Abu Ghraib Head: We Were Scapegoated

[sabra]

Source: CBS News

Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who ran Iraq prisons in 2003, including the notorious Abu Ghraib prison was insistent that all orders on interrogation practices came from the top down during the Bush administration on CBS News’ The Early Show this morning.

“These soldiers didn't design these techniques on their own…we were following orders,” Karpinski told Harry Smith. “We were bringing this to our chain of command and they were saying whatever the military intelligence tells you to do out there you are authorized to do."

...

Karpinski argued that there was a “clear” line between the techniques condoned by top level administration officials and the practices condemned in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

“The line is clear,” she said. “It went from Washington, D.C. From the very top of the administration with the legal opinions through Bagram to Guantanamo Bay and then to Iraq via the commander from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And the contractors who were hired to do those things.”

Karpiniski was insistent that she and the soldiers prosecuted were “scapegoated” by superiors in the administration.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4961519.shtml

[Laelth]

1. Wow. Rats definitely jumping ship now.

This should be interesting.

:popcorn:

:dem:

-Laelth

[global1]

2. I Don't Think She Is A Rat Jumping Ship Here - She Always Stuck By This .........

since the very beginning - but the MSM didn't give her the time of day back then.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. Who knows what the recriminations might have been if people made statements

like this while the previous administration was in power. Maybe they are feeling that it's safe to do so now.

[Doremus]

8. She's said the same thing all along. nt

[Alcibiades]

17. She did say that

and even wrote a book on the subject. She's told the truth.

Watch the interview below. Interesting questions--where did they get the dog leash? Issued by Cheney, that's where.

http://www.scvtv.com/html/sg111305-nm.html

[arikara]

28. Some did, the so-called "media" never reported it

The sound of one hand clapping.

[movonne]

30. She did ... you were not listening..

[BeFree]

4. Yeah it is

Maybe Obama, by stating that the little guys would be free from prosecution allowed them the freedom to speak up?

[spartan61]

5. She spoke very truthfully in her book, ONE WOMAN'S ARMY.

[Renew Deal]

21. She's no rat. She was screwed.

[truebrit71]

6. Scapegoats or not "following orders" STILL doesn't cut it...

...soldiers can refuse to follow an illegal order...I agree they were scapegoated, but don't for a second tell me they didn't KNOW that what they were doing was immoral and criminal..

[GoldenOldie]

10. Gen Karpinski (Res), did speak out.....

and she was rewarded by being slandered as a traitor and demoted to Colonel. Gen Karpinski was in charge of the operation of the prisons but was not in charge of the interrogations. The officer in charge of interrogations at this time was Barbara Fast, an Intelligence Officer, who was quickly spirited out of IraQ and promoted to Commanding General of the US Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca, where interrogation training is one of their major tasks.

[Johnyawl]

14. Are you a veteran? I ask because this statement...

...soldiers can refuse to follow an illegal order... is a thin sheet of ice to stand on for the individual soldier. Yes, the UCMJ clearly states that you can refuse an illegal order, but it doesn't exactly give you a list. Some things, like don't march people into gas chambers, are of course obvious. Other things, like don't shoot unarmed civilians, can sometimes blur in the heat of combat when it's necessary to make a split second, life or death decision. The culture that was created by the previous administration in the wake of 9-11 blurred a lot of lines for the individual soldier. Everything they were told to do was vetted at the highest level, including the AG of the US, with oversight provided by the US Congress. Couple that with the "combat" culture all military takes on in war, and you have a situation were the individual disappears into the unit; and all that one does is for the unit, and the goals of the unit (mission success and survival). It's pretty close to impossible for the individual soldier to refuse an order under those circumstances (especially at Abu Ghraib which was in the combat zone), and to do so would be to invite ruin, and jail.


It's easy enough to sit at a keyboard in the safety of one's home well away from danger and make absolutist statements about what the individual soldier should, or should not have known, and done.

[Gregorian]

16. That's easy for you to say! I've got a mouse pointed directly at my head right now!

:)

I haven't felt this good in years. We're possibly looking at justice after all of this time of anguish.

[Snazzy]

41. damn good call yesterday, right you are

:toast:

[truebrit71]

26. "in the heat of combat" maybe, just maybe, stretches the boundaries of murdering a civilian..however

..Abu Ghraib was not a combat situation. These were people that were locked up. No "split second decision" required..

