- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
A controversial policy that gives U.S. forces in Afghanistan four days to question detainees is being changed to give soldiers more time to interrogate the captives, Gen. David Petraeus said Tuesday. Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that American troops will now be able to hold detainees for up to 14 days before either releasing them or turning them over to the Afghan government. In some cases, longer detention will be an option, he said. Currently, U.S. troops have 96 hours to question people picked up in the field before they must either release them or hand them over to Afghan authorities. The rule is designed to give the Afghan government control over detainees and avoid abuses.
CNN began examining the 96-hour rule with the case of Roger Hill, a former Army captain, who received a general discharge for his role in the questioning of 12 detainees. Those men, including one who was his trusted interpreter, had worked on his base in Afghanistan. Hill was the U.S. commander in Wardak Province, in eastern Afghanistan, for much of 2008, and said he feared the enemy was tracking his every move. He suspected an inside threat. "Out of a 90-man company, we had 30 wounded, to include two killed in action," he said. He said his headquarters sent a team to the base to detect possible spies. The team screened cell phone activity to find out which Afghan civilians working on the base were really working for the Taliban -- and his interpreter was one of them.
Angry and frustrated that the interpreter might be the one sabotaging missions, Hill detained all 12 men in a small building on the base. That's when the 96-hour rule went into effect. Hill said the rule does not work, and many times dangerous suspects are released because there's not enough time to gather evidence. As the clock ticked toward the 96-hour NATO deadline, Hill made a decision that would cost him his military career. "I decided that I needed to break protocol and interrogate them myself," he said. "I took three gentlemen outside, sat them down, walked away, and fired my weapon into the ground three times, hoping that the men inside, left to their own imagination, would think that they really needed to talk." Hill walked back inside. "And sure enough, some of the detainees started to talk," he said.
What the detainees told him was enough to persuade the Afghans to take all 12 men into custody, including Hill's interpreter. Hill said he felt he had made the correct decision to protect his soldiers, but the Army charged him with detainee abuse, leading to his discharge from the military. The 12 men were released, despite the confession, according to Army investigators. No one knows where they are now and what's they're doing.
I'm honestly all over the place with this one. I can see the good and bad. I want to see what more people have to say before I actually decide. It's shocking, that much I'll say.
What is so surprising about the scenario? Threatening murder would obviously invalidate any confession given
and failure to follow military protocol would obviously result in dismissal.
Makes me sick when people halfway around the world in an air-conditioned room sipping on a Diet Coke make judgments on a guy in a situation like this.
What is so surprising about the scenario?
Threatening murder would obviously invalidate any confession given...
God damn right.
That Solider did the right thing. Screw the PC bed-wetters who say otherwise...
I salute you, sir!!!
:2usflag:
Let's say it turns out he was wrong. Nobody knew anything. It was just some clever tracking by the enemy.
Still doing the right thing?
I've thought about it more, and I believe that the ends don't justify the means. I think of equivalent situations in the civil realm...
Just because the soldier ended up acquiring useful information at the end does not mean what he did was any less abhorrent or illegal. There is due process, even in the military, and it must be followed. I've often heard it said that if we pull out of Afghanistan then the terrorists have won; but isn't it also true that if we abandon our principles in pursuit of them, then they are also winning on a different front? The whole reason why we are after them is because we perceive them to be non-state actors that have immoral values; so what does it say when we show a lack of values?
We have to preserve our integrity and principles as a Western bloc, otherwise any victory will be meaningless. If we are reading about this then so are the Afghani people, and we are basically there to be their protectors and reformers. If we can't live according to our own standards then it's only going to work against us. Half of our battle there is a propaganda war where we are trying to convince the locals that we are the better side, and what this soldier did is totally working in our disfavor.
What is so surprising about the scenario? Threatening murder would obviously invalidate any confession given and failure to follow military protocol would obviously result in dismissal. The only thing I'd consider surprising is that we aren't still keeping tabs on them. I think the 96 hour limit is too short and the 14 day limit reasonable given the circumstances, but that still doesn't excuse the man's actions.
I agree with you. Sure, information can be obtained by using these kinds of tactics, but as has been demonstrated before, the intel is no good, as all they are trying to do is keep from being killed, so will say anything.
It's not about the legality of it. It is just a dumb thing to do.
And I agree with the longer limit. Interrogators need more time to do what they do.
That's easy to say sitting behind your computer. Try that logic in Afghanistan and see how far it gets you...
Those who got the bad intel in the past already know that logic.
But there aren't any equivalent situations in the civil realm. It's warfare.
He did what was necessary to protect the lives of his men. I think he extolled the highest virtues of Western civilization.
Let's say it turns out he was wrong. Nobody knew anything. It was just some clever tracking by the enemy.
Still doing the right thing?
I've thought about it more, and I believe that the ends don't justify the means. I think of equivalent situations in the civil realm, where police enter homes without warrants and collect damning evidence. The judges can potentially toss it out because legal procedures were not followed.
Just because the soldier ended up acquiring useful information at the end does not mean what he did was any less abhorrent or illegal. There is due process, even in the military, and it must be followed. I've often heard it said that if we pull out of Afghanistan then the terrorists have won; but isn't it also true that if we abandon our principles in pursuit of them, then they are also winning on a different front? The whole reason why we are after them is because we perceive them to be non-state actors that have immoral values; so what does it say when we show a lack of values?
We have to preserve our integrity and principles as a Western bloc, otherwise any victory will be meaningless. If we are reading about this then so are the Afghani people, and we are basically there to be their protectors and reformers. If we can't live according to our own standards then it's only going to work against us. Half of our battle there is a propaganda war where we are trying to convince the locals that we are the better side, and what this soldier did is totally working in our disfavor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?