On making difficult decisions

I need more information. CPT Fishback propounds some interesting and very important questions that are relevant at the one over the world level, but have little application where boots are on the ground. Unless you served as an MP or MI type, your training in handling EPWs was focused on the Five Esses and the Geneva Convention. Here's my main point: at the level that Fishback operates, he doesn't need to make a determination about whether or not someone is an enemy combatant or a POW or some other category. It's just not his job. He needs to follow the Five Esses and turn this problem over to someone who has the authority to make those decisions. Reading this in the most favorable light I can, Fishback is guilty of thinking strategically, when he should be thinking tactically. Assuming he and his soldiers are "following the rules", there is no dishonor, or even question of honor involved in dealing with "bad guys", regardless of what legal tag someone hangs on them later. Steve C.

What appears to be CPT Fishback's testimony to Human Rights Watch is here. It's very, very interesting, and reveals a lot about his thinking on the subject.

I guess I come down on the side of Steve C and am slightly confused on this subject. When the prisoners are taken in I thought there were basic rules. I don't expect that they would be beaten however, I expect if they refused to obey orders, like get down on their knees, that they would be forced to do so. Police do this all the time. Is that an issue? Or is this issue strictly about what happens when they are already in custody being interrogated or in prison? At which point, I am familiar with general prison practices which it seems gitmo at least follows in general. I suppose that I don't expect prisoners to have food and basic health and hygiene needs withheld unless there is a real infraction of the rules. I expect that, without the status of "prisoner of war" the person is not protected against interrogation or specific methods that would include prolonged interrogation, lying to the prisoner to get them to cooperate or incriminate themselves (such as telling them that another prisoner has already given X information incriminating that prisoner or about an operation, etc) and I don't expect that they have representation during interrogation. I did wonder about certain "stress positions" like handcuffing them in a standing position for 10 or more hours, refusing a bathroom or exposing them to extreme temperatures. Things like taking their clothes away, forced extractions, putting them in isolation, did not bother me either since these are basic practices in prisons as well and generally related to the behavior of the prisoner against himself, another prisoner or a guard. I suppose my expectations, even if they were sabatuers and terrorists (per the geneva convention) was that we would not see things like pulling nails, hammering toes, sawing off fingers, electrocution or threats to do any of these (or other bodily harm, that includes being bitten by a dog). I did not expect to see them in pictures with panties on their heads, a dog leash or standing naked with some chic laughing her ass off. I believe that the other issue is closely related to what the Geneva conventions say about non-uniformed prisoners or "sabatuers and terrorists". by the standards previously written, they would be quickly tried and executed. but we are a more "humane" society so, even though the technicality of the conventions state that, we don't follow those rules. Since we don't, we enter into a fuzzy grey area by some folks standards. Again, maybe I'm confused or just letting my own morality get in the way, but from this standpoint, it seems that we would do as the manual says and revert to treating them with the basic GC rules of care, feeding and freedom from physical harm (aside from being found guilty of some truly hienous crime and being executed), but would simply mitigate the rules that say the prisoner is only responsible to give name, rank and serial number (there being no rank or serial number anyway in a terrorist cell, unofficial militia or non-uniformed actor) and would not protect them from specific interrogation techniques, again, only limited by the removal of violence, assault or threat of such. I also expect that we have created some fairy tale in our minds about how well other prisoners were treated during other wars from our men in uniform. I believe that this change is directly related to freedom of information, 24 hour news cycles and the advent of new "human rights" organizations. The additional pressure applied by this may also be creating the confusion that some feel about what the rules are along witht he possible ambiguous direction from a chain of command even starting with a sergent or lieutenant of a platoon. when I say the confusion from these other outside entities, I believe that this is brought on by standards of these organizations that are even above those granted to a criminal in a legal system and also by trying to apply morality standards of your basic citizen who would not expect to be treated that way on a normal day interacting with "law enforcement". I guess, again, I am confused about why this is an issue since it seems much simpler than is being made out. But, as pointed out, here we are at our keyboards and not involved. However, i believe that judging activities from the outside is appropriate since that allows for cooler heads to prevail, as difficult as the rules are to apply in every situation. We do the same for our police and other law enforcement entities.

Jim B, All I can say is that I'm glad that you and Lt. Calley are no longer members of the service. Have a nice life.