Sitting down at a keyboard has nothing to do with it, these soldiers unlocked prison-cell doors to fetch people for torture....they knew they were engaging in illegal acts and because they were "under orders" doesn't make it any less criminal..

[Johnyawl]

31. I understand Abu Graib wasn't a combat "situation"...

...but it was in a combat zone. And that makes a lot of difference in the military culture.

But more to the point:

...they knew they were engaging in illegal acts... No, they did not know they were engaging in illegal acts. You've missed the point I was trying (clumsily, possibly) to make. Given the "combat culture" they were in, and the orders coming from the highest level, even if an individual soldier felt uncomfortable with what was going on, it was not, at the ground level, so clear cut that they would have risked disobeying orders. And the reason it was not so clear cut was that the entire chain of command had accepted those orders.

Once the entire chain of command accepts an order, the individual soldier really can't disobey it. This was recognized at Nuremberg, which is why only the leaders, military and civilian, were tried and condemned. In 2001 when Milošević was charged in The Hague for his role in war crimes during the wars in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, they did not charge all the individual Serbian soldiers who actually pulled the trigger.


.

[truebrit71]

32. No I'm sorry but that's wrong. Combat zone or not , soldiers, under orders, tortured people...

...both the order AND the execution of the order are illegal.

This argument also falls under the false excuse given by many rank and file germans after WWII that claimed that they feared for their own lives if they disobeyed their orders. Not only was this false, it has been repeatedly proven to have been demonstrably false and in fact the complete opposite was shown to be the case. Instead of retribution or demotion, they were simply re-assigned to other divisions or tasks, and zero punitive action was taken.

I don't care if General Wesley Clark was my CO and he told me to waterboard someone, or apply electrodes to someone, or beat someone, that order is not going to be carried out by me. What's wrong is wrong, combat culture or not.

But yes, they were scapegoated...that is without question.

[stillcool]

34. And they were trained by our government...

in the procedures they were to use during interrogations. Just like they are trained to kill people. You can kill all of them, but it will not make the practice stop. Hopefully they will all commit suicide and your conscience will be cleared.

[Zhade]

39. Fucking BULLSHIT. TORTURE HAS BEEN ILLEGAL FOR DECADES.

It was not a secret that torture was illegal.

[9119495]

22. Agreed. This changes nothing. In fact, you could argue it makes

it worse. People who know the right course of action and choose not to take it are possibly worse than the ones who don't know the right course of action and thus do not take it.

[Soylent Brice]

7. everything seems to be unravelling a little faster than usual.

more so this week at that.

next few weeks should prove to be just as interesting.

[Gregorian]

13. Not even 12 hours from when I mentioned Janis Karpinski. :)

She was present when the bigwig said he wanted to "Gitmoize" Abu Ghraib.

And let the dominoes fall.

[Soylent Brice]

25. *hands in the air*

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

[Snazzy]

42. words to the effect

we'll be hearing from Karpinski soon.

Rockin'.

:bounce:

[ardvark]

9. i heard her on the radio a few years back

and she was literally crying

i'm sorry, once you get a General's star on your shoulder, you lose your right to cry in public (at least about something that happens to YOU, if your body is still intact)

[DURHAM D]

15. Her despair was over the degradation of the military and her country - not herself.

I feel sorry for you. In fact, I am crying over your loss of perspective.

[ardvark]

18. wrong

a general MIGHT cry over deaths in their own unit, but even that's questionable

want to cry in public? fine

just dont be a general - it's not in the job description. 'the softer side' is handled by the department of state, not military leadership. An ideal world wouldnt need generals in the first place

lots of other jobs

[Coventina]

11. Sorry, but no sympathy from me.

Yes, I want Bushco prosecuted for war crimes, but these guys should have raised holy hell the second they were given orders to torture.

[DURHAM D]

12. She tried to - but you apparently missed the story at the time. n/t

[EFerrari]

19. The problem is, that's not what she was saying before Abu Ghraib broke:

snip

Baghdad Central and other prisons are undergoing extensive renovation, including the addition of ceiling fans, toilets and showers. Whereas detainees used to cry at the very thought of Abu Ghraib, for many the "living conditions now are better in prison than at home," Karpinski says. "At one point we were concerned they wouldn't want to leave."

