Posted on 09/27/2005 9:42:49 AM PDT by Valin
Actually, in many cases similar to the one I described (adultery), the ranking officer receives a lighter sentence compared to those under them. The officer may be forced to retire at a lower rank, but they rarely see jail time. This just happened to an Army General on his way out of retirement. He is being investigated, but no charges are going to be brought up against him. Those who he cheated with however will be punished fully under the UCMJ.
Read my post.
I agree with what you wrote. What they did at this prison happens at most colleges every year and is called initiation.
The damage she caused to the image of the Army, our credibility in Iraq, the ammunition she gave to all the anti-war pundits was immense. The enemy could not have gotten better anti-US propaganda. This had national level implications, in incited violence in Iraq, all because some PVT was an idiot. Get a hold of myself? I think from a vantage point of what she did, it's actually minor. Someone’s “feelings” were hurt. They made a naked pyramid of men. OMG. From the perspective of the damage she did, yea, it is a big deal.
Creating fuzz by blaming others (The grand conspiracy from higher, Nagin style), appealing to pity (She's a mom) and ignorance (She's just a poor stupid girl that was misguided) is no defense. She knew what she was doing was wrong, why else would they HIDE their activity. No Regulation, policy, training, or anything else authorizes what they did. It goes against common sense and what is morally right. The "I was told to do this by higher", “The CIA told me to do this” – give me a break.
But the MSM in this case will WANT to give her credibility. Why? This opens the door to attack those higher.
Red6
...I do agree that the brass get away with the "crimes" of lust more often than the enlisted. I personally know of an Army sergeant major whoe court-martialed and busted to an E-4 for adultery and of a Navy vice admiral who was allowed to retire at his rank for the same "crime". However, when crimes involve something really criminal (major UCMJ offenses) the "Os" are held more responsible than the "Es".
As you may recall, I said that the Geneva Convention should be enforced as a matter of good order and discipline. As a 2nd Lieutenant running a rifle range, I knew that if "Private Snuffy" was clowning around, or otherwise not following proper range procedure, and injured or killed another service member, he/she was in deep doo doo. I also knew that I was in deep doo doo as well, and that doo doo would likely roll down hill onto my range NCOs and lane instructors. That may not sound fair: Private Snuffy, after all, had been instructed that no clowning around on the range was tolerated, but that's not the way the military assesses "personal responsibility". So yes, her actions should lead to trouble for some "higher ups". Not all the way back to the Pentagon certainly, but somewhere in between Private England and General Myers.
In NAZI Germany you had a systemic problem where the top directed to the bottom what should be done. The decisions flowed from top to bottom, reference the atrocities committed. In Abu Gharib it was the opposite case, the bottom echelons committed the crimes and the top is supposed to take the blame.
Other than our MSM which is trying its hardest to TRY to create a connection to the administration and what happened at this prison, not many people give these accusations credibility. During the elections this story was politicized by the Kerry campaign in order to stain Bush. Lots of effort and money was spent on creating a “perception” of responsibility on behalf of the administration. Remember the whole story about how Rumsfeld loosened the interrogation standards? Fact: No where did he authorize in any way or shape what happened there. Those actions were as much illegal after as they were before Rumsfeld signed those documents authorizing certain procedures not formerly allowed.
Karpinski was in charge of the prison system and she had about 3,400 US uniformed personnel under her command spread out all over Iraq. In addition she had Iraqi and US civilians and other contractors working under her. The logic of a commander being responsible for everything which does and does not happen under their command can be taken to an irrational level. This is exactly what you’re doing.
Fact: Karpinski was mandatory retired after being demoted and receiving a letter of admonishment.
LTG Sanchez, commander of V Corps at the time was supposed to have filled a four star billet in SOUTHCOM which he didn’t get after the Abu Gharib issue blew up. He probably will never receive a fourth star.
The entire chain of command down from Karpinski is fried. The leadership failed at Abu Gharib but they really did no wrong.
--The burden of guilt lies on those who committed the crimes!—It’s the England’s and Graners that do deserve the time, not the Karpinski. It wasn’t Karpinski that took naked Iraqis on dog leash walks through a prison, but England.
