PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Our Brave Boys? Or Murdering Thugs? (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/175780-our-brave-boys-murdering-thugs.html)

BEagle 22nd May 2005 11:57

Our Brave Boys? Or Murdering Thugs?
 
I am frankly appalled by this report in the Sunday Times today. If true, those who perpetrated the crime should be shot:

Regimental commander in probe over death of Iraqi detainee
Reorted by Michael Smith

The commander of a British unit that fought in Iraq is among a number of officers under investigation following the death of an Iraqi prisoner. The man died while in the custody of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment (QLR) in southern Iraq in 2003.

The Ministry of Defence said last night that an investigation into the running of the chain of command of the QLR, then led by Lieutenant- Colonel Jorge Mendonca, had been passed to the Army Prosecuting Authority. The authority will decide if any officers should be charged in connection with the death. It is not clear if Mendonca will face prosecution.

The dead man, Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old hotel employee, was one of nine men arrested by the QLR in a hotel in Basra on September 13, 2003. An International Committee of the Red Cross report said the men were “made to kneel, face and hands against the ground, as if in a prayer position. The soldiers stamped on the back of the neck of those raising their head.

“The suspects were taken to Al-Hakimiya, a former office used by the Mukhabarat (the Iraqi secret police) in Basra and then beaten severely by coalition forces personnel.”

Mousa, who was married with two children, died following this, the report said. “Prior to his death, his co-arrestees heard him screaming and asking for assistance.”

Mousa’s death certificate said the cause of death was “cardio-respiratory arrest-asphyxia”, but it added that an eyewitness description of the body spoke of “broken ribs and skin lesions on the face consistent with beatings”.

At least one member of the QLR has told the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch (SIB) that junior officers were aware of ill-treatment of prisoners but unable to do anything about it.

A number of rank and file soldiers involved in the detention of Mousa are expected to be charged with various offences relating to his death.

Sources close to the regiment said Mendonca, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Order for his time in Iraq, had brought the incidents to the notice of the authorities in the first place.

“He has done as much as anyone could,” one said. “He is a very good man and seen as a high-flyer. The minute he heard about the death of the prisoner, he called the SIB.”

KENNYR 22nd May 2005 13:07

Forgive me Beagle if I dont shed a tear for the deceased prisoner, for some reason I cant get the image of the beheading videos out of my mind. There is no excuse for what happened to the Iraqi prisoner but what else do the barbarians understand?

exleckie 22nd May 2005 14:35

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm,

Okay, it was a story in a respected paper.

Journalists can be wrong and so can everyone else.

I shall reserve judgement on this, til the facts are released.

However, I do find a certain irony with the fact that a brutal dictator who is known to have killed 1000's (plus) is contemplating sueing ( is that how it's spelt?) a well known tabloid for showing him in his jockeys.

How sad has the law become??????:ugh:

effortless 22nd May 2005 14:55


Forgive me Beagle if I dont shed a tear for the deceased prisoner, for some reason I cant get the image of the beheading videos out of my mind. There is no excuse for what happened to the Iraqi prisoner but what else do the barbarians understand?
So when I talk to my Iraqi friend about these beheadings should I be surprised if he says:


Forgive me Effortless if I dont shed a tear for the deceased prisoner, for some reason I cant get the image of the tortured prisoners out of my mind. There is no excuse for what happened but what else do the barbarians understand?

BEagle 22nd May 2005 15:05

Humiliation of prisoners (even that worthless piece of $hit Saddam) and torture of captives are levels to which the UK's Armed Forces should never sink.

At least, that's what I always believed.

Al-Berr 22nd May 2005 15:12

I think most of us on this forum know of the levels to which the UK's Armed Forces (for that read ARMY!) sank to after capturing Basrah Airfield. How the press didn't pick up on it and heads didn't roll I will never understand.

Engineer 22nd May 2005 15:37

Ah the beauty of conflict where certain people decide to be judge jury and executioner and are given the opportunity to act out inner desires.

