Posted on 05/28/2004 3:45:53 PM PDT by demlosers
HEIDELBERG, Germany — Sgt. Samuel Provance said he wasn’t surprised when Lt. Col. James Norwood summoned him to Wiesbaden on Friday, less than a week after the sergeant spoke to ABC News about his experiences at the Abu Ghraib.
Provance is the only military intelligence soldier who served at the prison to publicly speak about prisoner abuses there, despite orders from his command to keep quiet.
Now, Norwood, his battalion commander, has flagged Provance from favorable actions and pulled his top-secret clearance.
On May 16, the 30-year-old Williamsburg, Va., native told ABC News that fellow military intelligence agents casually discussed their part in prisoner abuses. Provance also discussed what he feels are the Army’s subsequent moves to discourage soldiers from speaking out.
Just two days earlier, his company commander, Capt. Scott Hedberg, ordered Provance to keep quiet about Abu Ghraib, according to documents obtained by Stars and Stripes. Provance signed a statement in which he agreed not to talk to the press.
But the following Friday, he was in front of Norwood, who commands the 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion. Norwood told Provance that he was being flagged, which means he cannot receive any favorable actions such as promotions or awards, and pulled his security clearance. He then gave Provance a second order not to talk about Abu Ghraib, according to documents Norwood signed.
“I knew it was only a matter of time before they shut me up,” Provance said.
Speaking out
In January, when Provance filled out a questionnaire given by Army investigators to troops at Abu Ghraib, he wrote that he may know about prisoner abuses.
He later told investigators that fellow military intelligence soldiers played a part in prisoner abuses, based on conversations he had or overheard while stationed at Abu Ghraib. His statement was referenced in Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba’s report of his investigation into alleged abuse at Army prisons in Iraq.
Provance provided phoned testimony to an Article 32 hearing for Spc. Megan Ambuhl, one of the MPs charged with dereliction of duty and conspiracy.
In addition, Provance, along with other soldiers who were at Abu Ghraib, were summoned to Darmstadt on May 11 to discuss the prison issue with Maj. Gen. George Fay, a senior intelligence officer assigned by the Pentagon to further investigate any role that military interrogators had in prisoner abuses.
Fay told Provance at that meeting that he “could have busted this thing wide open” if he reported the talk of abuse sooner, Provance said.
Fay implied that Provance could face charges for not speaking up sooner, Provance said.
Stripes’ attempts to reach Fay were directed to Maj. Scott Bleichwehl, press officer for Multi-National Corps Iraq. In an e-mail from Baghdad, Bleichwehl said he could not comment on the case until the investigation in complete, which could take an additional two weeks.
Provance arrived at Abu Ghraib prison in September to replace soldiers killed in a Sept. 20 mortar attack. At the prison, he was in charge of maintaining a secure computer satellite link used by interrogators to swap top-secret information gathered from detainees.
But Provance caught wind of abuses in a low-tech way — troops chatting about how prisoners were handled. He recalled one Army specialist talking to some buddies about prisoner abuses at the mess hall.
“If I reported everything I heard, I’d be reporting people every day,” Provance said. “I did not know what was legal. I’m not an interrogator.”
Because his name was mentioned in Taguba’s report, the media began looking for Provance. From Virginia, his mother told him that ABC News was trying to reach him.
He dropped their editor a line with his contact information, and he mentioned it to his platoon sergeant.
On May 14, he was called to the company first sergeant’s office. Few words were exchanged, but Hedberg and 1st Sgt. William Palenik ordered him not to talk about Abu Ghraib, Provance said.
Hedberg ordered Provance not to use e-mail or Internet chat rooms to discuss the investigation. He was prohibited from speaking or writing to members of the press and fellow troops not part of the investigation, according to documents.
Hedberg’s order stated, “Sgt. Provance will not discuss matters related to the ongoing investigation concerning potential/alleged abuses that took place at Abu Gareb [sic] prison.”
Provance then signed a statement that he wouldn’t talk.
Provance said he signed the statement because he thought it merely meant that he understood what Hedberg had written and acknowledged receipt.
He said he did not agree with it, but now understands that it appears so, by him signing. In fact, the form has a block that Provance checked that states, “I agree.”
Despite the meeting and gag order, Provance decided to talk to ABC News because, “I knew what was reported up until then was not true, that it was all on the MPs,” Provance said.
“My career is over, I thought, ‘Now I can talk’ — almost like it was meant to happen.”
On May 16, he met ABC reporters at a local restaurant in Heidelberg. Before long, he was staring into a video camera, answering questions from a stateside reporter over the phone.
“It was pretty tense,” Provance said. “But when you’re telling the truth, it’s not hard to say what’s on your mind.”
After that, media requests flooded in. Provance told his story again and again, “telling them anything they wanted to know,” he said.
Only a small portion of ABC’s hourlong interview aired May 18, Provance said. It ran late at night on the American Forces Network. While many troops overseas may have missed the telecast, some caught the text on the Internet, Provance said.
“Everybody’s avoiding me like the plague,” Provance said. “They don’t look at me, much less talk to me.”
No regrets
On Friday, when Provance faced Norwood, the commander handed him a letter stating, “I am flagging you pending the outcome of Fay’s investigation into the alleged detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib. The basis of the flag is a violation of an order issued to you by your company commander.”
He was given a second order not to talk to the press, but since has done follow-up interviews with ABC, The Washington Post and Stars and Stripes.
Speaking over the phone Tuesday from his Wiesbaden office, Norwood defended his reprimand for Provance, saying, “My actions were in accordance with [Army] regulations.”
