Abu Ghraib ~ the buck stops, er.. with you son.

[Al R]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6970212.stm

I see that not senior officer has been found criminally guilty over Abu Ghraib. I wonder if there's a direct link between military salary and verdict? There's obviously no longer one between seniority and responsibility.

[Airborne Aircrew]

I think you'll find that the telling phrase in the whole story is:-

"Everybody is wrong. Nobody in command knew about the abuse, because nobody in command cared enough to find out. That was the real problem."

The question really is "is not caring enough to find out if something is occurring culpable negligence?" More importantly though is "what qualifies Joe Darby to determine whether or not the command structure didn't care?"

In general, unless there are clear warning signs, people think the best, (or at least not badly), of those they command - trust goes both ways. So it's quite feasible that a Brigadier General and a Lt. Colonel have little to no idea what Private X or Sergeant Y is doing on a day to day basis. I know from experience that there are flight commanders that don't know everything that happens at the brick or section level.

Could this be construed as "not caring"? Absolutely. But that doesn't make it so and it certainly doesn't prove culpable negligence. Even so, the Brigadier General was reduced in rank which ended her career. I'd think that would be considered punishment and not trivial punishment either.

Just my 2p...

[brickhistory]

So after a trial, the officer was found mostly not guilty. Your point is what? That only a guilty of all charges finding would be fair? So much for the judicial process.

The prosecution presented its case, the defense its. And the results were what they were. I assume you would have been pleased had the results gone against the officer?


For what it's worth, I believe that the commanding officer IS responsible for the actions of all his/her subordinates. Depending on the circumstances, possibly or probably not criminally responsible, but responsible that something bad happened on his watch with the people in his charge.

The officer, Lt-Col S***** J*****, was found not guilty by a military jury of failing to train and supervise the soldiers under his authority at Abu Ghraib.

Instead he was convicted of breaking an order not to discuss the case. He was reprimanded.

He is no longer the commander and his career is over.

The lack of convictions among the senior ranks leaves doubt as to whether the abuse was part of a wider policy of condoning or even encouraging the breaking of prisoners' morale in advance of interrogation.

Seems the press and some posters would only be satisfied with a guilty finding despite the court-martial's findings. And, I betting, that if this Lt Col had gone down, these same people would only bay for blood further up the chain.

Two officers were subject to disciplinary punishments.

Col T***** P*****, the senior military intelligence officer at the prison, was reprimanded and had pay deducted for dereliction of duty. This included allowing dogs to be present at interrogations.

Brig-Gen J**** K*******, the officer in charge of Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq, was reduced in rank to colonel for dereliction of duty.

Indeed.

[Al R]

Airborne,

Very true. And we'll both know what its like to have a Flt Commander who didn't know what he was doing either. ;)

But just because they don't know whats happening, doesn't excuse them it. They had inexperienced NCOs and reservists with not much clue doing the job. That much they did know. All these things should have indicated to them that a little more care was needed. Snap inspections, more vigourous reporting, more training.. all these things weren't done, and that makes them culpable, surely. It seems to me that senior officers are quick enough to get the kudos for what the troops do (when equally, they have no idea what they're up to) but quick enough to abdicate the blame and shed responsibility too.

I don't mean this to sound like an anti officer rant, but it strikes me that this will do absolutely nothing for military efficiency or respect for military justice. It seems that when it comes to taking the rap, money talks. When they accepted promotion, they should have accepted the fact that the conduct of their men was their business, end of story.

[Al R]

Brick,

Yup, both sides battered it out and one won, is that you justification for excusing it, and defending the system? Far be it from me to remember OJ Simpson at a time like this.

But Karpinski can't claim even ignorance, as you imply. She said she that Gen Sanchez, the U.S. commander for Iraq, sanctioned the policy, so yes.. she knew about it. Yes, she lost her career, but thats not the same as having a criminal record, which those whom she was responsible for, now have.

Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick, a participant in the abuse, stated, "We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things...like rules and regulations. And it just wasn't happening." Come on Brick, who's job was it to train them? Even Rumsfeld said;

"These events occured on my watch, as Secretary of State for Defence, I am accountable for them.".

