PDA

View Full Version : I'm a General, but its not my fault...


NousDefionsDoc
06-15-2004, 16:23
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3806713.stm

Iraq abuse ordered from the top

The US commander at the centre of the Iraqi prisoner scandal says she was told to treat detainees like dogs.

Brig Gen Janis Karpinski told the BBC she was being made a "convenient scapegoat" for abuse ordered by others.

Top US commander for Iraq, Gen Ricardo Sanchez, should be asked what he knew about the abuse, she told BBC Radio 4's On The Ropes programme.

One soldier has been sentenced and six others are awaiting courts martial for abuses committed at Abu Ghraib jail.

Gen Karpinski said more damaging information was likely to emerge at those trials.

Gen Karpinski was in charge of the military police unit that ran Abu Ghraib and other prisons when the abuses were committed. She has been suspended but not charged.

More details awaited

Photographs showing naked Iraqi detainees being humiliated and maltreated first started to surface in April, sparking shock and anger across the world.

Gen Karpinski said military intelligence took over part of the Abu Ghraib jail to "Gitmoize" their interrogations - make them more like what was happening in the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which is nicknamed "Gitmo".


He said they are like dogs and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you've lost control of them
General Karpinski

In pictures: Prisoner abuse
She said current Iraqi prisons chief Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller - who was in charge at Guantanamo Bay - visited her in Baghdad and said: "At Guantanamo Bay we learned that the prisoners have to earn every single thing that they have."

"He said they are like dogs and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you've lost control of them."

Gen Karpinski repeated that she knew nothing of the humiliation and torture of Iraq prisoners that was going on inside Abu Ghraib - she was made a scapegoat.

Top commander Ricardo Sanchez must be asked serious questions about what he knew about the abuse and when, she said.

Gen Sanchez said in May that he took a personal responsibility for the abuse by soldiers at Abu Ghraib jail. But he denied authorising interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation, stress positions or sensory deprivation.

Last week, he asked to be excused from any role in reviewing the results of an investigation into the abuses. He requested that a higher-ranking general take on that task, Pentagon officials said.

A US general who has investigated the abuse has blamed the soldiers - and found no evidence "of a policy or a direct order given to these soldiers to conduct what they did".

But Gen Karpinski believes the soldiers had not taken the pictures of their own accord.

"I know that the MP [military police] unit that these soldiers belonged to hadn't been in Abu Ghraib long enough to be so confident that one night or early morning they were going to take detainees out of their cells, pile them up and photograph themselves in various positions with these detainees."

"How it happened or why those photographs came to the Criminal Investigation Division's attention in January I think will probably come out very clearly at each individual's court martial."

Roguish Lawyer
06-15-2004, 16:30
So, what do you think?

DanUCSB
06-15-2004, 16:33
All I can say is, whatever happened to "the buck stops here"?

The Reaper
06-15-2004, 17:10
I really can't fathom the libs who want Rumsfeld and Sanchez fired, but want to make excuses for the "commander" of the unit.

Where I went to school, the commander was responsible for everything the unit did or failed to do.

Obviously, this only extends up so far, but last time I checked, it did not skip any levels in between.

TR

DanUCSB
06-15-2004, 17:12
Here's what I don't get: BG Karpinski is not being charged, and obviously knows that she's not ever getting another promotion again, so why not just man up and do what's right? I never understood the urge to burn down the house around you when you get busted.

NousDefionsDoc
06-15-2004, 17:39
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
So, what do you think?

You want to know what I think? I think some people take

I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

more seriously than others.

brownapple
06-15-2004, 17:52
Originally posted by DanUCSB
Here's what I don't get: BG Karpinski is not being charged, and obviously knows that she's not ever getting another promotion again, so why not just man up and do what's right? I never understood the urge to burn down the house around you when you get busted.

