Lynddie England gets 3 years!

Not that I expected otherwise but this is a ridiculously low sentence! Not only a small number of people were used as scapegoats to cover commants given by superiors and practices known but not these people are getting away with it!

That is a ridiculous sentence and it will definately create more trouble in Iraq ( like it hasnt gone pear shaped enough allready...). It is the form of sentence that makes people take the law in their own hands...

...I do wonder if an Iraqi does this to Miss England...will he get three years only? This is just sickening...


On the other hand her story reveals a background that becomes more and more common among armies. X person has a lousy job, chances are he is bossed around and he needs to make someone feel miserable as they do. He joins the army and gets to have, and in turn abuse authority...

The american legal system has reached a new all time low...

3 years, and yet Rumsfield and others who ordered and condoned this not only walk free, but have been rewarded.

ichi :bow:

Pretty ridiculous sentence for an obvious sadist and disgrace to the US Military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Pretty ridiculous sentence for an obvious sadist and disgrace to the US Military.

---

Yup, wasn't she up for a max of 10? She should've been sentenced to every day of it.....

Quote:

---

No officers have gone to trial, though several received administrative punishment.
Graner on Tuesday supported testimony from a defense witness that officers failed to control the guards at the Baghdad prison, creating stressful conditions that disoriented England and led her to take part in the mistreatment.

Graner testified that he, England and others who worked the overnight shift in a high-security section of Abu Ghraib had scant supervision.

"It seems like the junior soldiers were on their own," said Graner, who England has said is the father of her infant. "We had little leadership."

Graner said he told officers about detainee maltreatment, which he claimed was done by order of military intelligence personnel. And at times, he said, military intelligence officers actually were present for the abuse.

"I nearly beat an MI [military intelligence] detainee to death with MI there," he said before Col. James Pohl, the judge, interrupted his testimony.

---

...

I agree with the all the sentiments above. She deserved the maximum. The conditions that created this went far up the chain of command, at least all the way to Rummy.

I still remember some statements by military personnel in Iraq when this first broke. They referred to the clowns involved in the scandal as "those idiots who just lost the war."

Good. If, as everyone claims but no one has proven, she was just following orders from authorities in such powerful positions as the Sec of Defense, she really wasnt in a position to act any differently.

Although I find it hard to believe that Rumsfeld sits around thinking up fun ways to torture arabs, if he was involved then this private had no recourse and should not have been punished.

Interesting. I think her CO should be the one blamed. I don't know if it goes up as far as Rummy or not, but if she did it on her own free will and nobody said a word then it's obviously her fault as well as her COs responsibility for not bringing up the issue, or not having knowledge of it. I think everyone knows how big of a mess Iraq is ending up and so the court found little sentiment to maximize her sentence. I think this "occupation" of Iraq is lost. and I think it was lost before American troops ever arrived. Its just not in America's best interest to treat the Iraqis like Saddam did, and sadly a unified Iraq could only ever be controlled by a ruthless dictator. Not to mention it doesn't help the situation with people like Private England, or countries like Iran and Syria constantly meddling with the process. I think we should opt for the best possible escape plan, supporting the Kurds, disliking the Sunnis, and leaving the Shi'ites alone.

Ablative shielding applies to combat and court marshals.

[Comic strip 206 as it will change in a couple of days]

Good. If, as everyone claims but no one has proven, she was just following orders from authorities in such powerful positions as the Sec of Defense, she really wasnt in a position to act any differently.

She was in the military Panzer , which means she was in a position to refuse orders(if she was indeed ordered) if she thought they were wrong .

Responsibility should go up the food chain imo.

To have not trained soldiers to treat prisoners with respect is gross negligence on the part of superiors - they should take blame too.

