But some have been reassigned or reprimanded for their conduct at the Iraq prison. The 'investigation' and hearings have not penetrated the upper tier's culpability in these abuses. The report details the lack of a firm command structure at the prisons, with uniformed officers with access to the prisons, exercising their authority over the lower ranking soldiers.
They have a planned deniability that allows them to skirt responsibility that they gave orders to abuse the detainees. There is apparently no paper trail, but there are a number of the lowere ranking soldiers who will testify that they were ordered to abuse the detainees by these rouge intelligence officers who took charge whenever they they wanted.
Who was in charge of these soldiers, and why aren't they facing court-martial along with the lower ranking abusers? As I watch these oficials line up and testify, I am struck by their assurances that these abuses will not happen again, but I wonder why the same officials that allowed these abuses to happen are being allowed to keep their positions?
Who actually believes that there is not a cover-up of the leader's culpability as we castigate the underlings? Classic cover-up, and we are allowing them to prosecute first, and possibly discredit and silence these soldiers who, to the defendant, accuse their superiors of culpability and coersion.
We are being manipulated by the same group of officials who got us in this illegal war in the first place. As we watch their testimony, we should remember that this bunch has never lent themselves or their clique to accountability.
Taguba's report is being challenged by the soldiers statements. They insist that the abuses were policy. Taguba admits that supervision was lax, yet he denies that there was a policy that encouraged or allowed abuses. How does he know what the chain of command was? He says that there was no clear leadership, with officers from different departments coming in and out of the prisons, giving orders. How would he know what was ordered, and when? By the denials of the officers? Why is their word any more reliable than the soldiers?
I agree with a statement I read that,
"Sometimes it is a soldier’s duty to tell the truth, no matter what" "Sometime you have to weigh your duty to your government, and the duty to your fellow soldiers to protect them and keep them safe. I feel the duty to my fellow soldier out weighs any loyalty to my government. I do not see this as treason or betraying my command. This was from an interview conducted with a US Army high level commander who had been back from Iraq less than two weeks.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5623.htmBut I am also mindful of the military environment where freedom of expression and freedom of action is discouraged. I have an example of the mindset and attitude of those in charge of our soldiers, a quote from the NCO creed:
“I will be loyal to those with whom I serve; seniors, peers, and subordinates alike.” A sign of a weak leader is one who tells their soldiers “The boss says we gotta do this...” instead of “Do this!” Sergeants have a responsibility to follow orders, and give orders to your squad or team. That is what leadership is all about. There is a time and a way to ask questions. Be tactful, and approach it in a professional manner. You will be respected for your actions and concern. There is a major difference between providing input on or clarifying orders, and questioning orders. If you have concerns, address it through your chain of command. Don’t complain in front of your subordinates. But after you have discussed your issues, execute the mission to the best of your ability, even if you may not particularly agree with it.
There is room for dissention in the lower ranks, but you can bet that the culture discourages dissension at every level, much less from a grunt. I don't excuse any abuse. I do recognize the cover-up of the actions of the higher ranking officials and I assert that their actions and avoidance of blame and responsibility, and the aiding in their avoidance by their upper ranking peers is as important, and possibly more dangerous than the actions of the underlings.
Me Book