About 9,000 of the men, women and juveniles in custody throughout Iraq are "civilian prisoners" charged with theft and other common crimes. In all but the most serious cases, they are released within a few weeks or months.

Other prisoners, said to number a few thousand Iraqis and foreigners, are "security detainees" suspected of crimes against the coalition. Within 72 hours, they are informed of the charges against them. They also are entitled to a review by a coalition military committee, with followup reviews every six months.

"It's really a different situation from Guantanamo," says Karpinski, referring to the U.S. military base on Cuba where hundreds of terrorist suspects have been held for more than two years without charge.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/14/Worldandnation/Her_job__Lock_up_Iraq.shtml

[DURHAM D]

20. Selectively and totally off point. Cheers. n/t

[EFerrari]

23. I posted her own words before the scandal broke.

She says Abu Ghraib is more comfortable than some Iraqi homes.

Is there something different that she was saying at the time that I'm missing? Credit should be given where it's due.

[Zhade]

40. Uh... you didn't prove your assertion here.

Meanwhile, the other poster actually used Karpinski's own words.

[stillcool]

35. I seem to remember that ..

these prisoners that were tortured were held in different facilities that were under the control of Military Intelligence, and under which she had no command.

[EFerrari]

36. If you look at the article, she mentions all three groups.

I'm not trying to trash this woman but in fairness, she seemed fine with this arrangement until those pictures came out as far as I can tell. Is that wrong?

That doesn't mean she wasn't also scapegoated, imo.

[stillcool]

37. yeah..I don't think she was fine with it...

she just wasn't heard until the story broke, and the onus was put on her and those in her charge. But I could certainly be wrong. It's so hard for me to figure out how my perceptions have been formed. I don't pay nearly enough attention to the messenger or the message. It all just gets absorbed.

[MasonJar]

24. She was a scapegoat; it was always obvious to me. Just to remember

Cheney, Bush and Rumsfield calling the Lyndie Englishes a few bad apples makes me sick to my stomach. What a bunch of cowardly evil doers, blaming others for their very organized and well thought out torture policy.

[ConcernedCanuk]

27. "Lyndie Englishes " were encouraged by the BFEE & PNAC gangs - they couldn't have survived otherwise

.
.
.

I met a few of our "airborne" military before it was disbanded in disgrace over a decade ago.

I live between North Bay, where we had USA nukes in silos decades ago, and one of our training bases, Petawawa - have been for almost 30 years so I meet and see alot of military and their activities.

The, yes - OUR military encouraged the mean and depraved to be trained in all sorts of nasty habits.

No need to elaborate - just look at what the USA is condoning today -

yeah - our guys did it too

(sigh)

[Snazzy]

43. yup

edit--removing n/t to state:

Prosecute everybody, but up the chain not down. BFEE is like the mob, prosecute it like the mob. Karpinski has something to say, use it.

[SKKY]

29. I don't excuse her from any responsibility for what happened, but...

...I think she's probably right here.

[lucretia54]

33. YES, it's true that enough hasn't been said about what went on in Bagram and...

what may still be going on in Bagram, especially now that "we" have stepped up operations there.

I highly recommend the documentary TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE. It is difficult to watch, but it gives the history of torture as perpetrated by the U.S.

[Zhade]

38. "we were following orders" didn't work for the Nazis, asshole.

YOU KNEW TORTURE WAS ILLEGAL AND HAD BEEN FOR DECADES, YOU FUCKING WASTE OF HUMANITY.

[Solly Mack]

44. Yes, the orders came from the very top down

Yes, soldiers at Abu Ghraib were prosecuted to frame the narrative of the "few bad apples". Said framing helped to protect those at the top.

Yes, low-ranking soldiers were charged and sent to prison in a bid to quash outrage over the torture going on in America's detention centers. In hopes no one looked any closer.

Yes, they were held accountable as a way for America to point to them and claim, "We did something about it". Again, in hopes no one would look closer.

Because if the pictures had not surfaced nothing would have been done. So all action taken was done to protect the sanctioned and systemic torture program of the U.S. government. To prevent an actual and honest investigation that would have to include prosecution of those at the very top on down.

That said....

Soldiers who participated in torture are still the blame for their own individual actions.