The most important is that now the US military have done what they have to do and can move on. In reality, the most important here is not the prisoners, its the image of US military. Surely one can have opinions on who is most guilty or not, but for me, the fact that people have been tried and convicted is enough and shows that US military is better than the enemy and take the responsibility we expect from them. :bow:

The most important is that now the US military have done what they have to do and can move on. In reality, the most important here is not the prisoners, its the image of US military. Surely one can have opinions on who is most guilty or not, but for me, the fact that people have been tried and convicted is enough and shows that US military is better than the enemy and take the responsibility we expect from them. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

The most important is that now the US military have done what they have to do and can move on. In reality, the most important here is not the prisoners, its the image of US military. Surely one can have opinions on who is most guilty or not, but for me, the fact that people have been tried and convicted is enough and shows that US military is better than the enemy and take the responsibility we expect from them. :bow:

---

You are most honorable in your sentiment here :bow:

I second Redleg's kudos for BR.

As a matter of jurisprudence, it would probably have been more correct to award her the recommended 4-6 year sentence that had been suggested. All judges find it harder to sentence an innocent child to the absence of a parent than they do to sentencing the parent for their wrongdoings. Perhaps the clemency wasn't for Ms. E so much as the innocent youngling.

Pappy is too right with his ablative comment. I am annoyed that GCMs were convened on perpetrators while their responsible CO's were only dealt with administratively. I know that administratively does not mean they "escaped" justice, but it doesn't "feel" comparable.

This is an area that always requires attention. As the old Guard/Prisoner psych experiment teaches, abusive behavior is too easily possible in such situations. Moreover, many of these incidents appeared to have little or no value in soliciting intelligence -- the only (and maybe not even then sufficient) excuse for such actions.

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

3 years, and yet Rumsfield and others who ordered and condoned this not only walk free, but have been rewarded.

ichi :bow:

---

Rewarding them? That sends quite clear signals, doesn't it? What Lynddie did is what Rumsfeld and co. wants their wives do to them in the bedroom, why else accept/reward it... ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

The most important is that now the US military have done what they have to do and can move on. In reality, the most important here is not the prisoners, its the image of US military. Surely one can have opinions on who is most guilty or not, but for me, the fact that people have been tried and convicted is enough and shows that US military is better than the enemy and take the responsibility we expect from them. :bow:

---

Well actually I disagree. All this sentence and court case were a sop to justice. It's all very well saying we are superior because we had a case and banged up some minor player for 3 years. But meaningless if you then ignore the systemic failures and grander injustices that have led us to see pictures of prisoners kicked, beaten, attacked by dogs, hung from ceilings, sexually abused, etc.

3 year sentence for one private? Gah!

3 years too many!

We all know my views on this ~D

Being dispelled from active duty would have been enough, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Perhaps the clemency wasn't for Ms. E so much as the innocent youngling.

---

I suspect that's right. I had not realised that aspect and it does totally changes my view of the sentence. I understand there's a much wider context to this, but if you look at the individual herself, it's not like she's going to be abusing any more prisoners in the future.

Lets see... in war more officers get high grade medals because it was their decision that made the heroic effort possible.

In court marshals enlisted get charged because it was their decision that made the henious crimes possible.

Is this a classic case of class corruption?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Lets see... in war more officers get high grade medals because it was their decision that made the heroic effort possible.

In court marshals enlisted get charged because it was their decision that made the henious crimes possible.

Is this a classic case of class corruption?

---

I have seen officers get Courts Martial several times in my military career. Your statement here is nothing but a generalization about one event, and I suspect that you haven't seen the number of convicted officers serving time at Ft. Leavenworth for thier criminal behavior.

Lets see Pvt England did a spefic act.

The Brigade Commander has also recieved something for her failure to command her unit.

The difference of degree, PVT England did a spefic crime - the Officer failed to preform her assigned duties. The criminal offense was done by the Private. No matter how much I believe a failure to command your unit should be a crime - its not, its only a military career ending adminstrative punishment.

Now if someone can prove that someone ordered the guards to act in such a manner - then they can be charged for a crime also. But until then - your building a generalization and that is all it is.

Edit: And I would still hold the enlisted soldiers responsible for following what is clearly an unlawful order.

Do or do not officers get commendations, promotions and medals for the good performance of their unit during conflict?

I would rather see 4-5 but...

