Top Army Officials in Prison Torture Scandal Cleared... by Army

Unaccountability is the new responsibility:

A high-level Army investigation has cleared four of the five top Army officers overseeing prison policies and operations in Iraq of responsibility for the abuse of detainees there, Congressional and administration officials said Friday.

Among the officers was Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who was the top commander in Iraq from June 2003 to July 2004. He was the highest-ranking officer to face allegations of leadership failure in connection with the scandal, but he was not accused of criminal misconduct.

Barring new evidence, the inquiry, by the Army's inspector general, effectively closes the Army's book on whether the highest-ranking officers in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal should be held accountable for command failings described in past reviews.

Only one of the top five officers, whose roles the Senate Armed Services Committee had asked the Army to review, has received any punishment. That officer, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, an Army Reserve officer who commanded the military police unit at the Abu Ghraib prison, was relieved of her command and given a written reprimand. She has repeatedly said she was made the scapegoat for the failures of superiors.

Why am I not surprised? The ACLU has called for an independent investigation. The usual disclaimers about breath and not holding it apply.

•  well they all probably used the defense

  that they were just following orders

  by Magorn on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:50:23 AM PDT

  •  Or maybe...

    ...They were innocent of the charges being investigated against them?

    by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:59:53 AM PDT

    •  Forgive Us

      For making assumptions based on the fact that these  officials (according to the article) were in charge of "overseeing prison policies and operations in Iraq".

      I guess a resonable person might surmise that since they were in charge of overseeing prison operations that some of the culpability for the (obvious) abuse might rest in thier decision making.

      The buck stops....over there! No, over there! I'm sorry, did I say that, I meant over there!

      God forbid if it had been Clinton's administration that had done this. You all might have impeached him or something.

      Oh, I forgot you already did that. But blow jobs are far more important than prisoner abuse, right Joe?

      by sloanman on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:11:37 AM PDT

      •  Of course...

        blow jobs are more important than prisoner abuse.  As a matter of fact the former is often a corollary of the latter.

        by rastasmurf on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:47:46 AM PDT

        •  torture in the USA

          i've been tortured in the USA

          some of the people in the sf pepper spray trial will be in peoples park in berkeley sunday afternoon for the people's park 36th aniversary party.

          u ever had pepper spray in your eye? it hurts.

          by common terry on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:08:47 PM PDT

    •  Maybe but...

      We'll never know will we.

      But I think it's fair to be cynical when the army refuses to allow for independent investigation.

      National security demands it as opposed to being an excuse against it.

      If Americans keep letting atrocities go unpunished the victims are more likely to start attacking back.
      

      by AnonymousArmy on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:51:50 AM PDT

      •  yupp

        yupp

        you ever talk to inner city black people?
        many are very displeased at being tortured in jail here inside america. where do you think the ideas for torture used in abu graib came from?

        do you know where grainger worked in the USA?

        by common terry on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:11:18 PM PDT

    •  were Prisoners being tortured?

      were these men in Charge?

      if you answered yes to both of these questions, then by the laws of the military they WERE guilty of something.   Commaders bear direct responsibility for what happens under thier command.  a Captian of a ship is help responsible if his ship runs aground, even if he was off watch and slepping when it happened.  That is the law of the military, you have absolute control and absolute responsibility for your subordinates.

      Beyond that I find it impossible to believe that the man in Charge of Gitmo, were there  IS undoubtedly torture happening, is brought to Iraq to "gitmoize" (his words) Abu Gharib, and it is a total coincidence that sophisticated torture techniques were suddenly being employed by random enlisted people.

      by Magorn on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:13:46 PM PDT

    •  MAYBE THEY WERE INNOCENT???

      THEY WERE IN FUCKING CHARGE!!!  When a ship hits a reef in the middle of the night, the guy who stokes the coal doesnt get popped, the CAPTAIN does.  What the fuck happened to accountabillity in the US Military?  Oh, we'll push this off down on a couple of E-6's.  Thats convenient.  The Staff Sargents run the army.  Not the FUCKING GENERALS.  Not at all.  Why do you hate the troops so much???

      by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:20:40 PM PDT

      •  Show some self control.

        Don't yell childishly.  Geez.

        Anyways, by that logic, a war crime or two in World War 2 makes all the generals guilty.

        Every war has its issues -- what you're proposing doesn't fly in reality.

        by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:26:18 PM PDT

        •  It is obvious that

          you have never served in the military because then you would know that it is the Captain that gets relieved when he is sleeping at 3 in the morning and the LtJg piloting the ship runs aground.  Of course the LtJg gets hosed also.  THAT is reality.  Dont be ignorant.  That is the principle by which the military has always functioned.  

          by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:40:39 PM PDT

        •  Oh yeah thats right

          you hate enlisted people

          by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:41:12 PM PDT

          •  Thanks for telling me

            Who I hate.  And then troll-rating me because you disagree.

            by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:04:09 PM PDT

            •  starvation is the greatest torture

              20,000 kids starved to death again today...

              al qaeda is still growing...

              our problems are far deeper than a few bad enlisted men and a few bad officers and a few bad presidents.

              by common terry on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:13:43 PM PDT

              •  Al-Qaeda is still growing?

                That's funny, from what I understand of talking to people directly in the intelligence community, Al-Qaeda has had most all of their operational capability and central leadership wiped out, and their network is such a hollow shell that many within the CIA are pushing for funding to be transferred from going after Al-Qaeda to other, more worthwhile targets.

                by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 06:40:00 PM PDT

            •  Perhaps hate is the wrong word

              despise is probably the right word because that can be the only possible motive for thinking that those in charge of the whole shebang can be not guilty in this.  If you think that the juniors should hang for their actions while saying that the people who authorized the actions are not guilty is like saying that the GULAG guard should go to the firing squad, but not Stalin because he personally didnt do anything.  By stating what you stated, you are saying that enlisted and junior officers have a duty to be mindless robots that follow orders, no matter what those orders are and then take the blame when the orders are uncovered.  Saying that the seniors are not guilty just oozes contempt for 230 years of Army tradition and military discipline.

              by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:21:28 PM PDT

              •  If they directly authorized such conduct

                Then they should be held responsible.  But while I think there was some of that going on at the Pentagon level, I haven't seen evidence directly implicating, say, Sanchez.

                by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 06:40:51 PM PDT

  •  Whose orders?

