's many worse things that have occurred from both sides but, right now, they aren't available to sell papers. Time to park the bus and go home. This is a non-story.

[Chugalug2]

tuc's comparison with the response of the MOD and the RAF (including the RAF Police!) to the aftermath of the Mull tragedy is well made. There is currently a thread re the BBC programme "Bomber Boys" in which the morality of the BC Bombing Campaign in WWII was given the default Beeb Moral Equivalence treatment (in this case equating it to the Nazi Death Camps). The lesson I draw from that, and the injustice of Mull, and the alleged conduct of RAF personnel here is that morality is the business of each and ever member of the Armed Forces. BC crew members were, in my view, given legal orders that they obeyed. Many people in the MOD were given illegal orders, both before and after Mull, which they also obeyed. What orders were given to those that are the subject of this thread I do not know, but they were all subject to military law which forbids the giving or execution of illegal orders. Whether you sit behind a desk, risk your life night after night in a WWII Heavy Bomber, or operate a Chinook, that holds true. Easy to say, bloody difficult to do, but do it you must for that is your duty.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

but then again they are all on intercom, and by the report no one appears to have attempted to do anything about it,

Dont suppose they were busy operating an aircraft at night, low level on goggles, in a hostile environment, both pilots flying and both crewman manning weapons whilst looking out for hostile action................................................ nah course not plenty of time for the crew to stop what they were doing and intervene :=

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

500N

Thank you for your honesty....... SeldomFFP encapsulates the reality of what might have happened.

HPT

[green granite]

Do bear in mind that this report comes from an extreme left wing paper that champions the 'human rights' of these poor misunderstood terrorists and will twist anything around to embarrass the government, so treat the so called facts with suspicion as they are following their own agenda.

[woptb]

A lot of hyperbole in this thread.Must admit whilst not a fan of the Grauniad I'd never thought of it as an 'extreme left wing newspaper'!
A lot of conjecture,wether we were 'at it' or not is moot. The MOD,I suspect through incompetence - rather than impropriety has given an 'impression' that wrong doing has occurred.
Personally I thought the article reasonably wel informed .
I find it difficult to imagine a member of the RAF apoaching the RAF Police without genuine concerns. We are the ones who wear the white hats,if there has been wrong doing punish the gulity,if not put it to bed with an open.honest investigation.

[Basil]

Small evidential point:

Guardian article said:
The bag had been taped so securely over his head that it needed to be cut off.

not:
One detainee was found to have died because hood was taped too tight around the neck.

[November4]

then what better way to restrain him with minimum force than not give him his legs back????

Wasn't the same thing done to Bader

[SASless]

Legs or no....Bader was unrestrainable!

No Shrinking Violet that Man!

[green granite]

If you analyse the article there is not one attributed quote from the MOD or other government dept. The only one is from an inquiry by Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer and is not really relevant.
I also find it quite surprising that an 'odd job man' living in the sort of totalitarian regime that ran Iraq would have a passport, and even more surprising that it ended up in the hands of the paper, once again in an unattributable manner. Frankly I've seen more convincing conspiracy theories than this story, and I suspect they may be being used by people who's only aim in life is to attempt to discredit the armed forces for propaganda purposes. I'll leave you to sort out who they might be.

By the way, my 'left wing' comment earlier referred to the papers extreme liberalism, not communism.

[500N]

green granite

Do you class this as an MOD Quote ?

"Asked about these mysterious deaths, the Ministry of Defence named one of the deceased as Tanik Mahmud, and said he had "sustained a fatal injury" while travelling aboard an RAF Chinook. Perplexingly, the ministry added that the cause of his death remained unknown."

and this ?

"Asked how they could be sure he had suffered a fatal injury when the cause of his death was not known, the MoD took five weeks to answer.Eventually, officials admitted that the RAF had received a complaint – anonymously, they said – that "three RAF Regiment personnel on board the helicopter had kicked, punched or otherwise assaulted Mr Mahmud leading to unlawful killing"."

[green granite]

Possibly, but as it's unattributed it could just as easily be fiction.

Today a MOD Spokesman said they desperately needed some MPAs and have decided to buy several Orion Aircraft from America.


Easy enough to write

Newspapers are very good at fishing.

[500N]

Good point and tend to agree.

The only reason I chose those two was because they were in quotation marks.

[Airborne Aircrew]

the ministry added that the cause of his death remained unknownkicked, punched or otherwise assaulted Mr Mahmud leading to unlawful killingAs an ex-Crewman myself I know that, (assuming as stated the cockpit crew would have been a tad busy to be spectating a punch-up), I was utterly unqualified to determine whether or not an assault I had seen in the darkness of the back of a Chinook had contributed to an "unlawful killing" especially when the cause of death is unknown... Someone is being a little presumptuous.