3 years seems good enough. She needs to have jail time but nothing to long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now if someone can prove that someone ordered the guards to act in such a manner - then they can be charged for a crime also. But until then - your building a generalization and that is all it is.

---

I agree here. I find it incredible that she would've recieved specific orders to perform these acts. Maybe some general instructions about 'softening up' prisoners- but the amount of depravity displayed by her and others makes the idea that they were specific orders seem ludicrous. Also, less mentioned are the photos of the guards engaged in sex acts with each other- not prisoners. I highly doubt that those acts were under orders, and I doubt even more that any reasonable person would follow such an order.

Sick people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Do or do not officers get commendations, promotions and medals for the good performance of their unit during conflict?

---

Some do - some don't. Depends on how the chain of command feels about the issue. I know of officers during Desert Storm who commanded units that did well - that recieved absolutely no special medals or promotions for it.

In fact Desert Storm did not result in any special promotions that I know of.

Enlist soldiers also get medals, and commendations for performance of thier units during a conflict also.

You made a generalization about the military - Are you now trying to strawman your way out of it now?

She is not the only one being imprisoned for this. Her then boyfriend, quoted in an article above, got the full ten years for his leading role in the abuse as did others. England got three years because she was judged to be a rather simple follower, not a ringleader, and because of her child. Simple as that. Should the punishment go further up the chain? Maybe, but without direct involvement the officers and CO will suffer only with regards to their careers (though IIRC they were a reservist unit anyway). The administration will understandably take no heat since there is no smoking gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Rubbish. Under this administration, it's impossible for anyone--officer or enlisted--to know whether or not they have the authority to disobey orders. Look at the officers who were fired for telling Bush that he would need more troops to invade Iraq, for example (oops!).

---

Speaking of rubbish. Coming from someone who has never served in the military. Get a grib on your hate for Bush and attempt to understand how the military command structure and discpline structure works before making such statements.

Oh by the way - what they did in questioning the plan is not disobeying orders - its questioning and pointing out the problems with the course of action - which is also allowed.

And do you have prove that they were fired for questioning the orders - or are you just making that up also?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Pray tell then Redleg: Did you always know when it was okay to disobey orders? If you were somewhat dumb, and your superior ordered you to beat up the prisoners, what would you do?

---

Lets see - that is an obvious illegal order. So I would go to the superior of that person and inform them of the situation. The part that gets fuzzy is if the superior told me to make them uncomfortable - but the answer for that is the same as for the obvious order - go the the superior and ask them for guidance on the issue.

If that individual confirmed the order as stated - then I would inform that superior that I believe that he is giving me an illegal order and I would not perform the order as given.

THen I would allow the military process to take care of it.

By the way GC - I have disobeyed orders that I have felt were unlawful during peacetime in just such a way. Once as a LT, Once as a Captain. Lets see I got out as a Major - so let that tell you if the process works as it is suppose to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Some do - some don't. Depends on how the chain of command feels about the issue. I know of officers during Desert Storm who commanded units that did well - that recieved absolutely no special medals or promotions for it.

In fact Desert Storm did not result in any special promotions that I know of.

Enlist soldiers also get medals, and commendations for performance of thier units during a conflict also.

You made a generalization about the military - Are you now trying to strawman your way out of it now?

---

Quote:

---

Is this a classic case of class corruption?

---

My question was is there more of a one way street when it comes to positive bonuses compared to negative as per most class systems.

How much are NCOs and Officers supposed to be involved in the day to day runnings of a unit?

A private doing something wrong is an individuals fault.

Half a dozen is a problem in that section.

It would be systemic if found in multiple units across a broad range.

My issue is, is it fair that the officer can get the kudos in higher proportions to the the rap over the knuckles?

Or is it just a mere fact that this is a problem further down with the NCOs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Rubbish. Under this administration, it's impossible for anyone--officer or enlisted--to know whether or not they have the authority to disobey orders. Look at the officers who were fired for telling Bush that he would need more troops to invade Iraq, for example (oops!).

