Taliban - Has UK gone completely mad?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taliban - Has UK gone completely mad?
Telegraph, Sunday 18 Oct 09
Full story here
Full story here
British soldier attached to special forces faces war crimes probe
A British soldier serving with the special forces is facing war crime charges after threatening to shoot dead a Taliban prisoner during interrogation unless he co-operated.
Sean Rayment, Defence correspondent
Published: 9:30PM BST 17 Oct 2009
The alleged offence took place in the Helmand province of Afghanistan in August, during a two-month period of high intensity combat which left 37 soldiers dead and more than 100 injured.
Officers from the Royal Military Police's special investigation branch are now attempting to discover whether the alleged prisoner abuse was an isolated incident or part of a wider covert policy of using mental torture techniques to extract information from Taliban detainees.
A file on the offence is now with the Army Prosecuting Authority, the military equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service, and is part of a wide ranging Royal Military Police (RMP) investigation.
If charged, the soldier, who was serving with the special forces support group (SFSG), will be tried by court martial. If found guilty of either war crimes or assault with a weapon, he could expect to receive a custodial sentence.........
............The latest incident took place in a forward operating base in Helmand after members of the special forces captured several suspected Taliban gunmen believed to have been responsible for carrying out improvised explosive device attacks against British troops.
The suspect, described as a "high value target", was being interrogated by a member of the special forces unit specially trained in "tactical questioning", with a British military interpreter and an Afghan interpreter present.
It is understood that at one stage during the interview, when the suspect was refusing to answer questions, the British interpreter drew his pistol, cocked it and pushed the prisoner's head down on to the table. He then pressed the gun into the back of the suspect's head and said in Pashto – "answer the questions or you're dead...........
..........A source close to the inquiry said: "The police will try and establish whether there are any mitigating circumstances which would warrant such action – but it seems unlikely that there are. We are now in the arena of war crimes or assault with a deadly weapon – either way it is very damaging. We thought that after Baha Mousa this sort of thing was history."
War crimes are defined as "violations of the laws of war" and these include the ill-treatment of prisoners of war, which includes death threats during interrogation and mental torture."
A British soldier serving with the special forces is facing war crime charges after threatening to shoot dead a Taliban prisoner during interrogation unless he co-operated.
Sean Rayment, Defence correspondent
Published: 9:30PM BST 17 Oct 2009
The alleged offence took place in the Helmand province of Afghanistan in August, during a two-month period of high intensity combat which left 37 soldiers dead and more than 100 injured.
Officers from the Royal Military Police's special investigation branch are now attempting to discover whether the alleged prisoner abuse was an isolated incident or part of a wider covert policy of using mental torture techniques to extract information from Taliban detainees.
A file on the offence is now with the Army Prosecuting Authority, the military equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service, and is part of a wide ranging Royal Military Police (RMP) investigation.
If charged, the soldier, who was serving with the special forces support group (SFSG), will be tried by court martial. If found guilty of either war crimes or assault with a weapon, he could expect to receive a custodial sentence.........
............The latest incident took place in a forward operating base in Helmand after members of the special forces captured several suspected Taliban gunmen believed to have been responsible for carrying out improvised explosive device attacks against British troops.
The suspect, described as a "high value target", was being interrogated by a member of the special forces unit specially trained in "tactical questioning", with a British military interpreter and an Afghan interpreter present.
It is understood that at one stage during the interview, when the suspect was refusing to answer questions, the British interpreter drew his pistol, cocked it and pushed the prisoner's head down on to the table. He then pressed the gun into the back of the suspect's head and said in Pashto – "answer the questions or you're dead...........
..........A source close to the inquiry said: "The police will try and establish whether there are any mitigating circumstances which would warrant such action – but it seems unlikely that there are. We are now in the arena of war crimes or assault with a deadly weapon – either way it is very damaging. We thought that after Baha Mousa this sort of thing was history."
War crimes are defined as "violations of the laws of war" and these include the ill-treatment of prisoners of war, which includes death threats during interrogation and mental torture."
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evidence
Seems to me it's all down to the 'British Military Interpreter.' If he says he didn't see it happen, case closed. However, if he is the one who grassed up the Special Forces, he should be certified!
Another great blow for morale.
Another great blow for morale.
I am often taken as being a bit of a bleeding heart liberal, and certainly I don't condone torture, water-boarding, wiring up prisoner's danglies to the national grid, etc.