[dead_pan]

I also find it quite surprising that an 'odd job man' living in the sort of totalitarian regime that ran Iraq would have a passport

Not so much innocent until proven guilty, more guilty until proven dead?

Sounds to me as though you're attempting to twist the story to suit your agenda.

[high spirits]

Look dead pan,
There is a world of difference between a detainee move and a rendition flight. The Guardian is twisting it into the latter. Why? To sensationalise in order to sell papers and to pursue its own anti forces agenda.

Sh!t happens. War (and the ensuing peace) can be a nasty business. I have flown detainees and will sleep with a clear conscience tonight. This is conspiracy guff. If not, the authorities will prosecute based on evidence....not some empty words on a journos page.

[dead_pan]

high spirits - I admire your faith in the MoD's due process. Despite its leanings the Guardian has a decent track record of uncovering stories of genuine public interest when the powers that be were adamant there was none, most recently last year with the hacking allegations. At the very least the story once again suggests serial bungling at the MoD, with which we are all familiar.

an assault I had seen in the darkness of the back of a Chinook had contributed to an "unlawful killing" especially when the cause of death is unknown

Riiight, so if you witnessed an assault and saw two 'unresponsive' detainees being offloaded you wouldn't even question as to their wellbeing or the actions of your colleagues? I'd contend most reasonable people would connect the assault to the detainee's cause of death. Also, I think that anyone would be hard-pressed to argue than the assault was lawful, given the detainees were apparently restrained and hooded.

[500N]

Well it's now hit the Australian media so today should be interesting.

[Mach Two]

I was restrained and hooded and naked, but they still kicked the crap out of me. And that was just "Conduct after Capture" TRAINING. Training for we aircrew (presumably so that if we were captured, we'd recognise the symptoms) AND the interogators/handlers. If that's the training they get, this doesn't surprise me at all.

[dead_pan]

Shurely the training is to simulate what they may do to us, not to show us what we should do to them? Are you suggesting that differentiation wasn't made clear on the course?

Its good to know you are now fully trained to recognise the symptoms of having the crap kicked out of you :ok:. Tax payers money well spent

[Airborne Aircrew]

Dead Pan:

Just comparing the two quotes and making the point that if the cause of death is unknown that no-one can claim that there was an "unlawful killing" let alone what led to it. Someone is taking two pieces of information:-1. That more than one prisoner was treated in an unnecessary fashion, (this is a subjective observation).
2. That one of the 64 prisoners left the aircraft at ambient temperature or very close to it, (this is an objective observation).
while ignoring another piece of information:-1. The cause of death is unknown, (another objective observation. Despite the fact that someone may know it, the person being quoted doesn't reveal it so it remains unknown.)

and coming up with the conclusions that:-1. the deceased was the recipient of unnecessary treatment, (from the article this seems to be an assumption)
2. the unnecessary treatment was the cause of death, (from the article this is an assumption)
3. the death was unlawful as opposed to accidental, (this is clearly an assumption).
Unlawful killings always sell more newspapers than a simple accident.

[SASless]

Odd thing....perhaps I am a quick study...but every time I got the crap kicked out of me I fully grasped what happened (after I got my senses back anyway)...and there was no training needed to do that. How much training does one need to grasp the fact the Bad Guys are in fact Bad Guys and shall do whatever they can and wish to make you uncomfortable or dead even?

Now just why would any rational person have to be told there is a moral/ethical difference between getting your own ass kicked and kicking some one else's? Where is it written in the real rules of warfare....not the Geneva Accords...where one is required to make nice with enemy combatants who are resisting those tasked with their care, custody, and CONTROL.

You folks sure do have to dig for something to say sometimes!

Or is it I am just missing the finer points of argument here?

[racedo]

Now just why would any rational person have to be told there is a moral/ethical difference between getting your own ass kicked and kicking some one else's? Where is it written in the real rules of warfare....not the Geneva Accords...where one is required to make nice with enemy combatants who are resisting those tasked with their care, custody, and CONTROL.

Define enemy combatants please, picking someone up and assumming they are doesn't make it so.

[Lonewolf_50]

racedo, I appreciate what you are trying to get at, but the crewman are a few rungs down the ladder of how that determination is made. If they are told that "these are prisoners, get them to location X" then whether or not a fine classification of prisoner is understood, or even known, by the crewman or the guards is a bit much to ask.

The chain of command has the due care responsibility to train or make aware their troopers of what is expected of them in a given case. With incomplete information, a trooper would be expected to treat a given mission as "the usual prisoner transfer" unless he got guidance otherwise.

You might want to aim your complaint a number of rungs higher in the chain of command.