Sorry, it stinks. You either lead, or you don't. Part and parcel of that honour is the accepting of responsibility for your men and their actions, who look to you for a lead.. end of story. God knows the military has enough 'managers' who know the drill in passing the buck. I can't see the likes of Mad Mitch sloping off for a quick gin when the brown stuff is hitting the fan. Do we want a chain of command with balls and the ability to command respect or not?

(I accept that in Karpinski's case, the answer to that last question might be 'no'.)

[brickhistory]

I believe we are arguing the different sides of the same point:

I believe that the chain of command was derelict in its duty by not knowing.

I believe that they should be relieved of command which effectively ends their careers. Karpinski was demoted, justifiably so, in my opinion. The others were hammered as well. None of these 'leaders' (I will agree totally with too many 'managers') performed criminal acts that I know of.

Without knowing the exact facts presented to the court-martial jury, I am not ready to say they are guilty of criminal acts.

[Airborne Aircrew]

I'm sorry... I wasn't disputing the fact that CO's are responsible for the actions of their subordinates... But there is a difference between dereliction of duty and criminal negligence... The line is fine but it is there and it comes down to who has the best lawyer on the day.

It seems to me that senior officers are quick enough to get the kudos for what the troops do (when equally, they have no idea what they're up to) but quick enough to abdicate the blame and shed responsibility too.Without it being an anti-officer thing too you do make a good point. The question remains however, at what point is an officer sufficiently far removed from the ranks for it to cease being culpable negligence and have it be dereliction of duty. It's plain that if a flight commander doesn't know what Private X is doing and if Sergeant Y knows but chooses not to inform the flight commander it makes it more difficult for the flight commander to know anything. Snap inspections are all very well - but if the activity, (or evidence of it), is not present when the inspection takes place then, again, it's hard to point a finger of blame at him.

Bearing in mind that I just discussed it in the context of a flight it's far more likely that such activity can be hidden from a Brigadier General.

What really happened in this case, and I emphasize that this is my opinion, is that activities that, for the most part, are perfectly acceptable along with a few that get close to a line and look _very_ bad got photographed and passed around by a group of unprofessional, badly trained and stupid soldiers. These pictures were picked up by a media that sensationalized the content and caused a backlash, I won't speculate as to the motives of the media :rolleyes:. At this point, despite the fact that much of the activity isn't unacceptable, someone had to be seen to be punished. Obviously, those at the bottom of the pile who also carried out the activity are going to bear the brunt of the response. Those in the middle washed their hands in both directions, ("it was 'them' that did it and 'they', (my superiors), didn't give me appropriate direction Sir'). Finally, in the true buck stops here fashion, those at the very top have been admonished.

The culpable negligence ends somewhere in the middle group that are "washing their hands". Where exactly is really dependent upon the structure of the unit but it's there somewhere. Platoon commanders _should_ be far more aware of what is going on that the Brigadier so they _should_ be a far better candidate for culpable negligence. SNCO's should also be more aware - but there's a question of their level of "responsibility" in my mind, (that statement will probably draw some fire but I'll stand by it based on experience and I'll try to explain it should I receive incoming *Ducking* :O ).

In the end one must be very careful when one criminalizes any military activity. Once you start down that slope you begin to slowly, but surely, erode your ability to operate effectively and once you do that you are ensuring your own downfall... because your military operations will be run by the most vocal civilians which are generally those that despise the military in the first place.

[Two's in]

The problem with the extremely polarized views on Abu Ghraib is that the obvious and plentiful examples plain old military incompetence are being dressed up as a conspiracy every time. I don't think anyone doubts the scale of the dereliction of duty, but it's hard to attribute it all to Donald Rumsfeld phoning Private Lynndie England every day. The further away from the frontline you get, the more the US Army becomes a highly compartmentalized and stovepiped organization, and hence ripe for this level of ineptitude. The Military Officers in this chain of command did not discharge their full obligations to the men and woman under them, but it was a failing of the duties of command due to ignorance and incompetence, more than a deliberate attempt to save senior officails in the Pentagon. That sadly, is less of a newsworthy item than the media would like to print.