Here's the point. Soldiers should have honor. Period. I don't disagree that orders from the rear should be disobeyed when they're proven wrong by conditions on the battlefield, but Jim B seems to be suggesting that soldiers get to make up their own rules as they go along and that anyone who wants to show the world what's going on in the battlefield should be "discourag(ed)...by any means possible." So soldiers should threaten reporters and photographers? Americans don't have a right to know what their soldiers are doing? And what, exactly, does Jim suggest you do with your sissies and bleeding hearts? As much as people like to bitch about the treatment Vietnam veterans received from civilians when they returned, studies have shown that many of the people who suffered from PTSD and other problems were much more worried about being considered "sissies" because they woke up with nightmares or couldn't get their shit together over such silly things as killing people. Does Jim support the troops? All of them or just the ones who live up to his standards? All of them or just the ones who are willing to do nothing and allow evil to occur. I apologize for suggesting that Jim and Calley were alike. That was wrong. And I'm sorry if you felt like I was "flaming" him, but I was just being honest. I am glad.

And I'll note that Nitpicker was putting up his response while I was composing my previous, so he didn't see what I had to say nor I what he said.

I meant, "There's an interesting correlation between this and My Lai." Obviously, I brought it up. And in a stupid, angry way. Again, I apologize to Jim B.

I had started a long rant in which I began carefully fisking some of the points made in the thread above, but I finally just decided to say this instead: From the way this thread evolved, it's fairly easy to guess who has real-world experience, a decent education, AND a relatively mature, pragmatic weltanschauung. It's also easy to see who doesn't.... Platitudes and sophistry are characteristics of a weak mind, a poor education, or a lack of experience in the topic being discussed. They are also typical of people who, lacking genuine, pertinent experience, tend to force-fit the logic, vocabulary, or perspectives of one milieu on a similar but essentially different one, just to appear credible; for example, to talk about chicken shit when the topic is eggs. It just seems to me that Jim B was talking "eggs." ~SangerM

No definitive orders for the treatment of POW's. Has there EVER been such?

Yes. Search them Secure them (tie them up) Segregate them (enlisted, NCOs and officers) Safeguard them (keep them out of harm's way) Speed them to the rear Those are the standard operating procedures. At the unit level (company/battlion) you don't interrogate them nor do you "classify" (sort the sheep from the goats) them. You pass them on back through the trains to wherever the EPW holding area is located, usually at division level. At that level there are MP units trained to handle EPWs and MI units to do interrogations and intelligence exploitation, ie what does this map mean? Is this code books useful? What people are conflating is the question of legal status, what Geneva classification category applies to a detainee. The US, I think correctly, has defined terrorists as criminals, not soldiers. As such they are not entitled to the normal protections extended to "soldiers" under the Geneva and Hague Conventions. We are free, under our own regulations and laws to prosecute them for committing criminal acts. What this really always boils down to is the question of "torture". A protected person, a PW, can not be coerced into answering questions. You can not withhold food, water, shelter etc or make them conditional on providing information. There are no such rules or laws dealing with how one treats criminals. Our policy is treat them as if they were EPWs, except in matters of their conduct and with regard to interrogation. We reserve the right to try them for crimes committed. We reserve the right to use some forms of coercion to obtain intelligence information. Well then what's torture? At that point I have to take a pass. Like ponorgraphy, I know it when I see it. Beyond that there are reams of regulations, policies, laws and even treaties. Like most government documents, they don't give you an accurate road map. They tell you what you can't do, or what you must do. Not what you may do. I don't lose a lot of sleep over this. Good officers and NCOs at unit level will keep control of their troops. Most detention centers are run by competent and concerned professionals who want to do the right thing and follow the rules while accomplishing the mission. What I do lose sleep over is when I hear about an entire command so dysfunctional, that the privates and Spec Fours are making policy on the fly and indulging in ghastly juvenile debauchery. And nobody seems to know (or care) about what's going on. Steve C.

You know, I have no doubt that CPT. Fishback is a good and honorable man. Won't his actions lead to the blanket catch all phrase of 'poor judgment' when he couldn't get clear guidance? And if he hadn't sought them out, he would still be wrong. It is a no win situation for him and he takes the rap for good or ill. Will re read this again in detail and may have more questions after I have read it...

Thanks. Guidance has to be clear and consistent. Good on him for being exact so that he does his job and does not stand accused of wrongdoing.