The buck stops where?

[sfga6970]

Any Comments?



Army Prison General Suspended
Associated Press
May 25, 2004


WASHINGTON - The Army general who was in charge of the U.S. prison guards accused of abusing Iraqis has been suspended from command of the 800th Military Police Brigade, officials said Monday.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski and other officers in her brigade were faulted by Army investigators for paying too little attention to the prison's day-to-day operations and not acting strongly enough to discipline soldiers under her command for violating standard procedures.

Karpinski's suspension, which has not been announced by the Army, was the latest in a series of actions against officers and enlisted soldiers implicated in the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

Last week, Spc. Jeremy Sivits received the maximum penalty of a year in prison and a bad-conduct discharge in the first court-martial stemming from the abuse of Iraqis at the prison. He was among seven members of the 372nd Military Police Company that have been charged.

Karpinski, who has returned to the United States, has not been charged with an offense. Being suspended from her command does not mean she has been relieved of command, so technically she could be reinstated, although the intensity of the international furor over the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse makes that highly unlikely, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.

In an interview on MSNBC Monday night, Karpinski said she has been told of her suspension by "several sources, but I have nothing in writing." The paperwork will cite the reason for her suspension, she said.

Karpinski has said she was being treated unfairly for the acts of others over which she had no control. "And actions like this renew my thought process of being a scapegoat and using the 800th MP Brigade as the organization responsible for this," she said.

In his widely cited investigation report on the Abu Ghraib abuse allegations, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba found heavy fault with Karpinski's performance and recommended that she be relieved of command and given a formal reprimand. Instead she was given a less-severe "memorandum of admonishment" on Jan. 17 by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Taguba reported that despite the documented abuse of prisoners, he saw no evidence that Karpinski ever attempted to remind the military police in her command of the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, which protect prisoners of war and civilian detainees in times of armed conflict.

"What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce standards and principles among its soldiers," Taguba wrote.

In her defense, Karpinski has said in numerous interviews with news organizations that her military superiors and civilian leaders ignored her requests for more troops to watch prisoners. She also has said that control of the prison was taken away from her in November 2003 when a military intelligence unit was put in charge.

[odannyboy]

She definitely deserves this, as the abuses were so chronic and widespread it showed a dereliction of duty on her part in not being aware of what was happening under her command.

That said, it also appears to be a symbolic move, as the commander gets sacked but those officers with real knowledge, and perhaps even participation in the abuse, have not been charged.

If they really want to make some changes and assign blame to those responsible they have to find out who was ordering this type of behavior, and find out the complicityand the awareness of those immediate officers in charge of the enlisted personnel awaiting trial.

[sfga6970]

Originally Posted by odannyboy

She definitely deserves this, as the abuses were so chronic and widespread it showed a dereliction of duty on her part in not being aware of what was happening under her command.

That said, it also appears to be a symbolic move, as the commander gets sacked but those officers with real knowledge, and perhaps even participation in the abuse, have not been charged.

If they really want to make some changes and assign blame to those responsible they have to find out who was ordering this type of behavior, and find out the complicityand the awareness of those immediate officers in charge of the enlisted personnel awaiting trial.

I agree with you 100%. As both a team leader and later as a Company Commander, I made sure that I knew each man in my command by name and what their responsibilities were. If anything went bad, I felt it was my responsibility to eliminate the problem and "take the heat" if need be. As a Brigade Commander, she should have known every Officer and senior NCO under her command and supervised what they were doing.

I worked many times with other government agencies, but no one ever took over command of my troops. They worked with us and made suggestions, but the ultimate command decision was mine, not theirs. It sounds like she is trying to save her star, retire and weasel out of something she should have known about as a commander, but didn't.

[cb88]

I agree, she needs to accept responsibility. Even if only for dereliction of duty and not for any "direct involvement".

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by sfga6970

It sounds like she is trying to save her star, retire and weasel out of something she should have known about as a commander, but didn't.

If that's all that happens to her, she got off light. She probably did fine in her state Guard with no chaos from a war. IMO, she should be demoted because she hasn't shown she has the ability to lead when the heat's on. All her whining on tv just reinforces my low opinion of her.

I wonder if a male general would have gotten off as easy as it looks like she will?

[sfga6970]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

If I wonder if a male general would have gotten off as easy as it looks like she will?

Probably not, but an active duty General usually has more experience with dealing with troops than an NG General does. If you perform the job seven days a week rather than two days a month you might have better experience to make the tough decisions and follow through.

[kruser79]

Ours is a one-star command. Not only does our chain of command come around to our different office buildings, but the entire chain goes to each and every one of our test sites.

I may be hidden in the dark with the rest of the "data" people (all civilian), but I can count on a visit from the director and my NCOIC, and if the test is large or long enough, from the CG and the CSM.

But ya wanna know what? I'm confident that I can accomplish my mission with or without their visits. I know, they come to see how their people are faring, they are being the leaders that we say we need to be. I really don't think that I would start stripping these civilians and shoving empty sandbags over their heads if my chain didn't come to see me though, lol. But I do have a chain that works the way it's supposed to.

If they could see what's in my head right now, lmao..........