It will be written and talked about for years to come, people will discuss endlessly why it is allowed to happens but the true outcome will be no change

Runaway Gun 22nd May 2005 15:51

Basrah airfield?

timex 22nd May 2005 16:06


I think most of us on this forum know of the levels to which the UK's Armed Forces (for that read ARMY!) sank to after capturing Basrah Airfield. How the press didn't pick up on it and heads didn't roll I will never understand.

Were you there? Were you actually fighting in the takeover of Basrah Airfield, did you see this stuff, or is it handed down info.. If you were'nt there don't be so quick to judge.

If you did see it why haven't you done anything about it.

jayteeto 22nd May 2005 16:40

Well, the press will know now you d**k. If you had something to say, say it to the correct authorities and dont try and have a trial here. No excuse for treating prisoners badly KennyR, that lowers you to their level.

sparkie 22nd May 2005 17:07

Interesting replies so far...

Having survived Gulf War 1 amonst other confrontations over my lengthy service career, its always easy to condemn out of hand any alleged injustices, mistreatment of prisoners or brutality without knowing the real facts

Did anyone watch the movie of TV last night called Rules of Engagement? I know its several years old but it raised some interesting issues.

I remember when I was in Cyprus during the mid 60's and EOKA terrorists were purported to be making attempts to attack military bases, we were issued with a nice ROE card, written in English and Greek. (Can still remember Halt/Stamata) Quite frankly it was a joke, the end result being, dont shoot until the b*ggers are smacking you over the head.

but I digress


I totally abhor any mistreatment of any indivudual but lets face it, many of us have been there when the decision to act has to be made in a split second.

If the story from the Sunday Times is true, then I have no doubt that in this very politically correct world we live in, someone will take the appropriate action.

Interestingly in the same paper today there is an article about the rocket attack on the Herc, that ended in tragedy. Try asking the family and relatives of the aircrew lost how they feel, kinda brings things into focus.


The problem in defence is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower




:confused:

Runaway Gun 22nd May 2005 17:24

Chutley, maybe when real interrogation is taking place, the 'bad guys' don't refrain as much as the Monkey boys.

At least during an exercise you can tell yourself "they're not really going to cut off my balls".

BEagle 22nd May 2005 17:27

CAREFUL, GUYS!

OSA...

Darth Nigel 22nd May 2005 17:28

I think you are confusing two things, sparkie.

There's the snap decision that you have to make "when a big 'airy Russian comes at you, with a gun in one 'and and an 'alf-eaten baby in the other" as a small arms instructor once expressed it to young Darth while at RMAS. That's when the RoE may get a little stretched, and frankly that's probably OK to err on the side of caution and shoot the bugger, unless of course the bugger is driving an Italian journalist.

But once you've captured them, there are certain expectations, and you can't really talk about the "heat of the moment" unless there's an escape attempt or some other mayhem going on. Beating the crap out of helpless prisoners is ineffective as an interrogation technique, and is morally wrong.

It's not a matter of shedding a tear for the poor prisoner. It is a matter of allowing even those we are fighting the appropriate due process. One of the things that is being lost right now with all the Spam-inspired terror-hysteria is the concept of due process, and the inescapable fact that some/maybe many of those incarcerated in these camps may well be moderately innocent.

Especially in conflict in built up areas (or whatever the current jargon is for house-to-house fighting where you're not sure who might be against you), there's a tendency to sweep up everybody and his dog and throw 'em in the pokey. That works quite well, as long as you have some way of processing out the ones who are not of interest. Over here in the US, there is a tacit (and in some cases explicit) assumption that anyone who has been picked up by the forces of might, right and justice is guilty of something. And any suggestion to the contrary is "supporting terrorism" or "disrespecting the troops" or "being anti-American."

