Abu Ghraib Guard Guilty Of Prisoner Abuse

[sabra]

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9307306/detail.html

Abu Ghraib Guard Guilty Of Prisoner Abuse

FORT MEADE, Md. -- A military jury today convicted an Army dog handler of abusing Abu Ghraib detainees.

The trial of Sergeant Santos A. Cardona produced evidence of high-level pressure and ground-level confusion regarding interrogations at the prison in Iraq.

Cardona is the 11th soldier convicted of crimes stemming from the abuse of detainees at the prison in late 2003 and early 2004.

[IndianaGreen]

1. I would like to know what is meant by "evidence of high-level pressure"

This was not the doing of a bunch of lower ranked noncoms.

[EFerrari]

5. I wonder if all 11 were told they were taking one for the team.

Our government is scum. And especially the civilians running the Pentagon.

[ThomCat]

2. So when do officers get charged?

I thought officers were responsible for the conduct of their people. I thought responsibility went with authority. When do the people with authority get held responsible? I'm waiting...

[mike_c]

3. that's a thornier question than most realize, I think....

I mean, look-- the person who did the deed, the dog handler in this case, their responsibility is clear because they actually committed the crime. Beyond that, the question of criminal responsibility becomes murkier. If the unit commander said, "Take your dog in there and terrify that prisoner-- let him get bitten a little to make it real, too"-- or if the officer planned the use of dogs for intimidation and that can be demonstrated-- then that's criminal responsibility. The officer is directly culpable for the criminal action, not just responsible for the behavior of their unit. On the other hand, if the officer said "Dammit, your ass is on the line here-- I want results!" and the enlisted personnel went beyond mandated procedures to achieve those results, or if the commanding officer was simply hapless-- that's failure to maintain discipline, lapse of command, whatever, but it's not criminal responsibility. Those officers deserve to have their careers jeopardized, but do they deserve to be charged with crimes? Probably not.

Now I'm not trying to make an argument for or against either position here-- it just dismays me to see people calling for the officer's heads when we don't really know how deep their responsibility goes (and by that I mean the nature of their responsibility, not the fact of it). The punishment they deserve depends on the nature of their responsibility, not upon anyone's sympathy for the enlisted personnel.

[ThomCat]

4. That does not wash.

Even in a civilian environment that guy's manangers and his company would be liable for what he did. He did it on company time with company resources at the company site. The bosses can't disclaim liability in that situation. At the very least they would be guilty of willfull negligence.

In a military environment they have even less of a defense. Officers are specifically responsible for everything soldiers under their command do. The chain of command and the expection of following orders makes officers responsible. At the very least, this could not have happened without their knowledge. Even if it cannot be proven that they ordered this man's actions they failed to order him to cease. They took no action to stop him or repremand him. That in itself is approval in a military environment. Officers are responsible for enforcing proper conduct.

[Stockholm]

6. I wonder how the sacrifice of low level personnel

is affecting the moral of the troops? I have never seen anything written on this.