Lastly, how clairvoyant is a crewman supposed to be, in terms of diagnosing and accounting for the physical condition of a prisoner during a transfer? What help, in terms of information or medical escort for the prisoners, is the crew given to manage their problem, which is, as above, "get this load of prisoners from here to location X."

[Mach Two]

Dead Pan. Good reply. Actually nothing was really made clear to us on that course. It could well be a very interesting subject for a thread all of its own. But, as you said, I can now understand when I'm being beaten up, which is very useful.

SASless, I think I've followed your drift, but I think we may all be agreeing. My personal feelings about how prisoners of war are handled are straight down the line. I do understand how that line may not be as straight as those that have not been there might like to think.

But we cannot afford to descend from our position of doing the right thing.

If that's as clear as mud, good.

[racedo]

Lonewolf

Fair point...

I think I made the point in OP about people higher up the chain.

However what does concern me is IF this is now just a single incident would you believe its an one off, know what would like to believe but also a realist in peoples' behaviour.

[dead_pan]

AA: Ref your first point one, the article does state that there were two unresponsive detainees offloaded, so it was more than one. Who knows whether the source of this information was subjective. I'm certain the journo wouldn't have just made this up.

Also, it is quite possible for an accidental death to be deemed unlawful if those charged with handling the detainees failed in their duty of care (I realise I maybe lining myself up for some flack using this statement).

Where is it written in the real rules of warfare....not the Geneva Accords...where one is required to make nice with enemy combatants who are resisting those tasked with their care, custody, and CONTROL.Sigh. It was my understanding that the Geneva Accords etc come into play as soon as an enemy combatant surrenders or is otherwise detained. You can't just flip back to the rules of war just because they become uncooperative for whatever reason. I for one would resist if I was being maltreated - sod the grey man bollox and Mach Two's training.

[Lonewolf_50]

dead pan, I think you will agree that controlling prisoners is an expected task. It is not forbidden, for example, to handcuff, or otherwise restrain a prisoner in transit.

Furthermore, nowhere in the Geneva Accords is a power required to not control prisoners (and by so doing, aid and abet their escape). Nobody would have signed up for that.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I for one would resist if I was being maltreated - sod the grey man bollox and Mach Two's training.

If you have ever properly considered what you would do for real should that situation ever present itself then you must realise you have just written a load of old bolleaux.

Upsetting the man in the dish dash by not taking the kicking may just hasten the sawing off of your head and anyone who has properly considered that eventuality knows they will take pretty much anything coming there way to avoid it :ok:

[Mach Two]

I for one would resist if I was being maltreated - sod the grey man bollox and Mach Two's training

I hope I'm not teaching grandmother to suck eggs here, my appologies if I am. But no one knows how they will react in captivity and resitance is a relative term. When you are bound, hurting, naked and totally at the "mercy" of your captors, resistance can often mean simply more pain. And I'm NOT suggesting for a momment that submission and colaboration is the alternative! This is a complex subject. I mean no offence, but I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength here.

[500N]

M2

"When you are bound, hurting, naked and totally at the "mercy" of your captors,"

I think you left out Cold !

[Mach Two]

Oh, yes, 500, you are so right. And a few other things too. 'Helpless' is probably the biggest thing. No control at all. And you've already been sleep deprived, trying to evade capture for days, etc. Not in the best mental state. Cold, most certainly. And that condition can go on for months. Yeah, resist being beaten. Good luck with that.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Dead Pan:

Unresponsive <> ambient temperature. The article showed two unresponsive one of which who proved to be "ambient".

Sigh. It was my understanding that the Geneva Accords etc come into play as soon as an enemy combatant surrenders or is otherwise detained.I'll stand to be corrected but I think this is a wonderful example of the press succeeding to bend opinion and facts to suit themselves. As an aside though, the Geneva Accords have nothing to do with this, they concern only the relationship between Israel and Palastine. The Geneva Convention protects wounded soldiers, sailors and airmen, prisoners of war and civilians in international conflicts. The Conventions do not protect un-uniformed combatants. But the press have managed to convince so many that anyone in the fight gets the same treatment as bona fide military or civilians.

Awaiting the inevitable incoming and un-winnable argument as to whether a terrorist is covered by the Conventions.

Mach Two:

'Helpless' is probably the biggest thing. No control at all. That helplessness is fostered from the moment of capture by trained troops, (like the ones who caught and the ones handling these prisoners). The initial search, if carried out correctly is the opening act of the entire interrogation process. It is specifically designed to remove one from one's previous life and demonstrate the helplessness of one's situation. One thing that is entirely futile is resistance... :E

'Nuff said, though it is my understanding that little of it has changed in 30 years or more.