But from Magna Carta onward, including such things as habeus corpus and the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the correct and useful treatment and interrogation and (in some cases) release of prisoners has been hammered out. And to step back from that is disgusting. I'd like to think we are better than that.


(noted on preview): So in Interrogation training, how many of you were killed and maimed by your interrogators?

ZH875 22nd May 2005 18:02

If the enemy is a signatory of the Geneva Convention, then treat them under those rules, if they are not a signatory, then treat them iaw the 10 commandments - do unto others, before they do you.

pr00ne 22nd May 2005 19:31

Sorry, BEagle is right here. If this is true then it's wrong, no argument, no excuse, no rationalising, it has nothing to do with the Geneva convention, it's just plain wrong.

jindabyne 22nd May 2005 21:36

BEagle & prOOne are spot on - absolutely NO excuses

(BTW - off thread, but put a post re-Puddy on WATN, and can't believe there are no takers? Wholigan?)

16 blades 22nd May 2005 23:02


it has nothing to do with the Geneva convention, it's just plain wrong.
Says who, Pr00ne? If, as you claim, it is nothing to do with the geneva 'tie your arms behind your back' convention, then who is to say it's wrong?

I do not condone the beating of a defenceless prisoner, but something is not 'wrong' just because YOU say it is, Pr00ne. Can I suggest you stop trying to fight wars from the comfort of your armchair and get out there and see just what the troops have to put up with, before passing judgement in a case you know nothing about?

The terrorists are winning the war, because they do not respect the Geneva Convention or any other form of common decency. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' in war, only winners and losers. We believe (however tentatively) that our cause is generally just, that we are in the right. So do they. They believe that they have the right to slaughter innocent women and children in their 'struggle', simply because they are not muslims, or the wrong type of muslim. So who is right?

The answer is both of us, and none of us, or any combination of the above, depending on your point of view. If we continue to straightjacket ourselves with a 50-year-old set of rules, written long before any concept of trans-national global terrorism existed, we will lose.

As I stated above, I do NOT condone the beating of a defenceless prisoner (if indeed that is what happened - we seem to only have the word of one, probably local, witness based on the information I have seen so far) - however, when facing an enemy that lurks in the shadows, does not have the balls to show itself openly, and is virtually indistinguishable from the locals who just want to get on with their lives, we sometimes need the leeway to bring some pressure to bear in order to achieve the objective and save lives (in this case, both ours AND theirs). The present ROE and constraints do not allow for this, and when it is done out of urgent necessity, we are lambasted in the press, the muslim world gets hold of it and the situation is inflamed further.

I do not want gangland-style beatings, or anything else that is unnecessarily cruel, but I have no problem with causing stress, embarrasment, inconvenience, insult, fear - even a little pain if necessary, in order to gather vital, life-saving intelligence. All of the above has been used to good effect since time immemoriam, yet it is now considered 'bad'.

We will not win this war without getting a bit 'down and dirty' when necessary - and sometimes it IS necessary. You cannot fight a war by 'asking nicely' - if you could, we wouldn't need to carry guns!

16B

walter kennedy 22nd May 2005 23:20

Sadly, I fear that those involved may have been influenced by the attitude and behavior of US personnel. If there is anything positive to come out of this it is surely a requirement for other governments in the coalition to make it a condition of their active participation that standards of treatment of those in custody are acceptable to all parties.
There are other issues of concern about American behavior (friendly fire, direct shooting of journalists, and use of excessive firepower causing unacceptable collateral damage to name a few) but this one is pervasive. Lets us be frank (for the sake of the many victims in awful situations) – the Americans have a long history of downright barbaric treatment of detainees – from the Rhine camps (at the end of WW2) to the containers in Afghanistan (remember them?) – episodes that make Guantanamo Bay seem like Butlins.

If UK personnel are to support them in future, working closely with them, then the US must lift its game.

