• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. to end 96-hour rule for Afghan detainees

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
U.S. to end 96-hour rule for Afghan detainees - CNN.com

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.

This is interesting enough by itself, but the incident that prompted this change is what really intrigued me:

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.

That surprised the living hell out of me. Thoughts?
 
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'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.
 
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.

I'm with you. If considering a case where the person detained is actually guilty, I support longer holding to collect evidence to be used for prosecution. However if the person being detained is not actually guilty, holding them for 2 weeks can not only have negative effects on the person's feelings towards troops but can also take the person away from what ever job them may have and in turn harm the person's family they are likely trying to support. Not to mention it would violate the civil liberties that we in America enjoy and would hope to spread to the rest of the world.

It all depends on the case I guess. I could not comment on any specific case as I am not there to judge the validity of the detainment. I would like to trust the judgment of the troops on the ground how ever.
 
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

The detainees in question weren't being tried in a civilian court, so I don't know why it would. I don't know of any rule that would have prevented the military from using that information as evidence to render them as enemy combatants or to turn them over to the afghans for prosecution.

and failure to follow military protocol would obviously result in dismissal.

I don't think it can be disputed that what he did violated existing military protocol and thus probably warranted his punishment, but I think it raises questions about the application of the protocol at issue. From my perspective, this situation is like the smaller, less imminent cousin of the ticking time bomb.
 
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.

God damn right.

That Solider did the right thing. Screw the PC bed-wetters who say otherwise...

I salute you, sir!!!

:2usflag:
 
What is so surprising about the scenario?

The fact that our military is being ham-stringed by nonsensical PC rules.

Threatening murder would obviously invalidate any confession given...

Invalidate it in what way? They're in a war-zone, you know...
 
i think the soldier was in the right, in a situation that has, and could cause loss of life, a threat like that is justified.
 
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?
 
The CPT thought he had good evidence aginst the 12 men ie the cell phone activity which I feel justifies his actions and I would have probably done the same. No if he had no other evidence than a gut feeling than that might be different.
 
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?

Mistakes happen and hindsight is 20/20. No system is perfect, not even the criminal justice system. I'd rather give the military wide discretion in intelligence operations than hamstring them with silly PC laws.
 
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. If exceptions to the rule become the norm, then the norm becomes the rule being abandoned altogether.

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.
 
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...

But there aren't any equivalent situations in the civil realm. It's warfare.

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.

He did what was necessary to protect the lives of his men. I think he extolled the highest virtues of Western civilization.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
Those who got the bad intel in the past already know that logic.

Name a method that is guaranteed to obtain good intel every time it is used. Go ahead, name one.
 
But there aren't any equivalent situations in the civil realm. It's warfare.

I know that... but it's equivalent in that allowing exceptions to be made to rules leads to such ignorance becoming the norm.

He did what was necessary to protect the lives of his men. I think he extolled the highest virtues of Western civilization.

He didn't extol anything of the kind. He showed the Afghani people that Americans can't follow their own rules and so the virtues they extol can't be trusted.

He was only looking out for his own ass. If he can't handle following military protocol then maybe he should go home.

All this said... I wasn't in his shoes, so I don't know how I would've handled it. But the core theme here is rules being violated with no repercussions just because the end result worked in our favor. What happens when the exceptions eventually cause increased threats to those in active combat?

We can pat him on the back this time but what he did shouldn't become a habit.
 
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?

If it was the right thing in situations when it worked, then it has to be the right thing even when it doesn't work. The validity of a policy cannot be outcome-dependent.

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.

I don't see how that really applies here. Think about your example - the punishment for the police who improperly collect evidence is merely that the evidence collected improperly is excluded. The only reason that that policy even exists is because of the bill of rights, which is entirely inapplicable in war.

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.

I just don't see why we should be modeling our wartime conduct after our domestic civilian conduct, especially where our wartime conduct is already far outside the spectrum of what is permitted here.
 
Back
Top Bottom