The last of the Abu Ghraib abuse trials is underway:
Private England is the last – and in some ways the most notorious – of nine enlisted soldiers involved in the abuse at Abu Ghraib to have her case resolved. The scandal has become an uncomfortably long-running spectacle for the military, one that Bush administration officials concede has damaged American credibility in the Middle East.
The trial, which is expected to last until next week, will also further lay out a seamy slice of military life, involving serious breakdowns in discipline in the military police unit guarding Abu Ghraib and questions about whether officers overseeing the prison have been held sufficiently accountable. But the outcome of the court-martial may well rest on how the all-male jury of five officers views the two starkly different portrayals of Private England.
Prosecutors made clear on Wednesday that they planned to depict Private England not as easily manipulated and mentally slow, but as an enthusiastic participant in the abuse who later admitted that it was done for the amusement of guards.
I simply find it hard to believe that others higher up in the chain of command were not in theknow. It just defies my own personal experiences.
jobiuspublius
I’ve heard/read that civilians dressed as military personel were overseeing the event. Is it possible that the chain of command was rerouted or muddled so that military commanders didn’t have to know, at least untill it was to late to do something about it? Would the chain of command be dumb enough to let themselves become the fall guys? There is Ollie North.
As far as I’m concerned, the fault starts with Worst-POTUS-Ever and rolls down from there. He’s negligent, at least.
See more links at the original page for all the other names and sources.
Steve S
I always said… Abu Ghraib pretty much put an end to the claim that Bush was a Moral Person. Anyone still thinking that today is in deep denial.
jobiuspublius
Just remembered, abuse has also occured at other American military detention centers. So, it’s systemic. Which tells me that the problem starts all the way at the top. Just like the FUBARed Katrina response. Yet, when Worst-POTUS-Ever wants to do the right thing it seems he can. Look at the new FEMA head. Apparently he knows what he’s doing. I don’t think it’s negligence. It’s planned chaos.
Darrell
Yes, because Bush ordered those tortures.. oh wait
jobiuspublius
Yes, because Bush ordered those tortures.. oh wait
So, negligence isn’t in your dictionary?
wilson
I agree that the supervisors (1st Sgt, Platoon Sgt, Lt, Captain) either knew of “boys and girls gone wild” problems or should have. Derelict or complicit. Probably a bit of both. Hopefully the panel will have the balls to write a few questions and request testimony from the supervisors. If such testimony is not forth coming, or not clearly supportive of prosecution of England, I would urge the panel to take that point into consideration in deciding the sentence. Anything over a bad conduct discharge and a year or so in jail smacks of scapegoating to me. If that means the folks already sentenced need to have their sentences adjusted, fine.
Krista
I agree with you on this one, John. There’s no way that the higher-ups did not know about this. They might not have ordered it, but they certainly did not order them to NOT do it, either. If they had, it would have been nowhere near as widespread…you don’t get too many people willing risk their career to disobey a direct order from a superior, esp. during wartime.
Darrell
And you ‘know’ this based on…??
Rick
I simply find it hard to believe that others higher up in the chain of command were not in theknow. It just defies my own personal experiences.
John,
Speaking from my experiences, which combining active & reserve time amounts to over a quarter century, it’s VERY easy for me to believe. Still, the BGEN (Karpinski, I think her name is) in charge got a reprimand, and of course she went off mewling that THAT mild measure was evidence of sexism. Just can’t please some peeps.
And once the “higher ups” got wind of the abuse, the investigation began and the proscecutions ensued. Before Ms. Mapes’ “scoop,” BTW.
Cordially…
Krista
Fine, fine…I’ll play along, Darrell. I don’t “know” this, 100%. However, I, like John, find it extremely hard to believe that they did not have some inkling as to what was going on. My experience in the military is not as extensive as John’s, but the experience that I DO have has confirmed for me that superior officers have eyes and ears pretty much everywhere, and there tends to be very, very little going on that they do not know about.
pmm
Unlike the active duty, where daily interaction, geographic proximity, and regular churn in personnel makes for a relatively consistent culture, the reserves and national guard are much more static. Two units in the same battalion can be very different in terms of their leadership, training, and skill sets, since so much much is dependent on the leadership on-the-ground. When your BDE CO is four blocks down Gruber, it’s tough to promote and protect the sad sacks. When they’re located on the other side of the state, it can get more difficult.
Having said that, there was a NYTimes article last year that was fascinating as it described a unit completely bereft of discipline and morale that made Abu Ghraib the logical conclusion to soldiers long gone wild. I’d be interested in the testimony of the Company & BN level leadership at least, since I’ve heard that the ‘acting’ Company CO was a SFC. Anyone know if this is true?
pmm
Krista, you’re telling me that a detainee handling SOP has to include ‘no human pyramids or simulated electrocution’? The abuses recorded there are being prosecuted under existing UCMJ articles, so they violated statutes instituted at some level.