[high spirits]

Now I remember that conversation from 2003 as I was tooling along at 100' on NVG. This strange bloke came into the cockpit:

Jack Bauer: are you the captain?
Flt Lt H Spirits: yep, who the f::k are you?
JB: Jack Bauer. You may have seen me on television. I need to torture a suspect in the back of your cab.
HS: be my guest big man. What's it to be today - electric shock or hydraulics?
JB: do you have a spare generator that I can wire up his danglers to?
HS: yeah sure, the APU can take the strain. Sure you don't want to slam his knob in the ramp? I do that whenever I have to speak to a mover....
JB: start the APU, and put these co-ordinates into the nav kit...
HS: where are we going, That dodgy looking airfield with the small hut with all those meat hooks on the walls again?
JB: I need to be there in 5 minutes, or the world is going to blow up.
HS: you're having a giraffe fella...have you not done the lesson on 'limits to high speed flight' at Shawbs? This thing shakes so badly at 130kts that my crewmans colostomy bag will empty itself all over the cabin...

To be continued....

[racedo]

The Conventions do not protect un-uniformed combatants.

I go back to my question of a couple of hours ago......define the above !!!!

A person defining someone as a un-uniformed combatant does NOT give the person doing the definition, nor anybody whom they pass this person on to, the right do as they please in either Military or Civilian law.

The US doesn't seem to have grasped that concept, they appear to believe they have automatic right to do as they please without sanction. Sadly this concept appears to be spreading.

Is this not the same arguement used by Gadaffi in Libya that Cameroon and Sarkozy went to UN Security Council with regarding un-uniformed combatants ?

Appearing to sanction this by inaction ends up with inevitable results.

[500N]

These "un-uniformed combatants" seem to be where a fair amount
of the problem exists and going by the way the last few wars have gone,
they will continue to be in the future.

Racedo
I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Racedo:

... and here begins the un-winnable argument.

A person defining someone as a un-uniformed combatant does NOT give the person doing the definition, nor anybody whom they pass this person on to, the right do as they please in either Military or Civilian law. No-one is saying that there is a right to do as they please... But there is a lack of certain of the protections. There's also the question of meeting force with force. If they don't play by the rules that we do then we don't need to.

Not aimed at you personally but I'm about to hear it...

Screw the "Moral high ground". The Christians took the moral high ground as they were eaten by the lions... It did them naff all good. I'd rather be alive and be able to feel the tiniest bit smutty that dead and unable to feel bugger all.

[Once saw something]

Couldn't believe it when I read this...

Must have been summertime, around 2003/4, RAF wyton, I was there flying with my uas.

Sitting around in crew room hear the unmistakeable sound of a chinook, we all jump up to look, very rare anything more interesting than a tutor buzzed around.

We ran out, to have a look, speak to crew in the vain hope of maybe blagging a trip. Upon asking the crew what they were doing here, reply was along the lines of

'cambridgshire police want to do forensics on this cab, an Iraqi went in alive with the SAS, came out the other end dead. We have been ordered to keep flying the airframe for weeks out in Iraq after we found out forensics were to be done, so as all the dust, sand etc blast away any trace of evidence'

Didn't believe it at the time.

[Mach Two]

And some may say that the point is that no matter whom is taken into custody, in any situation, the captors are bound by law (and they vary between countries, I know). Captors have a duty of care and they are not the procecutors, judges or law-makers. Thay must act by the rule of law and can can only do what their government and laws say they may do.

Now, how this applies to this case is all speculation. Early days yet. We don't have any evidence apart from a news paper article. That said, 500N and Racedo make good points. I shall reserve judgement on this one.

[500N]

AA

Since I mentioned the high moral ground, I'll respond.

I was not referring to the soldiers and airmen in the back of the aircraft
but the Politicians who run off to the UN to get a resolution passed so
they can protect the Libyan civilians.

But over the last 10 years or so these same politicians have been condoning or maybe turning a blind eye to various activities - or even organising them via secret flights to secret camps.

The flow on effect is as has been seen.


Their certainly is a lack of protection and maybe it needs some laws passed,
or at least clarification. I tend to agree with you in some ways but if we summarily execute or
kill by bashing or however it is done, don't we end up just like the Serb and Croat and
other commanders from that conflict or Pol Pot's regime ?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Mach Two:

You're right and we seem to agree... My beef is not with what happened, who did what or any other tangible thing. It's the reporting of it by idiots...

500N:

No, my message was not pointed at you but I do hear this "Moral High Ground" bullpoop all the time and I'm getting fed up with it. Politicians can talk all they like about it but they don't ever go where morality is important... They remain politicians... ;)

[500N]

AA

:ok:


We need a few more politicians who have served in the Armed forces.

[dead_pan]

High Spirits - hilarious. Keep the day job though, unless it involves comedy writing...

