| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Soldiers to be tried by TRUE peers |
| 2005-01-09 |
| I dunno whether to say "whew," "hmph" or "thank you" ... FORT HOOD, Texas - The 10 men picked as jurors in the first Abu Ghraib prison abuse trial have all served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The four officers and six enlisted soldiers will hear opening statements Monday in the court-martial of Spc. Charles Graner Jr., the reputed ringleader of the scandal. All are also stationed at Fort Hood. They will determine whether Graner, 36, of Uniontown, Pa., was illegally beating inmates or following orders to soften up the detainees for interrogation. "This case involves terrorists and insurgents and the war on terrorism," defense attorney Guy Womack said. "We could not pick a truer jury of peers than to have a combat veteran tried by combat veterans." |
| Posted by:Edward Yee |
| #10 Anonymoose: Being a retired NCO, I partly agree with what you say. I retired from the Air Force, so it's a little different, but in our chain of command, if anybody screws up, EVERYBODY in the chain gets called on the carpet. As an E-7, I would speak very unkindly to my E-4s, E-5s and E-6s, who would in turn speak very unkindly to the people who screwed up. I would also expect a butt-chewing from my Officer in Charge, and another one from my Commander. Been there, done that, on more than one occasion. Luckily for me, I had very few people screw up, and the screw-ups were known quantities that we were just looking to get rid of anyway. Still, it's EVERY supervisor's responsibility that such things don't happen. When they do, the problem is a one-time deal, or the breakdown is usually in more than one level of the chain. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-01-09 11:09:41 PM |
| #9 trailing wife: It depends. If officers are ordering privates around, the system is broken and NCOs *assume* that the privates will screw up, and with some justification. But if privates are under the management of E-4s, E-5s, E-6s, and an E-7 and/or above, there should be FOUR sets of eyes keeping each private in line and doing his job and not screwing up. And, the FIRST time the private screws up, the 4, 5, and 6 are standing in front of the 7 and/or above *having* to explain *why* the private screwed up. This is a VERY effective system to keep privates from screwing up more than a minimal number of times. But in a unit so dysfunctional that there has been "a breakdown in the NCO chain of command", it is just a miracle if its privates don't screw up royally and repeatedly--and it is NOT their fault--or so NCOs generally believe. A good analogy would be of a jury of good parents with well disciplined children, trying bad small children for a crime, although those children had been abandoned by *their* parents, and left to fend for themselves. What parents would blame those kids for misbehaving? |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-01-09 7:03:35 PM |
| #8 But I thought the soldiers, including the slut, had repeatedly snuck out against orders to play. Must Sr. NCOs guard against deliberate, against-orders behaviour, too? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-01-09 3:12:29 PM |
| #7 The *real* defense should *not* be that they were "just following orders", but that there was "a breakdown in the NCO chain of command", leaving these junior personnel unsupervised. Senior NCOs get very agitated and unforgiving at the thought of soldiers left to their own devices, and would see such soldiers as victims, rather than violators. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-01-09 9:17:52 AM |
| #6 First time I had seen that he was from Uniontown. It will be interesting to see if the prosecution can find a way to point out that this is the hometown of George C. Marshall. That could seal it. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-01-09 9:04:33 AM |
| #5 Don, I fully agree with your comments. The folks tarnished by the juvenille behavior was Graner's peers. They are the ones who have to explain to their relatives and friends why what happened at Abu Ghraib doesn't reflect upon them or others in service. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-01-09 8:46:51 AM |
| #4 Graner himself had to request the enlisted on the Court Martial. Having sat on such boards, its not really a good choice. He's going to end up with Regulars in that enlisted group who are more likely to take unkindly to the rogue behavior he and his cohorts exhibited that tarnished the reputation of all members of the Army, than the commissioned officers. The enlisted members are even less likely to buy into the "somebody told me to do it" if the defense doesn't name specific individuals and get an effective examination of said individuals on the witness stand. While troops know when the officers are BS'ing them, they also know when their fellow soldiers are trying to pull a fast one too. |
| Posted by: Don 2005-01-09 7:24:46 AM |
| #3 They will determine whether Graner, 36, of Uniontown, Pa., was illegally beating inmates or following orders to soften up the detainees for interrogation. I always felt this was an issue of what sort of orders were given, how specific they were, and how well they were followed. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-01-09 5:48:50 AM |
| #2 ... I didn't say I wanted Graner off the hook ... |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-01-09 1:43:16 AM |
| #1 ...Let me explain how this will work: The officers are likely to all be Major and higher, and every one of the enlisted guys will very senior ones. Graner will wish like hell he'd taken a plea. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2005-01-09 1:32:58 AM |