The word I hear (and I do not know if this is accurate) is that she is under article 32 investigation. I expect she will be charged.

brownapple
06-15-2004, 17:53
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
You want to know what I think? I think some people take

I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

more seriously than others.

Damn right. And the ones that don't take it seriously? Skin them...like poodles...

Guy
06-15-2004, 18:10
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
So, what do you think?

They should have banned cameras! :munchin

P36
06-15-2004, 23:27
I find her running her mouth to every media outlet to be embarrassing and unworthy of an Army Officer. If she was doing the right thing and after the investigation it was determined that she was being unfairly blamed, maybe I'd change my attitude. BTW, stating that some higher up general told her to handle the prisoners in an illegal matter flies no higher than her troops using it for an excuse. She is not conducting herself well. Even the Daily Show made fun of her "It wasn't me" excuses.

Radar Rider
06-16-2004, 01:32
Originally posted by P36
I find her running her mouth to every media outlet to be embarrassing and unworthy of an Army Officer. If she was doing the right thing and after the investigation it was determined that she was being unfairly blamed, maybe I'd change my attitude. BTW, stating that some higher up general told her to handle the prisoners in an illegal matter flies no higher than her troops using it for an excuse. She is not conducting herself well. Even the Daily Show made fun of her "It wasn't me" excuses. I agree, and I find that every media appearance that she makes further damages her credibility, and tarnishes the reputation of the U.S. Army. I find it distressing and dissapointing that she tries to blame everyone else for her a) ignorance of her own command or b) her complicity in this whole sordid affair.

Solid
06-16-2004, 01:50
Reinstitute hanging. This is tantamount to treason, considering the shifting public opinion to the war and the public's doubt about the effectiveness of our military in dealing with the Insurgents.

If there was any possibility, I bet she'd try to blame everything on Rummy or the CinC.

Solid

The Reaper
06-16-2004, 07:00
Have any of the males accused appeared on TV making excuses?

TR

Guy
06-16-2004, 07:53
Every morning when I was on duty. I would "snap" to the position of attention. Greet her with "Good Morning General," when she was entering the old-mans office.:(

Her display or lack thereof, intestinal fortitude to take responsibility is sickening!

AngelsSix
06-16-2004, 10:15
Posted by Guy:

Her display or lack thereof, intestinal fortitude to take responsibility is sickening!

My thoughts exactly. No one wants to be the bad guy, but soemtimes you just need to be. Especially when you are in charge.

NousDefionsDoc
06-16-2004, 16:23
Originally posted by AngelsSix
Posted by Guy:



My thoughts exactly. No one wants to be the bad guy, but soemtimes you just need to be. Especially when you are in charge.

I live for it.

brownapple
06-16-2004, 17:53
Originally posted by AngelsSix
No one wants to be the bad guy, but soemtimes you just need to be. Especially when you are in charge.


You don't know some of the people I know.

Being the bad guy? I can do that. And enjoy it. :D

Maple Flag
06-16-2004, 18:45
Originally posted by The Reaper
I really can't fathom the libs who want Rumsfeld and Sanchez fired, but want to make excuses for the "commander" of the unit.

Where I went to school, the commander was responsible for everything the unit did or failed to do.

Obviously, this only extends up so far, but last time I checked, it did not skip any levels in between.

TR

I agree. Responsibility does not, and should not, skip levels. As to where the buck stops, how high (or low) in the organization is appropriate? The soldiers' immediate NCO superiors, the immediate officers in charge, her, the POTUS?

If she is talking outside of her organization, that is a seperate leadership problem that needs correcting in my view, and should not impact the question of how high or low the responsibility for prisoner abuse goes, regardless of any assertions and finger pointing from her, or of others that may get uncomfortable under the spotlight as this develops.

The Reaper
06-16-2004, 19:16
Originally posted by Maple Flag
I agree. Responsibility does not, and should not, skip levels. As to where the buck stops, how high (or low) in the organization is appropriate? The soldiers' immediate NCO superiors, the immediate officers in charge, her, the POTUS?