    Which of course raises the question: whose orders?

    by lysias on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:02:14 AM PDT

  •  Didnt save 'em

    at Nurenburg

    by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:21:55 PM PDT

•  Senior military leadership is untouchable

  It's been that way for over 15 years. I can't think of a single instance where a general or admiral had their career cut short by their actions. The closest I can think of were a few that were forced to resign after they had affairs (and then only because the Tailhook scandal was fresh in the minds of Congress). They were willing to go after Janet Karpinski because she was both a Reservist and a woman. That put her outside the old boys club.
  
  Indeed, political disloyalty is far more serious than actually screwing up. Just ask Eric Shinseki.

  by Hoya90 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:51:47 AM PDT

  •  Uh...

    ...About that Shinseki fellow:

    http://www.factcheck.org/article275.html

    by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:58:10 AM PDT

    •  The unprecedent thing with Shinseki

      was that Rumsfeld named his successor a full year before he was schedule to end his term as Chief of Staff. There was nothing to stop Rumsfeld from having him serve another term as Chief. Instead, Shinseki was turned into a lame duck and sidelined.
      
      You are correct that Shinseki did retire on time. However, Rumsfeld's actions made it clear to everyone in the military that there would be bad consequences for those that challenged him.

      by Hoya90 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:41:46 PM PDT

      •  Not only that

        but Rumsfeld didn't even have the common decency to go to his retirement.

        by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:23:18 PM PDT

    •  Uh...

      Why not just make your case here, in your own words.  Factcheck.org is agenda-driven, and a very lousy checker of facts, so don't expect anyone to give you game-set-match for a link to them.

      by chumley on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:21:43 PM PDT

      •  "Factcheck is agenda driven".

        ...Right.

        by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:27:09 PM PDT

        •  Rejoinder

          Wow! Now THAT is a great rejoinder!

          by DavidNYC on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:48:40 PM PDT

          •  Now...

            was it factcheck.org or factcheck.com that the "Dick" recommended during the VP debate?
            

            by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:50:01 PM PDT

            •  That was a funny one.

              Dick inadvertently linking people to George Soros.

              by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:02:56 PM PDT

        •  "...Right."

          Wow.  You sure got me there.  

          Touche, well-played, sir.  

          by chumley on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 11:55:14 AM PDT

      •  wha?!?

        much as I dislike agreeing with "factbasedjoe," who does seem to be a bit "agenda driven," I think you're just plain wrong about factcheck.org - I have no idea where you get the idea that they're in any way biased.

        by snookybeh on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:06:20 PM PDT

        •  what dont they fact check?

          do they fact check that 20,000 kids starve to death every day on earth?

          by common terry on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:15:22 PM PDT

          •  uh, double-wha?!?

            Huh? that's a total non sequitur, dude. Are you familiar with what we were talking about?

            Factcheck.org is a website run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania; they research the accuracy of what elected officials and policy makers say in ads, speeches and the like. I imagine if someone in public office made a high-profile speech that made a reference to a specific number of children dying from lack of food, they would research the accuracy of the statement.

            They're not a freakin' foodbank, if that's what you thought. Your comment makes about as much sense as... aw, forget it. It's just a dumb thing to say, and totally irrelevant to the thread.

            by snookybeh on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 05:12:29 PM PDT

            •  Snooky...

              Thanks.

              If there's some really good argument against FactCheck and how they've been operating, I'd love to hear it -- but from everything I've read and seen, they're a source of high integrity.

              by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 06:42:30 PM PDT

  •  Gen. Fiscus, Air Force judge advocate general,

    had his career ended last year, and was demoted before retirement, allegedly because of adultery.  In fact, I suspect his real offense was that he opposed Rumsfeld and others in DOD over the torture.

    by lysias on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:04:28 AM PDT

    •  Yes.

      The conspiracy drove him into the arms of another woman!

      Brilliant thinking.

      by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:11:58 AM PDT

      •  Funny how that UCMJ adultery article

        (very doubtfully constitutional after the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision) just happened to be applied against Fiscus.  How many flag-rank officers do you think are guilty of adultery?

        by lysias on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:14:54 AM PDT

      •  Adultery

        It is quite clear that the commenter was saying that the charges of adultery were trumped up for ulterior motives.

        by DavidNYC on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:15:22 AM PDT

        •  How do you prove something like that?

          Or even provide evidence for it?

          If there's anything to be had here but paranoia, post some evidence.  And if there is evidence, why not actually give some in your original post?

          by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:19:36 AM PDT

          •  Comment

            I was not expressing any view as to whether the commenter was correct. I was pointing out that you were misreading what the commenter wrote.

            by DavidNYC on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:24:57 AM PDT

            •  I'm not denying that Fiscus was guilty

              of adultery.  (I have no way of knowing the facts of the case.)  What I do know is that many senior officers are notorious womanizers, and that Fiscus was singled out, I believe for other reasons than whatever sexual misconduct he may or may not have been guilty of.

              by lysias on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:29:48 AM PDT

              •  Yes

                That was evident from your comment. Unfortunately, Mr. Joe decided you were saying something altogether ridiculous.

                by DavidNYC on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:33:26 AM PDT

                •  And it is public knowledge

                  that Fiscus vocally opposed the torture policies in internal DOD discussions.

                  by lysias on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:36:10 AM PDT

        •  Its been my experience

          that adultry is used as one of those offenses like getting Capone for tax evasion.  No one goes looking for adultery, but if its there and they want to get you for something, they'll charge you with it.

          by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:24:50 PM PDT

  •  Talked about this with my husband

    He has 16 yrs in now and we are trying hard to make it through these last 4 under this administration.  He says that it is basically true that senior officers don't get reprimanded publicly......they just fail to be promoted ever again, your file is flagged.  Karpinski got a boot in the ass for going public right off the bat saying things and not having it cleared first.  She has proven herself to be unable to be trusted with the Omerta, she will get a public boot in the ass and the public will always be a little fuzzy about exactly why her and only her!  I think that most military officers know how this game works, and their families know how it works too.  I risk my husband's career in ways by even shooting my mouth off here.

