Replies

Officers in the entire chain of command were aware of the situation. All the way to the White House.

Well, based on the President's semi-public admonishment of Rumsfeld last month as well as Rumsfeld's own testimony, it appears that the White House was NOT informed. But the real issue is not who was informed, but who was responsible. Commanders are specifically charged by the Army with developing "disciplined and cohesive units sustained at the highest readiness level possible" and for "properly training their soldiers and ensuring that both soldiers and equipment are in the proper state of readiness." Those soldiers weren't trained, they weren't ready, and they weren't disciplined. There is a commander who needs to (figuratively) hang for dereliction of duty.

Now you could make a case for it being someone in the Pentagon or White House if our whole military was untrained and undisciplined, but most of the units in the Army and other services are trained, disciplined, and ready. So the problem is somewhere further down the line.

The enlisted men were just the ones carrying out the orders passed down to them!

Well, they're not robots who just do what they're told without thinking or exercising some judgment. The "I was just following orders" excuse doesn't cut it if the orders are obviously wrong.

"The enlisted men were just the ones carrying out the orders passed down to them!"

If you are correct, then why hasn't one of the accused abusers, or the confessed abuser, named an officer or senior NCO who gave them orders to engage in the conduct for which they face punishment? All one of the accused has to do is name an officer who gave the orders and claim the officer told him/her that the detainees weren't under the protections of the Geneva Conventions, since they were not wearing uniforms when captured, and the enlisted person could make the argument that he/she was following a legal order. Why would the enlisted persons take the blame for such an officer or officers?