It was one of the most notorious incidents in Australia’s recent military history — the severing of dead Taliban fighters’ hands in Afghanistan.
When it was first revealed by the ABC in August, 2013, it caused a public furore and deep concern within Defence.
Now, for the first time, secret defence documents obtained by the ABC reveal the full story of how and why the “chopped hands” controversy came about.
The documents — one of which is marked “SECRET AUSTEO, INQUIRY IN CONFIDENCE” — reveal the incident caused bitter infighting within defence and sparked allegations of a “drift” in values within Australia’s elite special forces.
The documents state that on April 28, 2013, special forces were in search of a particular insurgent — an Australian National Priority Target codenamed Objective Rapier, a senior insurgent commander responsible for numerous attacks.
According to the documents, helicopters and a total of 120 soldiers were involved in the operation, including troops from the SAS and commandos.
The Afghan Files
This is one story in a seven-part series based on leaked documents exposing Australian special forces troops’ role in the Afghanistan war. For context, they are best read in order.
One of the SAS officers in the patrol was Captain Andrew Hastie, now a federal Liberal MP.
The documents say that during the fighting in the southern province of Zabul, four insurgents were killed.
An SAS corporal searched the first body, finding a Makarov pistol.
The report of the defence inquiry into the matter says: “[He] then severed a single hand of the EKIA (enemy killed in action) with a scalpel.”
He repeated the process with two other EKIAs, cutting off their right hands.
Australian troops are required to collect fingerprints and eye scans of every Taliban fighter who is killed, if it is possible to do so.
But the mutilation or mistreatment of the bodies of the dead is a violation of the laws of war.
The report says: “In his evidence (the SAS corporal) said that once again he had severed the hands of EKIAs 2 and 3 of his own volition, as there was time pressure to retrieve the biometric material and to get back to the helicopters for extraction.”
“At this point in time patrol commander (a sergeant) … arrived at EKIA 3, and seeing the two hands on the ground, exclaimed words to the effect:
“What the f*** are you doing?”
Cutting off hands ‘a tactical necessity’
The patrol commander told Defence investigators the soldier with the scalpel was “speechless” but a colleague replied: “This is a tactical necessity. This is a procedure to conduct latent fingerprints in the laboratory to take explosive residues.”
The report states that Captain Hastie, then the commander of Troop B, observed a severed hand “at the site of the EKIA 3” and also asked what was going on.
When Captain Hastie and the sergeant returned to their base they discussed the incident at length and asked another SAS member to find out if the practice was permitted under Defence rules and regulations.
Cpt Hastie told his men not to sever any more hands and the next day reported the incident to his commanding officer.
The report paints a picture of confusion and growing alarm as news of what the SAS member had done began to radiate from the base at Tarin Kowt.
It says the solider “… exercised poor judgment, in that he failed to adequately appreciate the possible strategic consequences of those actions, in particular the potential responses from local nationals, (the Afghan Government), the Australian public and the media.”
As the report makes clear, a training session just nine days before the patrol went out played a key and controversial role in what later transpired.
The training session was conducted by an Australian Defence Force Investigative Service (ADFIS) sergeant posted to Afghanistan as a crime scene officer as well as a civilian fingerprint expert. A number of SAS members and a Defence scientist also attended the session.
‘You’re sweet with us bringing back a hand?’
What was discussed remains hotly disputed.
Some SAS members claimed that the two experts explicitly sanctioned the removal of hands, one SAS trooper claiming that the experts described it as the “gold plate solution”. Another said someone asked, “So you’re sweet with us bringing back a hand?” to which the reply was, “Yes … you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do on the ground”.
The Defence scientist who was present — described in the report as “possibly the most independent person at the training” — characterised the advice given by the experts as, “Here are a range of techniques that can be used to gather evidence from a scene. It’s up to those guys, under the tactical situation that they’re experiencing, to determine what is the most appropriate technique to use.”
The civilian expert said he had only discussed body parts being examined in the context of “post-blast” investigations and denied ever discussing the severing of hands.
The ADFIS Sergeant said that when the subject of severing hands came up, he agreed that it would be a good method of securing fingerprints, but cautioned that the SAS members had to ask their superiors whether it was acceptable.
The sergeant also said he was not surprised the SAS members left the training thinking the severing of hands was legitimate, as “… that was all they were focused on”.
This division between the SAS members and the experts who provided the briefing was reflected later in a letter from the commanding officer of the SAS Regiment to head of ADFIS, in which he accused ADFIS investigators of attempting to save the reputation of their colleague at the expense of the SAS.
“To be clear, I believe the ADFIS team were deliberately seeking to charge members of my team to prevent any adverse action on members of their own. This is a perception shared by persons outside my chain of command as well,” the SAS officer wrote in October 2013.
As the inquiry progressed, it became clear that Australian troops in Afghanistan had not been explicitly instructed about whether the collection of body parts for biometric testing was acceptable.
New guidelines were quickly put in place emphasising that “the mutilation and otherwise maltreatment of human remains” is not permitted.
Despite this, the officer who carried out the inquiry wrote that some SAS members still sought clarification about whether the practice was acceptable in any circumstances.
“The above position could be attributed to a common desire by the members to support [the SAS trooper who severed the hands], following his employment of the technique. That type of support is not surprising considering the nature of the unit and its operations. However, the views expressed appeared to go beyond mere support for [him] and demonstrated a drift in values, or at least a degree of desensitisation.”
Other, more senior personnel who were interviewed by the inquiry were less ambivalent.
Cpt Hastie is quoted as saying, “My gut instinct was okay, that’s a strange practice.” Another SAS member said, “There’s no uncertainty. I wouldn’t cut f***ing people’s hands off, sir.”
The inquiry officer said in conclusion that he could not identify what had caused any “value shift” in the SAS members, but noted that they regularly see dead and dismembered bodies, and themselves regularly killed and injured people.
“The significance of [this] is that these members require very clear direction in relation to what they can and can’t do, and the members request as much,” he wrote.
“Additionally, it would be imprudent for commanders to assume that these members are in a position to make value judgements, in a way that will align with the judgement of the commanders, and others.”
More than four years after the incident, it is not clear if any disciplinary action was ever taken against the SAS trooper who severed the hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment