Abu Ghraib Officer: Probe Was Incomplete
BALTIMORE — The revelation that the Army threw out the conviction of the only officer court-martialed in the Abu Ghraib scandal renewed outrage from human rights advocates who complained that not enough military and civilian leaders were held accountable for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
Those critics found an unlikely ally in the officer himself, Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, whose conviction on a minor charge of disobeying an order was dismissed this week, leaving him with only an administrative reprimand.
Jordan told The Associated Press on Thursday he believes many officers and enlisted soldiers did not face adequate scrutiny in the investigation that led to convictions against 11 soldiers, none with a rank higher than staff sergeant.
He said the probe was “not complete” and that a link between abusive interrogations at Abu Ghraib and in military prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan was not adequately established.
If rough interrogation techniques were taught to the soldiers who abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Jordan said, “the question at that point is, who’s responsible for that? Is it Donald Rumsfeld? (Lt.) Gen. (Ricardo) Sanchez? … I don’t know.”
Barring any startling new information, the decision by Maj. Gen. Richard J. Rowe, commander of the Military District of Washington, to throw out Jordan’s conviction brings an end to the four-year Abu Ghraib investigation. And it means no officers or civilian leaders will be held criminally responsible for the prisoner abuse that embarrassed the U.S. military and inflamed the Muslim world.
Jordan, 51, a reservist from Fredericksburg, Va., was acquitted at his court-martial in August of all charges directly relating to prisoner abuse. He had been accused of failing to supervise the 11 lower-ranking soldiers convicted for their roles in the abuse, which included the photographing of Iraqi prisoners in painful and sexually humiliating positions.
The conviction stemmed from disobeying an order not to talk about the investigation. Jordan acknowledged e-mailing a number of soldiers about the probe, though he claims the order was not made clear to him until after he sent the e-mails.
Maj. Kris Poppe, Jordan’s attorney, said he argued that Jordan “faced these very serious charges for a long period of time, that he had been found not guilty of any offense related to the abuse of detainees, and that he had a stellar record.”
Rowe agreed.
“In light of the nature of the offense that Jordan had been found guilty of committing and the substantial evidence in mitigation at trial and in post-trial matters submitted by defense counsel, Rowe determined that an administrative reprimand was a fair and appropriate disposition of the matter,” Joanna P. Hawkins, a military spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington lawyer who specializes in military law, said the decision was not surprising. If disobeying an order had been the only charge against Jordan, the matter almost certainly would not have gone to court-martial, Fidell said.
Human rights advocates complained that the case did not go higher up the chain of command and said the decision sent a troubling message.
“It could not be more clear that prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted from policies and practices authorized by high-level officials, including military and civilian leaders,” said Hira Shamsi, an attorney with the National Security Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “Although the abuse was systemic and widespread, the accountability for it has been anything but.”
Mila Rosenthal, deputy executive director for research and policy for Amnesty International USA, said: “I think we’re emboldening dictators and despots around the world. We’re saying that it’s OK to allow these kinds of abuses to flourish.”
Jordan doesn’t dispute the deplorable nature of the abuse but maintains he was never aware of it. He said he planned to write a book about his experiences serving at Abu Ghraib and his protracted effort to clear his name.
“It’s been a unique ordeal,” he said. “I still love the Army, you know? I love being a soldier. I love being around soldiers, and there were just some folks in the Army, I feel, that had maybe political motives to go after Steve Jordan as a reservist.”
Jordan, who remains on active duty at Fort Belvoir, Va., joins four other officers who received administrative, or non-criminal, punishment in the scandal.
On the Net:
Military District of Washington: http://www.mdw.army.mil
© 2008 The Associated Press
You want to investigate a high ranking officer in this sordid mess? Then you need look no further than Army Major General (Ret.) Geoffrey D. Miller, a lying, perjuring, prevaricating son of a bitch if there ever was one. Miller is no patriot; he is dog-shit, and the author of the abuses at both Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Any doubts? Go “Google” his name, and see what you come up with.
The military is in the businesss to kill. Its mission must changed at the top to reflect a world that hates America. The Bush administration has made certain that America has become considered to be agressive and unbending in its desire to attack any and all who disagree with the policies of the USA. It needs new people with a global vision to change the image that the US military has in the world. The military simply reflects the wishes of its bosses in the policy part of the governement. We see what the Hawks have brought us, like the Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz team now does the USA need more of that in the world? Sure, terror is real but according to all think tanks this administration’s policy has increased its dangers.
Maybe a new message for a change is necessary? Is that still possible, do Americans want that? Do you want the first woman Hawk president? Never mind the eliphant tears, this is the life of the world we are talking about that is greater sadness. This soldier above understands that and the stupidity that the generals display but simply echoed the evil of Rumsfeld and Bush, as would the policies McCain would continue.
If I remember right, in at least some aspects of international law, one of the conditions of going to courts outside the US is that it would have to be shown that the courts (or legal system) in the country was not able to effectively police itself.
That’s there for the typical totalitarian regime that makes everything it does, no matter how evil, completely legal. For instance, I’d say that most if not all of what the Nazis did in Germany, including mass murder, was ‘legal’ because since the Nazis controlled the government, they just made it ‘legal’. Thus, international law is usually written such that such crimes can be prosecuted outside the original country, but only if it can be shown that the original country failed to investigate and prosecute.
Pretty damn easy to show that in this case.
One thing about the US. Like if most failed or failing democracies, the military is pretty much on its own. I am not at all sure we have ‘civilian control of the military’ in this country anymore. Watch closely, and its very, very rare to see the military ever lose a political fight, ever have to do something it doesn’t want to do, or ever have to stop doing something it wants to do. This isn’t new. I started thinking this way early in the Clinton years, and that was probably me just being slow to realize what had probably gone on for some time before that.
Some cases.
– Clinton and gays in the military. The way its supposed to work would be that with civilian control of the military and with the POTUS as commander in chief, that when Clinton said he wanted to allow gays in the military, it should have just happened. Instead the military refused, pushed back, eventually reached the paper compromise of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, and then pretty much just kept doing what it wanted.
An interesting case, because we can look to an almost identical Presidential order earlier and see the difference. The military was racially segregated up through WWII. After WWII, President Truman ordered its segregation. I’m sure there were complaints, and exactly the same arguments that it would destroy the military. But essentially, when the POTUS said to make it happen, it happened. 40 years later, Bill Clinton tried to say make it happen, and it didn’t happen.
– Indonesia. I remember a case from the Clinton years. Details are a bit hazy, but I think I can get the gist of it. Indonesia was doing something the Clinton admin and the state dept didn’t like. I think it concerned the use of troops and us weapons in East Timor. The Clinton admin and the state dept were going to cut aid and suspend ties to register their displeasure. They sent an Admiral to deliver the message to the Indonesian military. But the Admiral didn’t. Instead he was all buddy-buddy with his pals in the Indonesian military, and instead basically said to ignore what the civilian government was saying. That the Pentagon would keep aid and contacts open. When the State Dept and the White House found out, they turned the Admiral around and sent him back a second time to deliver the message. And I still don’t think he did. The Pentagon largely did keep aid and training contacts open despite Clinton admin decisions.
– Bush and attacking Iran. From where I sit, I cheered this bit of defiance. But, its not supposed to work this way. From what I’ve read, Bush wanted to attack Iran, or at least threaten Iran, and ordered a third carrier group to the Persian gulf. Admiral Fallon said know, and deliberately stated that there would be no attack on Iran during his tenure of command. Nice. I’m glad he did that. But it shouldn’t work that way. If the commander in chief gives an order, the options are supposed to be to either obey it or to resign from the military. Saying No and just not doing it is not supposed to be an option.
This is important, as its supposed to be a cornerstone of our democracy. That we have civilian control of the military and that we aren’t some place like Pakistan where the generals can just take power. This is a very key feature in our system. And it was put in by the founding fathers who viewed any permanent army to be a severe threat to liberty. And, like with lots of things today, I’m sure the founders would be aghast at what they’d see today with a large permanent military that acts like its a force of its own and under no one else’s control.
The loss of our humanity is immense. Where do we look and what do we do to retrieve it?
Gays in the military HAHAHA! Nothing like a ship full of semen! That was told to me by a Marine who wore pink ALOT!
Miller is probably working for blackwater now.
Tobee4 We have to stop the MIC. Its that simple! Wonder twin powers activate! I don’t know how other than compassion….
Quote: “ike kay January 11th, 2008 2:37 pm
The military is in the businesss to kill.”
THE U.S. MILITARY AND many if not all NATO military forces, yes; but not all others.
ike kay then says, “Its mission must changed at the top to reflect a world that hates America”.
You certainly seem to subsequently clarify what you are saying, but the immediately above-quoted text is oxymoronic, for the U.S. military already does reflect what the world hates about “America” (which is a misnomer for name, btw).
Then ike kay says, “The Bush administration has made certain that America has become considered to be agressive and unbending in its desire to attack any and all who disagree with the policies of the USA”.
NO, PRES. CLINTON, f.e., also did; Cheney and Bush are extremely but still only continuing what had already been started.
ike kay says, “Maybe a new message for a change is necessary? Is that still possible, do Americans want that?”.
Not maybe, but definitely; yet it must be a true, authentic change and only one of righteous order.
Whether or not it’s possible for or of Americans; it’s surely possible if enough people sincerely want this change. But whether or not they want it; well, the answer seems pretty obvious, and it’s ‘NOT ENOUGH’ want this, and many enough oppose the mere idea of the U.S. needing to change from its criminal ways. It’s like MOST of U.S. history though; not a new thematic of the U.S. at all. The plots differ, but the theme’s been very constant.
Not that that makes it any more right; just that it being the U.S. way throughout most of its history means it’s nearly like indoctrinated into Americans to be the most rogue criminals in the world, and regardless of the fact most Americans aren’t going to be getting even material profit, will keep losing citizens who become soldiers and then find out that they’ve been totally lied to and only by their own govt and fellow citizens. Etc. Oh, and also while most Americans are kept, stay very ignorant about what they accept to support.
You know; it’s the pretty standard “American Way”, which clearly is a downhill one, and one destroying MUCH and killing MANY millions of innocent people along the way. Quite standard of the U.S.A.
QUOTE: ” COMarc January 11th, 2008 4:24 pm
If I remember right, in at least some aspects of international law, one of the conditions of going to courts outside the US is that it would have to be shown that the courts (or legal system) in the country was not able to effectively police itself.
…”
YES, and it’s the way the ICC, International Criminal Court, works.
COMarc closes his or her first post with, “Pretty damn easy to show that in this case”.
YES, IT’D BE TRIVIALLY easy to prove this of the U.S.; it needing to hold its masters accountable, or else to have this done with the international court, the ICC and/or Hague (not being sure if there’s a difference between them anymore).
Quoting COMarc again:
” COMarc January 11th, 2008 4:38 pm
One thing about the US. Like if most failed or failing democracies, the military is pretty much on its own. I am not at all sure we have ‘civilian control of the military’ in this country anymore. …”
AS LONG AS the U.S. military and military-industrial complex don’t conduct a military coup against the federal govt of the U.S. and replace the then existing one with a military one, then I think it’s safe to assume that there’s certainly civilian control over the U.S. military; just that it’s not The People, ordinary citizens who have this control, for they are really allowed to have none.
The controlling civilians are aka the “hidden” ruling elites, some of whom may be, if not are, former military officials, but not all of the ruling elites are; most probably aren’t.
The U.S. military “works”, operates for the rich profiteers of the military-industrial complex and other ruling elites; and they work in their fiendish form of “harmony”, coordinate, mustn’t step on each others’ agendas too much, etc. It’s a partnership of sorts; a formal one, but only in criminal, black market, etc. terms, for it’s otherwise TOP SECRET and efforts are constantly enough made to try to maintain the secrecy, in order to keep The People DECEIVED.
Military power is not the objective; profits and geostrategic politics, economic and political power, the economic through the instrument of geopolitics, dominion or domination; these are the objectives. Military is just a (powerful and destructive) means, so instrument, for achieving these objectives or agendas.
If we don’t understand the ruling elites part of all of this, then we will miss an awful LOT of the whole “story”.
Like with outlawed gangster organisations, the leaders aren’t the actors, but the the bosses; and they have their grunt, thug, … servants carry out the dirty work. It’s how the military of the U.S. and many NATO countries can and should be understood; don’t, and you’ll miss the worst of the enemies of humanity, the real ruling elites.
They prefer to watch their wars and destruction carried out by their ignorant and wittingly dutiful servants from AFAR and in very comfortable luxury.
We are talking about supreme crimes against humanity and by the supreme criminals of the world. Only the world’s topmost criminals can possibly achieve power status over the world’s most powerful govts and most prominent “legal” bodies, such as the UNSC or UN and ICC and Hague (if there’s a difference between them).
COMarc later says in that same second post, “The Pentagon largely did keep aid and training contacts open despite Clinton admin decisions”.
Sure, and maybe Clinton hadn’t decided based on ruling elites, perhaps only of himself, and then military-industrial complex chieftains said “NO WAY, this is not going to happen!” and made sure that it wouldn’t. It’s not like the other ruling elites would care, in terms of their own objectives, about East Timor, either; therefore, and if that’s true, which it likely is, then the non-MIC ruling elites would let their MIC partners decide over the matters they overrode Clinton’s administration on. Or maybe all of the ruling elites had profit incentive in these cases in which only the Pentagon appears to have overridden Clinton’s stated orders.
It’s also possible that Clinton never was sincere about those matters; it could’ve been just a show put on by him and the State Dept in order to try to deceive Americans AGAIN, as is certainly not uncustomary.
As for COMarc on Bush and Iran:
Firstly, it’s completely nuts and criminal to side with striking Iran, which IS TOTALLY WITHIN ITS LEGAL AND ETHICAL RIGHTS. Even the IAEA has repeatedly said that Iran’s not a threat; and even if it was capable of being a nuclear threat, then this still could not be used to justify striking Iran.
Secondly, what the Bush administration has been doing towards Iran, this could again be just show, or that plenty of “show stuff” is part of the gradual build-up phase in terms of trying to gain support of enough Americans before going through with striking Iran.
Anyway, it’s possible that it’s entirely just “show”, fake, etc., in which case it might be only for trying to DISTRACT Americans and the rest of the world from the ongoing destruction of and massacring of citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, among other countries and populations; or to try to distract Americans away from paying attention to the U.S. military build-up in Eastern Europe and which seems to very strongly have Russia as eventual target; or maybe to distract from all of these and possibly other crimes the U.S. is committing.
Remember, “DIVIDE AND CONQUER”? Well, by creating strong distractions, this can be utilised by the ruling elites attempting to split up the anti-war movement with the aim of weakening it.
And if it is just such “show”, then this may then possibly and also apply to Israel’s part, bs threats towards Iran. Israel is also [instrument] of ruling elites; not the master of them. Israel tries to make it appear that its political leadership constitutes the real leadership of that govt, but is it true? Well, only the top leaders of that govt and ruling elites know the real answer; although it’s still very likely that the answer that ruling elites are again the bosses.
I think of this in terms of the “ART OF DECEPTION”, which includes distraction. There’s more than one tactic that can be employed in order to try to deceive others, and distraction is certainly one of these. Lies are another example.
And one thing we can be very certain about is that the top ruling elites don’t want to attract attention, so distractions can surely be very useful in strategic terms to or for these people or silent but acting, commanding monsters. They know some sharp analysts are focused on these secret agendas and parties, but certainly don’t want many of us to be even aware of these matters, much less wanting us all focused on these and the means employed.
Some of the methods used stand out, are obvious, like these GWoT wars and Clinton’s war on Kosovo or Yugoslavia and, we might say, Eastern Europe, f.e.; while Iraq is more obvious in terms of objectives. But while these means are obvious, the ruling elites arrange propaganda flows en masse so that The People remain ignorant about what’s really going on and which far from being as or equally obvious.
We don’t see the ruling elites parading around trying to muster the support of Americans for wars of aggression, for this’d then make it easier for more Americans to start seeing more pieces of the overall “puzzle” and then start putting more together; getting an increasingly better idea of what’s really going on. And the AIPAC and Zionist so-called Christians of the USA put on plenty of public effort to try to muster up support from Americans. The ruling elites don’t have any need to expose themselves; other actors which are lesser actors are filling in.
NO WAY; the ruling elites will not do this to themselves, except by mistake. They are elite and rogue criminals who know that they instrumentally or strategically need to secretly employ govts and their forces to carry out the dirty work. And some of these forces aren’t military or police, but more like what a real State Dept should be like, and the same with respect to USAID, f.e. Those two U.S. govt entities also work very much or extremely for the top ruling elites, but will of course not “let on” to this dark reality.
In terms of the U.S. govt, and its criminal ally govts, we need to think in terms of STATE GANGSTERISM and that the govts really are little more or different from being instruments of the top elites, who’ve hijacked the democracies they strategically want and need the governed populations to continue to (mis)believe they still have real democracies.
“IGNORANCE IS BLISS”: The ignorance of the masses is bliss to or for the ruling elites.
The ‘ART OF DECEPTION’ shouldn’t be taken lightly. Whoever coined the phrase was definitely based in reality and it applies to many govts, the criminal ones anyway; not only applying to or with individual actors or cons.
They, the ruling elites, fear The People becoming aware and with widespread and stampeding rage, so the ruling elites strategically must try to deceive us by lying and, possibly anyway, creating distractions.
If it wasn’t for them, then the already proven or provable, known, criminals among U.S. military officials or officers in these present wars could have already been on trial years ago for their crimes; but these officials are strategically necessary instruments of the ruling elites, who of course can’t operate without servants who are totally devoid of morality, and so on, and who agree to carry out the dirty work with their combined expertises.
Americans don’t have a true democracy, far from it; but the ruling elites don’t want you to know this, and particularly not for The People to come to realise this and get all stampedingly angry about it. Heh, that’d spoil the elites’ plans.
Mike Corbeil: Man, write a book why don’t ya!
The Fifth Estates “A Few Bad Apples” questions whether it was just a few bad apples in Abu Ghraib or a directive which went higher up the chain of command - deciding that it was most likely the latter:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/badapples/index.html
When no one seems to be held accountable for something like this, it smacks even more of a policy than a violation of policy.
The issue was also discussed in a Townhall moderated by Avi Lewis (Naomi Klein’s husband):
http://www.cbc.ca/bigpicture/human.html
RE: - The military is in the businesss to kill.
What if the military only participates in peacekeeping missions and makes a policy of staying out of combat missions?
RE: - Thus, international law is usually written such that such crimes can be prosecuted outside the original country, but only if it can be shown that the original country failed to investigate and prosecute.
The did investigate (a half-assed investigation is still an investigation), they did prosecute and then they stayed the charges.
RE: - Clinton and gays in the military. The way its supposed to work would be that with civilian control of the military and with the POTUS as commander in chief, that when Clinton said he wanted to allow gays in the military, it should have just happened. Instead the military refused, pushed back, eventually reached the paper compromise of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, and then pretty much just kept doing what it wanted.
Not only are there gays in the Canadian military, but there are married gays (with same-sex spouces) in the military. Doesn’t your Bill or Rights apply to military personnel?
RE: - If the commander in chief gives an order, the options are supposed to be to either obey it or to resign from the military. Saying No and just not doing it is not supposed to be an option.
If it was that easy to get out of the Military, Americans disillusioned with the mission in Iraq would not be trying so hard to stay in Canada.
There has to be a process for when a superior give a soldier an inappropriate order.