Yes, Americans, especially middle-aged male American officers, have no fear: the Lynndie England verdict (guilty) and sentence (3 years) means that the Uniform Code of Military Justice continues to work as intended, relentlessly prosecuting enlisted men (and women, we’re proud to say) for crimes while absolving officers of responsibility for ordering or condoning those crimes!
The Abu Ghraib prosecutions have been a stunning triumph for the UCMJ, as officers have been completely avoided in the prosecution. Only the vile free press has been able to make the association that Donald Rumsfeld requested legal clearance for toture which was provided by our current Attorney General Gonzalez, and the fact that soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison were torturing prisoners. The UCMJ, by ignoring the entire issue of higher-ups and the chain of command, has been able to whitewash this affair as it has so many others.
Let the word go forth … if you’re a single mother of low rank, the armed services are willing and able to take you on!!!
If you’ve got officer’s stripes, nothin’ to worry about, folks!
Other than that, I share your outrage. It’s not a good thing to know that if something goes horribly wrong, or if I am given an order and it goes bad, or even if I decline an illegal order, that the person in charge will go free while I face the music.
This is just another in a series of exemptions for officers in charge, the most outrageous in my opinion being the sordid story of Major General Fiscus, who was allowed to retire as a Colonel after NJP was administered by the brass. The reason why it is outrageous is because at least one of the women that he was involved with was shown the door, but he retains the rank of Colonel for quite clearly breaking the law, the same law he was sworn to uphold and what’s worse enforce as the commander of the Air Force JAG Corps.
Hell, we can go all the way back to My Lai, when Captain Medina literally got away with ordering a war crime, with the blame falling solely on the shoulders of the most junior officer, Lt. William Calley (of course, he deserved it, but he was definitely the scapegoat).
Yeah, I’m none too happy about this. A little accountability would be nice.
We’re taking apples and oranges here. By all accounts except the military whitewash’s, Lynndie England got in trouble for obeying orders from higher ranking personnel. The general in question knowingly disobeyed a direct order, probably after getting several private warnings, etc. He put his tuchis in the chopper and got it worked over. Very different case from England’s.
Do ya honestly think England and Grainer and company were acting independently? That they didn’t have orders from higher-ups?
So, England got convicted. She should. I have a question, though. At any time during the trial, did someone ask her if she was ordered to do what she was convicted of doing? If so, and the answer was yes, then her commanding officer should face charges.
When he goes to trial, they should ask him if he was ordered to order England to torture prisoners. If the answer is yes, then his commanding officer should be charged and face trial.
During that trial, they should ask him if he was ordered to do what he did…repeat until you reach Rumsfeld, Bush or whomever.
Why wasn’t/isn’t this being done? (yeah, I know, rhetorical question, one law for them, another for us, etc.).
It would seem that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is neither Uniform nor Justice.
As a former member of the officer corps (OK, it was Coast Guard Academy, but technically officers) it sickens me. I was always taught to know that what was done under my command was my responsibility. What happened?
Did those who taught you that make a distinction between responsibility of command and responsibility for a particular criminal act? Yes, it’s the CO’s responsibility to know what’s going on in his command; however, he is not personally responsible for, say, a member of his command running downtown and killing someone. An extreme example, I know, but I hope you get the point.
In the first place, she didn’t come up with it on her own. Her married boyfriend had a part in that. Read the news about it.
Now if he were fool enough to prefer charges against her for disobeying his unlawful order, then the Article 32 investigation would come to a screeching halt as soon as the answer to “What order did you disobey?” brought to light that she disobeyed an unlawful order.
This is not directed to Snakescatlady, but a general comment.
Sheesh. So many people seem to want someone with no evidence against them punished and at the same time someone with evidence against them punished. Anyone care to explain that?
The art to doing these things is in not leaving material evidence. That trite phrase ‘deniability’.
The circumstantial evidence, which is the best we can expect, is unequivocal: the torture memos, the identical techniques at Abu-G, guantanamo, Afghanistan, the culture & the cover-ups.
Yes, Monty, that’s an extreme example. But, if someone under my command had run downtown and commited murder, yeah, I’d feel responsible. I never rose high enough to have the folks under me separated by more than one level. I would have felt it my responsibility for not seeing that “person about to commit criminal act” was having problems. I’d have established a policy, that made sure anybody under my command could come to me and say, “Mr. Brownie55, sir, I need to talk person to person. So and so is about to screw up.” And it would be my responsibility if I let So and so screw up. But, I took my role as an officer very seriously.