---

Rubbish? Are you for real? You're trying to tell me that if you were in the military and ordered to perform sexual acts on your girlfriend in full view of prisoners and your peers you'd say "yes sir!" and snap to it because you wouldn't want to jeopardize your career? Give me a break.

Well...


...Some people actually support that this sentence is fair or even that it is too much. The fact that by creating such a thread which was supposed to appeal to all people I got to see such answers really puts me off.

I think I should add this link which I find interesting and partially relevent since it gives us a glimpse to some of the people who work for the occupation force in Iraq:

Link

Well back to the main topic. All i gotta say is that some day,soon, Miss England and the lot will be out of jail. A lot of people like her will be out of Iraq and back to the states too. Chances are they will really miss abusing authority and some of them will be tempted to do this back home too. When your children and families are the victims of such an attack, and when pictures are allover the net, do not rant about how they should be given the death penalty, we ll give em all nice 1-3 year old sentences instead...

Pathetic double standards...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

My question was is there more of a one way street when it comes to positive bonuses compared to negative as per most class systems.

---

Then you would be incorrect - at least in the United States Army when I was in. Officers did get recongized for unit performance more then the private - but then the officer had more involvement in insuring the unit was successful then the private.

Quote:

---

How much are NCOs and Officers supposed to be involved in the day to day runnings of a unit?

---

They are suppose to be involved heavily according to the rank. LT and Captains are in the day to day runnings of the unit. Maj and LTC in the running of the Battalion, etc.

Notice what I said about the BG in charge of the whole mess - I wish sometimes that poor leadership was a criminal charge in the military - but it takes spefic items to prove derlection (SP) of duty.

Quote:

---

A private doing something wrong is an individuals fault.

---

Agree

Quote:

---

Half a dozen is a problem in that section.

---

It gets more specific then that - its a section chief or squad leaders failure to lead correctly.

Quote:

---

It would be systemic if found in multiple units across a broad range.

---

Agreed

Quote:

---

My issue is, is it fair that the officer can get the kudos in higher proportions to the the rap over the knuckles?

---

My experience is that officers get more raps on the knuckles then any enlisted soldier I know of. Officers get raps on the knuckles for what individual soldiers do more often then many realize - its just all administrative not judicial.

Care to guess how many times as a commander I got called to my bosses office to answer for actions of my subordinates?

Quote:

---

Or is it just a mere fact that this is a problem further down with the NCOs?

---

Oh its a failure on a lot of levels - however again I was addressing your generalization of this one event.

Once again are you attempting to strawman your way out of the generalization that you made - which is an incorrect one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'll take your word for it. But if I was in the military, under an administration known for foul play, I'd hesitate before disobeying orders.

---

The adminstration has nothing to do with a soldier or officer deciding to question or disobey an order - its a matter of professionalism, The Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the individuals code of ethics.

So you would take the WW2 defense of "I was only following order's," good show....... :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I would, actually. You can't hold a soldier at fault for obeying orders. Was not that an acceptable defense during the whole Iran-Contra thingummer?

---

Following an unlawful order is not a valid excuse - nor should it be. If you know the order is unlawful the military states that you must disobey that order and report it to the next higher superior. Failure to do so - does not excuse you from the crime that you committed in following the unlawful order.

It was a question (?) not a statement (.) that was based on things like the amount of Distinguished Service Medals handed out in WWII.

This is from a thread about medals in WWII and why officers got more of them:

Quote:

---

I wonder if this is a fair reflection? Many officers did not receive any award - eg the father of a friend who was a navigator on a Liberator bomber. There is one criteria common to all bravery awards from VC to QCB, which is that the individual, knowing the risk, makes a conscious decision to go forward and take action. This explains why pilots, NCOs or officers, might so often receive awards when other aircrew, not in a position to have to take those decisions, do not.

---

VC Forum

It is pretty clear that in a class system (military, caste, employee to manager) that it is quite possible for those lower in the rung to be the scapegoat while those higher up get a stern talking to or made out to be the hero of a situation.

My initial question was is this case a classic example of class corruption where those lower on the ladder are made sterner examples of those higher up in the chain?