Gainesy 23rd May 2005 06:19

Sparkie,
Twas Halt/Stamata/Durr.
Or did you just shoot the Turks?:)

Sunfish 23rd May 2005 06:46

Very simple guys, you shoot unarmed or wounded prisoners you are lowering yourself to the same level as your enemies.

Furthermore, it means that the unit concerned has cr@p discipline, at least in my humble opinion as a former lowly Lt.

Furthermore, for those of you who fly over that area, do you think your chances of surviving as a prisoner are enhanced or retarded by OUR treatment of prisoners?

Be very careful who you talk to about this stuff and don't expect any Australians to join in. One guy almost got Court Martialled for kicking a dead body in East Timor a few years ago. they take it very seriously down here.

FJJP 23rd May 2005 07:10

I believe the fundamental cause of the mess the Coalition is in, is that there was no plan or infrastructure ready to deploy when the Forces 'won' the war. The Coalition was supposed to make Iraq a place for the people to go about their daily lives free of tyranny, terror and oppression; instead, we are largely seen as an occupying force.

What should have happened was that Iraq should have been flooded with units designed to win the hearts and minds - vast numbers of engineers equipped to quickly restore essential utilities such as water, electricity and sewage; part of that force should have been large numbers of specialists to police the towns and villages, including personnel trained in proper and effective people and prisoner handling and interrogation. Had we done that right at the beginning, more of the ordinary Iraqi in the street would have been right on-side and working with us to expose individuals and groups that threaten the aims of the operation.

Instead, they got a muddle of planning, where winning the hearts and minds disappeared amongst the need to set priorities within the limited resources available; those who waited expectantly for the 'liberators' to make their lives easier were sorely disappointed and rapidly disillusioned, a perfect formula for non-cooperation.

Add to that the propaganda effect of the few relatively insignificant incidents that the Allied authorities and media blew out of all proportion, and the whole situation descended into a quagmire perfect for exploitation by the 'anti' brigade. They are the added dimension that is very effectively disrupting the transition to self-determination for the Iraqi people.

It is still not too late to rectify the situation, but it will call for a vast effort in manpower, materiel and money to get things right for the individual in the street throughout the country.

And it is fundamentally wrong for civilised people to mis-treat captives, no matter what they are accused of having done...

pongopilot 23rd May 2005 07:13

The mistreating of prisoners is wrong, no matter what has happened in any war. This is just a way of the REMF's to prove how "tough" they are and to have something to talk about when getting home. The REMF's will be sH1tting themselves when being put in the front to face the real enemy.

ORAC 23rd May 2005 09:21

Col Tim Collins

pr00ne 23rd May 2005 09:35

16 blades,

Sorry but it is just wrong.

You are way our of order if you attempt to defend this sort of thing.

effortless 23rd May 2005 09:56

Well Jack Bauer, the problem is that you aren't always right as to whose head you chop off or torture. So many non coms and downright unlucky people get caught up in events. Every innocent person you hurt gives a whole family of resentment to act as a recruiting sergeant to the "insurgents". I do understand the anger and righteous indignation that makes us lash out. I've done it myself and I'm not even a soldier. But this is what military discipline is supposed to obviate. Iraq is not Stalingrad and US and UK soldiers are not being forced to fight at gunpoint by NKVD or Gestapo thugs.

Iraq is a civilised cultured society which has endured thirty years of dictatorship, injustice and war. Look where it finds its self now. If we had been "liberated" from a dictatorship and found ourselves being treated in this way how would we respond? I really must watch "Red Dawn" to see what the Yanks would have done.

Look, in the end, in the interests of "victory" we must be better than the people we fight or we simply either will not win or have to kill and destroy such a large area of the Middle East as to demoralise totally the entire region. We managed it in Germany by saturation bombing and leaving five hundred thousand US troops in addition to French, English and Russians to police the place for years after. Never mind the dead we left behind.

I would contend that the man who really won that war was General George Marshal who very early on in the war started planning for the rebuilding of Europe.

Learn the lessons of the past or just suffer the mistakes.

