Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (43426)	5/10/2004 10:40:46 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793692

I agree with you that something about the story stinks to high heaven. The fault seems to lie with civilian contractors, about whom very little is known at present. The Motley Fools had an article about this issue within the last few days, specificially re: CACI. Registration required to get the article from their site, not worth it to me, I saw it elsewhere.

To: unclewest who wrote (43426)	5/10/2004 10:40:57 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793692

What relation, if any, do the chains of command of the Army, Military Intelligence, and CIA have to each other? The failure of any reporter to even write down the question, "so who was running this prison? who was giving the orders? where are the officers?" is really stunning. But not surprising.

To: unclewest who wrote (43426)	5/10/2004 11:53:24 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793692

We must first confront the Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels, in these soldiers' chain of command for answers before proceeding with that. Because all of them had a responsibility to supervise and protect those under their command as well as the detainees. Absolutely... if we look at the report, we can see that a good number of senior NCOs and junior officers were interviewed.. The problem is whether giving an unlawful order is a punishable as carrying one out. It should be, but we know it often isn't. I certainly blame the senior NCOs more because they were the ones who carried out the tasking of the officers and saw that the mission was completed. If as has been done in the past, the CIA operators played a role, they will not come forward. The CIA will let the military folks hang out to dry and never say a word. Well, that's where the Intelligence oversight committees would come in, as well as potential FBI probe. But I imagine these guys were pretty smart and didn't leave too many written instructions, and were probably purposefully vague about how they wanted it done, but gave a wink, wink, nudge, nudge.. And I'm sure these MPs, probably excited to be involved in what they thought might be a mission that could save some American lives, snapped to attention and yelled "three bags full, sir".. But overall, you're dead on.. and we're likely only seeing the the initial charges... There will be pressure upon the NCO and Officer "castes" to sacrifice a few of their own.. But that could be more difficult because it opens up some more vulnerabilities even farther up the chain. Hawk

To: unclewest who wrote (43426)	5/10/2004 11:55:31 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793692

We must first confront the Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels, This is what I have been saying. We seem to leap from Private to Brigadier. This "show trial" in Baghdad is going to backfire, IMO. It makes it appear that Centcom is throwing these seven to the wolves.

To: unclewest who wrote (43426)	5/11/2004 1:33:21 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 793692

If as has been done in the past, the CIA operators played a role, they will not come forward. The CIA will let the military folks hang out to dry and never say a word. I don't see how they're not going to get fingered if they did play a role.

To: unclewest who wrote (43426)	5/11/2004 1:50:58 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793692

The entire middle section of the chain of command has been missing ~~ Most probably so many of us feel outrage, and alternately, as LB says, despondent, is we must instinctively know something else is really wrong... Does the Taguba report mention any of the middle chain? Does it indicate if the pictures taken were taken in the first place? Are they really what it appears they are, or are they picture porn, that who ever took them were designed to appear in magazines, etc.... Wonder if the Pentagon knows who took the pictures? Were there several taking pictures? It does seem inconceivable that over 1000 pictures AND videos could have been taken without superior officers in the prison knowing it was being done....

To: unclewest who wrote (43426)	5/11/2004 9:01:05 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793692

UW, Hit the nail right on the head. We are in 100% agreement and interestingly enough i came to exactly the same conclusions and questions as you did from my completely non-military background. But whichever theory turns out to be correct, the buck still stops with Rummy on this one. No way around it and your post just makes it clearer to me that regardless of who is at direct fault, rumsfeld needs to step aside. Why are guys like Lindsay Graham, John McCain and Chuck Hagel so upset with him? Mike

To: unclewest who wrote (43426)	5/11/2004 12:09:26 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793692

<<<I do know with certainty that it goes far beyond six enlisted men and women.>>> I would go so far as to say the enlisted personnel should not be the first to be prosecuted, if at all. I don't know the chain of command well enough, but there has to be an officer that is in charge of 30 or 40 enlisted people. At a minimum, they are the ones that should be charged. Those officers have to be guilty. They either had to know what the enlisted people under them were doing, or they were so negligient in their duties they have to be prosecuted. The same has to be said for the officers in charge of 200 to 300 soldiers. With 200 or 300 soldiers under them, those commanders should know them by name and know a little about them - where they came from - what they are capable of doing - and know what their assignments are and know if they are doing them properly. At a minimum those two levels of command have to be responsible. Officers have privileges and along with it goes resposnbilities. If anybody is responsible, those two levels are. If at a minimum we charge those two levels, we will know if it goes any further than that. You don't have to be a genius to know that those two levels are responsible. Going up the chain after that may get murky.