Taliban - Has UK gone completely mad?
I don't mean to offend anyone, I just have that feeling of disquiet that if we apply the same rules as we applied when fighting conventional enemies to fighting the Taliban, we may be fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.
I don't know what the answer is - I'm sure that it isn't Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib type solutions, and I'm sure that actual physical torture, beatings, etc. are absolutely NOT any part of the answer.
I'm sure that we must have, and abide by rules. But are these rules fit for purpose?
Would being just a bit more robust than the Geneva Convention would have us be against Johnny Russian or Juan the Argentine really be so unthinkable......?
I don't know what the answer is - I'm sure that it isn't Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib type solutions, and I'm sure that actual physical torture, beatings, etc. are absolutely NOT any part of the answer.
I'm sure that we must have, and abide by rules. But are these rules fit for purpose?
Would being just a bit more robust than the Geneva Convention would have us be against Johnny Russian or Juan the Argentine really be so unthinkable......?
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
we may be fighting with one hand tied behind our backs
Whether you call it fighting with one hand behind our backs or not doesn't really matter. It's what we are doing, and it's not changing.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I think BEagle is being a little narrow here in his assessment of fellow ppruners.
There are many ways of skinning a cat. Threatening extreme and immediate brutality is but one. I recall a training film, US Army Air Corps, in Italy, essentially the prisoners were divided into two groups and treated differently. The suggestion was that those who had 'talked' were given better treatement and it was to reinforce a divide between the prisoners.
Another film, more relevant, was of the Korean war where the Turkish troops relished the improvements in conditions now that they were POWs whereas for US troops it was a severe culture shock.
May be they should try tea and sympathy?
There are many ways of skinning a cat. Threatening extreme and immediate brutality is but one. I recall a training film, US Army Air Corps, in Italy, essentially the prisoners were divided into two groups and treated differently. The suggestion was that those who had 'talked' were given better treatement and it was to reinforce a divide between the prisoners.
Another film, more relevant, was of the Korean war where the Turkish troops relished the improvements in conditions now that they were POWs whereas for US troops it was a severe culture shock.
May be they should try tea and sympathy?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's what we are doing, and it's not changing
Change the rules and hit them where it hurts,,, and yes f**k the so called moral high ground!
The word "suspect" has been rightly highlighted, so take the measures necessary to establish guilt or otherwise, and if the former take the appropriate action.
Last edited by Romeo Oscar Golf; 18th Oct 2009 at 20:45.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
So that's OK then?
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
War? What War?
I keep hearing the activities of our troops in Afghanistan described as a "WAR" 
This puzzles me, because when British troops were first committed to Afghanistan, we members of the United Kingdom electorate were informed by our Prime Minister that our troops were to be engaged in action in support of the civil power.
Unless the situation has changed and the Taliban are now the legitimate government of Afghanistan and I also missed the Declaration of War by both sides, it seems that our troops ought not to be interrogating captured terrorist suspects at all. Any suspects apprehended in suspicious circumstances by our soldiers should be handed over to the Afghanistan authorities for questioning. Information obtained from those assisting the Afghan authorities in their inquiries that might be useful to those acting in support of the authorities would no doubt be provided as soon as it was available. The means by which the such information may be acquired is not a matter of concern to those providing the assistance.
This puzzles me, because when British troops were first committed to Afghanistan, we members of the United Kingdom electorate were informed by our Prime Minister that our troops were to be engaged in action in support of the civil power.
Unless the situation has changed and the Taliban are now the legitimate government of Afghanistan and I also missed the Declaration of War by both sides, it seems that our troops ought not to be interrogating captured terrorist suspects at all. Any suspects apprehended in suspicious circumstances by our soldiers should be handed over to the Afghanistan authorities for questioning. Information obtained from those assisting the Afghan authorities in their inquiries that might be useful to those acting in support of the authorities would no doubt be provided as soon as it was available. The means by which the such information may be acquired is not a matter of concern to those providing the assistance.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of whatever may be argued in any direction as to rights, wrongs, and legitimate circumstances, the conflict in Afghanistan is fought by those who have a reason to fight. Every time the wrong person is killed, accidentally, legitimately or wrongly we do a brilliant job for the opposition.
