Big Boys Rules

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by error_unknown, Oct 29, 2003.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    The US Army has charged an American officer, a 19 year veteran, who used psychological pressure by twice firing his service weapon near an Iraqi. After the shots were fired, the detainee, an Iraqi police officer, gave up information on a planned attack around the northern Iraqi town of Saba al Boor. Col. West said the gunshots spurred the Iraqi to provide the location of the planned sniper attack and the names of three guerrilla fighters.
    But the Army is taking a dim view of the interrogation tactic and the Officer has been charged with one count of aggravated assault which could lead to the Army court-martialing Col. West and sending him to prison for a maximum term of eight years.
    "I accept being retired at the grade of major and paying whatever fine required, but resignation and prison seems an attempt to destroy me," Col. West says. "All I wish is to go away, re-establish my family and retain some of my dignity."

    Whilst abiding by agreed rules and maintaining standards is important, interrogation, however unpleasant, is a necessary factor and it seems crazy that an officer should be treated as a criminal rather than a hero in these circumstances.
    From what I read here the man appears to have done his job well....How can it be wrong to scare a bloke to get intelligence?
    Although a different story I'd bet our own Col. Tim relates to this one..thank GOD our people investigated things thoroughly and HIS good name was cleared.
  2. i hope they take him to the cleaners, you just cant do that sort of thing.
    would he like it if it happened to him? probably not.
  4. Since when can't you do that sort of thing? It's a hell of a lot more humane than what they do to people.

    The man was doing his job, and doing it well. Leave him alone.
  5. The Iraqi police officer had intelligence about a forthcoming attack that he did not impart to his interrogators until the shots were fired close to him at which point he no doubt wet himself and talked. The consequences of not getting that information out of the Iraqi would no doubt have led to there being no more Christmas ever again for some coalition troops.
    Needs must when there's a war on.
  6. If "Standard" interrogation techniques revealed the data extracted, but too late would you have written the letter to NoK apologising for the death or maiming of their husband/son/loved ones?
  7. If "Standard" interrogation techniques revealed the data extracted, but too late would you have written the letter to NoK apologising for the death or maiming of their husband/son/loved ones?
  8. Playing Devil's Advocate.......

    There's a good article in the Spring 2003 issue of British Army Review on this very subject; it provides all of the justification for not using, err, "non-standard", interrogation techniques; namely it provides a short-term gain (where is this bomb) for some severe losses, mainly to credibility and integrity, in the long-term (those Coalition types are torturers, don't trust them, so much for the moral high ground, etc, etc)

    If you've read "Big Boys' Rules", you'll remember that it pointed out how the, err, robust doctrine for dealing with PIRA didn't actually produce the desired effect (Hey, the Israelis have been proving this since the start of the second Intifada). After all, where would Christianity be if Jesus had got 10-to-15 with time off for good behaviour?

    The BAR article also provides the example of a French officer, who had himself been tortured in Dachau during WWII, being ordered to torture an FLN detainee in Algeria in order to get just such information ("where is the third bomb")..... read it, you'll find out what he did :)
  9. No doubt you will know all about it BB??
  10. I'm with Theatreman on this one. This is just not acceptable. Turn the situation on its head and put a British soldier in his place being interrogated by a member of an opposing force and lets say thay are after the Brigade plan of which Tommy Atkins knows nothing. Will the shock of a pistol being fired next to his head suddenly allow him to be party to said plan? Unfortunately not, so where does the interrogator draw the line - shoot off a couple of fingers perhaps? How did this cowboy actually KNOW that the detainee knew anything?

    This type of cowboy attitude to interrogation is contrary to the Geneva convention. I hope he spends a long time in the nick. :evil:
  11. This incident was dealing with an Iraqi policeman who it was believed had vital information about a forthcoming attack. He resisted usual interrogation procedures. This firing of a couple of shots seems to have produced the desired effect quite nicely.
    Long term effects of the odd interrogator getting a little 'cross' now and then may, I would think, encourage those interviewed to 'fess up' earlier.
    I cannot see that comparing entrenched republicans responses to hard interrogation with those of Iraqis; newly involved in resistance is, at this stage, valuable as, if resistance does continue for the long haul in Iraq, things will inevitably toughen up all round.
    Just my take
  12. Do I have to repeat myself?
  13. Blondie, as it's patently obvious that you know absolutely sod all about the subject matter, it looks like you are just posting a conflicting argument for the sake of it. In future, consider yourself as living in Coventry from this callsign. :evil:
  14. Which point or points did you disagree with? :?
    If the points I make are, in your view, wrong, please refute them,
    make your own points and enlighten me and the other contributers
    ...that's discussion after all.
    I'm not just disagreeing for the sake of it (actually I was the first here to post my viewpoint and I have stuck to it throughout).
    I am most interested in other thoughts on the subject.
    I would of course, love to learn more.
  15. there is an approach in dealing with the enemy combatants in war, in which the Geneva Convention, must be upheld,

    and a different standard in dealing with illegal combatants or insurgents at home or abroad.

    however from a PR and/or Hearts and minds view its just not a smart way to do business. if you are going to do it, do it out of public view/tv camera/locals.

    if you get caught breaking the rules dont start bleating.