Question is, if we don't adopt a moral standpoint, on what basis are we intervening, and how will our intervention improve our security? As previous posters have noted these are very valid questions given our on-going commitment in Afghanistan and recent involvement in Libya.

I must admit I get very uncomfortable when I see our boys apparently acting as judge, jury and executioner, on the basis of some pretty threadbare evidence (witness Chris Terrill's on-going Channel 5 documentary on the Marines deployment in Afghanistan).

High Spirits will probably now call me a bleeding heart liberal.

[500N]

The other thing is, we, as in the western societies / NATO intervene quickly in Libya on the basis of protecting civilians - so claiming some high moral ground - but the same people at the top of the civvy Gov'ts seem to not quite doing as much about Syria ???????

I understand Russia is blocking but it does make the UN/NATO/Western Society look a bit hypocritical and "selective".


Whatever happened to the COIN doctrine, it seems the US don't get it always but surely this whole episode,
if true goes against the principles ?

[Scuttled]

500N

Whilst the majority of your last post is your opinion based on a single media report to which you are clearly entitled (:ok:), the last paragraph is a little hysterical. To compare occasional illegal acts of violence in time of war which end in death to state sponsored genocide is a bit much. Year zero or Srebrenica, this is not.

Does anybody else think there is a lot of conjecture, sensationalism and plain guess work going on here?

We don't know if it was one of the unresponsive men who died as no individual was involved in transporting the detainee through the whole process from pick up to his premature, unfortunate and permanent oxygen/brain interface issue.

It's a newspaper report based on events 9 years ago, joining up a few snippets of 'evidence'. Where are these reports, the raw intelligence?

If you want a random conspiracy theory, he died under torture conducted by Saudis under US military control 3 days after arrival. They buried him and to keep their books straight used the unresponsive fella pulled off the Chinook to cover their tracks.

Or he was renditioned and is still in Guantanamo to this day, again the books are straight, and he's still dressed like a B&Q store man.

Etc etc.

Take your pick, why not? It's a better ending, so could sell more papers.

[racedo]

Whilst the majority of your last post is your opinion based on a single media report to which you are clearly entitled (http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif), the last paragraph is a little hysterical. To compare occasional illegal acts of violence in time of war which end in death to state sponsored genocide is a bit much. Year zero or Srebrenica, this is not.

The mistreatment (incl killing) of persons, someone has deemed Un-uniformed enemy combatants, their removal to interrogation centres, where the rule of law is not applied, differs how from similar actions inflicted by dictators that the West wishes to replace ?

I have avoided expressions like moral high ground because there is none in war.

How do you supposedly free people by inflicting the same terror on them that you claim to seek to replace.

The West through the media claim Noble deeds but I struggle to see how it is.

[500N]

Scuttled

I'll agree with Racedo on this one and his last post summed it up nicely.

"based on a single media report" it may be but with quotes and as has been shown in the past few years, where smoke exists their is often fire and going on the US's track record, even more so (referring here to the secret camps, not the supposed beating up.)

Hitler started with "occasional illegal acts of violence" conducted by various Nazi groups, brown shirts, black shirts or whoever and look where that ended up. It all starts somewhere in a small way, someone does something, it doesn't get pulled up on, the boundaries are taken out further and on it goes.

I must say that the US certainly seems to be investigating and prosecuting acts AND the media being informed about it.

Anyway, good discussion:ok:

[SASless]

I understand Russia is blocking but it does make the UN/NATO/Western Society look a bit hypocritical and "selective".

There is no appearance to it....we certainly are both hypocritical and selective....always have been and always shall.

Let's talk of Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Dafur.....where do you want to draw the line at examples.

It is not just the NATO, the UK, the USA.....it is all of the prosperous countries.

It all depends upon whose Ox is getting gored when we decide to stick our beaks into someone else's business. Granted....sometimes we should be involved but then we do so at risk of many bad things happening....and too many times we turn a blind eye or limit ourselves to some public hand wringing and great big Crocodile Tears.

[500N]

SASless

Agree that it is more than just US/UK/Nato, I just couldn't be bothered typing a few more - Australia included. Our Foreign Minister is a good one for grand standing !

Your other examples are good as well and I think the UN always hides in shame when Rwanda is mentioned.

[woptb]

Mach Two,agreed. It seems the better part of discretion to keep your powder dry & wait for more information to better inform the debate.

[high spirits]

Dead Pan,
Not a bleeding heart liberal, just incredibly guillable. I can believe that a man died in a helicopter as a result of restraining and a bit of rough treatment at the hands of captors. That's an accidental consequence of war(and the shaky peace that followed it) not a deliberate act.