    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:47:55 AM PDT

  •  Even more disturbing

    is the fact that General Karpinski (if I recall correctly) is one of the few officers to suggest publicly that there might be something wrong with our treatment of detainees.

    So the message is, keep violations of civilized norms covered up or lose your career.

    by nuttymango on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:17:41 PM PDT

•  Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ....

  ...grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. I expected as much. So like you I am not surprised. But still I growl. Torture is OK say the bosses. Barring torture is obsolete say the chiefs. Somebody engaged in torture? ask the honchos. Not our fault claim the overseers. Except, that is, for that woman who shouldn't even be in the military.

  by Meteor Blades on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:53:43 AM PDT

  •  Sounds like two kids fighting.

    When asked why they are fighting, it's always the other person's fault.

    How is your wife doing, btw?

    by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:40:31 PM PDT

    •  Improving daily. Thanks for asking. n/t

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:48:32 PM PDT

•  "Unaccountability

  is the new responsibility"

  what a rhytmic lingual mouthful!

  by Miss Devore on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:53:45 AM PDT

  •  rhythmic?

    rythmic?

    rhythmic?

    rithv mic?

    by Miss Devore on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:55:03 AM PDT

  •  You are only accountable

    if you are weak and cant fight back, like the idiots on the ground who actually did the dirty work and got scapegoated.  I wonder what happened to the guy who actually reported the abuse.  

    by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:27:18 PM PDT

    •  damn

      months ago I remembered that guy's name. Maybe I'll wake up at 3AM and remember it. Would love to hear his opinion now.

      by Miss Devore on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:29:50 PM PDT

      •  Aiden Delgado

        Don't know if this the guy you had in mind. There are a couple diaries that mention his effort to bring the detainee situation to light.

        by nuttymango on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 06:55:49 PM PDT

        •  not the one I'm thinking of

          I'm thinking of the person that sent a note to his superiors about what was going on. I'll google and find out.

          by Miss Devore on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 07:41:05 PM PDT

•  You couldn't be more wrong.

  Military investigations are not just "politics as usual" deals.  In other cases in Iraq, especially dealing with prisoner abuse, they've recommended strict punishments -- it's just that our government decided to overturn their decisions and not to punish.

  This is like the protestors about 'judicial activism' -- blame the process selectively when it produces a decision you don't like.

  When the military investigations recommended strict punishments for about 30 of the abusers, a few months back, and DoD I think it was refused to implement them, the blogosphere howled.  "How can you not listen to them?!", people said.  And I agreed with that.

  And now that the investigation clears some other people, you're howling again in the opposite direction -- that the process is bad.

  The only conclusion I can come to is that in your eyes, our military is guilty until proven guilty - and no other outcome will do.

  by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:54:09 AM PDT

  •  SCOTUS

    First off, I did not make any comments about the earlier episode you refer to, so your remarks as such are inapplicable to me as the poster of this item.

    Secondly, there is nothing contradictory in the slightest about the situation you describe. I might feel that an adjudicatory body has acted properly in one case but not another - it happens all the time.

    I am permitted to criticize the Supreme Court when it rules in a way I think is incorrect (eg, Bush v. Gore) and praise it when it rules in a way that I think is proper (eg, ending juvenile executions).

    This is no different. Just because an adjudicatory panel sometimes "gets it right" doesn't mean I cannot criticize the bad outcomes, and the motives behind them.

    by DavidNYC on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:07:40 AM PDT

    •  You can criticize outcomes you think are bad

      But when you're criticizing the process... i.e. "The process is compromised and tainted by politics", then no, you don't get to simply play that card whenever it does something you don't like.

      For all the issues I have with Bush v. Gore, for instance, I felt that most of the darker speculation about the Supremes not caring about the law and just wanting to hand the presidency over to Bush to be irresponsible in the extreme.

      by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:13:56 AM PDT

      •  Incorrect

        Again, incorrect. Here's why:

        Situation One: Despite being tainted because it was investigating itself, the Army review panel managed to come up with a set of recommendations regarding torture allegations that were proper. This was probably based on the fact that it is easier to scapegoat lower-level soldiers.

        Situation Two: Because the panel was tainted, it failed to come up with a proper set of recommendations. This was probably based on the fact that it is harder to take down high-level officers.

        This is directly analogous to my feelings about the Supreme Court: Despite the fact that Supreme Court is currently composed of five justices who appear to be willing to case aside the law and install a fellow conservative as president (ie, Bush v. Gore), many of those same justices do, at times, appear to follow the law properly (eg, Scalia in Kyllo, Kennedy in Roper).

        I can, in other words, believe that the process is flawed and still agree with some decisions and not others. The relevant saying would be, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." Sometimes a flawed panel can come to the right decisions, and I am permitted to agree with them in those cases. When a flawed panel makes bad decisions, I am allowed to disagree in those cases.

        by DavidNYC on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:23:53 AM PDT

        •  This is where we disagree.

          To my mind, the military justice system and the supreme court are not stopped clocks.

          by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:04:54 PM PDT

          •  Then, tell him what is wrong with that analogy.

            by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:44:18 PM PDT

          •  No they are not, RBJ,

            and no one has said they are. You might find the National Institute of Military Justice site to be of interest; please see the >600 pages OpLaw Handbook, which addresses the chain of command:

            The President and Secretary of Defense approve all ROE for US forces. The J-3 (Current Operations) is responsible for ROE maintenance. Each geographic Combatant commander is given the authority to promulgate theater specific ROE, after appoval from the President and the Sectectary of defense. p. 97

            
            No, not "stopped clocks" but the SCOTUS and military justice system do keep time with the Constitution of this country and and military law does operate with purpose and basic principles based on The Law of The Hague, Geneva conventions of 1949 and 1977 Geneva Protocols. p. 21

            by Nina on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:12:17 PM PDT

  •  Are you familiar with the UCMJ?

    In almost all cases commanders are responsible for the ultimate choice of what type of punishment is selected (non-judicial, courts martial and at what level).

    It's not like civilian processes. What makes you think that the kind of people who dumped on Shinseki's wisdom on required troop strength wouldn't be just as manipulative in dispensing justice?