But anything that we might do to our own people in SERE training would seem like fair game, and there's the world of difference between putting a prisoner in fear of their life, and actually taking it, in my view.
The tactical interrogation of prisoners is surely an area where fluffies, bleeding hearts and health and safety should largely butt out?
And surely sleep deprivation, the use of stress techniques, and even mock executions are techniques that can be justified in certain circumstances.
I would congratulate the individual concerned, with just a slight nagging worry as to what would have happened had the weapon discharged into the prisoner, when he would have stepped over the line into the world of war crimes and criminal behaviour.
But anything that we might do to our own people in SERE training would seem like fair game, and there's the world of difference between putting a prisoner in fear of their life, and actually taking it, in my view.
The tactical interrogation of prisoners is surely an area where fluffies, bleeding hearts and health and safety should largely butt out?
And surely sleep deprivation, the use of stress techniques, and even mock executions are techniques that can be justified in certain circumstances.
I would congratulate the individual concerned, with just a slight nagging worry as to what would have happened had the weapon discharged into the prisoner, when he would have stepped over the line into the world of war crimes and criminal behaviour.
Sometimes I wonder why they bother to send in the armed forces if all they are allowed to do is act like lollypop men & women at a school crossing. Then again the powers that be are presently persecuting a lollypop man who has committed the crime of high fiving the kids he knows on his crossing when they've done well in tests, exams etc..
The lunatics took over the asylum in '97. Will the next lot be any better? We can only hope & pray....
The lunatics took over the asylum in '97. Will the next lot be any better? We can only hope & pray....
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time to pull the troops out of the Stan and send in the 
social workers instead - let them sort it out their way.
Perhaps they can conquer the Taliban through the medium of street theatre, hip-hop dance classes, group therapy sessions and talking about their 'issues'. Reinforce positive behaviour with tickets to gigs, Alton Towers, some compensation or a nice benefits handout.
I guess you'll have to give these murderous bastards a nice cup of tea before you can 'chat' with them from now on. Mustn't hurt their feelings or infringe their rights.
social workers instead - let them sort it out their way.Perhaps they can conquer the Taliban through the medium of street theatre, hip-hop dance classes, group therapy sessions and talking about their 'issues'. Reinforce positive behaviour with tickets to gigs, Alton Towers, some compensation or a nice benefits handout.
I guess you'll have to give these murderous bastards a nice cup of tea before you can 'chat' with them from now on. Mustn't hurt their feelings or infringe their rights.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either we have rules and we abide by them, or we don't. We have rules. Someone may have overstepped the mark and is being duly investigated.
Get over it you great big burly internet warriors.
Get over it you great big burly internet warriors.
The Iranians are currently spinning the following news story in relation to the Taliban.
The story is quickly gaining momentum on the conspiracy nutjob websites.
'UK army 'providing' Taliban with air transport'
UK army 'providing' Taliban with air transport
'The British army has been relocating Taliban insurgents from southern Afghanistan to the north by providing transportation means, diplomats say.
The diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said insurgents are being airlifted from the southern province of Helmand to the north amid increasing violence in the northern parts of the country.
The aircraft used for the transfer have been identified as British Chinook helicopters.
The officials said Sultan Munadi, an Afghan interpreter who was kidnapped along with his employer, New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell, was killed by a “British sniper” as commandos executed a rescue operation to free Farrell.
They said Munadi was targeted for possessing documents and pictures pointing at the British military's involvement in the transfer operation.'
The story is quickly gaining momentum on the conspiracy nutjob websites.
'UK army 'providing' Taliban with air transport'
UK army 'providing' Taliban with air transport
'The British army has been relocating Taliban insurgents from southern Afghanistan to the north by providing transportation means, diplomats say.
The diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said insurgents are being airlifted from the southern province of Helmand to the north amid increasing violence in the northern parts of the country.
The aircraft used for the transfer have been identified as British Chinook helicopters.
The officials said Sultan Munadi, an Afghan interpreter who was kidnapped along with his employer, New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell, was killed by a “British sniper” as commandos executed a rescue operation to free Farrell.
They said Munadi was targeted for possessing documents and pictures pointing at the British military's involvement in the transfer operation.'
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr C Hinecap
Britain abides by the Geneva Convention.
Part of the 'rules' state that prisoners will not be executed. If the UK went to war with another Convention signatory, any members of UK Armed Forces caught by said opponent would expect to be treated in accordance with the Convention.
