home

Abu Ghraib Officer May Be Charged

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 11:23:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Almost two years ago, a panel of Army Generals recommended that Lt. Col. Steven Jordan and his immediate superior, Col. Thomas Pappas, be punished for failing to prevent abuse at Abu Ghraib. Pappas was fined and reprimanded for dereliction of duty, but faced no criminal charges.

Jordan headed the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib from its inception in September 2003 to December 2003. Jordan's lawyer announced today that the Army plans to charge Jordan with dereliction of duty, lying to investigators and conduct unbecoming an officer. Jordan would be the highest ranking officer to face criminal charges arising out of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.

If the buck stops with Jordan, it's fair to ask whether he's a scapegoat for those who assigned him to a job that was outside the scope of his training.

By his own account, Colonel Jordan was ill-equipped to oversee the interrogations task force at Abu Ghraib. He was a civil affairs officer by training, and his assignment had been to set up a database at the interrogations center for tracking information gleaned from the prisoners.

"I've no training on the military side of what constitutes interrogations operations," Colonel Jordan told Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, a senior Army investigator.

A panel headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger concluded that Jordan "ceded core responsibilities to subordinates" and "failed to provide appropriate training and supervision to personnel." Having not been trained for the job himself, it's not surprising that he provide no training in interrogation techniques to others, or that he delegated responsibilities to those who may have had experience with military interrogation.

Nonetheless, there may be evidence that Jordan ignored obvious abuse at Abu Ghraib.

In June 2004, the commander of the military police company whose members have been charged with abusing prisoners testified at a hearing in Iraq that someone he referred to as Jordan was present one night in November 2003 among a group of people in a room at the prison with the bloodied body of an Iraqi prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, who had died during interrogation.

It was not clear from the testimony of the commander, Capt. Donald Reese, whether he was referring to Colonel Jordan. Captain Reese testified that the group of people were discussing what to do. While the group was gathered around the body, he testified, the man he identified as Jordan ordered a lower-ranking officer to "get some ice out of the chow hall" to store the body.

The body of the Iraqi detainee, pictured wrapped in plastic and packed in ice, became one of the most infamous and enduring images to emerge during the prisoner abuse scandal.
bq.

< Hunter Thompson Is Smiling Today: Lisl Auman is Free | No Verdict in Moussaoui Today >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Abu Ghraib Officer May Be Charged | 4 comments (4 topical)
    Re: Abu Ghraib Officer May Be Charged (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    It's about time. There is a key distinction here. While he may not have had any training in interrogation operations, and while that might make a good defense to any charge of improper delegation as to interrogation operations, that would not make much of a difference as to any of the charges discussed in the article. He's not charged with improperly delegating interrogations -rather, he's charged with improper supervision. In so many words, exercising the power and prerogative of command so badly the law was violated. First and foremost, every soldier (and especially officer) is trained in the Geneva Conventions*. By the time one makes it to Lieutenant Colonel, one would have had extensive training and instruction on them and should have internalized them to the extent they, and their enforcement, would be second nature. Thus, the "failure to provide appropriate training and supervision" charge would allege basically that he (a) did not correct problems (i.e., supervision)in adhering to the Geneva Conventions, (b) did not direct proper review and reinforcement of the Geneva Conventions (i.e., sit 'em down with the Conventions and go over them line by line and make the subordinate officers do it with their troops, so they get the point- this would fall under the heading of "remedial training" or just plain "training"). Second, the "improper delegation" charge sounds like they're alleging he just stood back and did not correct subordinates or stop them from engaging in mistreatment. If he became aware of mistreatment going on, telling a subordinate to correct the problem isn't enough - he would have to follow up and make sure it was done. Just saying "I delegated it to X" isn't enough. Third, the "conduct unbecoming" charge is a broad catch-all for just about anything a superior does not like, or believes would adversely affect the operation or reputation of the unit. It seems to me that by bringing these charges, the Army is opening an opportunity for his defense to bring in all the superiors and their orders and policies. Each of the charges (with the possible exception of conduct unbecoming) would implicate what the defendant knew and understood to be the policies and procedures in place and those ordered by higher officers. So, while they may be scapegoating him (N.B. I have little sympathy - he's a colonel, he should have known better than to let this crap go on and I don't care who said "it's all right".), they are also setting him into a position where he might be able to roll uphill against the more senior officers. -- * by "Geneva Conventions", I mean not only the Conventions, but also include the UCMJ, the Law of War, and all the other laws and regulations pertinent to the operation and command of Abu Ghraib.

    Re: Abu Ghraib Officer May Be Charged (none / 0) (#2)
    by Punchy on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 01:33:12 PM EST
    Jordan's lawyer announced today that the Army plans to charge Jordan with dereliction of duty, lying to investigators and conduct unbecoming an officer. Charge? Yes. Convict?? Ha! Will. Not. Ever. Happen. With. Rumsfeld. In charge. Period.

    Re: Abu Ghraib Officer May Be Charged (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 01:39:02 PM EST
    Adding to my earlier comment: By way of example, and this is small but nonetheless telling, there were no copies of the Geneva Conventions posted inside Abu Ghraib and none available to the soldiers running the place. (I believe I read this in the Taguba report.) That failure, in and of itself, is a violation of the Conventions. The Conventions require that copies of the Conventions be posted, in the languages of the prisoners and of the guards, and that they be readily available to the prisoners and guards. I remember reading that the guard force "couldn't get" copies of the Conventions. A worthless excuse - they had internet, the Conventions are available on-line from the ICRC.

    Re: Abu Ghraib Officer May Be Charged (none / 0) (#4)
    by Aaron on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 04:49:33 PM EST
    Amazing someone finally figured out that officers are responsible for the actions of the enlisted men under their command. But they better be careful, because once you charge an officer, that's when the chain of command dominoes will begin to fall. And as each one rolls over you'll eventually be left with the person who is really responsible, the commander-in-chief George W. Bush. He's the one that needs to go to jail, not some idiot former Papa John's employee Pvt. who wasn't even smart enough to realize that it's not a good idea to take pictures of yourself torturing people. And who exactly did she give up, her sergeant of course. Just a couple of bad apples acting on their own. PLEASE!

    Abu Ghraib Officer May Be Charged | 4 comments (4 topical)