Jerry Can 23rd May 2005 09:56

It is wrong. It doesn't matter how they behave, we cannot stoop to their levels.

PileUp Officer 23rd May 2005 10:25


If the enemy is a signatory of the Geneva Convention, then treat them under those rules, if they are not a signatory, then treat them iaw the 10 commandments - do unto others, before they do you.
Indeed, Thou shalt not kill.

pr00ne 23rd May 2005 10:55

PileUp Officer,

Nor covet thy neighbours ass.

Icarusthesecond 23rd May 2005 11:36

Scapegoat
 
Hang on a sec.

The article states that prisoners were mistreated - bad. I don't agree with it.

To say there are no excuses is not right though. Unless one was there (and I was not as I suspect most on this thread were not), it must be impossible to judge the emotions that go through ones mind.

As an ex Inf instructor, we train soldiers, some of which have less intelligence than some of the readers of this thread, to KILL. We also train them that comrades are important. Imagine how these soldiers must have felt when they saw a friend or brother killed or wounded. I for one am not surprised that these things happen.

But to put the CO on trial over the actions of a few of his 500 soldiers is ludicrous. Is the section commander, Platoon Commander, Company Commander, Brigade Commander etc etc etc all the way up to Buff himself also getting charged??? I think not.

Why ruin another good mans life and career just to satisfy those who don't understand close combat. It's time the Army stood up and told it like it is.

Let us not forget that before the holier than though preach too much, aircrew have done and do the same. What about the US Apache pilot who famously hunts down a lone person (assumed to be a soldier) on Infrared with the 30 mm and keeps going until he moves no more. - this is aircrew, educated people!

Rant over - Shell scrape being dug

The Helpful Stacker 23rd May 2005 11:54


The mistreating of prisoners is wrong, no matter what has happened in any war. This is just a way of the REMF's to prove how "tough" they are and to have something to talk about when getting home. The REMF's will be sH1tting themselves when being put in the front to face the real enemy.
What a load of twaddle.

Most of the documented incidents of brutality towards prisoners carried out in Iraq have been made by personnel from the 'teeth arms', which has been one of the attempted defences made by the perpetrators. "Oh, we have to fight these people and when forced to act as prison guards its inevitable that we are going to take out our frustrations on them", etc.

BTW, I'd be very interested to know (as would those in charge I guess) where exactly 'the front' is in Iraq at the moment and also who 'the real enemy' are. Do they wear a uniform and where abouts are their MOB's? What are their likely lines of advance and what ground do 'the real enemy' hold at the mo?

Dave Martin 23rd May 2005 13:21

16 Blades,

Please bare in mind, when we are talking about prisoners being beaten to death, and soldiers finding themselves in a difficult conflict, we are talking about two totally different things.

I find it more than a little disturbing when I see the deaths in custody written away with a brief "I do not condone", followed by line after line saying how "our boys" should be allowed to get on with the job.

In a court of law, a defendent's guilty plea will not be taken seriously if they go on to complain about how hard done by they are. Your general attitude seems to be more than a little dismissive of the deaths in custody, prefering to focus on the diffiulties our troops face.

Accept what has happened in this awful situation. Don't find ways to excuse it or explain it away.

Navaleye 23rd May 2005 13:57

I find myself agreeing with Pr00ne and BEagle. Prisoners held under military jurisidiction should be treated humanely, while awaiting trial. I have no problem with these guys being sent trial and if found guilty being shot, but it's not for your average grunt to make those types of decisions.

BEagle 23rd May 2005 14:08

And, Navaleye, if anyone thinks otherwise, they should NOT be serving in the UK Armed Forces.

The CO of any regiment which permits such atrocities should be obliged to resign. Period. No excuses.

TurbineTooHot 23rd May 2005 15:04

Right,

1. I am of the opinion that prisoners should be treated farily and justly, and according to the conventions that we helped create. We must strive to maintain civilised standards as an example.