    When the current C in C decided to allow the classification of many detainees as exempt from the Geneva Conventions this train pulled out of the station.  The stain of this decision will endure long after its presumed virtue is forgotten.

    by RMeister on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:55:29 AM PDT

  •  The public record

    including stories in the major media, documents in all three of the reports and testimony before congress, clearly says that the torture memo from the White House was relayed by Steven Cambone to the command structure of the Army and that they responded by sending General Miller from Gitmo to Iraq. Miller and Sanchez reorganized the command structure at Abu Ghraib putting Col Pappas in charge of Karpinski's MP's and instituting the interrogation techniques that became the "prisoner abuse" scenario. All that's in evidence. To take those facts and from them conclude that Cambone, Miller, Sanchez and Pappas had nothing to do with the abuse and Karpinski was guilty of it is, beyond a doubt, fraudulent.

    by johnmorris on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:33:13 PM PDT

•  absence of accountability

  for ANYTHING is the largest problem we face.

  People with power lie, cheat, steal, act with complete and utter incompetance, malice, spite and many other things and usually they are REWARDED.

  The american way is to get into the club where everyone props you up... pays enormous fees from ill gotten wealth... receives enormous fees for doing "nothing" or worse... enormous harm... Once you are in the club... you are protected, pampered, coddled, bribed rewarded.  Who makes this possible?

  The hard work of the rest of us... and the lack of polictal power and will to change it.

  by defjef on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:57:27 AM PDT

  •  And you think the American military..

    ..Is that sort of club?

    by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:00:45 AM PDT

    •  If it happened on your watch

      you take the hit.  You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility.  If Sanchez was any kind of man or leader, he would have resigned immediatley and cooperated fully in any investigations.  It is called leadership, something this nation is sorely lacking.

      by scurrvydog on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:07:21 AM PDT

      •  No way.

        By that logic, top leadership churns way too fast -- and you have an organization stripped of its most capable leaders.

        "If it happens on your watch" is a ludicrously silly rule of accountability, assuming you apply it all the way up the chain of command.

        by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:15:05 AM PDT

        •  Yamashita precedent.

          Only it happens to have been on that theory (of command responsibility) that Gen. Yamashita was tried and convicted by a U.S. military tribunal -- and the conviction upheld by the Supreme Court.

          Precedent doesn't apply to the U.S. military, for some reason?

          by lysias on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:18:42 AM PDT

          •  Precedent is situational.

            Precedent is about achieving the best possible outcome.

            If the precedent you cite were universally applied, regardless of context or situation, our military would not have the best possible outcome.

            by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:20:40 AM PDT

            •  The destruction of the integrity of our

              Armed Forces is complete.

              I view the wider prosecution of this war by our leaders as criminal, not in the sense of our responsibility to the world; although that could be debated too, but as a crime against our own professional warriors.  I joined the United States Air Force in 1974 at a time when the military was one of the least respected institutions in this country.  Our Military was in a shambles after the Vietnam Experience and I had not planned on making it a career.  But I went from enlistment to extension to re-enlistment to professional warrior in my 20 years of service to our Country.  I cannot take credit for restoring the Institution's credibility and honor, that was done by the Schwartzkofs, Zinnis, Powells, McPeaks, Hassans, Pierolos, and Shinsekis, but I helped to implement their programs and resisted the urge to bail on my troops until the profession had been restored to its rightful position in the pantheon of respected and honorable institutions.  Although I was not directly involved, our military performed brilliantly in the first Gulf War, Kosovo, and even in the current Iraqi conflict.  Now I see it being destroyed in this misguided adventure for corporate profit, bleeding to death from the numerous nicks and cuts of this unnecessary, protracted conflict.  I am angry at the bungling mismanagement of this entire endeavor by our civilian leadership, most who have never served a day in uniform, and their callous attitudes toward the troops; putting our troops in untenable positions, putting the responsibility for being in those positions upon the shoulders of the troops, then making scapegoats of those same troops when operations go awry.  I am angry that news of the war and it's casualties have been relegated to the very back pages of our papers.  I am angry that the very programs to help those casualties are not being fully funded.  In my opinion, our leadership has broken faith with the troops.  I weep at the prospect, real or imagined, of my beloved Military being reduced to the hollow shell that I found in 1974.  I pray, for our Country's sake, that it is not allowed to happen again.
              

              by scurrvydog on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:26:38 AM PDT

              •  Management or mis-management?

                Before the start of Gulf Oilgrab II, the US military mentioned in the open literature that they had attempted to harmonize some 600 different management systems, to create a well-managed event. That seemed to be the case right up to the take-over of Baghdad.
                   However, it emerged in the open literature, like Time Magazine, that they had also put a lot into reaching that point, including using up a great deal of pre-positioned ammunition stocks from the NATO stockpile from WWII days. After Baghdad, it seemed that the ammo factories (there's one that I have read about) were going full-tilt making more, and that the US even had to go on the open market to buy up more stocks for the troops to use.
                   A system that requires so much ammunition to take a country that has essentially been starved by embargo for 10 years, and then really doesn't finish off the job, appears to be a failed system.
                   Massive firepower was tried in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, etc.
                   An alternative strategy in guerilla warfare is to grant demands for land reform. In El Salvador, there was an attempt to do so with only 2 percent of the land. It was resisted bitterly by the landed classes, basically the top 26 families in the country. There, despite the unequalness in firepower by the El Salvador armed forces, guerillas armed mostly with machetes consistently took on the government forces.
                   Search your newspapers. What do we hear in Iraq of land reform, or measures that will actually re-create a strong middle-class, which would have a stake in a democratic government? What I am reading is of a desire to repeal the laws enacted by proconsul Bremer. And to install Muslim clerics. All these management systems have advanced Iraq back to the seventh century.
                   The current exit plan seems to be limited to retirement from government posts quickly, so as to cash in on the revolving-door opportunities with contractors.

                by jfdunphy on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 03:14:40 PM PDT

            •  Exactly wrong.

              Precedent is about achieving the best possible outcome.

              Precisely wrong.  Law is about establishing general rules, applicable to everyone.  Only in that way can there be a Rechtsstaat (government under the rule of law).  What you are advocating is different laws for different folks, i.e., an Unrechtsstaat (rule of injustice).

              by lysias on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:27:04 AM PDT

              •  Wrong.

