Posted on 08/17/2004 6:03:55 AM PDT by OESY
...When the news of those pictures became public in April, Pfc. England had an explanation: She had been following orders from higher-ups.... Who the higher-ups were who had approved the group's treatment of prisoners she could not say.
This was a decidedly different explanation from the one she initially gave, according to the Army investigator who first confronted her with the photographs. Months before those were made public, investigator Paul Arthur testified at the recent Article 32 hearing, Pfc. England had told him that the photos [was] just some fooling around while on the night shift. There was no mention of orders from higher-ups. The just-following-orders defense would come later....
It was a defense instantly embraced by every antiwar, anti-administration organ in the nation. Those at the topmost levels of the military including Donald Rumsfeld and the president himself, it was argued, were in one way or another responsible for torments inflicted on the prisoners -- torments that must have been designed, or at the least suggested, by superior officers high in the chain of command. Editorial writers and other commentators professed astonishment that anyone could believe ordinary soldiers might be moved to commit acts of sadism and terrorization all on their own....
In Sen. Warner's opinion, clearly, the problem at Abu Ghraib had to do with a lot more than a lack of training and discipline from above.... Also apparently outraged by the idea that the soldiers themselves could have conceived of such behavior, Sen. Graham scoffed, "I'm not buying it." Some of those photos were "too elaborate."
...In no other period in memory than this -- even granted the exceptional political bitterness in the air -- have we seen so persistent an effort to deflect blame from the individuals actually guilty of perpetrating reprehensible acts, to others....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
"just following orders" Hmm. the Nuerenberg(sp) defense.
Didn't work then, won't work now.
Doesn't change the fact that we should go after the higher-ups who knew about this as well. Nail her to the wall first, nail them to the wall next.
Start with the general who was supposed to be running the place, and see where else it takes us.
And do what? Give them a lobotomy that makes them care about the soldiers?
No, court-martial them.
The President charged them with "winning hearts and minds." Those pictures getting out allowed the Islamist scumbags to recruit more members and gave them strength. It made our job over there tougher, and certainly led to the deaths of more soldiers.
Court-martial everyone responsible for the travesty. Those who did it, and those who ordered it.
It may be good fodder for the Bush haters and TinFoil hatters, but butress this with what happened to the incident where the tropps were driving around in the desert at night and got ambushed and taken hostage and one should not need first-hand knowledge of how lacking the Army's leadership is to conclude the same! It's funny that no one asked who was in charge of that outfit!
Not Possible!
Dereliction of duty?
If memory servers, the general in charge said she didn't know this sort of thing was going on. Well it was her job to know what's going on. That's why she got the perks that come with being a general.
"To whom much is given, much is required".
Pathetic!
I'll second that. The army bought into the whole "Clinton's Kinder,Gentler Army" concept and has suffered in theater as a result.
The other services - espeically the USMC didn't. They never lost sight of what militaries are for - Warfare.
COS Gen Skoomaker has relized this and is attempting to turn the ship around. I think he'll have a hard time because of a generation of senior officers who like the status quo and don't want to be held to a higher standard. (Or, in my branch's case, don't want anyone to feel slighted or their feeling hurt)
My son is 11. If he wants in to the military at 18 and things in the army don't change, he's Marine Corps bound.
It was this way when I was their age too.
Why is it so hard to believe that these incidents were HiJinks by young soldiers ?
She was in charge of all the prisons and was not present at Abu Ghraib. A colonel in Army intelligence was there and was in charge of that prison.
You're right.
I just hope we don't see a whitewash of this. Thst would be yet one more gift to the terrorists.
Senator Graham is just trying to cover up his embarrassment at the investigation showing this didn't go beyond the prison, after he (Graham)claimed this scandal went all the way up the chain of command, immediately, with absolutely NO proof to back up his accusations.
He played right into the enemy's hands by promoting the idea that this scandal stained the reputation of the entire US military. Now that he's been proven wrong, it seems he's not willing to apologize. Shame on him.
The higher up this goes, the more it hurts the President. Nail everybody on site, let it end there.
If he authorized it, then it should hurt him. But we all know that isn't the case.
Follow the trail, nail everyone responsible. I don't believe in covering-up the responsibility of people off-site. Let the guilty pay, or we give the libs' whining credibility.
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.