1
   

Torture and adultery -- American neurosis?

 
 
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:30 am
General Byrnes was recently taken off his job as the top four star general in charge of recruitment an training. Apparently, his sin was that of having an extramarital affair with a civilian in no way connected to his position. The Washington Post had the following editorial:

Quote:
DESPITE MYRIAD hearings, investigations and prominent trials of privates and specialists, no commissioned officer has received serious punishment for any of the many confirmed cases of prisoner mistreatment in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Two of those involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal have received letters of reprimand. One was demoted. None has been court-martialed.

By contrast, Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes, 55, a four-star general who served 36 years in the Army, was abruptly relieved of his command on Tuesday. According to his attorney, Gen. Byrnes, who is now divorced, stands accused of having had an extramarital affair with a civilian who is not his colleague, is not his subordinate and has no connection to the military. An officer familiar with the case told The Post that despite the apparent irrelevance of the affair, the harsh verdict -- apparently the only such demotion of a four-star general in modern times -- was justified: "We all swear to serve by the highest ideals, and no matter what rank, when you violate them, you are dealt with appropriately."

From this incident, it is possible to draw only one conclusion: It's okay for officers to oversee units that torture civilians and thereby damage the reputation of the United States around the world, do terrible harm to the ideological war on terrorism and inspire more Iraqis to become insurgents. Having an affair with a civilian, on the other hand, is completely unacceptable and will end your career.

It's true, of course, that we don't know all the details of this case, and it is possible that some aspect of it will justify the dismissal of Gen. Byrnes. But if there is a justification, it had better involve national security at the very highest level. As it stands, the case reminds us of nothing so much as Voltaire's paraphrase of a British justification for the pointless execution of an admiral in the 18th century: "In this country it is found requisite, now and then, to put an admiral to death, in order to encourage the others to fight."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001814.html

I am not too sure what exactly the message the current administration is sending. After all it has a bunch of current aides that were convicted of wrongdoings including felonious ones. Yet they either get promotions or stay on board while a general who served his country with honour apparently gets dismissed for having an affair albeit he is at the time of the dismissal divorced and had been separated from his ex-wife for a while?

Should we fire Bush for his excessive consumption of booze and alleged love for white sniffed powder according to those standards? After all he is commander in chief! What about the conclusion of the above column: Better to be in charge of a unit that carried out torture than be caught in an extramarital affair?

I am quite confused as to the morality of the White House and its sense of propriety. Maybe someone could help me out?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 701 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:38 am
Adultery Inquiry Costs General His Command


Excerpts:



Quote:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 - A four-star general who was relieved of command this week said Wednesday through his lawyer that the Army took the action after an investigation into accusations that he was involved in a consensual relationship with a female civilian.

The lawyer, Lt. Col. David H. Robertson, said the case "involves an adult relationship with a woman who is not in the military, nor is a civilian employee of the military or the federal government."

General Byrnes has told associates that the relationship began after his separation from his wife, Carol Byrnes, in May 2004. General Byrnes, 55, filed for divorce in March, according to documents filed with the Texas district court in Henderson County.

The divorce became final this week, according to the statement issued by his lawyer.

Relieving a four-star general of command is unusual, and several Army officers said they considered the punishment surprisingly harsh for a general who was nearing retirement anyway.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/politics/11general.html
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:40 am
When I read the explanation for why he was punished, I was incredulous.
0 Replies
 
rhythm synergy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:41 am
This reminds me of mr. infamous Bill Clinton and his affair. I wonder how a 4-star General got "dismissed" for a similar action (and might I add that Gen Brynes DID NOT lie in front of the American public), but Bill Clinton gets off the hook? You can say that Bill Clinton was a president. But then what about equality? fairness? To release a General from his only source of income is cruel. Might as well torture him.
0 Replies
 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:43 am
Hello D'Artagnan.

So was I. Incredulous is probably the operating word here. After all, Rove, Libby et al get a free ride for outing a secret agent but a general gets dismissed for having a matrimonial affair that apparently had nothing to do with national security.
0 Replies
 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:44 am
Hello rhythm.

In all fairness, lets not forget that Clinton was impeached as a result of the Monica affair.
0 Replies
 
rhythm synergy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 12:00 pm
pngirouard wrote:
Hello rhythm.

In all fairness, lets not forget that Clinton was impeached as a result of the Monica affair.


Oops, my mistake. hehehe
0 Replies
 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 11:08 am
The Byrnes affair is truly one of contemptuous proportions. Apparently and I was waiting for a little more info, he was ordered as he was separated from his wife and going through divorce proceedings to stop his "extramarital affair".

General Disobeyed Orders to End Affair, Officials Say

Excerpts:

Quote:
A four-star general relieved of his command this week for adultery was ordered last January to break off the affair but continued to have contact with the woman, two senior Army officials said on Friday.

General Schoomaker told him to cease contacts with the woman until the inspector general completed the inquiry, the officials said. But the inspector general later found that General Byrnes continued to make telephone calls to her, although the officials would not say if the contacts went beyond calls.

Several Army officers said they considered the punishment surprisingly harsh for a general who was nearing retirement.