It happens in civilian companies, it happens in politics, is there something about the military that makes them immune to this kind of issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Once again, it was an acceptable defense during the Iran-Contra thing no? I saw a clip of it where an officer was being asked questions, and it went something like this:

---

Was it used you mean - or was it an acceptable excuse for what the individual did? The question has two different meanings and the answer given is the answer that is correct.

Unlawful orders are required to be disobeyed - they are never an excuse for doing something that you know to be wrong.

Quote:

---

"You did shred documents, though?"
"Yes."
"Why?"
"Because I was ordered to."

And it went on and on like that. To my knowledge, nobody was ever punished to any serious extent, but I could be wrong if you have any more info on that.

---

From the below listed link

Quote:

---

After Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh's appointment in December 1986, 14 persons were charged with criminal offenses. Eleven persons were convicted, but two convictions were overturned on appeal. Two persons were pardoned before trial and one case was dismissed when the Bush Administration declined to declassify information necessary for trial. On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., and Robert C. McFarlane.

Completed Trials and Pleas


Elliott Abrams -- Pleaded guilty October 7, 1991, to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress about secret government efforts to support the Nicaraguan contra rebels during a ban on such aid. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Abrams November 15, 1991, to two years probation and 100 hours community service. Abrams was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Carl R. Channell -- Pleaded guilty April 29, 1987, to one felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. U.S. District Judge Stanley S. Harris sentenced Channell on July 7, 1989, to two years probation.

Thomas G. Clines -- Indicted February 22, 1990, on four felony counts of underreporting his earnings to the IRS in the 1985 and 1986 tax years; and falsely stating on his 1985 and 1986 tax returns that he had no foreign financial accounts. On September 18, 1990, Clines was found guilty of all charges. U.S. District Judge Norman P. Ramsey in Baltimore, Md., on December 13, 1990, sentenced Clines to 16 months in prison and $40,000 in fines. He was ordered to pay the cost of the prosecution. The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., on February 27, 1992, upheld the convictions. Clines served his prison sentence.

Alan D. Fiers, Jr. -- Pleaded guilty July 9, 1991, to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about secret efforts to aid the Nicaraguan contras. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Fiers January 31, 1992, to one year probation and 100 hours community service. Fiers was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Clair E. George -- Indicted September 6, 1991, on 10 counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction in connection with congressional and Grand Jury investigations. George's trial on nine counts ended in a mistrial on August 26, 1992. Following a second trial on seven counts, George was found guilty December 9, 1992, of two felony charges of false statements and perjury before Congress. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth set sentencing for February 18, 1993. George was pardoned on December 24, 1992, before sentencing occurred.

Albert Hakim -- Pleaded guilty November 21, 1989, to a misdemeanor of supplementing the salary of Oliver L. North. Lake Resources Inc., in which Hakim was the principal shareholder, pleaded guilty to a corporate felony of theft of government property in diverting Iran arms sales proceeds to the Nicaraguan contras and other activities. Hakim was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on February 1, 1990, to two years probation and a $5,000 fine; Lake Resources was ordered dissolved.

Robert C. McFarlane -- Pleaded guilty March 11, 1988, to four misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced McFarlane on March 3, 1989, to two years probation, $20,000 in fines and 200 hours community service. McFarlane was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Richard R. Miller -- Pleaded guilty May 6, 1987, to one felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. U.S. District Judge Stanley S. Harris sentenced Miller on July 6, 1989, to two years probation and 120 hours of community service.

Oliver L. North -- Indicted March 16, 1988, on 16 felony counts. After standing trial on 12, North was convicted May 4, 1989 of three charges: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines and 1,200 hours community service. A three-judge appeals panel on July 20, 1990, vacated North's conviction for further proceedings to determine whether his immunized testimony influenced witnesses in the trial. The Supreme Court declined to review the case. Judge Gesell dismissed the case September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of Independent Counsel.

