[Cooper:] We're back with our continuing 360 special investigation, "Killings at the Canal: The Army Tapes." Now before the break, we showed you our exclusive interview with a former Army sergeant who broke nine months of silence, told investigators that three fellow soldiers murdered four Iraqi detainees in Baghdad. He said he revealed the truth because he could no longer hide behind the excuses or to hid behind what he called a false brotherhood. Well, he wasn't a trigger man, in exchange for his testimony, he was given immunity. And the three Americans he implicated were all convicted and are now serving long sentences. We're "Digging Deeper." With me again, special investigations unit correspondent Abbie Boudreau. Also with us is Pete Hegseth, an Army captain and Iraq war veteran; and Eugene Fidell, a military law attorney and the president of the National Institute of Military Justice. Pete, this notion of the band of brothers is extraordinarily important to a lot of folks I've talked to who've served, the idea of not going against your unit. We just heard this soldier call it a false brotherhood. What did you think when you heard that?
[Pete Hegseth, Iraq War Veteran:] Well, the false brotherhood I think he's referring to is this idea of keeping secret criminal activity that went that happened on the battlefield. We've all done bad things in our lives, things where we feel guilty about and don't want to hide. And I don't think it's a false brotherhood to come out and tell the truth about a war crime that was committed on the battlefield. But a true band-of-brother ethos does very much exist. You go out, the man on your right and the man on your left, you are there for them, to protect them and support them and fight alongside them. Warriors have this band of brothers. Loyalty is an absolute bond that is needed. But I don't I don't think it's accurate to say that that band of brothers needs to extend to covering up war crimes that happen.
[Cooper:] So you can understand why this soldier came forward, reported the crime?
[Hegseth:] Yes, I can. I mean it's weighing on his conscience. He doesn't think it's he thinks it's below the sort of that way that America fights its wars. And it's a difficult thing. But the other soldiers in that unit, if they're in a tough area, they captured insurgents. They know they're bad guys. They're worried they're going to be released. They took justice into their own hands. They see it a different way. I just think in this instance, he took it on his conscience to do the right thing.
[Cooper:] Professor Fidell, do soldiers have a moral, if not legal obligation to report crimes even if it ends up sending their fellow brother to jail?
[Fidell:] It depends on the crime. Obviously trivial things observed by people at the bottom end of the official hierarchy, they may not have an obligation to report. But where you're talking about war crimes, there is a department of defense directive on this subject that requires people to report war crimes and requires the United States government to investigate them.
[Cooper:] Abby, we have a text 360 question from teddy in Colorado. He asks, is there any possible way these soldiers can get out before their sentences are over?
[Boudreau:] Well, it is possible. Because all three cases are under appeal right now. John Hadley, he's eligible for parole in 10 years. And the other two soldiers are eligible in about seven. So it's possible. But it's a long road ahead.
[Cooper:] Pete, when you heard this soldier who came forward say that he was worried for his own safety if he came forward while he was still in country in Iraq, does that I mean can you understand why he would be worried? Do you think it's valid.
[Hegseth:] I mean I think it's fear of just I think it probably is valid. I don't know, you know, if that particular unit and the interpersonalship that's existed. But, you know, it is fearful to step out alone and make an accusation and talk about something you saw, especially when you're maybe indicting particular superiors. So he is in a difficult situation. The burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that what happened is indeed the truth. But, you know, it's also they lost men. They're in a difficult area. It's a hostile area. These men that were killed were likely insurgents who tried to kill them only minutes before. So he feels a level of guilt for even stepping out and doing it. You can understand where he's coming from. It doesn't change the fact that ultimately, you know, these insurgents should have been captured and not necessarily killed.
[Cooper:] Yes. They'd lost two soldiers in the unit to snipers and, I think, IED is in the weeks before this incident which maybe was playing part of or at least what was in the mind on that day.
[Hegseth:] Absolutely. Absolutely.
[Cooper:] Professor, we talked a lot this week about the rules the Army had in place during the war that made it difficult to keep insurgents locked up. Other soldiers from this unit said that if the Iraqi men were not killed, if they had been handed over, they would have just been released and free to continue attacking American soldiers, continue to attack Iraqis. Is that a valid argument?
[Fidell:] Absolutely not. That suggests really insubordinate attitude. You can't have just as the Army is not a debating society. It's not also a Democratic institution where everybody gets to make its own decision as to what's operationally required. That kind of thinking, I think, is deeply wrong.
[Hegseth:] Anderson, I completely disagree with that. Absolutely, having served on the ground and detained insurgents, the rules put on top of our infantrymen are very intricate. We're asking these guys to essentially be "CSI Iraq," gather evidence on the objective, sworn statements from Iraqis, indicting local nationals. It becomes very difficult to hold insurgents. So what happens is the Iraqi catch and release program comes into full effect. You capture bad guys. You detain them. They go throughout system and had a two weeks later they're back on the battlefield taking the fight back to those same, very same people. So you can these sergeants and others on the ground, saying the reason we need to get rid of these guys is because, if we capture them, we don't have enough proof to put them away. They're going to be back on these same streets, killing more of our men. Doesn't doesn't excuse what happened. But you can understand the mindset of if they capture these guys and go into the system they're going to have to fight the insurgency two or three times over again.
[Cooper:] What you're saying is that's an argument for changing the ground rules in terms of what evidence is needed or how evidence is gathered against detainees. It's not an excuse for murder.
[Hegseth:] It's not an excuse for murder at all. But of the 87,000 in the article on your Web site detainees in this war that we've captured, 77,000 have been released. And we want to impose a law and order in Iraq. But at the same time, if we're catching insurgents and requiring sworn statements from local nationals, Iraqis who are afraid to step out and help, then it's difficult to hold people in prisons. They're released, and then our soldiers are fighting them once again. So I think if you're fighting a war, you've got to have an ability to hold your enemies at bay.
[Cooper:] It's got to be incredibly frustrating for those on the ground to see people they've brought over have been released back out. We've got to leave it there. Pete Hegseth, I appreciate your time. Eugene Fidell, as well. And Abbie Boudreau, as well, great reporting. We'll continue this tomorrow. Our investigation continues tomorrow with an exclusive interview with a general who oversees detainee operations in Iraq. "Killings at the Canal: The Army Tapes," tomorrow night, 10 p.m. Eastern. This weekend, watch "Killings at the Canal," the documentary, Saturday and Sunday at 8 p.m., 11 p.m. Eastern. All the reports from all this week. We put them together for a conclusive look at this incident. Coming up next, though, tonight: prison time for cutting in line? What really happened inside a Missouri Wal-Mart. We're going to show you newly-released surveillance footage to see if it lends any evidence to exactly what happened. Also, mammogram controversy. New guidelines from a government panel that have confused a lot of people. It certainly confused me. That group is now issuing a clarification. What they're saying now. Dr. Sanjay Gupta is here to try to sort it out and give you advice about what you should do. We'll be right back.