Posts
Tirgiran locals: ‘Tirgiran is not a village, and therefore “Tirgiran Village” does not exist’
Toby
Manhire
29
March 2017
Nicky
Hager and Jon Stephenson have meanwhile conceded that they were out
by 2km in locating the villages, but argue it ‘does not change the
story in any significant way’.
“We
believe in the integrity of the Defence Force, more than a book that
picks the wrong villages.” That was the prime minister, Bill
English, speaking this morning.
He
was backing the position of the Defence Force Chief Tim Keating,
who said
this week that
“the central premise of Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson’s
book, Hit
and Run,
is incorrect”. It had wrongly stated the August 2010 operation
took place in the villages of Naik and Khak Khuday Dad. He
also rejected
a range of other claims in
the book, including civilian injuries and deaths, the motives for the
operation and the nature of a second raid.
The
most startling “major
inaccuracy“,
however, was location: the NZ-led operation had successfully
targeted Tirgiran Village, the NZDF Chief insisted. They had
never operated in the villages mentioned in the book and video
evidence proved this to be “irrefutable”.
The
authors have in turn rejected that account, with Jon
Stephenson telling the Spinoff,
he remained in “no doubt that New Zealand SAS troopers were in
Tirgiran, at both Naik and Khak Khuday Dad”.
Now,
locals from the Tirgiran Valley have responded, via lawyers acting
on their behalf, throwing fresh doubt on the NZDF claims, saying,
“Tirgiran is not a village, and therefore ‘Tirgiran Village’
does not exist.”
In
a letter to English and Chris Finlayson, the Attorney General, lawyer
Richard McLeod reiterates an earlier request for a formal inquiry.
He
writes: “The NZDF has stated that Operation Burnham took place in
‘Tirgiran Village’, which it claims is located 2+ kilometres
south of the villages of Naik and Khak Khuday Dad … We have
provided the NZDF map to our clients, together with the NZDF media
release of 26 March 2017. Our clients are locals and residents of
this area, and of course they know the names of the villages in which
they live.”
The
locals’ assessment: “Tirgiran is not a village, and therefore
‘Tirgiran Village’ does not exist … Tirgiran is a valley area.
Naik and Khak Khuday Dad villages are in fact located within the red
retangular box in the NZDF map. The identified Objectives 1 and 2 are
located in Naik village. The most northern village (incorrectly named
Khak Khuday Dad in the NZDF map) is in fact a village named Khakandy.
The north-western village (incorrectly named Naik Village in the NZDF
map) is in fact a village named Beidak.”
THE
MAP ISSUED BY THE NZDF
The
letter adds: “Tirgiran is the name of the river valley and the
greater area depicted on the NZDF map, and both the Naik and Khak
Khuday Dad villages are located within Tirgiran Valley. To be
completely clear, there is no separate settlement of any kind named
‘Tirgiran Village’, anywhere in the Tirgiran Valley …
For the NZDF to claim that an operation occurred in ‘Tirgiran Village’ is akin (in New Zealand terms) to claiming that an operation took place in ‘Otago city’, ‘Waikato town’ or ‘Waitakere village’. It is plainly wrong to conflate an area into a village as the NZDF has done in this case.”
For the NZDF to claim that an operation occurred in ‘Tirgiran Village’ is akin (in New Zealand terms) to claiming that an operation took place in ‘Otago city’, ‘Waikato town’ or ‘Waitakere village’. It is plainly wrong to conflate an area into a village as the NZDF has done in this case.”
They
further write: “It is unclear to us whether the creation of this
flawed document has been the result of misunderstanding, error or
otherwise. However, it is plainly incorrect and unreliable. It must
follow that so too are the conclusions which the NZDF seeks to draw
from this map, namely that they have never operated in our clients’
villages. Indeed on our instructions, the latest NZDF statements are
effectively an admission that they did so.
