• CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.

Tapes describe U.S. servicemen killing for sport in Afghanistan

Jayman01

BSB Executive Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Posts
4,515
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
From Drew Griffin, CNN Correspondent
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Afghan man did not appear to be armed or aggressive, says serviceman
"Alright, wax this guy," soldier says his commander said
Army alleges that 3 Afghan civilians killed between January and May

RELATED TOPICS

Jeremy Morlock
Afghanistan
Atlanta, Georgia (CNN) -- Tapes obtained by CNN of interrogations of a group of U.S. servicemen charged with unprovoked killings of Afghan civilians describe gruesome scenes of cold-blooded murder.

"So we met this guy by his compound, so Gibbs walked him out, set him in place, was like standing here," says Cpl. Jeremy Morlock, detailing how, on patrol earlier this year and under the command of his sergeant, Calvin R. Gibbs, he and others took an Afghan man from his home and killed him.

"So, he was fully cooperating?" the military investigator asks on the tapes in a May 2010 interview.

"Yeah," Morlock responds.

Investigator: "Was he armed?"

Morlock: "No, not that we were aware of."

Investigator: "So, you pulled him out of his place?"

Morlock: "I don't think he was inside. He was by his little hut area ... and Gibbs sent in a couple of people."

Investigator: "Where did they stand him, next to a wall?"

Morlock: "Yeah, he was kinda next to a wall ... where Gibbs could get behind a wall when the grenade went off. And then he kind of placed me and [Spc. Adam] Winfield off over here so we had a clean line of sight for this guy and, you know, he pulled out one of his grenades, an American grenade, popped it, throws the grenade and tells me and Winfield, 'Alright, wax this guy. Kill this guy, kill this guy.'"

Investigator: "Did you see him present any weapons? Was he aggressive toward you at all?"

Morlock: "No, not at all. Nothing, he wasn't a threat."

Morlock is accused of killing three Afghan civilian men -- two by shooting -- between January and May of this year. The third was the killing he described above.

The charging papers from the U.S. military paint a picture of a band of rogue soldiers, smoking hash, bored and plotting and carrying out murders of Afghan civilians for sport.

Gibbs is also accused of having kept fingers and leg bones as souvenirs, according to the documents. A soldier who tried to blow the whistle was beaten and threatened, some soldiers said.

Some of the soldiers took photographs of each other next to the Afghans after they had been shot, CNN has learned.

According to the military documents, some of the soldiers were involved in throwing grenades at civilians.

Morlock's civilian attorney, Michael Waddington, did not deny that his client killed for sport. "That's what it sounds like," he told CNN.

Waddington said his 22-year-old client was brain-damaged from prior IED attacks, was using prescription drugs and smoking hashish and was under the influence of and in fear of his commanding officer, who is also charged. He called Gibbs "the ringleader behind this."

Authorities allege Gibbs kept finger bones, leg bones and a tooth from Afghan corpses. Another soldier allegedly kept a skull from a corpse, according to charging documents.

Gibbs' attorney did not return CNN's calls.

Several soldiers are charged with taking pictures of the corpses, and one soldier is charged with with stabbing a corpse.

Other soldiers charged said they were afraid of Gibbs and admitted smoking hashish laced with opium nearly every day.

Cpl. Emmitt Quintal, who is charged with trying to interfere with a military investigation and drug abuse, told the Army investigator the whole deployment was using drugs on "bad days, stressful days, days when we needed to escape."

Quintal told investigators in May that the platoon -- under Gibbs' direction -- went to the barracks of a man who they believed was a snitch and beat him up.

After the beating, Quintal said on the tape, "Gibbs sat down casually and told [him] if he snitched again he would kill him and that he had killed people before and that he had no problem killing again. At that time, Sgt. Gibbs had a cloth. He opened it and dropped it and three human body fingers fell on the ground. At that point, I really lost my head."

Quintal's attorney did not return a call from CNN.

In all, Morlock is charged with three counts of murder. He is accused of killing Afghan civilian Gul Mudin in January with a grenade and rifle; killing civilian Mullah Adahdad in May in a similar manner; and shooting to death Marach Agha in February.

