Reply
Sat 23 Apr, 2005 09:23 am
A few lower level military get cooked and the top brass get acquitted. Wow, who could have seen that coming?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/22/abu.ghraib.brass.ap/index.html
bvt
We can't go to far up the chain of command. That's what we have cannon fodder, er, pfc's, etc. for
No surprise, but we could hope, couldn't we?
There's no hope but Mt. Hope
It is impossible to believe that a rouge bunch of lower enlisted soldiers were left alone to the own devices to operate a prison with no supervision in the middle of a hostile country during a war. It's so implausible that what we saw in those pictures wasn't seen by someone in charge. Those soldiers didn't conspire to wake up in the middle of the night when their superiors were asleep and do what they did. It was done in broad daylight during duty hours when their supervisors were there without fear of them being discovered. Where were their bosses? At the movies? Grocery shopping? Kicking back at a bar-b-q sucking back some cold ones? I don't think so.
The brass claims to not know it was going on and didn't see a thing. They then at least should be charged with dereliction of duty for failure to properly supervise their troops since they so readily admit they had no idea what their own subordinates were doing. What if those same troops were attacked and wiped out by an enemy force? Who would be accountable then? Would their bosses stick to the same story? We didn't know so that makes it not our fault.
I seem to recall that at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, following World War II, not a single private or NCO or junior officer was tried for running concentration camps. They were, after all, just following orders. No, the generals went on trial. But I also recall that after the revelations about the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, only a lowly lieutenant, Calley, was thrown to the wolves. No one even suggested putting Gen. Westmoreland on trial. The logic of "who's in charge here?" has been sadly reversed.
I'm waiting for the insurgents to try their people for executing prisoners.
From what I have heard, it was mostly the night shift, when the big supervisors were not there.
Anyone who has ever worked in industry knows the night shift gets away with things the day shift can't. Of course, in industry these things consist of taking half hour coffee breaks instead of 10 minutes and surreptitious beer runs, as opposed to stripping prisoners naked and siccing vicious dogs on them.
The fact that it was the night shift lessens the ability of the higher ups to know what is going on somewhat, but you are not going to tell me that a bunch of 19 and 20 year old kids stuck together in this foreign land will not communicate to each other any bizarre happenings, especially since it went on so long. The soldiers have nobody but themselves to talk to-it's not like they can go off the compound, go into town and have a few beers, meet the townspeople and have a life separate from the military.
The day shift, supervisors as well as the lower ranks, had to have had a general idea of what was going on. Soldiers talk to each other, and try to tell stories to top each other.
Re: The News Shocker Of The Year
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Agreed. The government should have "taken the hit" and said "Yep, sexual humilation is an effective psychological technique especially for muslim males".
Re: The News Shocker Of The Year
Trupolitik wrote:blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Agreed. The government should have "taken the hit" and said "Yep, sexual humilation is an effective psychological technique especially for muslim males".
but they didn't, therefore someone up top is responsible. "Mean what you say or say what you mean, either one will do", said my plain talk Presbyterian ministers daughter grandmother.
Brandon9000 wrote:I'm waiting for the insurgents to try their people for executing prisoners.
Natch. We baseline all of our morals and ethics on what folks in other countries do, right?