Replies

Thanks. It's very interesting. I plucked the quote below from the link you provided. So it's possible that unless Gen. Sanchez, although responsible for what occured under his command, was not criminally involved.

"Shuck also said a sergeant at the prison, First Sgt. Brian G. Lipinski, was prepared to testify that intelligence officers told him the abuse of detainees on the cellblock was "the right thing to do." Earlier this month, Lipinski declined to comment on the case."

For any who read this and don't know, the First Sergeant is often the highest ranking NCO (enlisted soldier) in an Army company. ...always so in a combat company, to my knowledge. First sergeants often answer directly to their captains (company commanders). Above captains are battalion-level officers who are often some distance away from company elements.

It's starting to get a little more clear. I'm also a little suspicious that Brig. Gen. Karpinski pointed the finger at the regular Army during her online interview with the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24845-2004May13.html
"The active component involvement will become more apparent as the result of ongoing investigations" (Gen. Karpinsky)

Thanks for the link to the interview transcript. After the Taguba Report account of "the interview with the weeping general" we can see how the General can weasel around when she has a chance to collect herself. Not only does she point to Regular Army it's also to the "Male Chauvinist Pigs", right out of the feminist playbook! And she can't give a straight answer to where the buck stops question either.

Worst of all, she did not know the abuse happened in Nov. and she did not find out till 1-19 and then by the "afterthought" of CID. Karpinski says she could not be everywhere at once, but in her entire command only one prison had a cell block controlled by MI(Military Intellegence) and even she admits she, ""probably should have been more aggressive" about visiting the cell block, particularly after military intelligence officers went "to great lengths to try to exclude the ICRC (International Committee for the Red Cross) from access to that interrogation wing"". With some other entity taking control of an area still under her command and still her responsibility, red lights should have gone off for her. A General officer with any sense, of even career self preservation, should have watched or had watched that area very closely.

Her years of experience should have told her that even under correctly applied,(ie legal per opinion of DOD) methods, they were not doing the Hokey Pokey in those interogations and potential for abuse and fallout was high and her reputation and that of her Brigade would suffer. Already, members of the Brigade who were eligible for decorations for their service are not going to get them and the name of the 800th MP Brigade is disgraced and that hurts all of the command, not just the guilty.

Prison Abuse Scandal

".. Hagerstown, Md.: General, how and when did you first learn of the abuse?

Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski: I first learned of the abuse via an e-mail on the 19th of January and the e-mail was not sent to me by anybody in my chain of command. It was sent to me almost as an afterthought by the commander of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID).."

".. Washington, D.C.: General Karpinski- I read that you are the first woman to serve as a general commanding troops in a U.S. war. Has this been a difficult position to fill? Do you feel that you have been treated differently in this situation as a result of this?

Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski: That is true statement to the best of my knowledge. I was the first female general officer to command soldiers in a combat situation. It was not difficult from a leadership perspective. There were additional challenges and certainly the element of placing your life on the line brings extraordinary responsibility to the table. I believe there were some male commanders particularly in the active component who resented my success in a theater of war and communicating to me at times that I was not going to succeed and how dare I think I could succeed in their theater of war. I got the distinct impression it was an insult to their warrior instinct and to their masculinity. .."

Washington, D.C.: In your view, with whom did "the buck stop" when it came to Abu Ghraib military policy? Who should be held accountable for what occurred there?

Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski: I think it's a shared responsibility. The Military Police personnel were assigned to an MP company that was a subordinate company of my brigade, so I am responsible for those soldiers. I cannot be responsible for other senior people who may have given them instructions specific to these incidents. I had 16 locations and 3,400 soldiers to take care of so I can't be in all of those locations all of the time.

But in terms of where does the buck stop, I think it will be determined as the investigation continues to unfold.