Detainee death doctor struck off

Jimbuna · 12-21-12, 03:03 PM

I simply can't understand how this individual thought they could get away with this

Baha Mousa death: Army doctor Derek Keilloh struck off

Quote:

A former Army doctor has been struck off the medical register after his misconduct over the death of Iraqi detainee Baha Mousa in 2003.
Derek Keilloh, of Aberdeen, was a medical officer with the Queen's Lancashire Regiment (QLR) in Basra when Mr Mousa died in British Army custody.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service heard he had 93 injuries.
The MPTS said Dr Keilloh, who practises in North Yorkshire, was aware of the injuries but failed to report them.
He supervised a failed resuscitation attempt to save the life of Mr Mousa, who had been hooded, handcuffed and severely beaten by soldiers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20809692

Catfish · 12-21-12, 03:59 PM

I am sure a lot of such people got away with similar things, along with the people committing such atrocities.
We will never really know how much of such stuff happened, this is all 'secret'.

"The final report strongly criticised the "corporate failure" by the Ministry of Defence and the "lack of moral courage to report abuse" within Preston-based QLR.
It named 19 soldiers who assaulted Mr Mousa and other detainees and found that many others, including several officers, must have known what was happening."

And if all media and Wikileaks published hundreds of documents, it only would be the tip of the iceberg. It will not be forgotten abroad though.

Jimbuna · 12-21-12, 05:15 PM

Rgr that

Stealhead · 12-21-12, 05:49 PM

This all stems from insurgency style warfare.The insurgent force tries its best to blend in with the populace making things very difficult for the opposing force that must use counterinsurgency warfare to mitigate things.

The problem is that unless a sizable portion of the population can be convinced that the counterinsurgency force(CIF) side has their best interests in mind the CIF will have great difficulty in defeating the insurgency and each and every mistake they make that causes lives of the populace harms the end goal.

Add to this the fact that most insurgencies which to cause as much frustration on the CIF as possible they usually fight in such a way as to frustrate the CIF which in turn causes the CIF to mistrust all of the populace thereby alienating them and making them more likely to support or even fight with the insurgency.Even worse is when the CIF commits an atrocity against the populace of course this is exactly what the insurgency wants.

In my opinion a nation should avoid counterinsurgency warfare if at all possible a positive out come is very difficult achieve and may take decades the odds that all or part of a nation will tire or expend itself are too high.

On the other hand a nation wanting to weaken or even take out another should condenser supporting an insurgency against its foe.

Catfish · 12-21-12, 06:51 PM

Of course the very definition of 'insurgents' and 'rogue' states (in which the stronger obviously is allowed to do anything without being asked) may vary across the world, to say at least ..

Stealhead · 12-21-12, 08:34 PM

I do not think so an insurgent/insurgency is an armed rebelling force that generally speaking is not able to face a larger opposing force via conventional warfare.
The United States fought an insurgency against the UK and won.

The word insurgent in and of itself does not imply the right or wrong side just the method of warfare employed.In Syria the people fighting against Assad are the insurgents to most subsim members in this case the insurgents are the good guys.

Also when it comes to nations and groups nothing is fully neutral everything has an agenda left wing right wing they all have agenda and sway things to some extent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare

12-21-12, 05:15 PM	#3
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,584 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Rgr that __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

12-21-12, 03:59 PM	#2
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,767 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	I am sure a lot of such people got away with similar things, along with the people committing such atrocities. We will never really know how much of such stuff happened, this is all 'secret'. "The final report strongly criticised the "corporate failure" by the Ministry of Defence and the "lack of moral courage to report abuse" within Preston-based QLR. It named 19 soldiers who assaulted Mr Mousa and other detainees and found that many others, including several officers, must have known what was happening." And if all media and Wikileaks published hundreds of documents, it only would be the tip of the iceberg. It will not be forgotten abroad though.

12-21-12, 05:49 PM	#4
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	This all stems from insurgency style warfare.The insurgent force tries its best to blend in with the populace making things very difficult for the opposing force that must use counterinsurgency warfare to mitigate things. The problem is that unless a sizable portion of the population can be convinced that the counterinsurgency force(CIF) side has their best interests in mind the CIF will have great difficulty in defeating the insurgency and each and every mistake they make that causes lives of the populace harms the end goal. Add to this the fact that most insurgencies which to cause as much frustration on the CIF as possible they usually fight in such a way as to frustrate the CIF which in turn causes the CIF to mistrust all of the populace thereby alienating them and making them more likely to support or even fight with the insurgency.Even worse is when the CIF commits an atrocity against the populace of course this is exactly what the insurgency wants. In my opinion a nation should avoid counterinsurgency warfare if at all possible a positive out come is very difficult achieve and may take decades the odds that all or part of a nation will tire or expend itself are too high. On the other hand a nation wanting to weaken or even take out another should condenser supporting an insurgency against its foe.

12-21-12, 06:51 PM	#5
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,767 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Of course the very definition of 'insurgents' and 'rogue' states (in which the stronger obviously is allowed to do anything without being asked) may vary across the world, to say at least ..

12-21-12, 08:34 PM	#6
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	I do not think so an insurgent/insurgency is an armed rebelling force that generally speaking is not able to face a larger opposing force via conventional warfare. The United States fought an insurgency against the UK and won. The word insurgent in and of itself does not imply the right or wrong side just the method of warfare employed.In Syria the people fighting against Assad are the insurgents to most subsim members in this case the insurgents are the good guys. Also when it comes to nations and groups nothing is fully neutral everything has an agenda left wing right wing they all have agenda and sway things to some extent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare