A Great American Hero

[Jon Miller]

Well, in other countries it would be a matter of course, as they don't keep people in so long.

I Would say never let him out.

JM

[Patroklos]

Calley was the officer on the ground, but SOP was for higher officers to be in the air overhead. There was almost certainly people in the command chain, literally above Song Mai (My Lai), aware of what was going on below and who either okayed it or did nothing to stop it. Then the military engaged in a cover-up.

Which were coordinating several assaults that day over hundreds of square miles. They would have seen nothing themselves and been aware of only what people like Calley passed on to them. The real world is not a video game, they don't get to toggle through player views on demand.

All orders entered into evidence were aggressive in language, but are in no way easily construed as to authorize what happened.

There was indeed a coverup, but a lot of what is called "coverup" is simply disinterested investigation which is more a dereliction of duty. These people should also be held accountable.

notice no one enraged that Calley, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds, was released from prison.

I don't see you enraged over the current Scottish display of "compasion" either, and his crime was much worse. In any case, I would have had Calley executed.

[Arrian]

1.) There are no criminally culpable people abover her, its been looked at exhaustively and these imaginary people you speak of don't exist. Sometimes you have to accept that people do horrible things on their own initiative, there is not always some grand conspiracy all the way to the top.

[Patroklos]

I am glad to see I was correct that you really have nothing to base your postion other than a WISH (god, how screwed up as that) that it goes "all the way to the top." We can specualte on your motives for this, but it certainly has no basis on evidence of any form.

I expect more from you Arrian, you are in Che territory now. If you have something that is prompting your venture into make believe, post it. You notice she talks off all sorts of higher rankning people but never names a single one besides her manipulative boyfriend? There is literally nothing to support her accustions, including the testimony of her co defendants. I suggest you read up on Graner, his manipulation of several of these people is sad in the extreme but unfortunetly not unprecidented in the slightest.

[Arrian]

It's not a wish - hell no. I wish Bush, Cheney and their cronies had an ounce of integrity between them, but sadly they do not. Here's the thing, though: it seems to me you have a pretty powerful wish to believe that they are innocent. I do, too (believe it or not, that is the case: I would much rather believe that "a few bad apples" are to blame. I have come to believe otherwise).

As for where I get this from, I've read Glenn Greenwald's blog. If I have the time, I'll post some links (and, of course, you will end up having to follow links within Glenn's posts). He's been all over this stuff.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

How's this, Patroklos?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=true

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Here's the thing, though: it seems to me you have a pretty powerful wish to believe that they are innocent. I do, too (believe it or not, that is the case: I would much rather believe that "a few bad apples" are to blame. I have come to believe otherwise).

Actually no, I have a very strong wish for every single person responsible for this and who consequently brought shame to some degree to every person in the military service to be harshly punished. At the same time, however, I am not going entertain the fantasies of conspiracy theorists and half assed excuses by the accused of the involvment of people who have no motivation to act as they say (think about it) and for which there is zero evidence to support it just because I am pissed off about it. The same goes for Calley's situation.

I am a junior officer, I don't like knowing that my peers such as Calley was then can do such things but I know it is possible and it does happen. There is no reason to invent grand plots where none exist.

As for where I get this from, I've read Glenn Greenwald's blog. If I have the time, I'll post some links (and, of course, you will end up having to follow links within Glenn's posts). He's been all over this stuff.

I just read the Wiki entries for every person tried (that has an article) and there is nothing that even remotely suggests that their dubious claims of mysterious intelligence officers and unnammed "senior officers" should be given even an ounce of credit.

[Arrian]

What can I say, then? It's clear to me that the investigation(s) were set up such that there was no hope of uncovering such things. I find the allegations that shadowy intel guys were a part of it to be highly believeable (to the point where I laughed at your credulity). It is clear to me that Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and lots of others thoroughly approve of torture, and I therefore believe that they were just fine with what went on a Abu Ghraib - the problem is that it blew up into a publicity problem for them. To those guys, THAT was the problem, not the abuse. I believe the abuse was the direct consequence of their monkeying around with what was and was not acceptable interrogation practice. "Enhanced interrogation" as they like to call it.

Maybe in 50 years or so enough crap will be declassified that we'll know for sure. Yay.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

How's this, Patroklos?

Arrian, given that I actually value your opinion I actually read that entire thing. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING, mentioned in that entire article provides anything that amounts to more than hearsay by the convicted accused. The General even admits this. It is all well and good that he suspected involvement by other people, it is a natural tendancy for an investigater to feel there are more involved in the plot, but there is zero evidence as is clearly stated in your posted article.

I want you to think about this for a second. There are apparently super secret career intelligence operatives interrogating prisoners out of a serious expectation of getting intelligence. Apparently they know their methods are wrong, but they feel they must proceed anyways. So given the seriousness of their task, allegedly knowing how illegal it was to be doing it, genuinely believing it to be a matter of the highest national security, people who live in a world where everything is considered top secret, and aware the implecations of what they are doing and the consequneces if it got out, they decide to enlist the help of a group of bum **** hicks from a random reservist MP unit on normal rotation that don't even have clearance (top secret, I don't even have this) to read my toilet paper budget numbers let alone be privy to any intelligence data whatsoever? WHAT? Oh yeah, and on top of that we will also let them take their own personal pictures of all of this and keep them and take them home with them? WHAT?

Honestly Arrian, does the above paragraph pass your BS sniffer?

Now contrast this with what actually happened, that being a very strong willed and abusive guy who gets off on screwing with people and has already been manipulating several people in his unit (read Graner's profile) enlists them to fullfill his ****ed up masichistic fantasies because he finds himself suddenly with the power and position to do so, and then records it so he can relive his ****ed up fantasy over and over again.

Which one makes sense.

[Patroklos]

What can I say, then? It's clear to me that the investigation(s) were set up such that there was no hope of uncovering such things. I find the allegations that shadowy intel guys were a part of it to be highly believeable (to the point where I laughed at your credulity).

Why? Why do you find this highly believable? Because there is not a single name given? Because there is not a single scrap of proof to show their involvement? Because even the defendants themselves do not have stories even remotely consistant? Why is this believable?

It is clear to me that Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and lots of others thoroughly approve of torture, and I therefore believe that they were just fine with what went on a Abu Ghraib - the problem is that it blew up into a publicity problem for them.

Thats fine. Unfortunetly it is more than obvious that they were talking about Gitmo and other absolutely controlled places. Why the hell would uncleared, untrained, unreliable, undiciplined, and generally totally screwed up Specialist Graner be tapped for this?

What I am getting at Arrian is that you are drawing a line between two things that why superficially similar really have no true relation to each other.

To those guys, THAT was the problem, not the abuse. I believe the abuse was the direct consequence of their monkeying around with what was and was not acceptable interrogation practice. "Enhanced interrogation" as they like to call it.

Why can't they both be the problem? They obviously both cause very large headaches for all involved.

[BlackCat]

Just out of curiosity - if the order came from a higher place and the soldiers denied to follow it because it would be an illegal order, what would happen to those soldiers ?

Edit: should notice that danish soldiers are obliged to deny following illegal orders.

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC he served less than 2 years of his sentence, so it's not like he served major time.

[Kidlicious]

Could there be some culpability higher up? Sure. Should we assume so without evidence because it lets us stick it to the man? No.

You know the reason they call them cover ups is because the evidence is COVERED UP!

[Lorizael]

You know the reason they call them cover ups is because the evidence is COVERED UP!

This, I believe, is begging the question.

[Patroklos]

Just out of curiosity - if the order came from a higher place and the soldiers denied to follow it because it would be an illegal order, what would happen to those soldiers ?

Edit: should notice that danish soldiers are obliged to deny following illegal orders.

Depending on how clear the case is they would be either vindicated outright by the inquiry or they would go to court marshal where they would then be vindicated. Court marshals need not be scary things, they are an excellent way to get your action on the public record with the proper scrutiny, and any commanding officer who even suspected his orders in the wrong would be stupid to allow one to proceed as opposed to simply admitting it.

US service men are also obliged to deny illegal orders. They are, however, liable to disciplinary action if they are wrong in their refusal, so it pays to know your stuff.