All Senior Advisors Have Ducked For Cover

[bigtree]

That's what Lyndie England's lawyer said on MSNBC. He asserted that the military intelligence services were allowed to take over control of the prison and directed and encouraged the abuses. He says that Pvt. England was told that what she was doing would help get information on the roadside bombings.

Her superiors let her down. They allowed these soldiers to commit abuses, at their direction and encouragement. England's lawyer says that her parents expected the military to direct their daughter and they let her down. I agree. That doesn't excuse England for her actions, but the directing of subordinates in the military to perform improper acts is coersion that is hard to resist for a lower ranking recruit because of the creed of loyalty that is the lever of control used to guide the actions of the troops.

The 'investigation' and hearings have not penetrated the upper tier's culpability in these abuses. The report details the lack of a firm command structure at the prisons, with uniformed officers with access to the prisons, exercising their authority over the lower ranking soldiers.

They have a planned deniability that allows them to skirt responsibility that they gave orders to abuse the detainees. There is apparently no paper trail, but there are a number of the lowere ranking soldiers who will testify that they were ordered to abuse the detainees by these rouge intelligence officers who took charge whenever they they wanted.

Who was in charge of these soldiers, and why aren't they facing court-martial along with the lower ranking abusers? As I watch these oficials line up and testify, I am struck by their assurances that these abuses will not happen again, but I wonder why the same officials that allowed these abuses to happen are being allowed to keep their positions?

Who actually believes that there is not a cover-up of the leader's culpability as we castigate the underlings? Classic cover-up, and we are allowing them to prosecute first, and possibly discredit and silence these soldiers who, to the defendant, accuse their superiors of culpability and coersion.

We are being manipulated by the same group of officials who got us in this illegal war in the first place. As we watch their testimony, we should remember that this bunch has never lent themselves or their clique to accountability.


I agree with a statement I read that, "Sometimes it is a soldier’s duty to tell the truth, no matter what" "Sometime you have to weigh your duty to your government, and the duty to your fellow soldiers to protect them and keep them safe. I feel the duty to my fellow soldier out weighs any loyalty to my government. I do not see this as treason or betraying my command.

This was from an interview conducted with a US Army high level commander who had been back from Iraq less than two weeks. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5623.htm

But I am also mindful of the military environment where freedom of expression and freedom of action is discouraged. I have an example of the mindset and attitude of those in charge of our soldiers, a quote from the NCO creed:

“I will be loyal to those with whom I serve; seniors, peers, and subordinates alike.” A sign of a weak leader is one who tells their soldiers “The boss says we gotta do this...” instead of “Do this!” Sergeants have a responsibility to follow orders, and give orders to your squad or team. That is what leadership is all about. There is a time and a way to ask questions. Be tactful, and approach it in a professional manner. You will be respected for your actions and concern. There is a major difference between providing input on or clarifying orders, and questioning orders. If you have concerns, address it through your chain of command. Don’t complain in front of your subordinates. But after you have discussed your issues, execute the mission to the best of your ability, even if you may not particularly agree with it."

There is room for dissention in the lower ranks, but you can bet that the culture discourages dissent at every level, much less from a grunt. I don't excuse any abuse. I do recognize the cover-up of the actions of the higher ranking officials and I assert that their actions and avoidance of blame and responsibility, and the aiding in their avoidance by their upper ranking peers is as important, and possibly more dangerous than the actions of the underlings.


Me Book

[roguevalley]

1. I don't even really care about them 'doing what they were told' as they

have said. They have to take their lumps for following illegal orders. What worries me is that the higher ups who ordered this to happen are going to walk.

I watched a Hitler show yesterday and he is quoted about the Holocaust orders. Never write down an order than can be conveyed orally. Same here. You won't see it on paper but I believe them
when they said they were told to do it. Most people haven't got a
clue about what would break people from this culture but they pushed all the right buttons. For me, dressing them in women's underwear was the tip off.

[bigtree]

2. I don't excuse any abuse.

Classic cover-up, and we are allowing them to prosecute first, and possibly discredit and silence these soldiers who, to the defendant, accuse their superiors of culpability and coersion.

[liberalitch]

4. At nuremberg....

the excuse was "I was just following orders."
It wasn't acceptable then and it shouldn't be acceptable now.

[QC]

10. Has anyone here said that she should walk?

Not that I have seen, at least. She shouldn't have done what she did, and so she should be punished for it.

But this relentless focus on the peons is calculated to let the big boys walk, and people who should know better are eating it up.

[bigtree]

14. I have never excused the actions of the abusers.

The 'investigation' and hearings have not penetrated the upper tier's culpability in these abuses. The report details the lack of a firm command structure at the prisons, with uniformed officers with access to the prisons, exercising their authority over the lower ranking soldiers.

