But ya know what? According to what you’ve just said, the only people who had any responsibility to do anything about Abu Ghraib were the people who did the actions, since they were the only people who had first-hand knowledge. And the only orders that mattered were the immediate superiors of the people who did the actions.
So - again - why did anybody look up the chain of command?
Why was Wuterich’s immediate superior put in trouble because he didn’t investigate the Haditha allegations (in the way Time Magazine thought he should have)? He didn’t have direct knowledge so he had no legal responsibility for anything. And he wasn’t the immediate superior of the guys who did the shooting so anything he did was irrelevant. Right? That’s what I hear you saying.”
Once a credible charge of actual illegal behavior has been made, the investigation is supposed to determine who is culpable. In the simplest example, if an unlawful order can be documented to have been transmitted down the line, culpability extends to the top. I think the confusion you are having may be that you earnestly believe Obama is an illegitimate CIC and that he has knowingly perpetrated fraud on a grand scale. But what you must recognize is believing something and turning that into a credible charge for investigation are two separate things. The latter has not happened, so the former is not legally relevant.
What charge would Obama be guilty of if he committed perjury, forgery, and extortion (for example) in order to become president against the US Constitution? Who would have the ability to file that charge against him?
And how would the military actually obey their oaths to fight against such a domestic enemy? Through what means would the military allow them to keep their oath?