Re: News Release

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:ptndh3x2vm.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> "Cliff" <whidbey.us@gmail.com> writes:
>>"Volker Birk" <bumens@dingens.org> wrote in message
>
>>> Please explain how the men can torture for months and no officer
>>> recognizes. And after you explained that, please explain wether
>>> the officers were incompetent or unconcerend or just undutiful,
>>> if you don't want to accept they gave such orders or at least
>>> admitted those crimes.
>
>>> And please explain, why you're disagreeing with Major General
>>> Antonio Taguba.
>
>> I am not disagreeing I am agreeing with what he said:
>
>>WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Army general in charge of the
>>investigation into abuse of some Iraqi prisoners told a Senate
>>committee hearing Tuesday that "a failure of leadership" was to
>>blame for the situation, and said there was no evidence the
>>soldiers involved were acting under orders.
>
>>Leadership failure does not mean that the leaders were complicit in
>>the knowledge as I recall there were quite a few command level
>>personel that were relieved of their duties. Note that this does
>>not mean that they were guilty of allowing torture, they were
>>guilty of what Taguba stated " a failure of leadership". There is a
>>huge difference.
>
>>Now may I ask you the same thing?
>>Can please explain, why you're disagreeing with Major General Antonio
>>Taguba?
>
> He isn't. "A failure of leadership" can mean a lot of things;
> including incompetence; an unwillingness to encourage troops to
> follow lawful processes; or a (selective) disinterest in what the
> grunts are doing. Volker asks "please explain wether the officers
> were incompetent or unconcerend or just undutiful".

You are correct. My mistake, that is what he asked.

> Everybody holding rank is; btw "command level". And a few
> sacrificial goats don't set the situation right if many of those who
> were complicit, either by direct action or a failure to act, go
> unpunished. And they need to be seen to be punished.

The command was demoted, a woman colonel if I remember correctly who
according to all information I have read knew nothing. 9 or more of the
soldiers at abu gharaib were convicted in our courts and are serving time
jail. How far do you have to go above the direct field commanders to attain
so ccalled justice? Unfortunately war is not pretty, not trying to justify
any actions here but shit happens that shouldn't and many mistakes are made.
It is how you handle the fact that shit happens matters.

> And those not in command are also required to act in a way that
> doesn't bring their service into disrepute.

I agree. But there is a difference between ignoring torture or being
culpable in it and doing nothing and taking action against the people who
were culpable in it. AFAIK 9 have been convicted and are serving various?
amounts of time and several in the command were demoted or relieved of
command. ( which is just as bad as being demoted as you'll probably never
command again).
Received on Mon May 1 01:07:55 2006