| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| US to try 20 more troops for Iraq abuse |
| 2005-01-17 |
| The Pentagon plans to put at least 20 more US troops before military courts for abuse of detainees in the wake of last week's high profile trial of the ringleader in the Abu Ghraib scandal, military spokesmen said yesterday. The various prosecutions of soldiers accused of mistreating and, in some cases, murdering detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantänamo Bay have been in the works for months, but have been largely overshadowed by the trial of the man who became known as the "primary torturer" of the notorious Baghdad prison. Although there was no official response from Iraq's interim government, reaction on the streets of Baghdad was condemnatory. Abdul-Razak Abdul-Fattah, a 65-year-old retired army officer, said he was shocked to see television footage of Graner leaving the court smiling and laughing even though his legs and hands were shackled. "It showed on his face that he did not regret the shameful acts he and his colleagues committed," he said. Meanwhile, informal polls by newspapers on US army bases found troops believed low-ranking troops such as Graner have been singled out for exemplary punishment, while senior officers - who knew of the abuse for months - have gone free. Such misgivings are unlikely to be allayed by the coming line-up at Fort Hood base in Texas, the primary US venue for such trials. So far, only one of the accused troops is known to be an officer. The rest are enlisted personnel, fuelling criticism that the Pentagon is reluctant to pursue allegations of torture and abuse further up the chain of command. Since the start of the war in Iraq, 26 members of the US army have been referred to trial for abuse or murder of detainees; 18 trials are still pending, said Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venables. However, far more - 75 troops - have been subjected to other disciplinary measures, and have not been brought to trial. Separately, the navy is preparing to prosecute three more service personnel, and has subjected seven others to disciplinary measures. It was unclear yesterday whether further members of the Marine Corps are to face military courts. So far, 14 marines have been convicted of abuse in military courts. Nine other marines remain under investigation for various forms of abuse, including murder. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #11 DB, Jules, me three. Set the standards high, and cut all those, male and female, who don't make it. If serving is that important to them, there are other ways. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-01-17 10:49:57 PM |
| #10 DB-As a feminist, I am behind you. Ability and fitness for the role should be paramount. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-01-17 3:59:56 PM |
| #9 It's certainly true that General Karpinski was derelict in her duty but seldom does that in itself warrant prison time. Maybe it should. Karpinski is finished in the Army. I personally would like to see her court marshalled but it just isn't going to happen. I'm not saying there aren't women capable of doing the job but you can put this one officer's failure at the feet of the feminist crowd to promote women regardless of their qualifications. When women were first introduced in to my unit the first ones were not able to do the same tasks as the rest of us. We had to pick up her slack and carry the extra load. Not tha big a deal in peacetime but if we had found ourselves in a combat situation our efficiency would have been seriously degraded. The first ones to be left behind in a serious situation are the ones who can't carry their own weight. It sounds cruel but combat isn't a game. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-01-17 3:48:43 PM |
| #8 I have said this before and I'll say it again - put just ONE general in Leavenworth and it will be amazing how quickly this sort of thing will come to a complete stop. Do you have any particular general in mind, or do you just want to grab any convenient one off the street? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-01-17 3:05:10 PM |
| #7 ...My biggest complaint is that the brigade commander, BGen Karpinski, is going to walk away after one of the most outrageous displays of dereliction of duty I've evr seen, then had the nerve to literally dare the Army to come get her. I have said this before and I'll say it again - put just ONE general in Leavenworth and it will be amazing how quickly this sort of thing will come to a complete stop... Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2005-01-17 2:14:00 PM |
| #6 Fogey -- that's why (as far as I know) every officer between the abusers and the Brigadier General has seen the end of their careers. The original Taguba report made it clear that the officers failed to do their duty. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-01-17 12:55:43 PM |
| #5 In reference to the comment about devolving management to the NCO ranks from the officers. Where was the Sergent First Class, the Master Sergent, the Officer of the Day. I don't care how far you push responsibility downward, you don't put a SP/4 in charge of a prison cell block. There should have been walkarounds by several higher ranking personnel every shift. Someones, plural, was sleeping on duty. You can take that from a long ago Vietnam era NCO. |
| Posted by: Old Fogey 2005-01-17 12:27:20 PM |
| #4 Leaders will act to protect their ass. But should never let others take the fall for them. That would be the act of a coward. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-01-17 10:59:56 AM |
| #3 Go Don! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-01-17 10:46:35 AM |
| #2 Hang them first, then identify the guilty party Raptor? News alert, back in the pile that was left over from Vietnam the American Army figured out that one of its problems was that it gutted the authority of the NCO. LTs and CPTs were doing NCO jobs and the quality of our performance dropped like a rock. In the rebuilding of the Army in the 80s, the NCO Corps in the Regular Army was revitalized. Professional development training was initiated, with schools from Primary Leadership through the Sergeants Major Academy. [The reserve and NG elements do not lend themselves to as effective application of this process.] Civilian educational requirements were raised to the extent that most senior NCOs have as much college time as 2LTs, and vastly more practical experience. A lot of responsibility and authority was placed back into the NCO ranks. The flexibility, adaptability, and effectiveness of our small units is practically dependent upon these modern NCOs. The whiny arguement that we need some heads of commissioned officers is a movement back to the days of micromanagement and degredation of the NCOs authority. Leaders will act to protect their ass. There are two sides to the coin. This event was the dark side, thankfully rare. Unfortunately, if we are to trust the process of putting power and authority into the hands of our NCOs then we must accept these types of incidents will happen. There is not perfect. As for the chain of command, just like any disaster in a political environment where the pols are not directly responsible for the problem but who's subordinates screw up, they pay by having their careers shortened. The police chief who's men abuse arrestees or inmates, the supervisor with dirty business relations and funny accounting, the appointment of one's sexual plaything into an office as political/personal favor. Its began in the Army with the relief for cause of several of the officers about a year ago. They have no further military career. However, the military law is similar to civilian law. The rules of evidence are the same. You have to have sufficient proof to convict. That is not likely to be met regardless of your personal desire to 'hang them all'. So the Army does what it can, by terminating their careers. |
| Posted by: Don 2005-01-17 10:35:06 AM |
| #1 I agree with the grunts.What was the Duty Officer or NCOIC doing when all this was takeing place?Pretty typical EM get hammered Officers get shielded. |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-01-17 8:10:10 AM |