Maybe I missed it

[jhetley]

Has the army (or any other service) charged even _one_ officer in the Abu Ghraib abuse investigation? Even for sleeping on duty?

As I have mentioned before, based on my own military experience, I find the description of a PFC as a "central figure" in _anything_ military rather . . . boggling. Way back when, a PFC or Specialist had about enough operational leeway to wipe his or her own ass without command supervision....

Comments

[annafdd.livejournal.com]

I think the woman general in charge of Abu Ghraib is getting discharged.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

That doesn't qualify. I'd like to see a few courts-martial that lead to jail time, like "They" are handing down to the enlisted ranks.

[annafdd.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't we all.

[harold3.livejournal.com]

Pretty much all the officers associated with it TimesOnline: Have been cleared (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1582729,00.html)

The highest ranking person to be actually charged is Sgt. Javal Davis (MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895067/).

[wcg.livejournal.com]

I think you're misinterpreting that Times Online article. It indicates that the very high ranking officers in Iraq at the time who were not at Abu Graib have been cleared of any wrong doing. It says nothing about the Military Intelligence officers who were assigned to the facility.

Also, Staff Sergeant Charles Frederick was charged, convicted, reduced to Private, and given 10 years at hard labor. He outranked Sergeant Javal Davis at the time, though he doesn't now.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Well, former Staff Sergeant Chip Frederick is now Private Chip Frederick, serving hard time. The Colonel of Intel who was in command of the Intel detatchment at the prison is almost certainly going to face a General Court Martial, though because he's Intel the proceedings and the investigation are classified. The two civilian contractors who were in direct contact with the troops who've been charged are in some weird limbo, and may eventually be arraigned before a federal judge in DC.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Well, my ex-enlisted bias is showing. Far as I know, that E-6 is the highest ranking soldier yet formally charged, much less tried and convicted. I want some O-grades doing hard time, not frigging E-3s and E-4s. Who the _hell_ was on duty over there? Would PFC England have been posing for photos and then distributing same throughout the unit if she thought they were good for 10 years in Leavenworth?

(Yeah, I know. Most criminals are _dumb_.)

But I think the situation _defines_ "dereliction of duty."

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Since I'm really a retired Master Sergeant at heart, and still have to smile when I pin on the silver oak-leaves, my enlisted bias comes into play too. I do hold Staff Sergeant Frederick in utter contempt for not doing what an NCO should have done, and standing up to the civilian contractors and the Intel officers. NCO's are supposed to be there to provide the adult leadership.

That said, I want to see Colonel Pappas burn for this. He was the man in direct command, he clearly knew what was going on, and he deliberately set things up to provide him with deniability, using the civilian contractors as his intermediaries. Brigadier General Karpinski was negligent in letting Pappas run the Intel operation without proper oversight, but Pappas was the man who made the decisions to treat prisoners badly. If he gets off without a GCM conviction, it will be a miscarriage of justice.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

There is one question I have about this entire situation, and I'm not sure how to find out the answer... if either of you can help, or help point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it.

The military has issued several reports; the Taguba report and the Fay report, and there's another one pending. A lot of the information comes from interviews.

Can a soldier refuse to answer interview questions based upon Fifth Amendment protections (or the military equivalent)? Also, a civilian witness can be compelled to testify in certain circumstances (usually when given immunity). Is there something similar in these investigations (assuming soldiers are allowed to refuse to answer questions during the interviews)?

This *really* bugs me. If the soldiers can refuse to answer, then the army can do reports until the cows come home, and always come up with the same answer: not enough evidence to charge anyone.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's possible to invoke Article 31 of the UCMJ and refuse to make a statement because it might be self-incriminating. But that invokation then becomes part of the official record of investigation.

I suspect that Col. Pappas has done this, but I don't think it'll make a difference in the long run. He was in direct command of the Intel unit there, and this stuff happened on his watch. The only thing in doubt is how many different charges and specifications he can be convicted for.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. But I'm more wondering about the other reports that have been issued.

If this had been a situation in which a few rogue soldiers had overstepped authority with respect to interrogations, or where a few evil soldiers engaged in sadistic games with the prisoners (or both) I'd be confident that the military would quickly root out the offenders, and it would all be put right.

This situation... well, we know there was intelligence work there by "other government agencies", and we know the Geneva Conventions didn't mean much to those OGAs... ghost detainees, a beating death covered up, and probably more.

We know that Bush was linking Iraq and 9/11, and saying that terrorists don't get Geneva protections because they're unlawful combatants. We know there was a lot of pressure to produce actionable intelligence. The Fay report admits that there was some confusion regarding techniques allowed in other theaters (Guantanemo Bay, maybe other locations).

And, just... *DAMN IT*.

I heard this ugly rumor, that any request for more troops was sent as a draft request (and then advice given not to make the request official), so the administration could claim no one asked for more troops.

But they needed more people to maintain discipline in Abu Ghraib.

And I don't think the administration gave a damn about what might happen to a few prisoners, as long as intelligence started to flow. I don't think Bush authorized the tortures at Abu Ghraib, but I think he set the conditions that made it extremely likely to happen.

And I think that they're not pushing the investigation all that hard so that they can whitewash the President and his administration. I think they'll find some way to let Pappas off the hook, because loyalty to Bush is all that matters to Bush.

And I'm ranting, aren't I?

Anyway... long and short of it is, I'm worried that the reports the military is issuing won't be able to show the truth. I'm afraid too many soldiers will invoke Article 31 protections, so that the end result will be "not enough evidence".

And the most frustrating thing of it all is that I'm not sure how I could ever trust that we *did* get the truth, that it was rooted out completely.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

I think Major General Taguba did a hell of a good job with his investigation. I also think it's a huge embarassment to the Administration that the Taguba report got made public. I suspect Major General Taguba is pleased that his report got into the public eye, and could give a tinker's damn about whether or not the Administration looks bad. (That said, I also think Major General Taguba was appalled by what he found, and wishes with all his heart it had never happened. He really does love the US and the Army.)

As for where things go from here... I honestly don't know. I think that somebody needs to keep asking questions about Colonel Pappas, to find out if additional charges are being considered, and if there's a trial date for him yet. As for those Other Government Agency people, Pappas is probably going to take it in the shorts for them. I hope they'll remember him when he finally gets out of prison, not because he ought to get ANY special treatment, but because they know he's going down for them, and they owe him.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I believe, though I'm operating on memory thirty years rusted, that one reason they are prosecuting the EM and NCO ranks first is that after sentencing, they _can_ be compelled to testify. Article 31 no longer applies.

The convicted soldiers could only be prosecuted further if new crimes, not covered by plea bargains, etc, came out in the testimony.

IANAJAG

[wcg.livejournal.com]

That is entirely possible Jim. Can't try someone twice for the same offense. So getting the troops into court first means that they can't invoke Article 31 on the stand.