But. This story has been embellished to the point where it lacks credibility in the eyes of those people who have been out there. The print media, remember them? They are the ones who sanctioned the hacking of a dead teenagers phone to sell their grubby story. If you think that the more adult papers don't engage in this type of act then think again. This is all very convenient to lash out at an organisation whose work sometimes involves secrecy (for good reason)at the time of the leveson enquiry.

I believe no more than about 20% of it.

[Whenurhappy]

Whilst not commenting on this reported incident, I will add two notes:

Torture and Rough Handling. During the 12 years of the Malayan Emergency, time and again it was shown that 'third degree methods' were counter-productive in garnering actionable intelligence. Exploiting the shock of capture and then conveying them in isolation and silence to a Police Interrogation Centre was much, much more successful. Interrogation involve offering the detainee good food, cigarettes, a bath, fresh clothing etc. In a contemporary CIA report, incredulity was expressed about the lack of torture. I interview former intel officers and former insurgents - both groups categorically agreed that rough handling and torture were counter-productive. Why have we appeared to have regressed?

RAFP investigation. Several years ago I was subject to a long and totally inept investigation after a piece of equipment in my care was stolen. The Specialist Police Wing plods focused on my behaviour rather than trying to identify the thief and recover the sensitive piece of kit. The questioning was abysmal as was the handling of evidence (the crime scene was not secured). My solicitor had to guide their questioning and procedures. There was high-level interfernce in the process and interviews were suspended and never concluded and it took a specialist Solicitor and advocate to lift the cloud over me. I was never charged but felt that like a criminal - and treated as thus. Compared with MDP investigations that I have been involved in on a professional basis, MDP were very good - RAFP investigation was very poor.

[dead_pan]

The point for me is that this story is one about yet another suspicious death of an individual in military custody, albeit in this instance unusual in that RAF personnel may have played some role. The follow-up investigation appears to have been cursory at best, and certainly nothing appears to have changed as a consequence. Nine years later we are still hearing reports from Afghanistan of abuses of prisoners and civilians by NATO personnel, some involving British forces.

We've got to get our act together and make it crystal clear to those involved on ops as to the bounds of their behaviour also that any such abuses will be thoroughly (and openly) investigated and prosecuted under UK or local laws. If we don't we might as well pack up and leave since we are only making the situation worse for all involved. Such incidents are pure recruiting gold for the likes of Al Qaeda.

[high spirits]

Dead pan,
Just as places like Iraq are difficult to fight in, they are also difficult to investigate in. No standing police force. No autopsy, no forensics. Cab not impounded. No evidence of rendition and torture(which as a previous poster has stated, proves counterproductive in exploiting information)The RAFP or whoever investigated this would be on a hiding to nothing. Blaming them is futile, as is blaming the Ministry. Sometimes less than competent yes, deliberately obstructive, sorry NO.

Journos are famous for making stuff up to get their story to the top of the news agenda. Another example, landlord of murder victim Jo Yeates gets his life ruined by the Daily Whinge. Why? Because he looked a bit eccentric and shifty.


Evidence?????????

[SASless]

We've got to get our act together and make it crystal clear to those involved on ops as to the bounds of their behaviour also that any such abuses will be thoroughly (and openly) investigated and prosecuted under UK or local laws. If we don't we might as well pack up and leave since we are only making the situation worse for all involved. Such incidents are pure recruiting gold for the likes of Al Qaeda.

Oh spare me!

Pen a Cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his hat....and millions of the buggers come out of the Wood Work as Suicide Bombers!

Keep dreaming!

One does the best one can....and to suggest our Lads and Lasses are anything less than dedicated in their duty is an insult. When excesses occur...and they have and shall do so again....as no group of folk are perfect particularly under the stress our current generation of war fighters are.....they are found and dealt with.

War is a messy business....one cannot change that.

Using the rationale that "killing" ones opponents only engenders their Next of Kin and neighbors to continue the fight only holds to a very limited point. Once they see opposition is futile, hopeless, and bound for failure....they will lay down their Arms and submit....or desist in their hostile ways.

The one real exception to that is when the Opposition is actually in the Right....and their opponents are in the Wrong. Principle trumps Practice in that regard.

[MrWomble]

Airborne Aircrew,

I admire your defence of your trade in order to suggest that the media are using a lack of understanding of what you do in war conditions to justify claims they cannot support.

However, when such claims suggest such gross abuses of public confidence in the armed forces and all that can be offered by those who should know what really happened is a string of wishy washy non-specific counter-claims or excuses it makes one think one of the following is happening:

someone knows what really happens, its bad, so they want to deny or mislead as much as possible in the hope the public never find out

someone knows something happened but have now realised they should have investigated more at the time, so they want to deny or mislead as much as possible in the hope the public never find out

someone knows what, if anything, happened and that it was innocent and justifiable, yet for some reason they have decided not to defend the reputation of the armed forces by sharing sufficient to make the journalist write the story off as boring and un-interesting

Until positive action is taken by those who represent you to the nation you serve then the media have every right to question the wishy washy details they get. It will also steadily increase the view that "our military aren't quite as innocent as they make out" which I've developed over the last 10 years.

