ANALYSIS: Abu Ghraib justice spares higher-ups

America - the world's largest 'banana republic'Aug 30th, 2007 - 03:17:36

This country is shot

Report this comment

Anonymous Military MemberAug 30th, 2007 - 04:58:43

This right here is exactly why not many military members are staying in the armed forces. When you see officers getting off with a slap on the wrist and enlisted personnel locked away for 8+ years, who wants to serve these 'leaders'. It just seems ironic that the 'judges' in these cases are officers as well...taking care of their own...

Report this comment

Anonymous Reserve OfficerAug 30th, 2007 - 05:36:03

I can understand your frustration. People were encouraged to succeed, and perhaps not given much direction, so some people chose to violate the law.

The penalty for an officer who fails to successfully control his/her unit is dependent on the level of derreliction of duty by the officer.

It's fairly obvious that the officer did not issue direct orders to violate the law. However, for failing to control his/her unit, that officer received a letter of reprimand, effectively ending that officer's career.

I understand that this may seem unfair, but the enlisted folks, who do a great job usually by the way, are allowed to disobey unlawful orders. Even implied orders. So by violating the law and carrying out an implied order that was unlawful, those individuals were sentenced.

Was it fair? Just? According to our system, it is.

I would advise you or another to consider the lawfulness of the order before carrying it out, implied or not.

And for the record I have no knowledge of the facts of this case; I am just speculating based on my limited knowledge.

Report this comment

Retired Military OfficerAug 30th, 2007 - 23:08:41

To Anonymous Reserve Officer, regarding: ...to consider the lawfulness of the order...
The average enlisted man does not have the education and, usually, not the intelligence to consider anything beyond where the next beer is coming from. To even take the time to consider the legality of orders could be construed as disobeying an order. The enlisted ranks have always carried the burden of incompetent officers and their orders. Especially the orders of an incompetent commander in chief. But then, officers, merely by their stature as officers, are never deemed to be incompetent. So, it is Catch 22 for the enlisted man. He is screwed no matter what he does. After WW2 at the trials at Nuremberg, 'Befel ist Befel' or 'orders are orders' was denied as a defense. Military law is not about justice. It is punishment, pure and simple. If the enlisted man is charged, he is guilty. Otherwise he wouldn't have been charged. No presumed innocence. It is presumed guilt and prove yourself not guilty. There is no fairness to military law at all.
Before anybody jumps on my back about being another elitist or condescending type of officer, because of my first sentence, please be advised that I worked my way up through the ranks. I did it the hard way. I am not a ring-knocker.

Report this comment