Officer claims of torture

#1
Adding insult to injury..

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13077246,00.html

'TORTURE CLAIMS ARE TRUE'

British troops are inflicting serious and unlawful beatings on Iraqi prisoners, a serving Army officer has claimed.


The unnamed officer, who fought in the Iraq campaign, said senior officers were aware of the attacks.

He added there was "a nod and a wink to certain things".

Many of the flaws in the system for overseeing how prisoners were treated resulted from having "junior people" guarding them, he added.

His disclosures, on GMTV's Sunday programme, follow the publication of photographs of British soldiers apparently torturing an Iraqi prisoner.

The pictures appear to show the man being beaten and urinated on.

Asked if he was aware of British troops mistreating Iraqis, the officer said: "It was definitely heard of."

He added: "People were literally getting serious, serious beating or kickings when they were plasticuffed - you're talking broken ribs, punctured lungs sort of thing."

Asked if the Army would have approved of the beatings, he said: "That's a very good question. I think there was a nod and a wink to certain things.

"They did turn a blind eye to things, well no, not turn a blind eye, there were certain things which people were aware were happening."

He claimed "quite high officers" were aware of unlawful incidents.
:(
 
#2
It certainly sounds as though he was aware of these incidents. When he's found and screwed to a coffee table by his legs, will he tell everyone what he did about it at the time?
 
#4
Disco said:
He added: "People were literally getting serious, serious beating or kickings when they were plasticuffed - you're talking broken ribs, punctured lungs sort of thing."


Is it not curious that not a word has come from the medics about this, especially given TA doctors' and nurses' propensity for writing to the Telegraph etc.?

If the 'victims' had been treated by local doctors, surely it would be all over Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya by now?

Whilst there may well have been some robust treatment, serious injuries of the sort described surely could not go unnoticed.
 
#5
Disco said:
The unnamed officer, who fought in the Iraq campaign, said senior officers were aware of the attacks.

He added there was "a nod and a wink to certain things".

Asked if he was aware of British troops mistreating Iraqis, the officer said: "It was definitely heard of."

Asked if the Army would have approved of the beatings, he said: "That's a very good question. I think there was a nod and a wink to certain things.

"They did turn a blind eye to things, well no, not turn a blind eye, there were certain things which people were aware were happening."

He claimed "quite high officers" were aware of unlawful incidents.
Well, yes there were decidedly unlawful things occuring, which were properly investigated by the SIB and action is ongoing. This is nothing new.

I find the suggestion that these 'quite high officers' were allowing this to occur personally offensive - that is to say 'ARRSE!'.

In TabloidLand, 'high ranking officer' is shorthand for 'someone who isn't a private soldier'. :evil:

Is anyone else getting severely annoyed with all these 'tattletails' who appear to be materialising out of the woodwork? A crime is a crime - but there are established channels for processing allegations of this kind - running to the feckin press isn't the answer, and affects morale. :evil:

PS Disco - apologies for 'quoting' you above - I know they aren't your original comments! :D
 
#6
Todays Telegraph has a typically crap article in attributed to Andy McNab - A former SAS Officer.

Whilst one expects the Guardian to be aware only of the rank structure in the Probation and Social Services, one expects better of the Bellylaugh.

If the Officer quoted on GMTV has any evidence he must take it to the proper authorities, indeed it is both his military and civil duty to do so. If he hasn't any evidence he should shut the fck up. Either way he should not be allowed anonymity.
 
#7
I'm would say that this counts as 'unauthorised contact with the media' - an act of misconduct in itself - and worthy of AGAI 67 action.

[Edited to remove the completely off thread comments!! :D ]
 
#8
The_Sloping_Wire said:
I'm would say that this counts as 'unauthorised contact with the media' - an act of misconduct in itself - and worthy of AGAI 67 action.

[Edited to remove the completely off thread comments!! :D ]
I suggest that that would be letting this individual off rather lightly. How many more people are going to come out with this rubbish anonymously?

If I had been witness to this sort of misconduct I hope I would have the moral courage to make a good deal of noise about it at the time and without the need to hide my identity. Seems to me that this man is not fit to wear the uniform let alone hold a commision!
 
#9
MrPVRd said:
Sir Timothy said he had been on an Army chatroom where serving soldiers had been expressing their "revulsion" over the photos.
from BBC News website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3676389.stm

Wasn't this one, was it?
I suspect that it may well have been, check out the links section of Sir Timothy Garden's homepage.

I for one find it extremely heartening that a man of this calibre and with such strong defence links will be entering the House of Lords. I've just read some of the work he produces and that is available on his site. As an example, check this out for an extremely well argued piece weighing up the pros and cons of maintaining forces trained and equipped for high intensity warfighting.
 
#10
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13077246,00.html

He claimed "quite high officers" were aware of unlawful incidents
.

Of all people, Officers should know that the use of exotic herbs and proscribed pharmaceuticals is; unlawful!

"Quite high officers.."
Notwithstanding the point made above that tabloid criteria brass hats are Lance Corporal and above; quite high officers. :?: :?: Only a career civilian would use an expression like that to describe quite senior, quite high ranking.
 
#12
The smell of BS gets worse. Same Sky link.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13077246,00.html

Many of the flaws in the system for overseeing how prisoners were treated resulted from having "junior people" guarding them, he added.
Junior people??? Is that; troops, private soldiers, junior ratings, other ranks?

The system for overseeing anything isn't flawed because of the work of those being overseen. Unless of course, the junior people are smart enough to conceal what they are up to from the overseers. But the unnamed (always) officer is on one hand accusing overseers of complicity.

Contradictory and littered with civspeak, American speak even! And how much did the nameless officer get paid by Sky?

Gas gas gas!
 
#13
From the pen of Sir Tim: (my highlighting)

The political choice is therefore increasingly between high cost, high technology warfighting, as part of US capability, or sustainable investment in our unique capability to do good in the world.
Like so many recent commitments, deployment to Iraq looks, at present, like a ‘mission without end’. If such commitments are to be sustained, UK forces must have sufficient numbers - of properly equipped people - to enable them to replace those currently deployed, over and over again, while remaining capable of undertaking further demands in an uncertain world
The process of developing the mix of military capabilities remains one of assessing priorities and making hard choices. As a nation, we appear to have decided that we do not wish to fund our armed forces to enable them to carry out all their possible tasks, from high-intensity conflict through nation-building, conflict prevention and counter-terrorism, down to replacing striking fire-fighters. Yet, paradoxically, the government demands that they are prepared to carry all these roles out at any time and in any place.
However governments have a reciprocal responsibility. They must understand the implications of any demands that they make on the Services, in respect of strain on both personnel and equipment. Frequent operational deployment, away from home, is bound to affect the long term commitment of military personnel with family responsibilities. Nor is perpetual deployment a satisfactory basis on which to plan the structure of our military. If governments wish a task to be undertaken, it is up to them to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of trained personnel to undertake it, provided with sufficient equipment of the right kind, and the necessary replacements available to relieve them after a reasonable time on operations. The almost perpetual mobilisation of volunteer reservists, justified during the Iraq war but less so during its reconstruction, is being increasingly questioned by employers. This too is a priceless asset that must not be destroyed by overuse.
Great stuff from Sir Tim - have a good dig around on his site - there's plenty of little goodies squirrelled away. :D