Iraqi Prisoner Abuse: Pricks or Policy?

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 17, 2004, 6:39 am

After reading Pherr's Rummy! article I was wondering how many people believe the prisoner abuse in Iraq was the act of just a few renegade MPs acting independaently vs those that believe the MPs were directed by a policy from above and are now being used as scapegoats.

Initially I believed the official story that these were isolated independent acts but as more comes to light such as the administration seeking ways to get around the geneva conventions, taking steps to legaly isolate themselves from the possibility of war crimes charges under federal law and especially the public comments by the general in charge of the prison I'm now more inclined to believe these acts were based on a policy developed in Guantanamo Bay.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » June 17, 2004, 7:00 am

Added to this the memo from Justice indicating torture is OK is under presidential authority. Of course, that could have just been Bush's intellectual curiosity. We all know how he has a nearly endless thirst for knowledge, so I am sure that was it.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 17, 2004, 7:31 am

Every few days the buck is passed higher and higher up the chain as people admit to their involvement... I'd have thought it was pretty clear.

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » June 17, 2004, 7:49 am

I don't care who was involved as long as everyone that was is brought to justice. I really wish they would kick the shit out of everyone of the fuckers for what they did. Every time some dumb fuck does something to make the military look bad they make it harder on me and everyone else in the military because people belive we are all like that.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 17, 2004, 8:49 am

If it was ordered from above, or local cocksuckers only one thing really matters. Under the UCMJ you are supposed to follow any legal order and question it later.

Now IANAL but it was made really clear to everyone I was in basic training with, AIT and at my duty stations that the UCMJ was clear on the issue. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), states that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

Therefore following an unlawful order means that you agree with and have chosen to do so, there is no expectation in the UCMJ that people follow unlawful orders. That means who ordered it was really moot, the soldiers on the ground should NEVER have acted as they did.

This was setup intentionally after the Nuremburg Trials following WW2, and the post My Lai incidents in Vietnam.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 17, 2004, 9:04 am

Kylere, what is the soldier's recourse if they were lead to believe the order were lawful orders? What if they are told national security depends on it?

I watch many flagwavers fall hook line and sinker here on the boards for the patriotic national security line. It isn't hard for me to imagine this argument being used even more effectively on people sworn to protect.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 17, 2004, 9:11 am

Forthe wrote:Kylere, what is the soldier's recourse if they were lead to believe the order were lawful orders? What if they are told national security depends on it?

I watch many flagwavers fall hook line and sinker here on the boards for the patriotic national security line. It isn't hard for me to imagine this argument being used even more effectively on people sworn to protect.

Ignorance really isn't a valid excuse. It really should be their jobs to know what is and isn't lawful for this kind of thing, especially when serving at a detention facility. They shouldn't take all the blame, of course, if they were ordered to do this, but they defenitely bear some of the burden. As for this being policy... I don't know if I'd call it that. Cowboy administration gone wild: Totally Exposed maybe.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » June 17, 2004, 9:51 am

It's a very hard thing for a kid to say no to a superior officer, even if they believe its the right thing to do. Saying no to an illegal order is the morally correct thing to do, but how many of us at 18 would have the balls to say no to somebody who holds our life and liberty in our hands? I'd like to think I did at the time, but fortunately I have never been placed in that situation.

That said, I don't think it was a direct order to torture that the guards were following. Instead, I think it was an atmosphere created by the higher ups where the "ends justified the means" in interrogation that resulted in these abuses. Who is responsible for creating that atmosphere and should it result in punishment? I personally think so but I could see how folks could disagree.

Animale

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 17, 2004, 10:32 am

Honestly Forthe, it is hard for a young private, Specialist, Corporal, even newbie Sergeants to say no and refuse to follow an illegal order, because the entire structure of the military is to follow orders without questioning them ( This has to be, because otherwise no sane human beings would charge a fortified position) however the Army specifically, in my personal and direct experience (I cannot speak for Marines, Air Force, Navy on the same level of confidence, but these people were Army even if part time troopies) RAMS it down the throat of every new soldier in Basic and AIT (Job Skill/Further Military Skills training) repeatedly that they have not only the ability to, but that they are REQUIRED to disobey an illegal order. If the order is questionable, they are to carry it out, then question it immediately after.

Let's say one managed to slip through multiple required courses, still no excuse, because soldiers get basic manuals to study in addition to classes, where they could have read the materia, not to mention the fact that SOMEONE should have spoke out. By the way the Army teaches it, and everyone of these individuals was taught this the only thing these soldiers should have done was follow the questionable orders ONCE, then run it up the chain of command. If their chain of command was backing this action, then it was their individual responsibility to contact the Inspector General, or the local JAG rep, or their Chaplain. It is the right of every soldier to do so, and all it takes its the slightest bit of moral or ethical courage.

You know that is really why I slam them so hard as being reservists, they do not have the morale or esprit de corp to actually be in sensitive assignments or direct combat, they are really only effective in support (water, fuel, ammo, communications) not in front line combat or such (excepting as throwaway troops and do not think that does not happen)

No ifs ands or buts though, they all knew it was wrong, and they all failed to do what soldiers are required to do in that situation or it would have been a single incident.

I am ashamed that they were Americans, I would never have or allowed a fellow soldier to act in the manner that they did, I would have taken any steps required to stop it from occuring regardless of whatever order was given. It was their RESPONSIBILITY of each soldier to handle POW's or unknowns in the same manner, they military even uses a term "5 S's" for search, silence, segregate, safeguard, speed. Notice the Safeguard part? This is what is called by the Army a Common Task, common to all fields, all assignments and they are annually tested on Common Tasks.

These individuals all failed as soldiers and as human beings and in doing so brought great discredit upon themselves, their unit, the US Army, and the United States.