[Bridget Burke]

15. There were numerous trials at Nuremberg.

There were the small-fry: doctors who "experimented" on prisoners, indistrialists who used slave labor. "Following orders" may have been used as their defense. Unsuccessfully.

But the first charge against the major criminals was: "Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing." War crimes & crimes against humanity were numbers two and three.

Definitely, our small fry should be court martialed. But the ones who started the whole thing should not go free.

www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm

[sundancekid]

6. looks like a cover-up, talks like a cover-up, walks like a cover-up

could it be that it must be a cover-up? or just a duck (a scalia duck to be sure) ... LOL (if not puke)

I got the same "tip off" point that you did ... not to mention the very notion about which Iraq "convenience store" had the ready leash, collar, etc. "softening" supplies ... I mean, REALLY!

TO BE SURE, I still hold the abusers/tortures themselves accountable; but if they are just "3rd rate burglars" echoing another era, I want all the stinkin' fishes at the table.

[Cleita]

3. Did you see CBS's interview with Lynndie this morning?

She struck me as having an I.Q. bewteen 90 and 100, not the sharpest pencil in the box, I'd say.

[killbotfactory]

5. Kind of like Bush...

An easily manipulated half-wit.

[Bandit]

7. How many enlisted personel would you think do have an IQ over 105?

If they had a lot of brain power they would probably be officers and not enlisted. It doesn't take a lot of brain power to kill someone and I'm sure the Army doesn't really want people who are intelligent enough to question what goes on.

[Cleita]

9. I only knew one MP, the boyfriend of one of my roomates, and

he was really slow, good-looking but slow. Is there a criteria in the military as to who gets assigned to what jobs? Is it possible they want their low-ranking MPs to be mentally below average?

[Karenina]

12. This is also why they like 'em young.

Darby is 24.

[TheDebbieDee]

16. You know, Bandit, on behalf of all enlisted persons..................

in the US Army, I take exception to your comments about the low IQ of enlisted people. Some of the brightest, most productive people in the military are in the enlisted ranks. In fact, I saw many cases of "dumb as rocks officers" depending on bright, experienced NCOs to tell them and show them how things really work.

You are right, though. It doesn't take a lot of brain power to kill someone, but it does require a lot training and smarts to operate some of the sophisticated machinery used by the military to kill opposing combatants.

Many well-trained enlisted people don't want the added responsiblities that being an officer would bring them. Many bright enlisted realize that their talents lie in middle-management (the NCO ranks) and other selfless enlisted people figure out that plenty of smart enlisted people should stay in the enlisted ranks so they can be around to straighten out the messes made by their "brighter" brethren in the officers' corp. ;^)

[blm]

11. Yes. And that is why they are chosen.

Alot of these people had no idea that what they were engaging in was not a normal practice. They didn't know enough to even question their orders. They hardly studied these things at school.

They were counting on their higher ups to be on the level.

[bobthedrummer]

8. Don't forget the "contractors" role in this, the 37 interrogators that

were mentioned by JCS at Rumsfeld's Senate hearing last week have names-Rumsfeld evaded answering the Senate's questions regarding the MERCENARIES that apparently were given authority to encourage US MP's to commit crimes in a prison that had come under the control of US MI.

It easy to check out, who were these folks that may have been involved in crimes?

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

[lovedems]

13. I thought I heard him say that Karpinsky wasn't allowed in the prison

and the MP's weren't allowed to contact her. I must say, he has a good defense lined up. It sounds like her defense isn't going to be "I was following orders" but that she wasn't allowed to leave the prison, she wasn't allowed contact with her commanding officer and she was commanded to take orders from the MI. All of those are illegal in the military if I understand him correctly.

It sounds like he is going to make sure this goes all the way to the top (wherever that may be).

[bigtree]

17. I found this article that echoes my concerns. Hope we get the bastards

ANOTHER BUSH COVER-UP
DISSENSION IN THE UPPER RANKS

By: Ted Lang

http://etherzone.com/2004/lang051304.shtml

[opihimoimoi]

18. Yup, the Bushies Dream Team.... gives Nightmares instead

AAARRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Octafish]

19. Plausible Deniability

From the original post:

They have a planned deniability that allows them to skirt responsibility that they gave orders to abuse the detainees. There is apparently no paper trail, but there are a number of the lowere ranking soldiers who will testify that they were ordered to abuse the detainees by these rouge intelligence officers who took charge whenever they they wanted.

# # #

Question: For whom does Intel work? The buck stops at Cheney's desk, eh Gov. Bush?

# # #

Thanks for a a great post, bigtree! You bring up some scary stuff that needs consideration.