Posted on 04/23/2005 9:11:21 AM PDT by kellynla
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, faulted by some for leadership failures in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, has been cleared by the Army of all allegations of wrongdoing and will not be punished, officials said.
Three officers who were among Sanchez's top deputies during the period of the prisoner abuse in the fall of 2003 also have been cleared. An Army Reserve one-star general has been reprimanded, and the outcome of seven other senior Army officer cases could not be learned Friday.
Sanchez, who became the senior U.S. commander in Iraq in June 2003, two months after the fall of Baghdad, has not been accused of criminal violations. It is unclear, however, whether the controversy surrounding his role in Iraq will stand in the way of his earning a fourth star. He is nearing the end of his tenure as commander of the Army's 5th Corps, based in Germany.
After assessing the allegations against Sanchez and taking sworn statements from 37 people, the Army's inspector general, Lt. Gen. Stanley E. Green, concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated, according to officials familiar with the details of Green's probe.
Green reached the same conclusion in the cases of two generals and a colonel who worked on Sanchez's staff.
The officials who disclosed the findings spoke only on condition of anonymity because the results on Sanchez and 11 other officers who were the subject of Green's scrutiny have not yet been publicly released and Congress has not been fully briefed.
The question of accountability among senior Army and Defense Department officials who were in positions of responsibility on Iraq detention and interrogation policy has been hotly debated in Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
The US Army covering the asses of the Clinton era and Affirmative Action Generals.
Ping Sarge
In general, if a 'suspect' is found innocent through the trial process, it is because he was innocent, not because of politics. Remember, it is the prosecutors responsibility to prosecute the suspect and get a conviction, not find out if he is innocent. A military investigation is probably even more factual and 'fair' than its civilian counterpart.
My previous comment not withstanding incompetence on the prosecutions or judges part, ala O.J.
Military Courts Martial and Tribunals are more fair than similar civilian 'investigations' where money talks.
A military inquiry conducted by the IG is worth spit and since the men and women who were tried and convicted and those on the docket were ...prohibited from testifying to any actions or commands by superiors of any rank above their own permanent rank there was no way in hell that anyone could find that Sanchez or any one else was culpable.
This will go into hearings in the Senate and eventually the truth will out and these incompetent, lazy self-serving 0's will get an early retirement and still be able to double dip when they return to the M-I Complex and start lobbying the creeps in the DOD who sanctioned these atrocious acts.
If it were up to me I would put them all in front of a star tribunal and make them wish they were just potted plants, to uncoin a phrase.
Or perhaps Sanchez is innocent.
And upon what do you base that? Did you read the report? And since the great majority of the camps in Iraq were well run with no incidents like at Abu Ghraibwhy should the higher level commanders be relieved? The officers directly in charge have been/are being hammered appropriately. The Navy just had a submarine hit something undersea that damaged the boat and killed a sailor (iirc). Should we relieve COMUSNAVPAC? His deputy? That's what you seem to be implying.
Hit an Army nerve did I?
Failure to maintain discipline and order in ones troops is serious and the officers responsible should be removed from their positions of authority. However, this does does imply they are accountable to criminal actions of their troops.
Also, my original comment was in response to the implication that all general officers, or officers in general for that matter, that served under Clinton, are corrupt. I served under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, in active and later reserve capacity. Sanchez, while I do not know him, nor do I speak on his behalf, served under many administrations. I think people should be careful not to impune someone because that person spent a portion of an honorable career under a less than honorable superior.
They most surely are if they ordered it...but we can't be told that by the PFCs & SP4s being led to the plank...they can't talk about anyone of higher rank than there own permanent rank...which for most would be PVT.
So far it has not.
I wonder who that unnamed person might be? The article has no problem mentioning Sanchez.
"Reserve" "one star" sounds very much like that woman who was in charge of the prisons in Iraq, and who was giving interviews all over the media after she was recalled.
Your opinion. Not fact.
Fact. Your spin is worse than your opinion.
Back up your claim or explain your bias. Otherwise, don't bother me.
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.