General Byrnes separated from his wife, Carol, in mid-2004, but the couple did not divorce until earlier this month.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/politics/13general.html

One has truly to wonder what the senior command has in store for us. Unable to take responsibility at any high rank for its position on torture, it vies to punish "adulturers" as having unacceptable conduct. Shows how much the Commander in chief and his higher up minions care about the torture problem and how much they want to impose on us their narrow minded "family values. In time of war, I don't think that firing an officer for this kind of impropriety (if there was truly one) is acceptable.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 11:24 am
PN, first of all, I haven't seen you around this forum, remember you from another one - glad to see you.

You might enjoy a parallel thread on this subject -
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=57239&highlight=
0 Replies
 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2005 04:28 pm
Hello Osso!

With all the nickname changes, I haven't changed mine since Abuzz and I am still the same. Came back online after a self-imposed sabbatical and came to this forum. In fact just got back to Iraq for a stint of hope. Will be again mourning my friends this week that died and have been forgotten with the US media barely after they were buried..
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2005 04:48 pm
PN, I'll give a link to this thread in the other one. This thread goes more to a point in the original Washington Post article I read, ah, that link being in first post of the other thread.. and... yes, of this one too.
0 Replies
 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 10:26 am
I don't often post blog text but I will make an exception:

At Rummy's Bizarro Pentagon, Torture is Rewarded While Sex is a Firing Offense

Quote:
Here's all the proof you need that the lunatics have taken over the Pentagon and DoD asylums (that is, if the lunacy of their Iraq policies hadn't already convinced you):

Four-star General Kevin Byrnes, the third most senior of the Army's 11 four-star generals, was sacked over allegations that he had an extramarital affair. Meanwhile, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib torture and abuse scandal, is being considered for promotion to, yep, four-star general.

Talk about your utterly perverted priorities.

Now, it long ago became clear that the Bushies inhabit a bizarro, topsy-turvy universe -- a place where being utterly wrong about slam-dunk WMD earns you a Medal of Freedom, dismissing a "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S." memo earns you a promotion to Secretary of State, signing off on torture makes you AG material, another 123 American soldiers being blown up is the mark of an enemy in its "last throes", and outing an undercover CIA agent (and then lying about it) merits a vote of confidence instead of a pink slip.

Nevertheless, the Byrnes firing is still stunning. Consider: in modern times, no four-star general has ever been relieved of duty for disciplinary reasons; prior to this incident Byrne had a spotless military record; he has been separated from his wife since May 2004; the allegations do not involve anyone under his command or connected to the DoD; and he was already set to retire in November.

Something doesn't add up. Would the Army really can a four-star General with 36 years of service, three months shy of his retirement, because he screwed someone other than his wife... in the middle of a war? We are at war, right? No wonder speculation is mounting that there has to be more -- much more -- to this story than is being told.

Was the affair with a man? Was the man underage? Did he not only ask, but also tell? Was, say, one of the Bush twins involved? Did the illicit liaison entail incredibly kinky behavior... something involving a dog leash, women's panties, fake blood, a Koran, and a Lynndie England mask?

Or was Gen. Byrnes busted for engaging in straight, vanilla, missionary, once-a-week-with-the-lights-off boffing with the slightly overweight neighbor lady down the street?

Is this what it takes for Rummy and company to continue seeing themselves as paragons of virtue who will do whatever is necessary to hold people accountable for their private conduct...while turning a blind eye to the wanton assault on decency and morality that has marked our handling of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Bagram?

In other words, it's the s-e-x, stupid! The GOP base will eat it up. A little unnerved that Roberts gave a freebie to the gays? Don't sweat it. The Bush administration demonstrates it will not stand for a leader who breaks his vows (other than vows to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak, that is).

My only question is: was Rummy given photos of Gen. Byrnes en flagrante delicto? Must have been. If you'll recall, Rumsfeld told Congress that it took him months to look into the reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib because, even though he'd been alerted that U.S. soldiers were humiliating and torturing naked Iraqi prisoners, "It is the photographs that give one the vivid realization of what actually took place. Words don't do it."

Of course, once Rummy and the White House did see the photos from Abu Ghraib, they didn't leap into action, they leapt into damage control -- treating the worst American military scandal since My Lai not as an international land mine that could flatten our country's moral high ground but as a PR problem that could be spun, manipulated, stonewalled and, ultimately, swept under the rug.


And they were right. At least as far as the American electorate was concerned. The feelings of the Arab world are a whole other matter.

Here is the vile and pathetic scorecard from the Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo outrages: Only one high ranking officer involved has been demoted (Gen. Janis Karpinski, the former head officer at the prison). One! Indeed, many of the others involved have been promoted, including two senior officers who oversaw or advised on detention and interrogations operations in Iraq -- former deputy commander Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski and Col. Marc Warren, formerly the U.S.'s top military lawyer in Baghdad. And the former top intelligence officer in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, was also given a promotion. Meanwhile Maj. General Geoffrey Miller, who had a hand in both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and who new evidence strongly suggests instigated some of the worst interrogation tactics, has yet to be held accountable... The same, of course, goes for Rumsfeld.

The message is clear: overseeing a system that led to prisoners being buggered with chemical lights and having electrodes attached to their genitals will get you a leg up in Bush's military; giving the high, hard one to someone other than your wife will get you booted out the door.

Gee, it looks like David Brooks is right -- we really have become a more virtuous country.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/arianna-huffington/at-rummys-bizarro-pentag_5427.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Torture and adultery -- American neurosis?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/04/2024 at 05:26:11