Posted on 08/30/2007 6:22:15 AM PDT by RDTF
Army Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, the only officer to face trial over the Abu Ghraib detainee-abuse scandal, was issued a reprimand yesterday by a military jury, a punishment that spares him all prison time after he was convicted this week on one count of disobeying an order.
The jury could have sentenced Jordan to as much as five years in prison and ordered his dismissal from the Army. Instead, he received one of the lightest punishments available. Jordan was convicted for contacting other soldiers about the military's 2004 investigation into the Abu Ghraib abuse after he was ordered not to discuss it with anyone.
Originally accused of abuse and failing to supervise soldiers who committed abuse, Jordan was exonerated Tuesday on all charges related to the abuse of detainees, clearing him in a case that lasted more than three years.
Jordan had repeatedly asserted that he was not in charge of the facility and not responsible for the interrogation tactics used there. In an interview yesterday, Jordan said that he thinks the jury panel "did the fairest thing they could" and that he feels as though a "huge weight has been lifted" off of his shoulders.
"Today was a vindication for my family, myself, and all the professional soldiers and civilians at Abu Ghraib that did an outstanding duty in such an austere environment that was, in essence, undermanned, under-resourced and under constant attack," Jordan said in an interview yesterday. "For the first time since the spring of 2004, I have some idea of a clear future."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Ping!
Most fraternity pranks result in the same appropriate reprimand. A to-do about nothing in order to undermine our soldiers, demoralize and defeat our efforts, courtesy of several Rat party members and their allies in terrorism.
Taking into consideration that this is a WaPo column, with all of the different officer’s names being thrown about, I guessed that there would be no mention of the General who was in charge of this particular command.
Janis Karpinski?
You are probably correct on the name, I could not remember HER name, but was not surprised that two of her subordinate officers were named, but somehow her responsibility was overlooked.
The buck stops at the top. It certainly does in Bush’s situation, according to the press. But if it is not a white male, the buck stops elsewhere.
Any reprimand is the end of his career, but he’s already an LTC, so he has his 20 in and will have a good retirement.
Being zinged for talking about what they couldn’t convict anyone on is like the Plame/Wilson case. No one broke any laws (Cheney, Libby), so they got someone on a technicality.
Now, they can forever refer to the “officer convicted in the Abu Ghraib crime.”
Must an Army officer have 20 years in before getting a silver oak leaf? Geeze,I got E-4 with a little more than a year in and I was most assuredly no Audie Murphy.
No, they don’t have to, but Abu Ghraib was about 3 years ago now. At the time, it was taking about 10 or 11 years to get to major. Figure they were a major for about 4 or 5, so that gets him up to 16 or 17 before he actually pins on his LTC leaves. Figure that he’s been an LTC for at least that 3 year period, and the odds are they probably didn’t put a brand new LTC in place during the early part of the war.
I’d guess that he’s sitting at anywhere from 20-22 years under his belt, and a reprimand in his file won’t get him out, but will prevent his promotion to Col. I think it LTC will allow him up to about 24 years before he has to get out.
Good news.
Exactly. Do you think this will be on the evening news? I'm not holding my breath.
Pinging a few friends.
Let me append my comment — I believe it’s good news, because the lack of severity of the sentence shows that, while this is not the way we should behave, it’s not torture. I would personally rather he got off Scot free, but this is second best, IMO.
“fraternity pranks”?
Maybe from Otter, Boon, Bluto, & D-Day but not from U.S. Soldiers
A reminder via the photos the judge ordered released (God, I hate to use this link, but...):
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
I still can’t believe that someone hasn’t proved many of those photos were a set-up. Looked to staged to me. But, I’m not military so what do I know.
However, this kind of thing still pisses me off when we hear about how badly the muslims treat their prisoners.
Of course they won’t be on the evening news unless to undermine the decision.
Have you served in the military or been in a fraternity?
BTTT
I see the photos were released from an Australian site. Several are nothing but pranks as performed in various fraternities and some soldiers would do such acts to each other, while others look serious. I am not saying the photos were doctored, or not authentic, but when offered as proof I would expect to see documentation as to authenticity. How did the Australians capture these photos? How do we know they are real? Did the judge have an agenda? I recall the OJ Simpson trial pictures promoted by the media and that was clearly a farce and breach of justice.
Exactly!
I agree
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.