Additionally, the general but non-specific views of "we were at war so don't question us" from members of the armed forces which sites like this it could be suggested promote could well be connected with the decrease in respect the nation has for its armed force.

[dead_pan]

Using the rationale that "killing" ones opponents only engenders their Next of Kin and neighbors to continue the fight only holds to a very limited point. Once they see opposition is futile, hopeless, and bound for failure....they will lay down their Arms and submit....or desist in their hostile ways.A couple of quick points on this - firstly we're not always talking about enemy combatants. Civilians have often been caught up in events. As for desisting in their hostile ways, I would point out that in the case of Iraq their forces weren't acting in a hostile manner prior to the our invasion. One could reasonably argue they were simply defending their country against an ostensibly unprovoked attack by an external aggressor. I know it was darned unsporting of them but hey, what would you have done in their position? Laid down your arms and embraced your invader?

As for my earlier somewhat ill-judged comment regarding offering resistance, what I should of said is that I nor probably most of the detainees involved have had the benefit of the training previously described.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Oh spare me!

I'm with SASLess on this... next we'll be reading them their rights on the battlefield... Oh, never mind... :\

[high spirits]

Mr Womble,
You are right, the media do have every right to question what we do....but put it into context. It occurs just after hostilities have ceased. There are no investigators on scene. The MOD cannot be expected to know what has happened.
So the media have every right to question. Just as the MOD have every right to throw their hands up and say 'we don't know'. The press, on the other hand have no right to make up gossip in the absence of evidence. Their job is to report the truth, not to make up their own false reality based on an agenda.

On the other hand you conspiracist clowns think that life is easy and a policeman exists at every street corner ready to kick ass and take names. Why? Because in your world, to an extent that is true. Go and stand on a street corner in Sangin and preach human rights and lawyer sh!t to the Taliban. See how long it takes before they remove your head with a large saw.

[500N]

"The press, on the other hand have no right to make up gossip in the absence of evidence. Their job is to report the truth, not to make up their own false reality based on an agenda."

Well said.

That is the biggest problem with the media today across everything, they don't report the news, they try to create it. And if they don't, they run a "story" loosely based on some facts so that the people they originally wanted to provide information have to respond.

And in some ways, the media itself wants to be the story.

[MG]

Once Saw Something:

God, I'd forgotten that! Just looked in my logbook and realised that I was in the crew that you spoke with.

[jumpseater]

MG,
That was a bit slack of you on the beadwindow front:=, even as a bullet dodger I know that. Fancy mentioning all that stuff to some bloke who only asked 'gizagomister'.

Can't get the staff these days you know.

[MG]

Yes, admit that we (can't be sure who in the crew) did mention the forensic side but I think the talk of flying around to wash off the evidence suffers from the passage of time. More like 'we can't afford to ship it home just yet, don't you know there's a war on?'

[Airborne Aircrew]

Jumpseater:

I'd suggest that, logically, if you want to "clean up the evidence" and the airframe is not impounded it would be far more sensible to just allow it to continue normal tasking. It's a lot safer than telling all and sundry that you are trying to erase evidence. The job will be done and there will be no loose tongues flashing around.

[dead_pan]

On the other hand you conspiracist clownsWhy the fixation with conspiracists? Sounds to me that you've got your own issues and 'theories' regarding the press.

Just because someone reads a new story article and think that it merits further attention doesn't make them a conspiracy theorist.

Go and stand on a street corner in Sangin and preach human rights and lawyer sh!t to the Taliban. See how long it takes before they remove your head with a large saw.
By you're reckoning that would be perfectly acceptable behaviour in the heat of conflict. If there were bought to book I'm sure they could argue that they did it by accident.

[high spirits]

Ok, it's clear that you take the point of view of those who seek to sensationalise with no evidence to back it up.

Tell me, how much do you actually believe? The killing, the cover up, the unsanctioned camps? All of the above?

To me, there is no balance in this journalism. That, and a lack of evidence undermines its credibility.

What a pity there is no mention of the hundreds and maybe thousands of Iraqi and Afghan combatant and civilian lives that have been saved in the back of helicopters.

[SASless]

A couple of quick points on this - firstly we're not always talking about enemy combatants. Civilians have often been caught up in events. As for desisting in their hostile ways, I would point out that in the case of Iraq their forces weren't acting in a hostile manner prior to the our invasion. One could reasonably argue they were simply defending their country against an ostensibly unprovoked attack by an external aggressor.