Abu Gharib is in reality a bigger issue. What this is boiling down to is an angle of attack for all those who oppose the war and Bush. Abu Gharib is a rallying point around which those who want to demonize us, the war, or Bush are rallying around. Even Schroeder and Fischer took opportunistic pot-shots at this event after it happened. See, war is bad and they were against it. The ACLU has latched on too. As has Sheehan. What might their agenda be? Kerry used this issue in his election bid. What was his position on the war? Abu Gharib is not about justice anymore; it has become a political crowbar.
Exactly what “crime” do you want to charge Karpinski with?
Red6
Having served in both MI and MP units, and as both an enlisted soldier, NCO and as an officer. I can tell you that that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. My information comes, litterally from the horses mouth. You are regurgitating the big media spin. And that's all the more I'll say to you on the subject.
BTW. What part of soldiers responsibility to disobey an illegal order didn't you understand? Doesn't matter who issues it. In the chain-of-command or out. They knew their responsibility and ignored it.
I had the one session class on illegal orders almost 30 years ago and I still remember it.
You apparently equate this mistreatment of the prisoners with some kind of serious violation of the GCs and the fact that the violations ARE self evident. They are not.
The argument made by some was that they were following orders, so my point is that if they were ordered to abuse prisoners, they are almost certain to have received a class on what illegal and illegal orders were. As for self evident violations, perhaps you don't see stacking up naked prisoners as not far from normal behavior and treatment, but if I were in the same circumstances I'd not view it as part of normal procedure.
The rest requires thought and judgement. Pvts aren't their to think and judge, especially in this kind of fog. They're there to do and follow the leadership.
You're simply wrong. If an order is illegal, then they ARE expected to think and reject an illegal order. Just following orders is not an excuse for any illegal behavior.
Your arguement would be worth something if this was about theft, torture, or some other sort of clear criminal action. Instead you are arguing to hold someone that's ignorant and less than sharp with a complicated BS moral crime.
That each of the participants have been convicted is an indication that it's not just some "BS moral crime" but rather seen as a crime by the military judicial system. Perhaps you don't view it as a crime, but if so you are out of step with the American public in general, and the US military in specific. And no, it wasn't torture, it was simply abuse...but one is not supposed to abuse prisoners in one's custody. If you wished to argue something much closer to the line of acceptable abuse one could raise the instance where an officer fired off a pistol next to the head of an insurgent in order to obtain actionable intelligence immediately upon the spot. But pranks such as putting a dog collar around someone's neck and pointing at his genitals without any interest in obtaining information is not in the same realm.
This pvt got a raw deal from the guard that put her in the Lord of the Flies sit and is punishing her for what I would expect to happen. I really think a tally should be taken and all those that support this travesty should get 10 years for moral bankrupcy and pure viciousness.
And I'd say that anyone who believes prisoner abuse is fine invalidates their argument regarding moral bankruptcy and viciousness. One can argue that she was a weak person that fell in the face of a bad situation, but none the less, each person is responsible for their own actions.
What you think doesn't matter, it's what the novice privates were led to believe and what they thought that does. That includes England, but not most of the others.
"That each of the participants have been convicted is an indication that it's not just some "BS moral crime" but rather seen as a crime by the military judicial system."
Most of the convicted were trained and experienced. England was not. There's also the matter of BG Kapinski and the rest of the officers that allowed this all to happen.
"pranks such as putting a dog collar around someone's neck and pointing at his genitals without any interest in obtaining information is not in the same realm."
From Karpinski on down soldiers testified that the prisoners were to be broken to get them to talk. Then all of a sudden, after setting up the hands off Lord of the flies op, things got out of hand. Variants of this naked hooded prisoner stuff are seen elsewhere, not just at AbuG. I don't expect the less able privates to be able to walk the fine line.
"You're simply wrong. If an order is illegal, then they ARE expected to think and reject an illegal order. Just following orders is not an excuse for any illegal behavior."
Yeah, whatever. I saw videotape of guard troops confiscating guns in NO. That's illegal and they were doing it with gusto. Fed troops were there too. Although the fed troops said they'd stay out of it, I have no doubt they would have backed the guard to kill folks refusing to comply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.