What Happened?

Puckett & Faraj, PC are often called upon to defend the courageous and moral men and women of our military. In their service to their country, these young military members are called on to make difficult decisions to save the lives of those they lead. CPT Roger Hill did just that on the battlefield in the mountains of Afghanistan last fall. The Army charged him with wrongfully inflicting cruel and inhuman treatment to detainees under the 18 USC Section 2441 — War Crimes.

CPT Hill commanding and his unit Dog Company 1-506th Parachute Infantry Regiment (PIR), deployed to Wardak, Afghanistan in early March 2008. His 89-man company, the smallest infantry company in the Brigade, was responsible for the entire Wardak Province, which is the size of Connecticut with a population of 525,000.

Dog Company partnered with the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) resulting in a 1:525 peacekeeping force to population ratio; a ratio too high for effective counterinsurgency operations in accordance with Army doctrine. Additionally, the number of local nationals supporting operations on their forward operating base was nearly more than what existed in my company, a ratio of almost 1:1.

Dog Company had responsibility for 3 combat outposts. Enemy 107 mm rockets, rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and machine gun fire were frequently used against these outposts. Wardak is a terrorist hotbed, and the company suffered thirty wounded in action (WIA) and two killed in action (KIA) during their first six months in the province.

In August 2008, intelligence reports cited recent efforts by the enemy to plan and execute a complex attack against one of the three outposts. The Army set up an operation to screen the local nationals resulting in identifying 12 foreign nationals with confirmed ties to the Taliban.  One of the most critical infiltrations included Noori Noorula, CPT Hill’s own personal interpreter, an Afghan who he considered a dear and close friend. Army rules required the detainees be transported to a central location for processing, however  resources were not available to move the detainees. Dog Company was left with the responsibility of identifying, processing and securing each confirmed insider-threat detainee; a task they were not trained, equipped or manned to accomplish.

Dog Company processed the detainees under International Security Assistance Forces guidelines which directed that the US hand detainees over to the Afghanistan government with proof of Taliban links within 96 hours, otherwise they would be set free.

CPT Hill knew that the Army intelligence proving the Taliban links was not releasable to the Afghanistan government. He made the command decision to utilize a variety of shock tactics to intimidate and scare the detainees.   His goal was to extract releasable and valuable intelligence identifying the detainees as Taliban loyalists, and allow them to be handed over to the Afghanistan government without fear they would be released.

CPT Hill took some of the detainees into the yard, leaving those who had critical information in the building. He fired shots into the ground, one shot for each detainee in the yard. These shots were some 20 yards or more from the detainees, but their fellow detainees in the building did not know this.

CPT Hill, a West Point graduate and highly decorated combat veteran of three overseas tours to include deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea, was held accountable in an Article 32 Hearing (similar to a grand jury). In an unheard of move in the military justice system, the results of that hearing have not been released to him. Instead, the Army processed him for separation, awarding him a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HELP CPT HILL GET AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE, PLEASE WRITE TO:
Secretary of the Army, Honorable Pete Geren
Department of the Army
107 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-0107
Ask that CPT Hill receive an honorable discharge.
Thank you.

Or Click Here to sign an online petition

Comments by nationally renowned strategist, BG Andy O’Meara, USA Retired. He and senior military leaders Retired Air Force LtGen Tom McInerney and Retired Army MG Paul Vallely wrote an OpEd piece in the Washington Times. BG O’Meara’s Observations on the Case

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 point Tom has made.

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 to interrogate suspected Taliban agents operating in his unit to prevent renewed attacks upon his men despite the fact that the members of his unit 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 difficult situation that suggests the failure of the higher command to support a unit commander in the conduct of a difficult and 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 in the case 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 UCMJ, which are to secure just and responsible behavior in American military units. Nowhere in the Uniform Code of Military Justice 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 courts in the expeditious disposal of court cases without regard to the best interests of the accused, nor the administration of a just legal system.

All charges against Captain Hill should be dismissed and the UCMJ action taken 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 by the commander on the scene of the combat operation, not to mention the irregular and unprincipled actions of the prosecution attorneys. Justice has not been served in this case and expeditious action should be taken to reverse an unjust and misguided precedent.

Andy O’Meara