On Monday, Morlock and his attorney attended an Article 32 hearing at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington.

At the hearing, to determine whether the military has enough evidence against Morlock to proceed with a court-martial, Army Special Agent Anderson D. Wagner testified that Morlock admitted in interrogations last May to being involved in the murders.

In his client's defense, Waddington suggested that Morlock was under the influence of drugs when he spoke with Wagner and that he should not have been interviewed until a later time. Morlock was being transferred through Kandahar for assessment of traumatic brain injury when the interview took place, Waddington said.

But Wagner testified that Morlock appeared lucid and articulate during the interview.

Still, Wagner acknowledged that there was no direct evidence Morlock was responsible for the killings, since no autopsies were performed.

Adam Kelly, another soldier under Gibbs, told investigators that the staff sergeant had a stash of guns and other items that could be planted on murder victims and that the other soldiers feared him.

"If Gibbs knew I was sitting here in front of this camera right now, there is no doubt in my mind that he would [expletive], that he would take me out," he said.

Kelly himself is not charged with murder. His attorney did not return a call from CNN.

The Pentagon has not commented on any of the cases. Instead, it sent CNN a statement about the videos:

"Disclosure of the video recordings to the public at this juncture is troubling because it could adversely affect the fair and just administration of the military justice process," the statement says.

Pretrial investigation hearings for five of the soldiers are scheduled over the next several weeks. Seven other soldiers are facing lesser charges, ranging from covering up the killings and mutilating corpses to drug use.

All of the men were members of a 2nd Infantry Division brigade operating near Kandahar in southern Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010.

The five facing murder charges are Morlock of Wasilla, Alaska; Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs, of Billings, Montana; Pfc. Andrew Holmes of Boise, Idaho; Spc. Adam Winfield, of Cape Coral, Florida; and Spc. Michael Wagnon, of Las Vegas, Nevada. They are all from the 5th Stryker Brigade.

Winfield's attorney, Eric Montalvo, told CNN in an e-mail that his client "is not guilty of premeditated murder, and that's as clear as I can be."

He said the videotape "doesn't tell the whole story. ... It is sort of what they molded him into."

CNN's Kathleen Johnston, Courtney Yager, Scott Zamost and Todd Schwarzschild contributed to this story.

Wow, as if the US needed this while we are trying to negociate peace and pull out. I am not certain how this is going to be handled in the interest of peace.:001_unsure::001_huh:
 
Agree with your last para Jay, it's worrying when things like this come out - we Brits still have similar enquiries going on in what allegedly happened in Iraq. Whilst I do not condone what has allegedly happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can picture situations that could result in such actions. These guys are mostly under some snipers or bombers view and it's tough on them sometimes to decide who is and his not a threat. It's an almost impossible job as an apparent friendly local could easily have lots of semtex or other IEDs under his closed ready to explode and kill yours and our troops.

However, ALL troops are expected to behave Whiter than White and NO govt wants dirt like this plastered all over the press. And with the freedom of the press they will publish anything if it's a good story, irrespect of whether or not it will harm it's own country. News sells I'm afraid.
 
Agree with your last para Jay, it's worrying when things like this come out - we Brits still have similar enquiries going on in what allegedly happened in Iraq. Whilst I do not condone what has allegedly happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can picture situations that could result in such actions. These guys are mostly under some snipers or bombers view and it's tough on them sometimes to decide who is and his not a threat. It's an almost impossible job as an apparent friendly local could easily have lots of semtex or other IEDs under his closed ready to explode and kill yours and our troops.

However, ALL troops are expected to behave Whiter than White and NO govt wants dirt like this plastered all over the press. And with the freedom of the press they will publish anything if it's a good story, irrespect of whether or not it will harm it's own country. News sells I'm afraid.