Every time we dip beneath a perceived moral line, whether it is endorsed as a right or not, we will do the same. All of those detained at Guantanamo may have been conveniently labeled, the Geneva convention may not have applied, but that didn't make them anything less of an icon against the US.
Every time we dip beneath a perceived moral line, whether it is endorsed as a right or not, we will do the same. All of those detained at Guantanamo may have been conveniently labeled, the Geneva convention may not have applied, but that didn't make them anything less of an icon against the US.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the right thing to do? What is the legal thing to do? Certainly the Taliban and AQ can fit nicely under the definition of unlawful combatants. Even if they don't then the Geneva conventions allow reciprocity and retribution. In other words, if one side violates the rules the other side can violate the same rules. If the Taliban have made a habit of torturing and executing prisoners, then we can. But should we?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oberbayern
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should our troops be in Afghanistan anyway?
I heard the one eyed man from Kathmandu (fat Gordie) say that the real reason the UK needed people in Afghanistan is because 'they have a problem with their governance'.
I'm getting old and my hearing isn't as good as it used to be (jet engines?)
El Gordo might've said: "govern-nonces".
Either way, he pointed his little fat finger at the problem.
According to the one-eyed little fat man from Caledonia, the Afghanistanis (specifically, his friend Mr Khazi and his brother (General poppy-sap-dealer) have a problem.
So if the Afghans need 'Govern-nonces' why are we sending them soldiers?
The Brits are renowned for their generosity. I appreciate that it would involve huge sacrifices (lost 3 month hols and all that) but why - If the Afhanistani people need help in setting up a feasible form of government - haven't we volunteered (say) 400 of our MPs (they are, after all, doing bugger-all else) to be govern-nonces to help fill the void identified by El Gordo?
According to the fat Caledonian, the Afghans need govern-nonces. Not soldiers.
The Brits are renowned for their generosity. Suerly they could spare 400 or so MPs to rectify the problem identified by Fat Gordie?
WE (or rather you) could surely offer up 400 MPs (fair trade...you could bring back about 10 times as many soldiers) as an interim measure.
The problem wont be solved overnight. The Afghans will still need political nonces for many years ... but there's an answer!
At the next general election, the candidate who scores the highest number of voted would take his/her place in the Palace of Westminster. The runner-up would be detached to Afghanistan to be a political nonce (advisor) to assist that country.
Problem solved.
Bring the troops home and let the pols solve the problem ... after all, they've got to do something for the money.
AAAH! I hear you say... Our pols aren't interested in getting their arses shot off.
But when did our servicemen join to get their arses shot off?
If Gordie has got it right (and he is, after all, the Prime Minister) why aren't we sending to Afghanistan the people they so sorely need?
They don't need soldiers. - That's apparent (if you think about it) and the argument is reinforced by the numbers of young, fit men of military age one sees in videos broaching the ironwork (wire, etc) in an attempt to enter the UK illegally. - If the Fghanistani people need soldiers to free their country, why are so many of those potential soldiers legging it to the UK?
No shortage of soldier material in Afghanistan. - They're all coming to the UK.
But there IS a shortage of political nonces in Afghanistan. The least you could do is send them some.
Support Gordie! Send an MP to Afghanistan.
I heard the one eyed man from Kathmandu (fat Gordie) say that the real reason the UK needed people in Afghanistan is because 'they have a problem with their governance'.
I'm getting old and my hearing isn't as good as it used to be (jet engines?)
El Gordo might've said: "govern-nonces".
Either way, he pointed his little fat finger at the problem.
According to the one-eyed little fat man from Caledonia, the Afghanistanis (specifically, his friend Mr Khazi and his brother (General poppy-sap-dealer) have a problem.
