You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq-Jordan
Sergeant Who Talked About Abu Ghraib Prison Disciplined
2004-05-25
A U.S. Army sergeant who gave an insider's view of Abu Ghraib prison to the media has lost his security clearance and has been disciplined by the military for speaking out, he told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
Guess who?
Sgt. Samuel Provance said that although soldiers he served with in Iraq were treating him as a pariah, he would not change a thing if given a second chance.
Yup, it's Sammy Provance, of secret computer network fame
"My soldiers who were at Abu Ghraib are so scared now they're not even talking to me anymore - I'm like a villain, but would I do it again? Of course I would, because I stand behind what I said," Provance said in a telephone interview from Heidelberg, Germany, where his military intelligence unit is based. "I knew what was being reported was not true." Provance, 30, is with the 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion, a unit of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, which has been implicated in the abuse at Abu Ghraib. The scandal broke after photographs were made public of U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners, sparking worldwide outrage. Unlike early reports suggesting the abuses were failings by individual soldiers, Provance told the AP and other media outlets that interrogators at the prison viewed sleep deprivation, stripping inmates naked and threatening them with dogs as normal ways of dealing with "the enemy." Provance, who was in charge of a computer network at the prison for five months ending in February, said he had not seen abuse himself but was told about it by interrogators.
Which makes him a "expert".
Provance, of Williamsburg, Va., was notified by the Army that he was an official witness in the case after the scandal broke, and on May 14, his company commander ordered him not to talk with anyone about what he had seen, he said. Instead, he decided he would give interviews to set the record straight.
Wrong answer
"I wanted to make sure I got out what I could in what time I had before I was silenced at a higher level," he said. "I'm standing behind my First Amendment right to free speech, and it's a matter of does the constitution have more weight than a company level commander."
Our boy Sammy thinks he's a constitutional scholar, or the guy in the next bunk is.
On Friday, Provance was called before his battalion commander, who yanked his clearance to work at top secret sites and administratively "flagged" him, meaning he cannot receive honors, awards or seek promotion until the status is removed.
You can add seek re-enlistment to that list. Plus there's that little matter of failure to follow a direct order.
A spokesman for V Corps, which oversees Provance's unit, said he knew of no disciplinary action, but that the sergeant had been ordered not to talk to the media. "The last word I got is that he was given an order not to talk with anyone about the case while the investigation was ongoing, and if any type of action was levied against him, it would be a result of him not obeying that order," said Lt. Col. Kevin Gainer. "It could compromise the whole investigation by putting out information and maybe influencing others."
Same as when a civilian judge put's a gag order on people during a trial, it don't come close to violating the First Amendment. Sgt. Provance, meet the UCMJ.
Provance said he has been in the Army for five years and would like to stay, but that it might not be possible.
Ya think?
"I like the Army, the Army is a great organization, it's just there are individuals within it that screw it up," he said.
Look in the mirror
"I would like to believe I have a future in the army, but I don't know what's going to come out of this."
You're gonna come out of it, the Army, that is.
Posted by:Steve

#10  I don't understand why he is not being prosecuted along with the other clowns. There is no whistleblower protection in the service and there is certainly is no 1st Amendment protection. He might be well served if he read and understood the UCMJ before he delved into Constitional scholarship.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-05-25 10:57:49 PM  

#9  "I knew what was being reported was not true."

I guess Provance is talking about his own statements here?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-05-25 7:16:23 PM  

#8  I’m not that old! It used to be a long time ago that NCOs were allowed to (nay encouraged) to perform corporal punishment. This was done in private and usually away from Officers and other soldiers, a small secluded room was perfect. After a troop had received his wall-to-wall counseling they normally found the path to righteousness. A troops rarely had to have a second wall-to-wall counseling session and the attitude was corrected. This type of counseling did not involve paperwork, so there was no blemish on the young troops record. This counseling is still employed by the South Korean Armed forces and they rarely have a discipline problem. Alas now they will have to courts martial him and give him a BCD or DD.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)   2004-05-25 6:19:00 PM  

#7  Too bad they did away with corporal punishment by SNCOs, this guy needs a wall-to-wall counseling session in the worst way!

Sarge - You mean they use to cut out tongues of people like this?
I do remember hearing about branding "D" on a deserter's cheek.
Posted by: BigEd   2004-05-25 5:55:52 PM  

#6  on May 14, his company commander ordered him not to talk with anyone about what he had seen, he said.

The proper formulation for disobeying a direct order is "Sir, I respectfully decline to comply." and give a valid reason.

Not that it'd help much.
Posted by: mojo   2004-05-25 5:55:40 PM  

#5  He can leave the military, and fulfull his dream. Senior Military Advisor to the John Kerry Campaign
Posted by: BigEd   2004-05-25 5:51:22 PM  

#4  There's nothing particularly unique about this - private sector employees who talk to the press about company matters are also subject to termination. I personally know of two people who were fired for talking to the media. Private sector employees can talk about their lives outside of work, but information about their work lives belongs to the company, not to them.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-05-25 5:45:54 PM  

#3  "I would like to believe I have a future in the army." Do you also believe in the Easter bunny? Apparently you were given and order that then promptly disobeyed that order and you’re a Sgt? Somewhere there is an ANOC instructor banging his head against a wall. Too bad they did away with corporal punishment by SNCOs, this guy needs a wall-to-wall counseling session in the worst way!
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)   2004-05-25 5:19:39 PM  

#2  Methinks this Bozo was looking for some limelight and thought he could invoke the First Ammendment to get out of any repercussions. I guess he doesn't watch "Law and Order". BTW "limelight" comes from the Civil War when Union soldiers put concave mirrors behind burning lime thus focusing the light and creating a primitive spotlight. Anyone caught in the light was said to be "in the limelight".
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2004-05-25 5:05:47 PM  

#1  That is pretty easy UCMF stuff to prosecute, I would imagine. If you are a NCO, there is no excuse for this sort of ignorance.
Posted by: anymouse   2004-05-25 4:58:20 PM  

00:00