If she is talking outside of her organization, that is a seperate leadership problem that needs correcting in my view, and should not impact the question of how high or low the responsibility for prisoner abuse goes, regardless of any assertions and finger pointing from her, or of others that may get uncomfortable under the spotlight as this develops.

Let me put it this way.

She was an independent MP Brigade commander.

Her next higher would normally be the Corps Commander, who probably has 20 or more Brigade sized units working for him.

Unless it can be proven that he knew, or should have known that this was taking place under her command, the buck should stop with her, after including the Battalion and Company Commanders, and the Platoon leader(s) as well.

Control of the soldiers of their units were their direct responsibility.

Just my .02.

TR

Maple Flag
06-16-2004, 22:33
I can buy into that from a leadership perspective. Not being well grounded in military law, I'm not going to contribute much to this, but I will be interested to watch how this all plays out. Regardless of the outcomes, it is a highly unfortunate affair for all.

P36
06-16-2004, 23:10
I just finished reading the AR and the FM on EPW and Internment operations. Nowhere in the Responsibilites section does it mention MI. MPs run the camp and the MP commander is responsible for how those people are treated. She was the person in charge. If she was told to mistreat them, she should have refused and reported it. An illegal order is an illegal order, is it not? Her conduct is unbecoming. I knew someone would point out her gender, which is why she embarrasses me further.

Edited for wacko spelling.

The Reaper
06-16-2004, 23:40
Originally posted by P36
An illegal order is an illegal order, is it not? Her conduct is unbecoming.

Taught in all Basic Training Courses. You do not obey illegal orders.

Originally posted by P36
I knew someone would point out her gender, which is why she embarrasses me further.

Not your fault, or your embarrassment. Only struck me when her whining started getting support from the media and the libs.

TR

AngelsSix
06-17-2004, 10:13
Posted by Greenhat:

You don't know some of the people I know.

No, but I do know some people who have told me some stories :wink, wink: about that......oh, and I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night..........

:D

P36
06-17-2004, 11:34
Originally posted by The Reaper
Taught in all Basic Training Courses. You do not obey illegal orders.



Not your fault, or your embarrassment. Only struck me when her whining started getting support from the media and the libs.

TR

Yes sir, I know, but it is another occasion that people will use to say, "See, women shouldn't be in the military" ala Hackworth and his crew.

She's a poor example of a leader, but some folks will say it's because she is a woman, that she is a poor leader. That's one of the reasons she infuriates me. There aren't that many female generals around out there, so I'd like to see one in a better light, you know? Ah well.

The Reaper
06-17-2004, 11:45
Originally posted by P36
Yes sir, I know, but it is another occasion that people will use to say, "See, women shouldn't be in the military" ala Hackworth and his crew.

She's a poor example of a leader, but some folks will say it's because she is a woman, that she is a poor leader. That's one of the reasons she infuriates me. There aren't that many female generals around out there, so I'd like to see one in a better light, you know? Ah well.

Dollar to a doughnut the last female GO most remember is LTG Kennedy.

TR

P36
06-17-2004, 12:08
I wonder if anyone knows Barbara Fast?

The Reaper
06-17-2004, 12:12
Not off the top of my head.

TR

CommoGeek
06-17-2004, 13:40
I'm sure there are others out there, but this lady has my respect:

http://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/hopper.html

http://www.hopper.navy.mil/Page.htm

CommoGeek
06-17-2004, 13:43
Originally posted by P36
I wonder if anyone knows Barbara Fast?

Had to google her. Why in the hell HAVEN'T we heard of her?

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Barbara_Fast

What was she doing while all of this was occuring?

P36
06-17-2004, 23:34
MG Fast actually has a pretty decent rep in the community.
The problem we have with this whole scandal is that we are only hearing bits and pieces via the media. What the MPs did was wrong. IF someone on the MI side told them to treat the prisoners that way, then they were wrong as well. It will come out in the investigation, which is not complete.