“It’s clearly tied to the [Abu Ghraib] investigation,” Norwood said. “I’m not willing to discuss anything related to that.”
Officials at V Corps, the battalion’s higher headquarters, won’t comment on administrative actions against Provance because he has not formally been charged, spokeswoman Hilde Patton said, adding that she also could not comment on any topic related to the Abu Ghraib investigation.
Without a security clearance, Provance is now working in his company’s nuclear, biological and chemical equipment room.
Provance still speaks passionately about his dedication to the Army and condemns the few leaders above him.
“I would never speak out against the Army. That’s not what I’m doing,” Provance said. “The Army is an awesome organization that I respect and honor.”
He stands by his decision to speak publicly.
“I don’t regret one bit of it, because I know I’m going to be vindicated,” Provance said.
“What I said was true. It’s only a matter of time before the truth comes out.”
He'll go to prison and those responsible in the chain of command who are hiding the truth will draw a free pass. What else is new?
His "lawyer" states as much.
Horton who is a lawyer and performed legal services for him stated "Furthermore, the command gag order may not have been lawful, Horton said. " And the Sgt himself states, "“My career is over, I thought, ‘Now I can talk’ — almost like it was meant to happen.” . He knew he was not supposed to talk. Service personnel are bound by UCMJ not by the laws of New York, New Jersey, etc. when they are on duty in a foreign land. It is not against the law to report illegal activity to the proper authorities, but he also stated, "If I reported everything I heard, I’d be reporting people every day,” Provance said. “I did not know what was legal. I’m not an interrogator." He disobeyed a lawful order. Had he suspected any breach of law, there are legal channels available for its reporting.
TADSLOS wrote: "It's not his perogative to play sorjourner of "truth" to the media."
Well said! Who does this guy think he is, anyway? It's almost as if his attitude is, "I'm the only honorable person in the military who wants to do the right thing about Abu Ghraib. Since my chain of command and the people doing the investigation are corrupt or inept, I'll go to the press to get the results I think are best!"
I have faith that the vast majority of military members are trying to do the right thing about Abu Ghraib. I say again, Provance is an ass!
What happens in Abu Ghraib stays in Abu Ghraib.
Not when idiot commanders don't confiscate all cameras.
Sakic wrote: "He'll go to prison and those responsible in the chain of command who are hiding the truth will draw a free pass. What else is new?"
Provance will most likely not go to prison for going to the press. Most likely, he will be treated fairly by the very chain of command you deride. My guess is, he will be demoted at most (which would be entirely justified).
Also, what makes you so sure the chain of command is hiding anything? Just because they didn't run to the press, like a Sgt we know, doesn't mean people aren't providing all sorts of Abu Ghraib information to the investigators working the case. What do you want? Do you expect the military to constantly brief the media on every step of the investigation?
Yes, you do cede certain rights when you join the military. Your First Amendment rights are seriously curtailed. You are not permitted to criticize the President or the civilian leadership of the military. You can not campaign for political candidates.
The SGT is correct when he claims his Army career is over. He disobeyed several lawful orders. He will certainly lose his security clearance permanently as he has demonstrated and acknowledged that he can not be trusted to keep his word.
And I have to question his judgement since he has taken all of these action based on hearsay evidence of abuse by unnamed parties.
---That's why it's called a sacrifice.
No that's called lunacy.
Rights are inalienable AFAIC.---
Sounds like you might be happier over at DU. They don't understand duty, honor and sacrifice either.
I'm just not a hypocrite, and I believe in absolutes.
Calling for folks to fight for something that the very act of fighting for denies them?
It's the military not a democracy.
I seem to remember a saying that went something like this.
The US Military is in the business of preserving the Constitution......not practicing it.
(Or something along those lines. Feel free to correct me if necessary.)
Of course I could be wrong. Just the way I think it will play out.
Actually you do, and you do so willingly (he volunteered fro the Army). This was the same as a judge issuing a gag order on an on-going case, and the witnesses ignoring the judge and talking to the press. He is guilt and shold pay the price.
What would a soldier do with rights anyway? You can't eat them or fire them out of your weapon. You can't smoke them and they won't keep you warm.
How about these absolutes?
Faith in the integrity of your fellow soldiers?
Respect for your chain of command and the officers appointed over you?
Service before self?
Honor, integrity, and respect would require Provence to work his concerns through his chain of command. Running to the press was an insult to his fellow soldiers, because he didn't feel they would do the right thing about Abu Ghraib (nor did he give them a chance to do the right thing).
Speak for yourself please.
He might go to prison, but it's unlikely. Someone (maybe you) made a good point about him losing his security clearance. That could prevent him from serving in his present job, but I'm not certain if a clearance is required for all military specialties. Also, the clearance could be reinstated after an investigation.
Part of his discipline would no doubt depend on his past service as well as his future behavior. If he shuts his mouth and admits his mistake, it could go much easier on him. At the very least, I think he'll be demoted. If he refuses to shut up or admit he's wrong, he could be booted from the service.
He pretty much deserves whatever he gets, because he violated a LAWFUL order (and it's clear he both understood the order and willfully violated it). A military member is not required to obey unlawful orders, but the burden of proof falls on the junior member.
Officers have a lot of leeway concerning lawful orders. They can pretty much restrict you from doing all sorts of things if they feel it will harm good order and discipline. Ordering you to not talk about an investigation while it is underway is a no-brainer.
I think you pegged it. anglophile, member since yesterday, seems to now be banned.
You absolutely do. Many people don't realize this, but it's a fact...
BTW, welcome to FR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.