Due to training, both in R2E and RoE our captured troops would know that the threat was a bluff. Maybe due to confusion/disorientation of being in enemy hands, there might be a slight doubt, but ingrained deep in the grey matter is the fact that the threateniong enemy was a Convention signatory.
The Taliban is not a signatory, has no RoE and couldn't give 2 hoots about the Geneva Convention. The fact that whilst fighting them we still play by the rules despite their ignorance of the rules is not our problem... if they, through ignorance, perceive the 'threat' as real and cough up info that saves just one coalition life, then IMO it is a valid practice.
'Sticks and stones may break my bones'... and all that.
Some people might even argue that if fighting a terrorist enemy that has no regard for the pleasantries of war, we should rip up the rules ourselves...
Either we have rules and we abide by them, or we don't. We have rules.
Part of the 'rules' state that prisoners will not be executed. If the UK went to war with another Convention signatory, any members of UK Armed Forces caught by said opponent would expect to be treated in accordance with the Convention.
Due to training, both in R2E and RoE our captured troops would know that the threat was a bluff. Maybe due to confusion/disorientation of being in enemy hands, there might be a slight doubt, but ingrained deep in the grey matter is the fact that the threateniong enemy was a Convention signatory.
The Taliban is not a signatory, has no RoE and couldn't give 2 hoots about the Geneva Convention. The fact that whilst fighting them we still play by the rules despite their ignorance of the rules is not our problem... if they, through ignorance, perceive the 'threat' as real and cough up info that saves just one coalition life, then IMO it is a valid practice.
'Sticks and stones may break my bones'... and all that.
Some people might even argue that if fighting a terrorist enemy that has no regard for the pleasantries of war, we should rip up the rules ourselves...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Total war. Take no quarter and expect none. As long as it doesnt get in the way of the tennents of fighting an insurgency, I say sod it.
We cant win this fighting off an uneven keel. Geneva Convention is fine during a conventional fight, this is a war that is far from it. knowing personally if we ever go down and get caught that the best I can expect is to have my nuts cut off and be skinned alive, I dont have particular issue with the above.
If you think you can only win wars through humane means you are delluding yourself. If you dont intend to win, what is the point in engaging in warfare? And dont give me crap about being sat on the higher moral ground. Read Machiavelli and see what he suggests about conquering lands of a differing culture.
We cant win this fighting off an uneven keel. Geneva Convention is fine during a conventional fight, this is a war that is far from it. knowing personally if we ever go down and get caught that the best I can expect is to have my nuts cut off and be skinned alive, I dont have particular issue with the above.
If you think you can only win wars through humane means you are delluding yourself. If you dont intend to win, what is the point in engaging in warfare? And dont give me crap about being sat on the higher moral ground. Read Machiavelli and see what he suggests about conquering lands of a differing culture.
Last edited by VinRouge; 18th Oct 2009 at 16:39.
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
Another way of looking at it is to ensure immediate (or asap) handover of prisoners to specialist handling/questioning teams. The capturing force may well have been in a contact with the captive and his mates, and could have sustained losses on the blue side. The blue side will not be at their most objective when questioning etc., and may even be trying to punish for firing back, laying the IED etc.
Clearly in the heat of battle, and without a clear front-line it's hard to ensure that prisoner handling teams are close enough to those taking the prisoners, but IMHO it's the best way of ensuring that things don't get out of hand.
Clearly in the heat of battle, and without a clear front-line it's hard to ensure that prisoner handling teams are close enough to those taking the prisoners, but IMHO it's the best way of ensuring that things don't get out of hand.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
During WW2
which was why the treatment of British and Russian POWs differed. Russia was not a signatory.
After 1949
Afghanistan and Iraq are both signatories to the 1949 Convention. It would follow that Afghan army troops are thus bound by the convention and we are also bound even against non-State actors such as the Taliban.
The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations
After 1949
The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not bound by it. By 1949, the treaty was becoming viewed less as a reciprocal contract and more as an agreement on fundamental human rights. Ratifying the treaty binds the nation to uphold these rights regardless of the behavior of the opposing nation
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afghanistan and Iraq are both signatories to the 1949 Convention. It would follow that Afghan army troops are thus bound by the convention and we are also bound even against non-State actors such as the Taliban
Yes, the idiots in charge have really lost the plot.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
The suspect, described as a "high value target", was being interrogated by a member of the special forces unit specially trained in "tactical questioning", with a British military interpreter and an Afghan interpreter present.