2. Many of the prisoners subject to the alledged abuse are prisoners because there are alledgedly involved in the insurgency, taking the lives of allied troops.

3. There is a fine line between a bit of roughing up (fair enough) and flagrant abuse (unacceptable). This is sometimes easily crossed when you or one of your mates has just been shot at.

4. We seem all too willing to demonise the ALLEDGED perpetrators of this "abuse," without knowing all the facts.

My question is this. Why does the media, and hence the general public, seem to side with the enemy in this conflict?

pr00ne 23rd May 2005 15:21

TurbineTooHot,

Whose siding with the enemy? Not tolerating flagrant abuses of human rights or a belief in decent standards of civilised behaviour is NOT siding with the enemy.

There have been numerous outright condemnations of kidnappings, beheadings and bombings from almost everywhere.

When you strut around the world claiming that you are a force for good you have to be as clean and untainted by this sort of thing as possible I am afraid, and rightly so.

Darth Nigel 23rd May 2005 16:00

TTH, it is part of an old tradition.


"England expects that every man will do his duty"
Now we can extrapolate this to the more PC, more global world. But it is very important especially in times of crisis to ensure that the armed forces in harm's way do their duty. Part of that military duty includes caring for prisoners according to the various conventions and laws, military and civil. I agree that it is very easy to resort to violence against a helpless opponent, but that is at the very least a failure of command. An officer is responsible for the conduct of the troops under that officer's command, at all levels of command.

As we in Britain and the US have civilian oversight of the military, it is also important to watch the watchers.

And the media reports this because it is sensational, and will generate good numbers (papers sold, news reports watched) from both the luvvies ("oh my god, the soldiers are animals") to the knuckle-draggers ("great to see those wogs getting what they deserve").

cartoon ranger 23rd May 2005 17:53

I don't see why the problem should be retsricted to Iraq. Here in cartoon town, some visiting airplane jumpers had the pleasure in beating the crap out of a WAAF a few months ago. Caught on CCTV and everything, yet never made the papers.

If control isn't exercised here then i'm afraid in a war environment you don't stand a chance.

Dave Martin 23rd May 2005 19:12

TurbineTooHot,

This is not siding with the enemy. This is important.

In many peoples eyes (and crucually Islamic eyes) we are losing the battle for hearts and minds. Our only justification now for invasion, occupation, death and destruction on a massive scale is that we are bringing something different from Saddam Hussein's regime.

We can't maintain that high ground if our soldiers are resorting to this kind of behaviour.

Unless we can distinguish ourselves from the enemy there is really no hope of winning the war - if there ever was.

The very act of an invasion and apparent occupation already puts US and UK forces on the back foot. If they want the support of the local populace they must uphold the very highest of standards. If these soldiers are indeed guilty as they seem then they have adhered to the worst possible standards, damaged the forces reputation and put their own forces in much greater danger.

Many also believe this kind of event is just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the media really should make a song and dance about this in order to get it in the open and help transparency. Hopefully that will also discourage any other yobs from resorting to the same.

Looking at the numbers arrested by US and UK forces who are then released it seems highly likely that many of these detainees are quite simply picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If that results in being beaten to death then what claim do we have over Saddam's regime?

Maple 01 23rd May 2005 19:36

Nice 'guilty until proven guilty' post Dave Martin.

As the recent Koran incident proved, it doesn’t matter what the truth is to this story or any similar, the 'Arab street' will jump on any perceived transgression broadcast by a sensationalist media - so think before you transmit, as they used to say. All this whilst conveniently forgetting the transgressions of their fellow Muslims (remember the bit in the Koran about not killing co-religionists?)

So if some army officer is being threatened with court-marshal for a death he supposedly had ‘command authority’ for can we expect to see similar for the Newsweek journalist and his editor for the 14 (conservative estimate) deaths they are responsible for?

Oh no, I forgot, accountability doesn’t work for the press does it?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:33.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.