John M. Poindexter -- Indicted March 16, 1988, on seven felony charges. After standing trial on five charges, Poindexter was found guilty April 7, 1990, on all counts: conspiracy (obstruction of inquiries and proceedings, false statements, falsification, destruction and removal of documents); two counts of obstruction of Congress and two counts of false statements. U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene sentenced Poindexter June 11, 1990, to six months in prison on each count, to be served concurrently. A three-judge appeals panel on November 15, 1991, reversed the convictions on the ground that Poindexter's immunized testimony may have influenced the trial testimony of witnesses. The Supreme Court on December 7, 1992, declined to review the case. In 1993, the indictment was dismissed on the motion of Independent Counsel.

Richard V. Secord -- Indicted March 16, 1988 on six felony charges. On May 11, 1989, a second indictment was issued charging nine counts of impeding and obstructing the Select Iran/contra Committees. Secord was scheduled to stand trial on 12 charges. He pleaded guilty November 8, 1989, to one felony count of false statements to Congress. Secord was sentenced by U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., on January 24, 1990, to two years probation.

Pre-trial Pardons


Duane R. Clarridge -- Indicted November 26, 1991, on seven counts of perjury and false statements about a secret shipment of U.S. HAWK missiles to Iran. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene set a March 15, 1993, trial date. Clarridge was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Caspar W. Weinberger -- Indicted June 16, 1992, on five counts of obstruction, perjury and false statements in connection with congressional and Independent Counsel investigations of Iran/ contra. On September 29, the obstruction count was dismissed. On October 30, a second indictment was issued, charging one false statement count. The second indictment was dismissed December 11, leaving four counts remaining. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan set a January 5, 1993, trial date. Weinberger was pardoned December 24, 1992.

---

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/summpros.htm

I would gleem from the convictions that it was not an acceptable defense in the eyes of the court. However it seems that most were pardoned because of politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

It was a question (?) not a statement (.) that was based on things like the amount of Distinguished Service Medals handed out in WWII.

This is from a thread about medals in WWII and why officers got more of them:


VC Forum

It is pretty clear that in a class system (military, caste, employee to manager) that it is quite possible for those lower in the rung to be the scapegoat while those higher up get a stern talking to or made out to be the hero of a situation.

My initial question was is this case a classic example of class corruption where those lower on the ladder are made sterner examples of those higher up in the chain?

It happens in civilian companies, it happens in politics, is there something about the military that makes them immune to this kind of issue?

---

Yep its beginning to look like a strawman arguement to me. No need for me to continue pointing out the errors in your initial statement if your going in this direction.

Is this a classic case of class corruption? is a question, a hypothesis not a statement or a theory.

A strawman arguement is a theory not a question.

----

Back to another question. Does the Iran Contra affair reflect that those who ordered what happened at the highest levels did not get punished?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Rubbish? Are you for real? You're trying to tell me that if you were in the military and ordered to perform sexual acts on your girlfriend in full view of prisoners and your peers you'd say "yes sir!" and snap to it because you wouldn't want to jeopardize your career? Give me a break.

---

There's somthing wrong with that...aka that's not very good. Officers who order things like that need some good time in Gitmo to get their thoughts straightened out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Is this a classic case of class corruption? is a question, a hypothesis not a statement or a theory.

---

A question based upon two earlier generalizations.

Quote:

---

Lets see... in war more officers get high grade medals because it was their decision that made the heroic effort possible.

---

Are you now denying you stated this?

Quote:

---

In court marshals enlisted get charged because it was their decision that made the henious crimes possible.

---

Are you denying that you stated this.

Quote:

---

Is this a classic case of class corruption?

---

The answer is no - not with the evidence given so far in this instance. Has everyone been charged - well given that their are still investigations - the answer is no. Have officers been tried and convicted for their actions in other cases - yep they sure have. Just take a visit to Ft Leavenworth someday - there is an about an equivelentl precentage of officers serving time in Leavenworth as there is serving on active duty.

Quote:

---

A strawman arguement is a theory not a question.

---

You seem to present it as a theory with the two earlier generalizations. And you continue to do so.
----

Quote:

---

Back to another question. Does the Iran Contra affair reflect that those who ordered what happened at the highest levels did not get punished?