MI does not control prisoners, MPS do. MPs are responsible to control and safeguard their prisoners IAW the Law of War.
Think of an EPW camp as a library, the internees as books and the MPs as the librarian. MI, well, we just check books out now and then to read them a bit and return them, preferably in the same condition as when we checked 'em out. MI is responsible to treat EPWs and CIs IAW the Law of War, just as the MPs are.

The Abu Ghraib deal looks plainly to be a failure in training (they were a reserve unit), leadership and oversight and EXPERIENCE.

How many of you SF guys have met truly experienced/mature MI folks? Are they the majority or are most of them young, wet behind the ears SPC/SGTs?

IF some interrogator gave bad advice or encouragement, or indeed participated, then he/she was wrong. But the MPS, if they were trained, (which, being reservists, appears they were not) would have known that they should and could have told the MI folks to pound sand.

I think our Army is too small, causing us to rely upon people/units who are unprepared and unfit for the job. That is what I believe it comes down to.

Has anyone heard of the Stanford study on how the worst comes out of people who are put into guard/prisoner roles? Very interesting and it shows that there must be TIGHT control and plenty of oversight on prison ops.


Edited to add that I don't mean to denigrate our reserve or NG people, they are out there sacrificing and dying alongside the AD. These days, many of the units likely have gained much experience, but in general, the reserves were not trained well. They couldn't be. One weekend a month doesn't cut it. We all know how much time it takes to prepare a simple class, let alone an FTX. How could a reserve unit be trained to even close to the same standard?

Ok, that said, the leadership, from that general on down to the Squad leader, should have grabbed their FMS/ARs/SOPs (if they had SOPS) and done at least what I did in 15 minutes. I was listening to the hullabaloo about "MI told us to do this and they were in charge," and since that did not jive with what I know about how we operate, I decided to read up on what the MPs responsibility is in regard to EPW operations. A one hour training session at Joe's Bar and Grill would have given the soldiers involved enough knowledge to know that they were breaking some very major laws. Perhaps they did all that and more and those involved were simply the bad apples that exists within every unit. I hope so. But the general sure doesn't set a stellar example, does she?

Solid
06-18-2004, 08:46
Stanford study was performed by Zimbardo. Some information derived from that study which could possibly be applied here is that to deal with prisoners properly, especially those undergoing interregation, the US would need both a highly experienced 'interrogee warden' group and a supervising group.

It's an interesting study, the video footage from the observation cameras is detailed and, above all, quite scary. These people were randomly selected and 'normal', and had no clue what they were getting into. The study had to be cut short because the prisoner/guard relationship was getting so violent: both sides were planning to kill a member of the other side.


Solid

Razor
06-18-2004, 10:30
Originally posted by Solid
The study had to be cut short because the prisoner/guard relationship was getting so violent: both sides were planning to kill a member of the other side.

Yeah, I can fully understand that. ;)

Solid
06-18-2004, 10:52
If anyone's interested, another study which is somewhat related to this incident (also very famous) was performed by Milgram. It involved civilians being tricked into thinking that they were administering increasingly lethal levels of electric shocks to a person everytime they answered the question incorrectly, all at the behest of someone in a white lab coat. The conclusion was essentially that people, regardless of race (at the time it was commonly believed that the Germans were mindless drones following orders) follow orders if given by someone in a position of percieved power.

Other than that, the most relevant psychological study would probably be into the Hawthorne effect, but I think NDD already mentioned it.

All of these studies would probably be of interest.