Whether the existing standards were being adequately enforced is a valid question, but the standard for culpability you seem to be endorsing is rather excessive.
slide aka Joe Albanese
Rick said:
Huh? the proverbial shit hit the fan only after 60 Minutes aired the photos. The “higher ups” as I recall did everything they could the try and stop 60 Minutes, including personal phone calls from Gen. Meyers.
My question is, what happened to that Senate committee, chaired by John Warner, that was going to follow this all the way up the chain. they all made nice statements as to how this was not going to put on just the low ranking memebers of the military.
We had a couple of blatant white wash investigations by the military itself. We have General Miller caught in a bold faced lie to the committee and yet we still have no one seemingly interested anymore.
This adminstration did back flips to try and justify torture. They found some bush “appointees” in the Justice Department to write nice legal justifications to do what the military JAG officers, in all branches, said would be wrong, improper, illegal and counter productive. Now after those back flips and we find that torture actually did take place, its supposedly just the midnight crew at one prison having a little S&M fun. Yeah, right.
Kool aid… get your kool aid
pmm
Slide/Joe Albanese,
The prosecutions began (and were announced) months before the photos were leaked to 60 Minutes by a defendant in the investigation. How does that conflict with Rick’s statement?
pmm
So, negligence isn’t in your dictionary?
I’m open to an argument, but just asserting that the POTUS is responsible for what a PFC does simply because the PFC does it is an amazing standard.
If a soldier shoplifts a DVD player from the PX, is that also the responsibility of the President? If you’re thinking I’m being excessively glib about it, how about a 1LT Cali-style atrocity? Since there’s no indication at this time that the Abu Ghraib atrocities were an implementation of policy, much less policies stemming from Executive-level decisions, you seem to be arguing that because the existing standard wasn’t enforced, the President himself is culpable.
If you can prove a chain-of-command that leads up to the SECDEF or the President, knock yourself out. Just saying that he’s responsible and ignoring the entire chain-of-command in between the perpetrator and the President smacks of political opportunism.
To put it another way, if the President was ‘negligent’ or ‘derelict in his duty’, what could/should he have done that would cover him from this charge? I might be misreading you, but it appears that he was negligent simply because the abuses happened.
pmm
My bad,
was supposed to be blocked in the above post.
pmm
Slide/Joe Albanese,
Please expand on why you feel that there were’white-wash investigations’?
Also, what policy memo justified the actual events at Abu Ghraib? Was it a statement of policy or a briefing on potential courses of action? There is a difference, in that one is discussion intended to inform a decision-maker while the other one actually provides guidance to be implemented.
slide aka Joe Albanese
pmm:
I think that was best addressed in a Newsweek article some time ago:
.
slide aka Joe Albanese
pmm:
You can start here if you are really interested.
pmm
Joe A,
Thanks for the links. When I ask questions on these comment threads, it’s IOT get info, not just to be a jerk.
1. With regards to your whitewash links, I only read the Telegraph article as the next couple were CommonDreams editorials…apologies in advance if I missed the point. The Telegraph article was sourced entirely by anonymous quotes, which doesn’t mean it’s worthless, just that it’s heavy on assertions and light on proof. Critics can assert anything, but simply saying that it was a whitewash doesn’t necessitate proof.
The most damning item (at least in that article) was this:
I should note that the quoted authorization of dogs, food deprivation and sleep deprivation doesn’t actually cover the actual crimes perpetrated as displayed by the photos.
To resolve this particular issue, I’ll have to review the actual report.
Don
Yes, because Bush ordered those tortures.. oh wait
The administration without a doubt set the tone that made this all seem okay. Endless strugling over when Geneva applied, whether people deserved proper trials if they weren’t citizens. As if what it is to be American should revolve around what CAN be done versus what SHOULD be done.
We’ve spent decades sneering at sleazy lawyer tactics using every little legal loophole to free guilty people and turned right around and used those tactics to deny other people of freedoms. The administration even made noises about the difference in rights someone who was born into their citizenship and someone who was naturalized. Those troops took a message about what was okay right from the top.
Rick
Huh? the proverbial shit hit the fan only after 60 Minutes aired the photos.
slide,
And it took CBS some months after the DoD press release announcing the investigation to come up with a story. The story *being* the photos. Gave tee-vee a visual peg for old news.
But hey, it got Andrew Sullivan gob-smackingly chagrinned, so it was all worthwhile. For that, and for probably stopping the fast-tracking of a not too special Reserve BGEN.
Cordially…
pmm
Joe Albanese,
On the Newsweek article, you’re certainly on firmer ground, although even in the sections you’ve quoted it’s heavy on aspersions, relying on concepts like ‘seemingly set in motion a process…’ and ‘tantamount to torture.’ The same article includes the following exculpatory information:
Notably, this paragraphis pretty hard to refute, although anonymity again weakens the case:
Ultimately, the article makes the following charges:
1. The administration’s development of a legal framework that denies geneva convention protections to unlawful combatants. That doesn’t mean that it authorized the practices witnessed at Abu Ghraib.