[GreenKnight121]

Please keep in mind one thing about the General... while she had administrative control over the prisons, she did NOT have "functional control"!

That is, the actual on-the-spot handling of prisoners, while done by soldiers under her command, was controlled by spec-ops personnel, who were acting on a different set of prisoner-handling orders than she had had in place at the start.

The spec-ops side was brought in because higher-ups felt they could get more info out of the prisoners than the regular Army types were.

It was under their guidance that the abuses happened.

That was the source of the Saff Sergeant's complaint... he had the handling guidelines in the book, and the spec-ops types were telling him something completely different... and when he asked for guidance as to whether he could tell the spooks to f&%k-off, he got no reply at all... because high command had told the General to stay out of it and let the spooks do their job.

"She said that Gen Sanchez, the U.S. commander for Iraq, sanctioned the policy, so yes.. she knew about it."

Her BOSS knew about it, and had sanctioned it... therefore she could not countermand his orders. Plain enough!


In my opinion, the General was a sacrifice to preserve the careers of the spec-ops leaders (and others... like Gen. Sanchez) who really bore the responsibility.

[moggiee]

At the Nuremberg war crimes trials post WW2, and thereafter, the defence "I was only obeying orders" was deemed to be invalid and individuals were deemed to be responsible for their own actions.

The Americans have used this philosophy when dealing with their own people before - in this case, Vietnam:

"First Lieutenant William Calley for his part in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968. The military court rejected Calley's argument of obeying the order of his superiors. On March 29, 1971, Calley was sentenced to life in prison."

Nixon granted him clemency due to public pressure and he ended up serviing 3 1/2 years under house arrest instead.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Moggiee:

I was only obeying ordersI'd suggest that there is a significant difference between the attempted extermination of the Jews in WWII or the Mai Lai Massacre and the "humiliation" of a few people most of who were terrorists. As Two's In pointed out, this is a very polarizing issue, especially when the media got their grubby little hands on it and started calling it torture, (which it is not). Someone had to fall and the Brigadier "got it".

All that came of the whole affair it that the enemy now knows that, except in the most extreme of circumstances, an interrogation will consist of a comfy chair, a cigarette and a cuppa... :rolleyes:

What message should the soldiers on the ground take from this travesty? That enemy combatants are worthless after capture because they can't be properly interrogated so, rather than risk life or limb trying to capture the scum they should just kill them on the spot... Job done... :D:D:D:D

[StbdD]

I agree with most if not all of AAs points.

Speaking of 'buck stops here' stories, lest we forget.....

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1247&id=67122005
"The prosecution says the accused - L-Cpl Mark Cooley, 25, L-Cpl Darren Larkin, 30, and Cpl Daniel Kenyon, 33 - took the law into their own hands after an unauthorised order issued to them by their commander."

"The court heard that Maj Taylor had briefed his commanding officer L/Col David Paterson about his unlawful plan at a meeting the night before the operation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1398317,00.html

"Five days before the trial of his three subordinates began, Maj Taylor was exonerated by the army on the basis that he had acted with "well-meaning and sincere but misguided zeal."

"Following the disciplinary meeting with Brigadier Nick Carter, Maj Taylor was informed that he would not face court martial for giving the illegal order to put the prisoners to work which, the defence claims, led to the alleged abuse of the Iraqi prisoners."

What is interesting about this case is that a commander who admits he gave orders for the event to happen walked without even facing trial while his men were 'hung'. The timing is interesting. One wonders if he was able to cut a deal for testifying at his soldiers trials 5 days hence.

Appears someone should have suggested the classic "misguided zeal" defense to the squaddies as well.

The next senior officer in the chain of command wasn't charged at all yet he had previous knowlege of the event. Seems there should also have been a senior NCO and a Captain or Lieutenant or two in this mix as well.

The buck stops here indeed.