Solid

P36
06-19-2004, 23:08
June 15, 2004

U.S. missed need for prison personnel in Iraq war plans

By Dave Moniz and Peter Eisler
USA Today


The world’s most powerful military, which had crushed Saddam Hussein’s regular army in a matter of weeks, found itself in a unexpected predicament last year when U.S. forces began jailing thousands of suspected guerrilla fighters and criminals in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib Prison.
The Army desperately needed information from prisoners about a growing insurgency that was killing more American troops than had died throughout the war itself. But commanders had far too few trained interrogators and guards to question and control the burgeoning population at Abu Ghraib.

In a scramble for personnel, commanders wound up staffing Abu Ghraib with Reserve military police who’d never had the Army’s four-week course for prison guards. And because the military intelligence unit sent to Abu Ghraib was short of interrogators, commanders patched together substitutes from other military units and from private contractors.

As investigators try to piece together what led to prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003, the shortage of trained personnel appears to be one of the keys to what went wrong.

While exactly what led to the abuse remains murky, it is clear that the Pentagon was not ready for the demand for interrogators or prison guards in Iraq. Planners apparently did not foresee the need to control large numbers of hostile Iraqis, and the Army had for years diminished its emphasis on training guards and interrogators. That meant that at Abu Ghraib and other detention sites, commanders had to rely on a patchwork of personnel, including many with little or none of the special training that military experts say is crucial to controlling prisoners.

The Army has military police trained to manage prisons. But it doesn’t have many. The Army has even tried to get out of the prison-guarding business, according to former Army Secretary Tom White, who says Army officials have explored turning over management of U.S. military prisons to private contractors.

Of an active-duty force of roughly 500,000 soldiers, only about 1,000 are certified for prison guard duty, and the vast majority of them are posted in stateside military prisons. These are MPs — “31 Echoes” in military jargon — who have spent four weeks at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., working in a mock prison and learning the basics: how to keep track of inmates, establish rapport with prisoners and quell a riot.

Col. George Millan, director of training and leader development at the U.S. Military Police School, says guarding prisoners is a specialized skill that requires careful training. Prospective prison guards are observed by non-commissioned officers who grade them on how they treat “prisoners” under their care and instruct them on the proper way to deal with violent inmates.

But the military unit that was put in charge of running prisons in Iraq, the 800th Military Police Brigade, was an Army Reserve outfit that was not trained to run prisons. The vast majority of its troops, including its commander, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, were part-time soldiers.

No ordinary prison

Corrections experts say that had untrained MPs been sent to the relatively benign environment of the stateside Army prisons, there probably would have been less chance for abuse. But Abu Ghraib, a chaotic mix of hard-core insurgents, criminals and Iraqis swept up in mass arrests, was no ordinary prison.

It’s still unclear why U.S. commanders in Iraq did not assign corrections-trained MPs or more experienced soldiers to Abu Ghraib. In his report of abuse at the prison, Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba noted that two Army MP battalions experienced in handling prisoners of war - though not trained as prison guards - were stationed in the Middle East but were assigned to duties in Kuwait and Afghanistan.

“I’m not sure I could give a good answer,” says Pentagon chief spokesman Lawrence DiRita, who insists that the abuses were unrelated to the 800th MP Brigade being a Reserve unit. “It was a total breakdown of discipline,” DiRita says. “It could have happened to an active or a Reserve unit.”

Jim Marquart, a professor of criminal justice at Sam Houston State University in Texas who once worked briefly as a prison guard in an attempt to understand the job, says the problems are no surprise.

“You have people who have not been trained to be correctional officers, and that is the key to this whole thing. They lack the sense of understanding of what an inmate is,” Marquart says. “Prison is a weird and bizarre environment and it can warp and bend your mind.”

Few interrogators

Meanwhile, the interrogators in charge of questioning prisoners at Abu Ghraib were a patchwork group. The 205th Military Intelligence Brigade’s shortage of trained interrogators meant that U.S. commanders had to scramble to move interrogators in from other outfits to the 205th. They sent teams that had been questioning suspected al-Qaida fighters at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba. They sent people from disparate Reserve units in Connecticut, Texas and North Carolina. And they spent millions of dollars to hire interrogators from private contracting firms.