                ""Precisely wrong.  Law is about establishing general rules, applicable to everyone.  Only in that way can there be a Rechtsstaat (government under the rule of law). ""

                And why do we want rules that are applicable to everyone?  To achieve the best possible outcome.  Sometimes, adhering to precedent violates that.

                by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:06:34 PM PDT

                •  Faulty premise.

                  You're starting with the faulty premise that the military is currently being led by the most qualified people. I think the qualifications of many of these leaders are very lousy, given the torture that occured on their watch and their lousy planning of the War in Iraq.

                  by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:48:44 PM PDT

        •  If they were "capable leaders"

          this would not have happened.

          by scurrvydog on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:28:13 AM PDT

        •  I think you're totally wrong

          If you've set the climate you are responsible for what happens below you.  When you set up poorly lead, poorly trained, and overwhelmed troops to do a task with meddling from spooks and mercenaries you should get the axe.

          Why would you want to retain people who have made such poor decisions, denied responsibility, and created this environment?

          The military isn't about tenure.  It's about doing it right.

          by RMeister on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:45:48 AM PDT

          •  On this we agree.

            ""The military isn't about tenure.  It's about doing it right.""

            And given that perfection is impossible, I think axing the whole upward chain of command every time there's a problem will produce a system that gets it "less right" than one which is more selective in who it removes.

            by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:07:45 PM PDT

            •  There is a big difference

              between making a mistake such not having the right balance of heavy/light forces, and setting up a command climate that allows this type of abuse to occur.

              I think you can learn from the former issue, if you're flag rank and still lack integrity, it's not going to happen, ever.

              And the military meme is that "a commander is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in his command."  Nothing about being too senior to get relieved.

              by RMeister on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:14:29 PM PDT

            •  Writ in stone

              at west point are the words:

              DUTY HONOR COUNTRY

              they are supposed to be taken seriously. Denying responsibility for command decisions you made is dishonorable and its almost certain that Miller, Sanches and Pappas are doing just that. They should resign.

              by johnmorris on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:40:04 PM PDT

              •  So you think they made the call

                To torture prisoners?

                by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:04:44 PM PDT

                •  SURE

                  they made the call. Look, no question, Steven Cambone stumped for more torture at Gitmo. Miller complied. When the insurgency heated up, they sent Miller to Iraq with orders to "Gitmoize" the intelligence operation. While Miller was in town, they took the responsibility for the intelligence wing of the prison away from Karpinsky, a general, and gave it to Pappas, a colonel. Sanchez gave those orders. All of the enlisted men who have been convicted tried to mount a defense based on orders and none of them have been allowed to call any officer above the rank of captain or any officer who does not already have a letter in his jacket. All of that's public record. Its difficult to believe they didn't make the call.

                  by johnmorris on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 08:59:20 PM PDT

        •  It happens on your watch

          is EXACTLY the rule of accountabillity in force that has been in force in the military until yedsterday, and that is pounded into the brain of every airman, seaman and private from day one of boot camp.  This episode forever undermines military discipline because it says that accountabillity is now delegated to the lowest level while the uppermost level is immune from accountabillity.

          by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:31:15 PM PDT

    •  At the highest level, it is.

      Flag-rank officers are political.

      by lysias on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:07:43 AM PDT

    •  The military "actors"

      are the fellows who feed their corporate masters with projects... read - procurement of military systems and gear.

      The miliatry budget is ENORMOUS... often non competative contracts... awarded again and again to the same mega corporations which when they get caught cheating ... get a slap on the wrist and more no bid contracts.

      Look at the deal for refueling for Boeing... that was like giving our money to boing shareholders and of course the workers get their salaries...

      Who lost the $8.8 billion in Iraq last year?  Who ordered amo (bullets) equal to 58 for each man women and child in Iraq?  Are our soldiers bad shots?..or what?

      The military brass is a club and when they "retire" they go to work from Boeing, Northrop... and the usual defense contractors...

      by defjef on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:16:06 AM PDT

      •  You act like defense contractors...

        are inherently 'bad'.

        by RealityBasedJoe on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:21:19 AM PDT

        •  Nah

          They just inherently need war.

          by sloanman on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:30:01 AM PDT

          •  almost correct

            They always need the plausible threat of war.

            Acutal wars can hurt some of them, as longer term expensive technology is cut in order to pay for things like bandages, gasoline, amputations and bureaucrats to blow off the brain-addled veterans dumped back at home.

            by mbkennel on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:09:54 PM PDT

•  Right wing disconnect #267

  Athough the more I think on it, it might be the prime discconect.

  The collection of people who make up our society are amoral heathens who are attacking all that is heald dear. Yet, when a representative sample of that same society is military, they suddenly can do no wrong.

  by JoeWPgh on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:10:19 AM PDT

  •  Representative Sample

    Much larger percentages of minorities and the lower and low/middle economic classes for the military to be a representative sample of society.

    Still,  you're point about the military doing no wrong is correct as far the the top level brass are concerned. The footsoldiers and low-level grunts, however, are another story, and will be vilified when and if photographic evidence surfaces on the evening news.

    by johninPortland on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:53:51 PM PDT

•  What do you make of this?

  In the New York Times article on this report, Eric Schmitt writes:

  "Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee, declined in a statement to comment directly on the Army's findings, but signaled he would call a hearing on senior officer accountability in the detainee abuse scandal."  

  So is the book really closed?

  by indybend on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:13:12 AM PDT

  •  what i make of it

    ...is that warner looked at this report, looked at all the information we already have, and realized that DoD can't keep its lies straight.  something that is painfully obvious even to those of us who have to dig to get this info out of the watered down versions in the media.

    warner doesn't want to risk the political backlash from the RWNJ crew, but also doesn't want to ruin his credibility by pretending he takes this report at face value.

    by zeke L on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:55:55 PM PDT

  •  I hope

    he has a hearing and I suspect that at least a little lip service will be paid to fairness because it would have been much easier to say, "Well the report says they're innocent.  Case closed".  We'll see.

    by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:24:50 PM PDT

•  No kidding!

  Why am I not surprised?

