Death in RAF Chinook in Iraq
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:-
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:-2. That one of the 64 prisoners left the aircraft at ambient temperature or very close to it, (this is an objective observation).
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.
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).
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?
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?
Thread Starter
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.
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."
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."
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dead Pan
I for one would resist if I was being maltreated - sod the grey man bollox and Mach Two's training
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Mach Two; 8th Feb 2012 at 20:45.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dead Pan:
Unresponsive <> ambient temperature. The article showed two unresponsive one of which who proved to be "ambient".
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:
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... 
'Nuff said, though it is my understanding that little of it has changed in 30 years or more.
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.
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.
'Nuff said, though it is my understanding that little of it has changed in 30 years or more.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for you Dead Pan.....(and the other conspiracy theorists)
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....
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....
Thread Starter
The Conventions do not protect un-uniformed combatants.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Racedo:
... and here begins the un-winnable argument.
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.
... 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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shivers down my spine
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?