So if the Afghans need 'Govern-nonces' why are we sending them soldiers?
The Brits are renowned for their generosity. I appreciate that it would involve huge sacrifices (lost 3 month hols and all that) but why - If the Afhanistani people need help in setting up a feasible form of government - haven't we volunteered (say) 400 of our MPs (they are, after all, doing bugger-all else) to be govern-nonces to help fill the void identified by El Gordo?
According to the fat Caledonian, the Afghans need govern-nonces. Not soldiers.
The Brits are renowned for their generosity. Suerly they could spare 400 or so MPs to rectify the problem identified by Fat Gordie?
WE (or rather you) could surely offer up 400 MPs (fair trade...you could bring back about 10 times as many soldiers) as an interim measure.
The problem wont be solved overnight. The Afghans will still need political nonces for many years ... but there's an answer!
At the next general election, the candidate who scores the highest number of voted would take his/her place in the Palace of Westminster. The runner-up would be detached to Afghanistan to be a political nonce (advisor) to assist that country.
Problem solved.
Bring the troops home and let the pols solve the problem ... after all, they've got to do something for the money.
AAAH! I hear you say... Our pols aren't interested in getting their arses shot off.
But when did our servicemen join to get their arses shot off?
If Gordie has got it right (and he is, after all, the Prime Minister) why aren't we sending to Afghanistan the people they so sorely need?
They don't need soldiers. - That's apparent (if you think about it) and the argument is reinforced by the numbers of young, fit men of military age one sees in videos broaching the ironwork (wire, etc) in an attempt to enter the UK illegally. - If the Fghanistani people need soldiers to free their country, why are so many of those potential soldiers legging it to the UK?
No shortage of soldier material in Afghanistan. - They're all coming to the UK.
But there IS a shortage of political nonces in Afghanistan. The least you could do is send them some.
Support Gordie! Send an MP to Afghanistan.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oberbayern
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you sent more politicians, you'd have to send more helicopters ... you could hardly expect pols to travel by road... not because it's dangerous (of course) but because you can't have pols bruising their bums in less-than-limos on bumpy roads.
Not a problem!
Contract it out.
Not a problem!
Contract it out.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The treatment of prisoners is a very sensitive issue. The severity of the incident is often decided by the media based on their own agenda. However this story seems to be quite insignificant at the moment. The soldier involved hasn't even been charged so I don't see how anyone can come to conclusions on the sanity of the "UK" or lack of.
I do see in this thread however a degree of uninformed, knee jerk reactionism and some infantile language to boot.
Ask yourself if their are international laws covering such scenarios and what the consequencies of ignoring them would be. Ask yourself if the media would much rather present this as one of their favoured "cover up" head Line reports. Also ask yourself how this would affect not only the morale of our troops but also their safety.
And please for goodness sake can some of you get an understanding of the kind of language that is used in reasoned debate.
I do see in this thread however a degree of uninformed, knee jerk reactionism and some infantile language to boot.
Ask yourself if their are international laws covering such scenarios and what the consequencies of ignoring them would be. Ask yourself if the media would much rather present this as one of their favoured "cover up" head Line reports. Also ask yourself how this would affect not only the morale of our troops but also their safety.
And please for goodness sake can some of you get an understanding of the kind of language that is used in reasoned debate.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oberbayern
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree. the treatment of prisoners is laid down quite clearly in the Geneva Convention and in the 'Rules and Articles of war'.
If you -as a prisoner - were handed to me - an interrogator, behind the front line - then I would do my best to extract information from you and I would (I hope) do so within 'the rules' - irrespective of what those rules were. I would rely on my skills to do my job.
If I -as a prisoner - was to be interrogated immediately upon capture, then I would hope to receive the protection of the Convention and of the 'Rules and articles', but that might not be the case.