2. A culture creep where rules forbidden by DoD gave way to those authorized for the CIA. While the article claims that legal ambiguity was deliberate, this is an oddly passive concept. If rules and standards were repealed or relaxed, who made that call? If they were ignored, who made that call? If conflicting rules, orders, standards, and chains-of-command created an aura of ambiguity, they had to start somewhere.
3 I’d like to hear more about this line of investigation:
4. I should note that claims of what folks currently under the gun said–like BG Karpinski–about how they were pushed to by higher should be taken with at least as much salt as those quotes by higher-ups that they are innocent.
I’ve already gone over the acceptable length for a comment, not to mention personal time allowed. I’m still not convinced, but thanks for the food-for-thought.
Krista
Good point. I don’t necessarily mean to say that superiors should have said, “Oh, by the way guys,no human pyramids,” or whatnot. But one would think that when the first detainees arrived, that there would have been some communication from higher-ups, reminding everybody that these people were not to be abused, or there would be repercussions. And if there had been such a communication, then I would think that the vast majority of personnel would have opted to not risk their careers. There still might have been some that did, but I think it would have been quashed or dealt with before it became so widespread. So, where the abuse was rather systemic, it does lead me to believe that these people had reason to believe that there would be no repercussions for their actions.
I’m not saying it’s the superiors’ fault, per se. The responsibility for the action still lies with the individual, but I do think that some people who were higher up saw what could happen, or what was already happening, and chose to look the other way.
TallDave
I simply find it hard to believe that others higher up in the chain of command were not in theknow. It just defies my own personal experiences.
Maybe they were. But, “innocent until proven guilty…”
Maybe more evidence will come out.
I do think a lot of higher-ups had their careers ruined, if that’s any consolation.
jobiuspublius
I’m open to an argument, but just asserting that the POTUS is responsible for what a PFC does simply because the PFC does it is an amazing standard.
…
I was taking a baby step towards an argument. I don’t have all my links in a row. Joe is ahead of me.
slide aka Joe Albanese
ppm, you are never going to find a “smoking gun”. I think this may be helpful in understanding what I think is going on:
.
Boronx
Maybe they were. But, “innocent until proven guilty…”
I like to say “Not leader of the free world until proven competent.”
Let’s face some facts.
1. Soldiers facing death in a warzone will abuse captive prisoners if given half a chance. Soldiers relegated to guard duty while their brothers are out there dying don’t even need half a chance.
2. The only possible justification left for this war is on humanitarian grounds. A key to winning such a war is to demonstrate our humanitarian principles to the people we are liberating. They have to accept us. Torturing and killing them without even a show trial is a wound, I believe a fatal one, to the main aim of the war.
3. Therefore, negligence on the part of the administration and the pentagon in not setting strict abuse policy has not only violated the human rights of the prisoners, but lost us a war and damaged our national security.
4. But it’s worse than that. As someone pointed out upthread, the administration learned about the torture months before it broke in the news, yet did nothing to stop it until it became a PR problem. This is the goddam military. If something is going wrong, you can send some asskicker on day 1 who can put things instantly into shape.
slide aka Joe Albanese
And who would that be TallDave? Not Bush, not Rummy, not Meyers, and certainly not the guy most responsible, General Sanchez:
So who, other than the hapless General Kopinski, has had their careers ruined?
Tim Fuller
So many Bush apologists, so little time !
Perhaps the Abugrab deniers forget that many of us actually watched as these policies were ‘approved’ by the Bush admin? I remember all too well.
And what are the odds that the exact same type of abuses would occur all throughout the military detention centers? Because it surely did.
And then there’s the inconvenient fact that many of those in these horrible circumstances were just at the wrong place at the wrong time? There are plenty of reports that highlight this.
I only wish we’d get to see/hear our troops raping and torturing those muslim children!!! You know such tapes exist don’t you? Continue disseminating bullshit Thug talking points. A majority of Americans FINALLY FIGURED OUT you’re lying.
The emporer is naked and now I hear he’d drinking again. God save us all.
Enjoy.
jobiuspublius
Rick
Thanks, Tim, for that fine, reality-based, link-heavy tutorial.
Cordially…
Darrell
Someone needs to inform the leftie tards that Abu Ghraib was discovered, investigated, and publically anounced by the military months before the news media made it a story.
DougJ
Huh? I like your use of “tards”, but what you say simply isn’t true. Unless by “made public” you mean “told Ronald Dumsfeld”. In which case what you’re saying is perfectly true.
I’m trying not to let misunderstandings get in the way of my discourse with you anymore. So, yes, you are right that Pearl Bailey was never involved with any Trotskyites. That we know of. Thanks, ppgaz for helping to clear up that misunderstanding.