“We
reiterate that the villages of Naik and Khak Khuday Dad were raided
by international forces on 22 August 2010, and that six civilians –
non-combatants – were killed and 15 were seriously injured … The
flawed NZDF map and its derived conclusions therefore reinforce our
view that it is untenable for the NZDF to assert that Operation
Burnham was a separate operation on the night of 22 August 2010 to
the military operation that was carried out that same night in our
clients’ villages – or indeed that no NZDF military operations
occurred in relation to our clients’ villages.
“For
the sake of our clients and the New Zealand public, it is imperative
that the truth of what happened during the military operation of 22
August 2010 in Tirgiran be established. Allegations of serious human
rights violations have been made against the NZDF Operation Burnham.
These must be addressed now and at the outset by way of a formal
inquiry.”
The
book’s authors, Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson, have also just
issued an itemised rebuttal of the NZDF position.
Hager and Stephenson statement on the NZDF press conference
The
raid described in the book “is not an operation the NZSAS
conducted”: INCORRECT
The
information presented in Keating’s press conference leaves no doubt
that the book and the defence chief are talking about the same raid.
Keating gave the name of the raid (Operation Burnham), the times and
date (12.30-3.45am on 22 August 2010), the location in the Tirgiran
Valley, and said the SAS arrived in two Chinook helicopters, used SAS
snipers, found a quantity of ammunition in one building and had one
SAS trooper injured by falling debris. All of these are details of
the SAS raid publicised first in chapter 3 of the book. There were
not two different raids with the same operation name at the same time
in the same valley. It is obviously the same raid.
An
NZDF power point presentation shown in the press conference showed
three main SAS objectives in the valley called A1, A2 and A3. The
book had already identified the SAS’s main targets as being the
house and guest house of an insurgent named Abdullah Kalta and the
house of an insurgent named Naimatullah, neither of whom were present
during the raid. The NZDF objectives A1 and A2 are the buildings
belonging to Abdullah Kalta seen in a photo on p.60 of the book and
NZDF objective A3 is the house of Nematullah shown on pp. 39 and 60
of the book.
The
SAS raid was in a different village with a different name: INCORRECT
The
defence force claimed that the SAS raid occurred in a village called
Tirgiran, not the villages of Naik and Khak Khuday Dad named in the
book. This is not true. The locals know the names of their own
villages and they are called Naik and Khak Khuday Dad. The raid
occurred there.
The
SAS raid was about two kilometres from the position we gave in the
book: CORRECT, BUT DOES NOT CHANGE THE STORY IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY
After
the NZDF press conference, Nicky Hager said that the authors stood by
the whole story and that at most the NZDF denials might mean that the
events in the book occurred two kilometres from where we thought they
were, ie. a slightly different location in the isolated mountain
valley.
We
have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it
appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly
different to what our local sources told us. But the villages at that
location are definitely called Naik and Khak Khuday Dad, and all the
rest of the story in the book is unchanged. Likewise the photos in
the book of the villages attacked in the raid are correct, as are the
photos of the victims and destroyed houses.
The
Defence Force leapt on this and tried to sow doubt about the rest of
the book. Keating said the “central premise” of the book was
incorrect; that there were “major inaccuracies – the main one
being the location”. But the location is a minor detail, difficult
to establish in mountains with no roads or detailed maps (there are
no known maps of the valley that include the locations and names of
the villages along it). Contrary to what Keating said, the central
premise of the book is that the actions of the SAS and its allies in
the villages of Naik and Khak Khuday Dad led to civilian deaths and
injuries, destruction of houses, neglect of wounded people and then a
cover up – and none of that has changed.
The
NZDF has now replied to the allegations in the book: INCORRECT
The
defence force has not replied to most allegations in the book. Most
strikingly, Keating’s presentation did not address the deaths and
injuries suffered by children, mothers and elderly people who were
obviously not insurgents – which are the most important allegations
in the book.