That’s in part because the Army’s need for interrogators has been diminishing since the Korean War. Much of the interrogation in Vietnam was done by the South Vietnamese, for example, and there were relatively few interrogations in the short 1991 war with Iraq. When the war in Iraq began in March 2003, the Army had fewer than 2,000 interrogators, many of them already deployed in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo.

“The sheer number of interrogation units is way down, personnel is way down, and the people they do have, except in Reserve units, really haven’t been concentrating on that part of the job,” says Maj. Thomas Barbeau, who heads an interrogation company in the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion.

In the late 1980s, the Pentagon reasoned that the future of intelligence gathering lay mainly in electronic collection, such as intercepts of communications. As the military entered its post-Cold War drawdown in the 1990s, interrogation units were among the first to go.

But the war on terror and the insurgency in Iraq have changed that view, as al-Qaida fighters and Iraqi insurgents have come to be seen as crucial sources of intelligence.

“The inventory (of interrogators) doesn’t meet the requirements in the field,” says Tanja Linton, spokeswoman for the Army Intelligence Center and School at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., where Army interrogators are trained.

That is changing. The Pentagon has asked the school to boost its output dramatically. It expects to graduate 539 interrogators this year, up from 237 in 2003.

Contributing: USA Today reporter Kevin McCoy

NousDefionsDoc
06-20-2004, 08:29
The Pentagon has asked the school to boost its output dramatically. It expects to graduate 539 interrogators this year, up from 237 in 2003.

Roger. We're on it. Typical.

VMI_Marine
06-21-2004, 17:09
Originally posted by P36
The world’s most powerful military, which had crushed Saddam Hussein’s regular army in a matter of weeks, found itself in a unexpected predicament last year when U.S. forces began jailing thousands of suspected guerrilla fighters and criminals in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib Prison.


Mark Bowden wrote an excellent article for Atlantic Monthly about how the poor post-war planning enabled the insurgency to gain momentum. Here is yet another example.

SnafuRacer
05-06-2005, 03:04
Didn't see this here: Karpinksi demoted to Col. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-05-demotion_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)

In a statement released Thursday, the Army said Karpinski was guilty of dereliction of duty and shoplifting. Investigators did not substantiate allegations that she made a false statement to an investigating team and failed to obey a lawful order

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski and Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast were found not guilty of dereliction of duty, the inspector general found.

Jack Moroney (RIP)
05-06-2005, 06:45
Didn't see this here: Karpinksi demoted to Col. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-05-demotion_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)

I have a problem with this. Why is this shitbird allowed to remain in the military. She has violated her position as an officer and should be thrown out on her butt. Promotions are made because the individual has demonstrated that he/she has to potential to perform at that grade. So are we now saying that this law breaker has the potential to serve at a lesser grade because all those at that grade have also demonstrated the potential to break the law. What about those that are about to be promoted to the grade to which this clown has been demoted, are we saying all LTC(P)s have demonstated that they have the potenital to perform at the same level as Karpinski. I just don't get it. You are either an officer that has won the full trust and confidence for those for whom and with whom you serve or you are not. There is no two ways about this.


Jack Moroney-have pissed off my superiors on numerous occassions but have never broken my oath or the law (at least not this country's :D )

Roguish Lawyer
05-06-2005, 11:46
Jack Moroney-have pissed off my superiors on numerous occassions but have never broken my oath or the law (at least not this country's :D )

One of these days someone should find all of these "Moroneyisms" and copy them into a single thread. Great stuff! LMAO

EX-Gold Falcon
05-06-2005, 14:42
What will probable not be found when the investigation is finished is whether the actions of the prison guards were tactfully acknowledged; and thus quietly condoned.

See no evil, Hear no evil, Say no evil, gave them carte blanc.

Does anyone else notice how this situation eerily resembles certain corporate America scandals?

T.