  Tell me that heads will roll, this shit will stop and Republicans will work tirelessly for the expurgation of American torture chambers--Then, and only then, will we have a story.  

  by weeping for brunnhilde on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:18:59 AM PDT

  •  right...

    just like OJ is still out there searching for the "real killer."

    by Agent of Fortune on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:49:24 AM PDT

•  Torture Scandal

  High ranking officers insulated from blame/punshment.  Another reason to make people hesitant to join the military.

  by Court Smith on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:22:59 AM PDT

•  As long as there is no outcry...

  we can expect this again, again and again.

  Do I hold the MP's accountable, you betcha, but do I think they were acting in a vacume, ummmm No!!!!! But as long as people reamin silent or even worse "Well they did it to our troops, so we're just giving it back to them...." Nothing will be done. Afterall, Rummy tried to resign twice and Bush said no. Not that I believe this story either, but it leads one to believe that Bush could care less.
  

  by p a roberson on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:25:22 AM PDT

•  The problem with...

  "The usual disclaimers about breath and not holding it apply. "

  ... that is... that it stinks to the high heavens!
  

  by Andrew C White on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:26:22 AM PDT

•  Speaking of Special Investigations

  what happened to the car the Italian journalist was shot and nearly killed in, with the Italian agent protecting her who WAS killed by the U.S. military? wasn't the car to be turned over to the Italians for their investigation?

  has the car been turned over to them? the last I heard it had not.

  by Superpole on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:57:00 AM PDT

•  Bush is destroying the American military...

  ...you decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing.  I won't pass judgment.

  But it is quite clear that the joint US-UK invasion and occupation of Iraq is not destroying the British Army, but it is destroying the American military--particularly the Army and the Marines.

  One way in which the Army and Marines are being destroyed is by corruption of the chain of command.  If the generals are not held accountable for their actions--or inaction--in the Abu Ghraib scandal, then you have a military in which the lower-ranking officers will become mistrustful and suspicious of the motives of the top echelon officers like Sanchez.  The same does not apply in the British Army, where accountability still applies (except for elected civilian leaders like Blair).

  When I was a captain in the British Army, I knew full well that if one of my superior officers gave me an order that was illegal (i.e., to torture prisoners), I could refuse it and know that he, not I, would be called to account for it.  I also knew that if I obeyed that illegal order, both of us would be in hot soup, not just me.  Same applied for the company of soldiers under my direct authority.

  This is called accountability, and it is one of the keys to making the military (or any organisation) work.  The lesson of Sanchez's non-punishment is twofold:

  1. Junior officers and enlisted personnel cannot trust senior officers.  The senior officers will punish the junior officers and enlisted personnel for not following orders, whether they are legal or illegal, but the senior officers will never face punishment for their own actions nor negligence;
     
  2. The civlian leadership of the United States is not to be trusted--they are perfectly willing to make sacrificial lambs of junior officers and enlisted personnel whilst sparing the senior officers who bear far more responsibility.

  Now close your eyes and imagine an American military in which the rank and file officers, and enlisted personnel, trust neither the senior officers nor the civilian commanders.  Got the picture?  Good--permission to be damned depressed granted.

  Now, of course it wouldn't be fair merely to punish General Sanchez for the worldwide network of torture.  Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were the architects of the worldwide network of torture that the US government established after 11 September 2001--and they are as high up the chain of command as you can go.  Bush is the Commander in Chief; if Sanchez were court martialed for his role in Abu Ghraib, the evidence presented in that trial would show that his orders came directly from the Pentagon, from Rumsfeld.  And who does Rummy work for?  Why, President Cheney and his mannequin, "President" Bush.

  So if Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are untouchable, then so is Sanchez.  But not General Karpinski, nor the soldiers who were recently court-martialed for their direct role in torture at Abu Ghraib.

  The low folk on the totem pole got punished and the big boys got off scot-free.  This lesson is one that the American military have now fully absorbed, and they--and the American people--are now stuck with a military that is likely to become wholly dysfunctional.  

  The only question I haven't answered is:  is a broken American military a good thing or a bad thing?  Find your own answer for that.

  by Shadowthief on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:27:49 PM PDT

  •  The scary thing is

    as an enlisted person, I know what orders are legal and what orders are illegal and I know what the consequences are for disobeying a direct order.  And I would like to think that if I were in the position of those similarly ranked persons at the prison, I would have the sense that God gave a gnat that what they were ordered to do was wrong.  The fact that they didn't see anything wrong with the orders they were given and did what they did points to a more distubing trend in American culture - people are losing the ability to distinguish right from wrong.  It should be simple.  Beating prisoners = wrong, no matter the circumstance.  

    by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:36:35 PM PDT

    •  Letting the higher-ups go free muddles the issue

      ...of what is "right" and "wrong".

      Wrong: Sergeant Frederick beats and humiliates prisonerse at Abu Ghraib.  He is court-martialed and sentenced to 8 years in prison.

      Right:  General Sanchez knows, or should have known, what was happening under his command is absolved of all responsibility.

      It's clear that Bush APPROVED torture--the Attorney General, when he was White House Counsel, wrote that infamous "torture" memo that stated that the Geneva Convention is "quaint" and "outdated".  

      So what is "right" and "wrong" and "legal" and "illegal" for American soldiers?  Do they know?  British soldiers, even tho' some have been found guilty of abusing/torturing prisoners, KNEW that what they did was against British military and civil law.  American soldiers have a much less clear picture--thanks to the Commander in Chief.

      by Shadowthief on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:37:13 PM PDT

      •  It goes beyond

        what is right because it is authorized and what is wrong because it is unauthorized.  It goes straight to the heart of what it means to be a good person.  I think that up and down the chain of command, people have forgotten this.  That is the tragedy.  I think all of the people who were convicted thus far were reservists.  Therefore, maybe their immersion into military culture isn't complete.  Which means that more than someone like you or I, they take their civilian point of view into the situation.  That is what makes this incident all the more disturbing - the fact that they could not distinguish right from wrong at an absolute level.  What does that say about the rest of our society?  What does it say that the people with the ultimate oversight, both at the micro and macro levels dont have any accountabillity?  Is the military deliberately trying to send a signal that higher ups are immune from wrongdoing?  Clearly to me, the military is no longer the friend of the enlisted/junior officer.  If you are following illegal orders, do not expect the people who issued those orders, or at least should have known what was happening, to be punnished.  The chain of command is completely broke as of yesterday.  

