drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,

Chewing Up The Children

Smith is one of a series of low-ranking soldiers who have been tried for mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghraib. He could face up to nine years imprisonment.

Last week, Col. Thomas Pappas, testifying under immunity, acknowledged that he did not properly supervise dog handlers at Abu Ghraib.

[ cf M&C News ( emphasis mine ) ]
Gosh why did they give the Col. a grant of immunity to testify against a Sgt? Hum????

Which part of 'take care of your troops and your troops will take care of you' does this Poke High and Hard?

Sergeant Smith was found guilty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice of two counts of mistreatment involving three detainees, conspiring to make a contest of causing detainees to soil themselves, dereliction of duty and an indecent act, The A.P. reported.
[ cf AmericanPravda ]
What does one call it when one has beene found guilty under the UCMJ of Prisoner Abuse in a Time of War?


Or were those who were riling against the Evils of the Geneva Convention FORGETTING that when the United States Ratified our involvement with it, we implemented our part of that in american LAW - and folks might want to take the time to learn WHERE the UCMJ hangs in american criminal law.

Testifying for the defense, Colonel Pappas, who had been granted immunity from prosecution, said, "In hindsight, clearly we probably needed to establish some definitive rules and put out some clear guidance to everybody concerned."

But under cross-examination by prosecutors, Colonel Pappas said a photograph of Sergeant Smith's dog straining at its leash inches from the face of a prisoner showed conduct that was not consistent with any policy or guidance, The A.P. reported.

Military dogs were brought to Iraq in the fall of 2003 on the recommendation of Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the former commander at the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who helped set up the interrogation operation at Abu Ghraib. He said he thought the dogs would be useful in maintaining order. An inquiry by three Army generals later found that Colonel Pappas believed, incorrectly, that the dogs could be used in interrogations without the approval of Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then the top American commander in Iraq.

General Miller decided in January to invoke his right not to give testimony that might incriminate him and so would not answer questions in court-martial proceedings against the two dog handlers, his lawyer said. Invoking that right, the rough equivalent of invoking the Fifth Amendment in a civilian court, does not constitute an admission of guilt or wrongdoing.

{ cf op cit ]
Oh dear, what does this mean - that General Miller Opted to Cop the Fifth Ammendment?

Hasn't he been following the Moussaoui Trial, and that IF ONLY Moussaoui had dropped his commitment to the Fifth All things would have been better. Hence because Moussaoui held to the fifth ammendment, that Moussaoui deserves to DIE.

So one does have to wonder, is Gen. Miller working on a negotiated settlement with the Military so that he too can roll over as state's evidence. Will that be to testify against those above him? Or against those below him???

  • What if we had to be a nation of laws

    First off a h/t to a dear fiend, for Crackdown on herd-share farms over certification which is such a classical attack of the FeeMarketeers meets…

  • why do folks forget the clinton years?

    Essentially I agree with When The Magic Starts in that there is much that will need to be undone from the failure of the deregulation game that was…

  • Oil does not grow on trees.

    Let us start from the premise that fossil fuels are not like renewable products such as fruits, vegetables and other forms of…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.