Whilst the BNP appear to have infiltrated PPRuNe, judging from some of the more infantile posts on this thread, it is only Mr C Hinecap and airborne_artist who have any real idea of what's being discussed here regarding prisoner handling.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many varied comment in this thread, and airborne artist is very right in his attitude
(are you sure you are feeling OK, as that almost sounded like a positive plug for
the green slime
).
What stood out for me, was that the chap in question was a SUSPECT, not guilty.
If he later turned out to be guilty, then as Taliban he would also be guilty of war
crimes, and we could try (in the criminal sense) and execute him for those
(under Afghan law).
Once this trial had been completed, then the SFSG lad could go on trial. If it then
transpired there was no one from the Taliban able to go into the witness box
(seems unlikely once executed), then drop the case.
Whatever our ROE are, then we must stick to them (or things tend to go very
wrong). Whether are ROE are in any way sensible is a completely differing matter
I must stress that I have not been there, and these are my thoughts from the
comfort of my living room. But from past experience, there are many ways to
skin a cat, and threatening to kill someone who believes he will be martyred and
off to a better life may not be the best persuader.
(are you sure you are feeling OK, as that almost sounded like a positive plug for
the green slime
).What stood out for me, was that the chap in question was a SUSPECT, not guilty.
If he later turned out to be guilty, then as Taliban he would also be guilty of war
crimes, and we could try (in the criminal sense) and execute him for those
(under Afghan law).
Once this trial had been completed, then the SFSG lad could go on trial. If it then
transpired there was no one from the Taliban able to go into the witness box
(seems unlikely once executed), then drop the case.
Whatever our ROE are, then we must stick to them (or things tend to go very
wrong). Whether are ROE are in any way sensible is a completely differing matter
I must stress that I have not been there, and these are my thoughts from the
comfort of my living room. But from past experience, there are many ways to
skin a cat, and threatening to kill someone who believes he will be martyred and
off to a better life may not be the best persuader.
Does that mean that you would go further than me, BEags, and wouldn't allow or condone sleep deprivation, stress positions, threat of harm, and that to condone such tactics renders one as some kind of BNP supporting lunatic?
Is there not some sensible middle way, in which applying extreme psychological pressure is acceptable, while physical violence and physical torture is not?
Should there not even be any discussion as to whether the rules that forbid psychological torture and death threats during interrogation are entirely appropriate against this particular type of enemy? (An enemy who would cut your gonads off with a rusty knife, stitch them into your mouth, and stake you out in the sun to die, given half a chance, if there was no video camera handy to film you as they cut your head off....)
Is there not a danger that if the British Army is required to treat captured terrorists in the way that the Surrey Constabulary treat a suspected shoplifter, then they will inevitably (and quite rightly) go a little too far - with the danger of really over-stepping where the line should have been drawn in the first place.
Airborne/C Hinecap,
Do you think that things 'got out of hand' in this particular instance?
and:
Did it work?
Is there not some sensible middle way, in which applying extreme psychological pressure is acceptable, while physical violence and physical torture is not?
Should there not even be any discussion as to whether the rules that forbid psychological torture and death threats during interrogation are entirely appropriate against this particular type of enemy? (An enemy who would cut your gonads off with a rusty knife, stitch them into your mouth, and stake you out in the sun to die, given half a chance, if there was no video camera handy to film you as they cut your head off....)
Is there not a danger that if the British Army is required to treat captured terrorists in the way that the Surrey Constabulary treat a suspected shoplifter, then they will inevitably (and quite rightly) go a little too far - with the danger of really over-stepping where the line should have been drawn in the first place.
Airborne/C Hinecap,
Do you think that things 'got out of hand' in this particular instance?
and:
Did it work?
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
Do you think that things 'got out of hand' in this particular instance?
No idea whether it worked or not, but I'd not expect it to - Terry is a tough enemy, and he's unlikely to bubble his brothers-in-arms.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Beags, you're way off mark with any BNP associations. I'm too old to fight, and when I was in it was as aircrew and not in harms way as the guys fighting on the ground. I cannot bide the interferrence of any bleeding heart sentiments when the war is against the lawless mindless cretins we face in the present conflicts. The Geneva Convention is as meaningless as the Human Rights Bill( or whatever it's officially called) and acts only as a sign of weakness to our enemies. I do know what it is like to undergo imaginative interrogation, and if that is what is required then so be it. Certainly police the masochists etc but do not deny the front line the protection they deserve by being soft on the extremists.