Memo for the Record concerning an AR 15-6 investigation findings of investigation in to alleged detainee abuse and mock executions by U.S. forces. The investigator cannot determine if the mock executions were actually conducted or just perceived to be conducted by the witnesses, but does note that the use of warning shots had become "business as usual" to stop looters, a fact which the investigator calls "disturbing".
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
C Compan.._Battalion._Airborne Infaatr. Regiment
82" Airborne Division
Ft. Brao._ North Carolina )f,3=1•
AFVC-BA-C
MEMORANDUM FOR-RECORD
SUBJECT: Commander's Inquir.
A Commander's Inquiry was conducted 23 JUNE 2003 to determine the circumstances surrounding two possible mock executions of Iraqi nationals in south of Zone 45. and the possible deliberate damage Of a civilian yehicle by _ 1-13 AR)
EN). and_ . All three personnel .i currently attached tole L-325 AIR. is the_of an ad hoc squad from for: the squad. Allegations have been made by performed a mock execution on the evening of 20 JUN 03. He also alleges that :conducted a mock execution at approximately 1330 hours on 22 JUN 03. He alleges that'. was resent for the mock execution associated with 11111.1.11 . stated that_ deliberately damaged the vehicle °fan Iraqi national Jut _the
.
investigation of a site being looted.
2. Evetits of 20 JUN 2003: During a patrol conducted b.
araand the engineer squad, a vehicle was seized from soinejtiOterS'at:: -0:0: aittirtiiiiitiOn planti located outSide Zone 45. The vehicle wasiloaded with steel rods: _ entered the vehicle and began to drive the vehicle back and-ROI to get the rods off of the VeltiCTe: In the process he damaged the vehicle's radiator. The unit then left to continue patrolling in Zone 45. On the return trip to TAA Red Falcon they passed by the ammunition factory a second time. At this_nme_ they sakx ooters around the vehicle In order to dOny the use the vehicle to the looters ±_directed
to slash the vehicle tires.
also alleges that_conduc d a 104 execution of an Iraqi national ¦,vho had been detained earlier in the evening. Aceording to _theleonyoy of two trucks stopped on a road. and the detainee was placed in front of the leadvehiele: _then fired a round. At least two other soldiers from the engineer squad, _and _collaborate this story.
has stated that there was a dog that was threatening both himself and the detainee. He shot the doh in order to protect the detainee and himself. Several soldiers stated that they heard the shots. but did not ask their leaders why shots were fired. Most of the soldiers interviewed stated the did not see or hear any doas; a fey% soldiers stated they heard the dogs. but could.not verit: if one of the dugj was threateningalliok This is possible because both vehicles may ha ¦•e been running and creating enough noise whereby soldiers may not have heard the dogs.
3. Events of 22 JUN 2003: At approximately 1330 hours on 22 JUN 03.
and several members of thearfairionce again entered the ammunition plant. During this sir. .
the engineers detained a father and his tWo sons. According to
fillialPonducted a mock execution of one of the boys. This occurred after the reportedl asl,ed the father --which one do •au want to die._ then wok behind a building and fired a round. the.rebv gi1/4 inc the appearance- of an execution. The detainees- %\ ere then released. According to Pone of the bo¦ s as taken building so that he could be fiex-cOffedand hooded for trans ortation as a detainee. This a radio conversation between nd 2LT Yance.. did not .vain to release the detainees until they ere crying and had learned their lesson., stated that the detainee -------begairTO-Tairaivay. so ITE:fired_a warning_shot. Vdhen1 .teturnedto theirhousing _ several members of the squad who had not been on patrol beard' and
'03305
DOD 006929
boast about how the had conducted a mock execution. somml also relater he had scared the family by threatening to kill the father. and:or one of the boys.
4. Conclusion Recommendation: During this inquiry all members of thee...and the were interviewed. There are numerous individual statements which support the
„ _._. stat6nie:tif_ and MM. There are several disturbing facts that are supported by the numerous personnel involved. First. several personnel reported that warning shots and M203 smoke were fired to stop looters. This was so common that
many soldiers considered the -use of warning shots 'business as usual." Many soldiers also reported that when shots were fired they did not ask who fired the shots. or why they were fired. Additionally, the firing of these warning shots was not reported to the _command post.
_ The actions ot_ct_.
..
and_ show that the personal property of Iraqi c _itizens was not protected_ 1._I _ but instead was destroyed. In addition, two soldiers in the _talked about mock executions_tS).— as an effective way of deterring looting. Given the time to conduct this inquiry (24 hours), I cannot determine if the mock execution associated with _was actually conducted. or is simpl) the
perception of several soldiers who were viewing the scene from odd angles, and then making,. assumptions based upon their limited view of the scene.
Ac itA
JO is the undersigned.
b(4)-i• (3)
_) 3 0 C
DOD 006930