The report suggests that the interrogators acted outside their remit. If that is proved to be the case, then those interrogators should be punished - but the punishment he (or they) receive should be mitigated by the stress under which he (or they) were placed at the time. The commanding officer of the interrogator(s) would also (IMO) be culpable.
There is going to be an inquiry. Perhaps we should wait until that inquiry has submitted its report before we pass judgement and apportion blame?
If you -as a prisoner - were handed to me - an interrogator, behind the front line - then I would do my best to extract information from you and I would (I hope) do so within 'the rules' - irrespective of what those rules were. I would rely on my skills to do my job.
If I -as a prisoner - was to be interrogated immediately upon capture, then I would hope to receive the protection of the Convention and of the 'Rules and articles', but that might not be the case.
The report suggests that the interrogators acted outside their remit. If that is proved to be the case, then those interrogators should be punished - but the punishment he (or they) receive should be mitigated by the stress under which he (or they) were placed at the time. The commanding officer of the interrogator(s) would also (IMO) be culpable.
There is going to be an inquiry. Perhaps we should wait until that inquiry has submitted its report before we pass judgement and apportion blame?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the treatment of prisoners is laid down quite clearly in the Geneva Convention and in the 'Rules and Articles of war'.
Perhaps we should wait until that inquiry has submitted its report before we pass judgement and apportion blame?
Last edited by Caspian237; 19th Oct 2009 at 06:19.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Another S**thole
Age: 51
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Years ago I seem to remember a nasty gator cocking a weapon and putting it to my head to extract information - during training!
Something about point of duress??
What's the difference then? As a TQ he should be able to use means to get vital information asap - not wait until the 'suspect' is handed over. Information that is 24/48 hrs old is no use against an insurgency.
Something about point of duress??
What's the difference then? As a TQ he should be able to use means to get vital information asap - not wait until the 'suspect' is handed over. Information that is 24/48 hrs old is no use against an insurgency.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
What is the right thing to do? What is the legal thing to do? Certainly the Taliban and AQ can fit nicely under the definition of unlawful combatants. Even if they don't then the Geneva conventions allow reciprocity and retribution. In other words, if one side violates the rules the other side can violate the same rules. If the Taliban have made a habit of torturing and executing prisoners, then we can. But should we?
Ratifying the treaty binds the nation to uphold these rights regardless of the behavior of the opposing nation
if one side violates the rules the other side can violate the same rules
our troops were to be engaged in action in support of the civil power
Each unit should have a zampolit to whom all prisoners are handed.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly the Taliban and AQ can fit nicely under the definition of unlawful combatants
You could more accurately define the Taliban as civilians.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is all bollocks.
Obviously that nice Taliban gentleman just happened to be passing and obviously got mixed up with those hairy, aggressive army blokes - just look at what they wear, some don't even wash!
What should be done is, the whole of Doncaster's Social Services department is not very popular at the moment, so perhaps they could be loaned to the Army to offer their skills.
Such skills as counselling, (bereavement for example, since the alcohol counselling is not required), re-homing, grants for new furniture and household goods - they could even send these innocent civilians on outward-bound courses or holidays, as they're obviously under-privileged and oppressed.
Failing that shoot the bastards. Be a shame if something happened to the 'witnesses' wouldn't it?
Unbelievable . . . (what makes YOU think this government is resolved to leaving at the next election)?
Obviously that nice Taliban gentleman just happened to be passing and obviously got mixed up with those hairy, aggressive army blokes - just look at what they wear, some don't even wash!
What should be done is, the whole of Doncaster's Social Services department is not very popular at the moment, so perhaps they could be loaned to the Army to offer their skills.
Such skills as counselling, (bereavement for example, since the alcohol counselling is not required), re-homing, grants for new furniture and household goods - they could even send these innocent civilians on outward-bound courses or holidays, as they're obviously under-privileged and oppressed.
Failing that shoot the bastards. Be a shame if something happened to the 'witnesses' wouldn't it?
Unbelievable . . . (what makes YOU think this government is resolved to leaving at the next election)?