Top Officers in Abu Ghraib Case Cleared

If generals refuse to take the responsibility for their actions and the actions of all their troops, then what are they good for?

[ April 23, 2005, 14:19: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

They wanted to bury this issue as quickly as they could. The trail on this probably goes all the way up to the Defense Department. But by breaking the link before it gets there, it becomes that much harder to connect it to the highest levels in the DD. Shame there's no accountability. In the electronic media, this turn in the story barely even registered on the radar screen, btw.

[ April 23, 2005, 18:15: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Why so surprised, don't you know it was just a few bad apples?

 

Looks like the little people are always guilty when it comes to trials. The higher on the ladder you are, the less you need to fear the justice.

 

Well it was the 'ordinary' soldiers that were commiting these acts of abuse. Just because their superiors told them to do it, they did not have to. I mean I used to serve in the Royal Irish Rangers, but if my officer told me to rape anyone I would just outright refuse such a task.

 

Judge Throws Out England's Guilty Plea

 

That's just so complete that it almost makes me cry. I don't understand how someone could not know that it's wrong. Maybe I can get cleared out of a murder charge if I did not know that I was wrong. The next thing we know is that no one is responsible for it and everyone can continue to torture those "evil terrorists" of whom most probably are innocent civilians anyway, but hey maybe one of them knows of a ticking bomb which will blow up a school somewhere in the US. It's all just to prevent a greater evil which may happen somewhere sometime in the future.

 

I can see the rationale behind the judge's decision but it does look pretty suspicious.

 

...now that is funny.

So, anyone up for putting a hit out on England if the judge's decision stands?

 

I think it's more an issue of /she didn't know it was wrong at the time because she was told this was a legitimate interrogation technique from her superior than she didn't KNOW it was wrong/

The bottom line is, she should have realized what she was doing was dehumanizing at the very least and refused to go along with it. I personally believe she's just a dumb kid in the reserves with no clue. She should be kicked out, and her jail time suspended to time served.

There are bigger fish that can be fried in this...But the ones actually involved usually take the fall. And a reminder to anyone else out there with any bright ideas: Photos are not only fond memories of past good times...They are also EVIDENCE.

 

OK people, settle down here. The military hearings do not work the way the normal judicial system does. The only thing this ruling will likely mean is that England will go to trial with a "not guilty" as opposed to a "guilty" plea. This is because in order to plead guilty in the military, you need to not only commit an illegal act, but know it was illegal at the time you performed it. Keep in mind that if she didn't follow Graner's orders she may have thought she would have been tried for insubordination. And that is why, in order to be tried, you have to know the order you're following is illegal at that time. It's not like the regular judicial system where ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

As far as anyone asking, "How can she not realize that this was wrong?" England has some pretty serious learning disabilities that have been documented since she was in kindergarten. Even as an adult she has difficulty reading and cannot even speak particularly well. She has been well known to cave in to authority figures. When these factors are taken into account, she may very well not have realized what she was doing was wrong.

My own opinion here is it doesn't matter what happens to England. The crime here is that there had to be officers who knew what was going on, and they have gotton off completely free.

 

Maybe there have been no prosecutions because there is no evidence to tie the higher echelons to the abuse (and it was abuse, there is no evidence that has been release that warrants the term "torture"). As far as accountability, there is a difference between accountability and accomplice. Accountability means taking responsibility for something, not necessarily being punished for it as an accomplice. There have been reprimands handed down (which are a kiss of death for a career officer, they will most likely not make grade, and thus never be promoted), and the issue has higher visibility, reducing the chances of things like this happening again.

As far as America's credibility being shot, if our credibility is 100% dependent upon pleasing other nations, then I don't think that most Americans are going to give a rip about what anyone else thinks of us. These abuses are very minor if you compare them to what was going on in Vietnam, or even what the insurgents in Iraq are doing. War sucks, and humanity is the first casualty of any war. You can't kill the other side if you don't dehumanize them to a certain extent. The abuses in this war are far less than in any other major conflict in history. The coalition forces have shown an incredible amount of restraint, and the number of civilian casualties is amazingly low. In previous wars, a city like Falujia would have been carpet-bombed into oblivion, and Baghdad would be a shell of empty husks of buildings (similar to the pictures of German cities following WWII).

IMO, this is just another issue that has been twisted, distorted, and blown out of proportion in order to serve the agenda of those who were against the war, many of which are being misled by agencies who were profiting from the status quo prior to the invasion.

 

What do you mean bury the scandal as quickly as they could, Chandos? They only investigated this for eighteen months.

 

And with stunning results so far. The reputation of the US has been restored. Or has it just been done justice?

 

I suppose you imagine this makes it all allright? A crime is still a crime even if worse things have been done. When someone gets caught of a crime should they not be punished?

 

Nice ad hominem.

I never said it wasn't

How do you know that they aren't? No one was using true torture techniques, at least that I have seen. I haven't seen any widespread reports (or any isolated cases) of missing limbs, electrocuted genitalia, or permanently maimed Iraqi nationals. Some Iraqis were placed in uncomfortable or humiliating positions. 40 years ago when my father-in-law was training to be a snake eater for the Marines (Force Recon), they went through a lot worse than the Iraqi's did as part of their training. What people like Lynndie and her boyfriend did was wrong, and they and their immediate supervisors need to pay a price for their actions, but given the relatively minor nature of the offences, I don't think Nuremberg style trials are called for, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the removal of Saddam.

These things happen in war. They are to be expected. They do not invalidate the good that has been and continues to be done, despite the efforts of those who wish to use them in such a manner. The actions of these individuals are not sufficient to damn the entire US military, the current administration, or the Unites States as a nation, except in the eyes of those who are looking for rationalization of the beliefs that they already hold.

 

I would be very surprised if no one used torture techniques but you are of course right about the fact that there are really no proof, there very rarely are, but then again I never claimed that England is guilty of torture. What I would hope to happen is to some sort of through investigation to be done about all sorts of abuses in the area and that the treatment of these prisoners be supervised.

True and also true that it's not enough to damn the war, but I'm not against the war anyway.

 

I just read about Lynndie's latest strategy for her defense. She, or her lawyers, stressed that she was certified retarded in kindergarten already, not an ideal candidate for the armed forces, and practically blames the army for taking her anyway.

As if enlisting her was looking for trouble already.

Splendid defense that reminds me of the movie 'Things to Do in Denver when You're Dead' and the story about 'Critical Joe', who cracked and shot a cop and then tells Jimmy 'The Saint' Tosnia, played by Andy Garcia: "Hey man, you knew I'm whacked out right from the start, how can you possibly blame me for screwing up?"

There is no shame anymore.