The
allegations that the defence force has avoided or answered
inadequately to date are:
*
SAS-controlled attack helicopters fired at civilians in Khak Khuday
Dad village with many casualties, including the three-year-old child
Fatima
*
SAS snipers appear to have shot at least one civilian, a recently
graduated school teacher home on holiday
*
SAS-controlled attack helicopters pursued two farmers who opposed the
Taliban along the valley and killed them
*
Twelve houses were destroyed despite there being no military
necessity to do so
*
No assistance was given to the wounded at the time, including in
houses that Defence now says it knew might have contained civilians
*
Nor did the SAS go back to render assistance later, despite knowing
that civilians were likely to have been injured
*
The SAS returned for a second raid on the village Naik and blew up a
house or houses
*
A bound and blindfolded prisoner was beaten by an SAS trooper while
his colleagues looked on and did nothing
*
The prisoner was then handed over to the Afghan secret police who
were known to have a notorious reputation for torturing prisoners
*
That prisoner was then tortured by the Afghan secret police and when
the defence force learned about this it kept it secret
*
The SAS arranged the extra-judicial killing of some other insurgent
suspects
*
The NZDF repeatedly denied and covered up what the SAS have done, and
continue to do so to this day.
An
ISAF investigation has already occurred, there is no need for another
inquiry: A WEAK SELF-SERVING ARGUMENT
First
it is important to explain about the investigation done in August
2010 by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) coalition
headquarters, which was cited repeatedly during the NZDF press
conference. In 2010 the subject of civilian deaths was very sensitive
in Afghanistan and so ISAF was attempting to investigate all
suspected cases of civilians being killed by ISAF forces. But these
“assessments” were very far from being full or independent.
The
ISAF investigation into the 22 August 2010 raid was completed in less
than a week and did not involve anyone going to the area or talking
to the affected villagers. It included a review of attack helicopter
weapons system video and concluded that several “errant rounds”,
caused by a gun sight malfunction, “may have resulted in civilian
casualties”. However reports from SAS members and local people
interviewed for the book describe multiple heavy attacks that wounded
and killed civilians in different locations. Thus the
hastily-conducted ISAF review appears far from being adequate. It is
silent on most of the allegations in the book.
There
is no need for New Zealand to rely on the brief and inadequate ISAF
review. Most of the information needed to confirm whether or not the
allegations in the book are correct is located here in New Zealand,
in the SAS files. The best option is an independent inquiry where
this information can be gathered and assessed.
Keating
said the insurgents may have used civilians as human shields;
aircraft video showed insurgents were killed; the conduct of the New
Zealand ground forces was “exemplary”; and so on: UNSUBSTANTIATED
CLAIMS AND SELECTIVE INFORMATION
Much
of Keating’s presentation was unsubstantiated assertions. This does
not help the public find the truth since the defence force has an
obvious interest in avoiding bad news about itself. He also said that
the book claimed the SAS “deliberately killed civilians”, which
we did not say. If we are correct that bad things are being covered
up, we cannot expect the people at the heart of the cover up to
provide impartial information. Once again, this means that the only
acceptable option is a full and independent inquiry.
Lieutenant
General Tim Keating told the press conference: “The ground force
commander was an NZSAS Officer who controlled both the ground
activities and provided clearance, after the appropriate criteria had
been met, for any involvement of the aircraft. These elements were
co-ordinated by an air controller in his location.” CORRECT AND
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
This
statement contradicts earlier statements by the government (in 2014)
where ministers suggested that if there had been any civilian deaths
they were the responsibility of the US pilots, not the New Zealand
SAS. It confirms what we said in the book: that the SAS commanders in
charge of the raid have responsibility for deaths and injuries caused
by the US attack helicopters, which they controlled and had requested
to be part of the raid.
Finally,
Keating told the press that there were legal complications for having
an inquiry: INCORRECT
This
is not correct. We are not proposing an inquiry by the defence force
about itself. The government has the power to launch a full and
independent inquiry at any time. We believe the NZDF is trying to
avoid a full and independent inquiry precisely because some officers
are scared of what it will show. But the issue will continue to
fester, as it has for years, until that happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.