“JAGged” by Chain of Command

- Brigadier General (Ret.) Richard O'Meara, Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerny (U.S. AirForce Ret.), Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (U.S. Army Ret.) The Secretary of the Army should intervene in the case of Capt. Roger Hill, disciplined and subject to discharge under other than honorable conditions because of the use of "excessive force" interrogating enemy agents who infiltrated his unit. All charges against Captain Hill should be dismissed and the judicial action taken against him should be rescinded as unfounded based upon the clear intent of the accused and the obvious failure of his chain of command to provide urgently needed support during combat operations, not to mention the unprincipled actions of the prosecution attorneys.

---

In this case, our soldiers discovered that their Afghan comrades were enemy agents providing valuable intelligence to the enemy. The enemy agents leaked information on Company operations resulting in a series of ambushes that killed and wounded one third of the soldiers assigned to the unit. Capt. Hill detained the suspected agents and requested they be evacuated for interrogation by trained interrogators. His higher commander denied the request. Given the limited time detainees are allowed to be held without charges (96 hours) and the lack of support from his superiors, Capt. Hill and his subordinates interrogated the detainees. While no detainee was physically injured during the interrogations, Capt. Hill was charged with violating the rules of engagement by making verbal threats during his interrogations. He was called before the equivalent of a grand jury, and criminal charges were pressed against him. The prosecution threatened him with life imprisonment unless he accepted a guilty plea. There is a glaring contradiction in the case of Captain Hill, which appears to highlight the problems that can arise when commanders fail to make appropriate decisions and provide leadership to their subordinates based on combat experience. The contradiction is that the alleged actions of Captain Hill and the actions taken by the prosecution in this case are one and the same. Both made grave threats, or are alleged to have made threats, to secure information or a guilty plea in the case of the prosecution lawyers. The major difference in the two behaviors is that Captain Hill's actions were taken to secure the safety of his men, whereas the threats made by the prosecution were made to obtain a conviction for motives that appear self-serving and career enhancing. Captains Hill's actions were courageous, accepting responsibility for the interrogation of suspected Taliban agents operating in his unit to prevent renewed attacks upon his men, despite the fact his men were not trained interrogators. The initiative taken by Captain Hill is the type of leadership that should be encouraged and rewarded in combat lest our leaders become disheartened by the misuse of command influence to punish aggressive leadership in a situation where the higher command failed to support a unit commander in the conduct of a dangerous mission. Captain Hill should be lauded for his courageous actions to protect the men of his unit. The prosecution lawyers should be admonished for their use of grave threats to coerce the company commander to act in a manner at odds with his best interests for what appear to be self-serving motives. If the threats made by Captain Hill violated the rules of engagement, the threats made by the prosecution violate the fundamental concepts of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which are to secure just and responsible behavior in American military units. Nowhere in the UCMJ are there provisions for prosecution attorneys to intimidate and coerce confessions of guilt from an accused by the use of dire threats and plea bargaining. Such behaviors are a reflection of the worst precedents of our civilian court system in the expeditious disposal of court cases without regard to the best interests of the accused. Justice has not been served in this case and expeditious action should be taken to reverse an unjust and misguided precedent.