        by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:46:03 PM PDT

  •  Skeptical of the purity of the British Army

    As an Irish-American who has studied the background of the slaughter of non-violent protesters on the march in Ireland called "Bloody Sunday, 1972), let me note for the record that the historical record of the British Army is not unblemished. That investigation has been suppressed several times, and Blair's current revival of it, under pressure from the grass roots, looks to be another drawn-out cover-up. Habits of repression are hard to shake after practising them for more than 800 years.
       And one does not have to torture to achieve a political end. Lawrence of Arabia's memoirs detail the shift-of-policy (double-cross) by the act of whether or not to delivery artillery to support the uprising of the irregulars. The higher-ups basically undercut the work of their own man on the spot, Lawrence. Leadership is ruthlessly pushished if it does not advance the interests of the proper classes. Quite.

    by jfdunphy on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 02:52:15 PM PDT

•  Free Sergeant Frederick

  Clearly, torture is A-OK.

  Bush signed memoranda authorising torture, and got re-selected.

  Rumsfeld signed memoranda authorising torture, and got re-appointed as Secretary of Defence.

  Alberto Gonzales drafted memoranda authorising torture, and got confirmed as Attorney General.

  Ricardo Sanchez carried out orders to torture prisoners in American custody, and got off scot-free.

  Then why did Sergeant Frederick and other soldiers who tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib get prison sentences?  I say, these lower-ranking soldiers should go free as well.  It's like putting Ken Lay's secretary in gaol for Enron and letting Ken Lay go free.

  Sergeant in Abu Ghraib case sentenced to 8 years in prison
  Soldier admits participatingin prisoner abuse in Iraq
  The Associated Press
  Updated: 2:20 p.m. ET Oct. 21, 2004

  The highest ranking soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was sentenced to eight years in prison for abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib during a court martial Thursday in Baghdad.

  Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, 38, an Army reservist from Buckingham, Va., was also given a reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay and a dishonorable discharge. The sentencing came a day after he pleaded guilty Wednesday to eight counts of abusing and humiliating Iraqi detainees.

  It was the longest prison sentence yet in connection with the scandal that broke worldwide in April with the publication of photos and video that showed U.S. soldiers abusing naked Iraqis in the prison on the western outskirts of Baghdad.

  Frederick -- a military policeman who is a corrections officer in civilian life -- acknowledged his part in the scandal, admitting that he hooked up wires on hook wires on the hands of a detainee who was told he would be electrocuted if he fell off a box and that he forced prisoners to masturbate.

  But Frederick also blamed his chain of command, telling the court Wednesday that military intelligence officers ordered prisoners to be publicly stripped and degraded.

  Defense calls sentence 'excessive'
  He testified that he was given no training or support in supervising detainees and only learned of regulations against mistreatment after the abuses occurred between October and December last year. He said that when he brought issues up with his commanders, "they told me to do what MI told me to do," referring to military intelligence.

  Defense Counsel Gary Myers on Thursday called the sentence "excessive" and said he would seek a reduction.

  "Punish him yes. But please try to understand the defense's point of view that there is corporate responsibility," Myers said. "We discovered that he has no abhorrent tendencies."

  Army Prosecutor Major Michael Holley told the court it was a simple case of right and wrong.

  "He's an adult and capable of telling, as we learned, the difference between right and wrong. How much training do you need to learn that it's wrong to force a man to masturbate?" he said.

  Read the rest of the story here:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6287557/

  by Shadowthief on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:34:14 PM PDT

•  What gets missed often in disscussions of this...

  particular topic is the following fact:

  This scandal and the ensuing covering of our military's collective asses has put every single man and woman who wears the uniform in clear and present danger.

  There is no longer a single government with enmity towards the United States which will stop short of torturing any member of the US military they happen to capture or wound. Many would argue that this was the case prior to this incident (and all others like it in places like Cuba, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, etc. etc.). I submit to you however that this has escalated the animosity towards our brave men and women who wear the uniform to a point never before seen. We have proven to the rest of the world that we are the arrogant, barbarian infidels that the Fanatical islamists have said we are. Our soldiers will be paying for these "indiscretions" (HUGE understatement!) for years and years to come!

  The military chain of command exists for a reason that moves in both directions. This ideal fosters a team mentality that has been eroded in the last few years. The designation of the perpetrators of these heinous acts as, "a few bad apples" by the very people in their chain of command who are supposed to assume a modicum of responsibility for the conduct of their troops is unconscionable. It flies in the face of everything which "Esprit De Corps" is supposed to entail.

  Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here". With our current administration, the buck stops anywhere other than here and things are no different for their cronies and yes men in the upper leadership of the military...they should all be ashamed of themselves.
  

  by green917 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:35:47 PM PDT

  •  I know some American soldiers/Marines

    They are furious about the torture scandal because there is a sense of collective guilt that cannot be expunged until those responsible, from top to bottom in the chain of command, are held to account and punished.

    Of course, such an investigation and punishment would ultimately reach the office of the President of the United States. 'Nuff said.

    by Shadowthief on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:57:44 PM PDT

    •  Any such investigation would...

      illuminate several people and places that our administration does not want illuminated. I have NO doubt that the CIA has been complicit in all of these incidents but <snark> they can't come under any scrutiny or the terrorists will have won </snark>. There is a pervasive sense of guilt among many of my friends who are still in the military also (I was fortunate enough to get out just before Iraq started heating up). There's a lot of dissention in the ranks right now!

      by green917 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:31:51 PM PDT

      •  If there is a collective sense of guilt

        I dont see too much of it.  I showed some of my co-workers the autopsy pics of the guy in Uzbekistan who was tortured to death by BOILING (yes) and the collective reaction was, "Dont go to jail in Uzbekistan".  

        by calipygian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:26:59 PM PDT

    •  They shouldn't feel that way

      The soldiers shouldn't feel collective guilt about this, but the Republicans have done a miraculous job about cultivating that "Vietnam" mindset in the military. What I refer to is the sense that Democrats and liberals blame the soldiers for war crimes, are anti-military, and don't support the troops. There's no truth behind the feeling, but the Republicans do love their wedge issues.