They were not at "Peace"...there had been a Ceasefire Agreement, multiple UN Agreements....none of which they were complying with. They were refusing to cooperate with the Inspectors....and refused an ultimatum re that.

You can have your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[Lonewolf_50]

I think a bit of perspective on this mission is in order.

It appears that the "deliver these prisoners to location X" order has the implied task of "alive" else nobody would bother to ship them to location X.

Crewman may or not have any idea what the hell happens after delivery. Indeed, many people might have been in the dark, until well after the fact.

This "news" reporting is exceedingly "after the fact" and the crew in question are dealing in "the here and now" with less than complete information.

It is very likely that crew were not aware of each prisoners complete condition: health, injuries, medical history, risks, and so on.

This 20/20 hindsight accusation of bloody handedness is unfortunately commonplace. Also, the article's source may be a frustrated serviceman venting for any number of reasons (not uncommon for enlisted troops to get the shaft one way or the other) and I suspect a bit of frustrated professional pride.

Most professional aircrewmen I ever worked with would take it as a point of pride: "Major says get these 8 lads to location X, and I make sure of it, because I'm damned good at my mission. Put in my hands, they get to location X, come hell or high water!"

For the mission to come a cropper, as it were, and one of the prisoners expires (while the others don't with similar handling) it is not unreasonable for the crewman to feel that he was set up to fail.

While I admit that I know very little about the actual details of this case/mission, there is some reason to believe that the set up, or an oversight, was in place before those 8 prisoners even got loaded in, and the crew couldn't know about it. (And the tape was just a bit too tight for one fella?)

Of course he's frustrated, even pissed off. One expects the others in a mil op to do their job to their utmost while one is busting one's butt to do one's job.

And I may be completely wrong.

Having re-read the thread: what has been characterized as the American investigation figuring out that "sh** happens" seems to be close to the mark. Accidental death despite most parties involved just trying to do their mission: "get these lads to location X."

That rarely sells papers.

[dead_pan]

You can have your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

As can you. Regarding your 'facts', not sure what you mean by they weren't at peace. They certainly weren't engaged in any hostile actions aimed at the West. Re compliance with UN resolutions, there's plenty of more dangerous and aggressive countries which fall into that category who we still haven't invaded. Your co-operation with the inspectors fact is a moot point. Blix thought otherwise, and as it turned out they didn't have anything to hide anyway. Also not sure what you meant about the ultimatum - I thought this related to Sadders riding off into the sunset, which was never going to happen.

I feel the Hand of Mod hovering over the delete key. Probably best we agree to disagree and get back to the subject at hand.

[Basil]

'Once saw something' and MG,
There was a WW2 poster which applied :hmm:

[jumpseater]

dp
They certainly weren't engaged in any hostile actions aimed at the West. Re compliance with UN resolutions, there's plenty of more dangerous and aggressive countries which fall into that category who we still haven't invaded.

Well not sure that you can safely make the argument that it was all hunky dory for 'allied/UK forces after the 'cessation of hostilities'.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | British military police killed in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3017332.stm)

[SASless]

Along with the "Oil for Food" program corruption by UN officials and some member nations....Iraq's refusal to cooperate to Treaty requirements...and Blix's pronunciations of innocence...the Iraqi's brought the Allied response upon themselves. The IAEA did not agree with the position Blix provided and were not satisfied with the Iraqi position.

Blix himself said in public and in private to Tony Blair...the inspections had not uncovered any WMD but could not prove there were none to be found. He talked of "smoking guns" and said none had been found. He also said if Inspections had been allowed to continue they in time would have found any WMD's if they in fact existed. Sadly, for lots of reasons....it took a War for those inspections to occur.



You might take a read of this document....as it lays out a bit of history on the Inspections.

Remember France and Russia wanted their old trading partner back...and for economic reasons supported relaxing sanctions despite Iraq's conduct.

Again....you cannot have your own facts.

Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02)

[MG]

Basil,
Would that poster be 'Skegness is so Bracing'?

[Basil]

No, MG, it's the one about careless talk.

[MG]

Oh, that one!!

[Mach Two]

Careless talk does indeed cost lives. Might not be the best time to have put yourself in the frame when a story like this breaks - if it is a story, as 500N rightly eludes to. I would imagine if anyone chooses to investigate, you might expect a knock, MG.

[Courtney Mil]

Only if anyone ever reads PPRuNe. Posts here aren't given under oath M2. It might be a lead though.

[MG]

Get over yourselves. There's no state secret in taking a cab to Wyton and that was 9 years ago now. Surely the fact that there were official forensics done on the ac at the first opportunity back in the UK suggests that everything was above board and documented. The only knock I expect is my next delivery from Amazon.