John, you are so right. I thought the same thing about the press. More importantly, the threat in in Iraq and Afghanistan, is just like you say. These people have incredible convictions toward their beliefs and the terrorists in these country's don't wear a standard uniform. They dress as civilians and they are willing to wear a bomb and commit suicide as long as they can kill a few soldiers with themselves or they will do it to make a political statement.

The real issue here is the media sensationalism and the positive and negative propaganda that is being promoted by the media. There are several people that are not happy with our troops being in their country fixing their problem. However, they tolerate us because we are keeping some semblance of peace to a degree. Stuff like this may serve negatively to influence those who may be sitting on the fence on the issue to join the terrorist regimes to rid their country of us. Many people living in those country's don't want war of any kind but many of them are related. Russia tried for nearly 30 years to invade those country's with no success.

It is kind of odd when you think about it that in order to liberate a country from tyranny we are required to use military might and war tactics in villages and other small communities just to remove the problem. It is very difficult to distinguish a military target from a civilian target under these circumstances.

People who have not served are not aware of the kind of training that soldiers endure. They are taught to follow their leadership without question. Of course, they are taught to use their chain of command. For the most part, the rule is to follow all lawful orders first and question them second. The trouble is there is no real training other that our own morality to determine what is or is not a lawful order. I.e. in boot camp many DI's will tell a soldier to drop and give them 50 push-ups for some kind of disciplinary action. This carries over to the fleet with superiors making soldiers that goof up do the same as a lesson or for disciplinary action. However, it is against the UCMJ to give an order like that unless the superior is performing the activity along with the soldier. Conversely, failure to comply is seen as a challenge to a superior's authority and it is dealt with by things like code reds etc... Under the UCMJ it clearly states that one of the reasons that deadly force is authorized is "by direct order from a superior competent authority." Who defines competent? I was told that the any higher ranking person in my chain of command was considered to be that person. Yikes. Things like that make me go hummmm!!! The main issue here is that in a war time scenario soldiers cannot mentally question their superior's authority for a brief second or people die. (fellow soldiers)

So, in a case like this it is already too public. The military needs to demonstrate that this will not be tolerated publicly. In essence "the needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few or the one." The US in a situation where they need to save face in the eyes of the world. Engaging civilian combatants is against the Geneva convention. Not to mention that if this is not dealt with severely and publicly for the Iraqi and Afghani people; this issue will cause a rift in the peace efforts currently going on and serve as propaganda to recruit more people into terrorist armies. So, the US will probably move swiftly and severely and then resolve the cause of the issue later.
 
Having been a member of the services, Jayman, you would be highly qualified to speak about issues that do not fall in the black-or-white category. There are many factors that lead to what we would consider questionable behavior, but many civilians are ignorantly aware and equally quick to judge. We have a similar situation here in Washington state--at least four police were killed this past year by hateful civilians, and that created an atmosphere of extreme caution that has resulted in civilian deaths because people stopped by the pollice did not follow instructions. Months later, a reporter went through police simulator traning to get an understanding of what police aer dealing with. In his reported scenario, he shot at the suspect...but probably too late, and would have likely died. Criminals often follow the same philosophy as terrorists--and it's not to obediently follow law and order.

Thanks for the thought-provoking posts, John and Jayman, I appreciate people who share perspectives that give reasonable, intelligent people pause for thought. Would that more people stop to look at all sides of an issue before opening their trap in a political discussion (or any that involve controversy).
 
Jay, in today's politically correct society it's kinda difficult where to draw the line with discipline in the armed forces. Whilst you don't want to see bullying or any kind of racial or sexual harrassment, you've also got to realise that these soldiers need to be tough in order to do the job. You also don't want soldiers who because they get treated "with kids gloves" to backchat or question a superiors orders - the military doesn't work that way and it would lead to chaos.

I would imagine it's not easy being a member of the armed forces these days and unfortunately the people/organisations looking in are making things worse for them and not better. I would imagine some tactical decisions on the ground need to be fairly instantaneous - adding time to these decisions due to thinking of political ramifications could indeed fail the operation and cost even more lives.

These guys need backing up, not fucking up.
 
I hear you John... And I agree.:001_smile:
 
Top