---

Did those at the highest levels? Lets see look at the list of people convicted - that will answer you question. However politics played a role in pardoning them for thier actions - but the conviction is still there.

Now for it to be taken to the highest level - there was not enough proof to warrant an impeachment of the sitting President.

It is a question based on two assumptions one from the medal dispersion in WWII (for instance some offficers getting Medals of Honor or Air Medals for commanding not doing specific actions themselves... it is easier to see with British Medal count as they had different names for NCO vs Officer medals).

And the second assumption that no officer has gone to trial over the prisoner abuse.

====

Administrative punishment effectively ends ones career as an officer as you are unlikely to get promoted and the lack of promotion will at some point end your career... that is what I have gathered so far.

However it would be a good trade to do so if you get that instead of a court marshall in exchange for not squealing on ones superiors. Is it possible given that an administrative punishment is not a judicial one, that the investigative process is less likely to look at those higher in the chain?

In politics junior ministers take the fall for senior ones all the time.

While in companies junior employees take the fall for their managers... voluntarily or not.

Are there sufficient checks and balances in the military system to prevent this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

It is a question based on two assumptions one from the medal dispersion in WWII (for instance some offficers getting Medals of Honor or Air Medals for commanding not doing specific actions themselves... it is easier to see with British Medal count as they had different names for NCO vs Officer medals).

---

A generalization from a major war. Have we seen any major military medals given to commanders of units for this action in a degree that leads to a corruption of the award.

Quote:

---

And the second assumption that no officer has gone to trial over the prisoner abuse.

---

So what happen to the Germans after WW2? Oh right that doesn't count in your assumption. (See two can play the pick and chose assumption of time lines.)

====

Quote:

---

Administrative punishment effectively ends ones career as an officer as you are unlikely to get promoted and the lack of promotion will at some point end your career... that is what I have gathered so far.

---

Administrative Punishment also requires a lesser burdern of proof. Can you provide proof of an officer giving the order to abuse Prisoners in this instance? Do you know what course the investigation is taking in regards to prisoner abuse? Do you image that if such proof does emerge that the officers involved will get off with only an adminstrative punishment?

Quote:

---

However it would be a good trade to do so if you get that instead of a court marshall in exchange for not squealing on ones superiors. Is it possible given that an administrative punishment is not a judicial one, that the investigative process is less likely to look at those higher in the chain?

---

Possible - but not likely to have proof for the general audience to see. Its an assumption on your part.

Again to proceed with a Courts Martial requires the military to conduct several investigations - An Article 15 is usually the first, followed by an Article 32 to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed, then the Courts Martial.

Quote:

---

In politics junior ministers take the fall for senior ones all the time.

---

This ain't politics. The military I served in holds individual responsible for thier individual actions. What gets a Courts Martial requires the same burdern of proof that comes from a civilian criminal court case.

Quote:

---

While in companies junior employees take the fall for their managers... voluntarily or not.

---

Yep they sure do in the military to - however to say that England is taking the fall for her superiors is discounting the evidence that of what she did. Again goes to my point of generalizations that are not valid in this spefic case.

Quote:

---

Are there sufficient checks and balances in the military system to prevent this?

---

Its my belief that there is - are they always used is really the question. THe Investigation process of the Article 15 and Article 32 should be enough to secure that. Article 15's are done by the next higher commander of the unit responsible or individual being investigated - Article 32 comes from the Courts Martial authority. Normally the Commanding General of the individual being prosecuted under the Courts Martial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

My issue is, is it fair that the officer can get the kudos in higher proportions to the the rap over the knuckles?

---

I think that war at all times are never fair. Officers are protected by their subordinates, that is the very core of all institutions built on a military concept.

Furthermore, mentioning Rumsfeld as one to be prosecuted isn't very realistic. He is a politician and there are no country (which hasn't just lost a war and is occupied ~:cool: ) that would have a politician prosecuted for actions done by its military. Its just not realistic to expect that from ANY country in the world. Even if it might be unfair.