Since it is now known that the

[doc03]

orders to torture came from the President, doesn't that make it possible for General Karpinski, Lynde England and others to sue those higher up the chain of command?

[rucky]

1. Sue for what?

I'd say the victims have more of a case.

[skooooo]

2. Lyndie did time...

..didn't she? I would think that's a good reason.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. There's good reason she should still be in prison.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. She not innocent

I think her being in prison is a travesty of justice. She strikes me as having an IQ that would rank her as minimally literate (in other words, I think she's stupid). But she did what was alleged and she was righteously found guilty and sentenced appropriately.

[Fleshdancer]

3. can military personnel sue their superiors?

I didn't think they could, but I could be wrong. :shrug:

[babylonsister]

4. I don't think anyone in the military can sue anyone else in the military. nt

[doc03]

7. Is the President, VP and their legal advisers

considered in the military and above the law. I believe in the military you can supposedly refuse an unlawful order but if you carry out an unlawful order are you subject to prosecution while your superiors walk?

[babylonsister]

8. No, afaik, they're not considered military. nt

[doc03]

9. Afaik? n/t

[babylonsister]

10. 'as far as I know'. I'm lazy. nt

[doc03]

6. Take the General for instance her career

was destroyed because she was made the scapegoat for those higher up. Those higher up the chain of command threw Lynde England and the other troops under the bus making it appear they just came up with that stuff themselves. I would think they all would have a case to sue for damages to their reputations and inprisonment while those that gave the orders got off free. I'm not saying they didn't do anything wrong but they apparently were led to believe their actions were condoned by their superiors.

[dgibby]

11. Military personnel are prohibited by law (Ferris Act)

from suing the gov't.