      So do we blame the average soldier for the torture scandal? Heck no!  By cultivating this victims mentality among the rank and file, the Republicans make it near-impossible to investigate cases of misconduct without appearing unsupportive of the troops.  

      This torture scandal is not a widespread scandal in the military, which is also not to say that it's an isolated incident. But it is limited -- to Iraq and Afghanistan (which includes Guantanamo). And even within Iraq and Afghanistan, it's limited to those troops involved in guarding and interrogating prisoners.  The men and women driving tanks, guarding convoys, walking patrols, flying planes, etc., and completely uninvolved.

      Shame on the Republicans, because not only are they responsible for the torture, they are responsible for nurturing unwarranted feelings of guilt throughout the military, if what you say is true.

      by Paul in Berkeley on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:40:03 PM PDT

•  class

  i take an ethics of war and peace class with a reserve chaplain. a JAG officer came in and talked about the law of war and eventually the scandal question came up. Frankly both of them were pissed bout it, thinking heads should roll. Important to remember the army isn't a monolithic organization, there are many officers and enlisted men that are pissed off about this.

  by JoeHill on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:39:35 PM PDT

  •  Of course they're angry, Joe

    The junior officers and enlisted personnel see their  senior officers and civilian commanders getting away--quite literally--with murder, while men and women at THEIR rank are harshly punished.

    Is Bush out to destroy the morale of the American military?  Because that's exactly what he's doing.

    by Shadowthief on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:50:01 PM PDT

•  This is the story

  that disappeared after John Paul II's death.  It is now public knowledge that Sanchez personally approved torture (link).  The pentagon is thumbing it's nose at us all.  If it had not been for the disappearance of this story in the mainstream GOP-controlled media, it would have been a lot harder for them to get away with this.  Of course we can bring it up again now.

  by mikepridmore on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:43:28 PM PDT

•  Internal Affairs

  military style strikes again, justice be dammed, protecting your own is the bottom line in law and order America, and of course law and order only applies to the other person.
  PEACE!

  by PC on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:06:50 PM PDT

•  Decide for yourself

  http://www.albasrah.net/#english

  scroll down to enter

  by S from Van on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:11:06 PM PDT

•  ' Pentagon Innocent' Story released Friday night

  So you know that the Criminals in Chief want to sneak this one under the radar  of public attention.

  Of course they are going to absolve Sanchez et al. He WAS only following Pentagon orders, and if they had tried to pin anything on him, Sanchez would have testified against them and done his best to share the blame with Rummy et al.

  Relevant comment Crossposted: There was an excellent Commonwealth Club of California presentation April 08, 2005 lasting 30 followed by an extended very candid Q & A session lasting ~ 35 min, by Brig Gen Janis ("the Scapegoat") L. Karpinski (national guard MP  and 2003 Iraq prisons commander) on April 8, 2005. What Really Happened at Abu Ghraib, that was run on CSPAN3 on April 19 2005 ~ 5 pm EDT.

  CSPAN did not make it available in their public online archives or listings of previous shows, and Commonwealth Club omittede the dynamite Q&A session from the publically available audio file of Karpiski's 04/08/05 lecture.  

  I emailed both CSPAN and Commonwealth Club to inquire if/why not the full Karpinski presentaion were available. Got an automated non-responsive response from CSPAN, and no response at all as yet (4-5 days) from Commonwealth Club, as to why no audio of Q&A session was included (very unusual).  

  by shumard on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:18:19 PM PDT

•  Torture was policy

  From Bush, justified by Gonzales, to Rumsfeld, Myers and Sanchez.

  When I was a kid in the '50s my friends and I  used to play army all day long.  If we were captured, we were tortured by the bad guys, who we would later kill.

  We have become the bad guys.

  by steveb on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:05:17 PM PDT

•  <b>They Are Still Human</b>

  When does human conscience come into play?  Apparantly never.  

  Does it really matter who allowed torture to come into play?  Does it really matter who, if anyone will be held responsable for this?  

  The fact is that we were "told" that this was a war of liberation.  We were told that there would be limited "collateral damage", etc.

  THEY KILL PEOPLE.  THEY ABUSE PEOPLE.  THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT. PERIOD.

  This whole war is a lie.  

  by simplefolk on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:48:37 PM PDT

•  The Military Meme

  My sister married into the military and her meme about Abu Grahib was "where did the chain of command break down?"  

  My answer.  It didn't.  

  So that's the military meme, and now we see that the chain of command broke down with a few rogue enlistees on the graveyard shift.  (No pun intended.)

  How convenient that their buck-stopping kangaroo courts are validated by the SCLM/MSM's ass-kissing journalism.

  Follow the money and the facts will emerge.  The chain-of-command has narcissistic personality disorder.

  by super simian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:10:17 PM PDT

•  A third option is:

  Scared Shitless.

  When one of the richest men in the world caves to the Radical Right Christians, you know there's terror in the land.

  "The Microsoft Corporation, at the forefront of corporate gay rights for decades, is coming under fire from gay rights groups, politicians and its own employees for withdrawing its support for a state bill that would have barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

  Many of the critics accused the company of bowing to pressure from a prominent evangelical church in Redmond, Wash., located a few blocks from Microsoft's sprawling headquarters.

  The bill, or similar versions of it, has been introduced repeatedly over three decades; it failed by one vote Thursday in the State Senate. Gay rights advocates denounced Microsoft, which had supported the bill for the last two years, for abandoning their cause. Blogs and online chat rooms were buzzing on Thursday with accusations that the company, which has offered benefits to same-sex partners for years, had given in to the Christian right."

  by towit on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:40:41 PM PDT

  •  I have no idea how my comment got to this thread,

    as I was in Armando's nuclear option when I penned.

    So ignore me here.

    by towit on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 05:13:55 PM PDT

•  An internal Al Qaeda Investigation....

  ..has cleared Osama bin Laden and his top aides in any responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

  The committee declared:

  "It was an isolated incident. A few bad apples in the Al Qaeda organization".

  The investigation was independently verified by Saudi, Pakistani and Taliban officials.

  Case closed.

  </snark>

  by Recluse on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:31:44 PM PDT

•  High marks

  Students who grade their own papers always get high marks.

  <sarcasm>

  by PBnJ on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 05:57:22 PM PDT

•  asdf