previous post next post  

This soldier sacrificed his honor...

...but he at least knows some shame, and that's the first step to regaining his honor.

SPC Jeremy Sivits will plead guilty.


U.S. Soldier Details Iraq Abuse, to Plead Guilty
May 14, 1:47 AM (ET)

...The paper said that Spc. Jeremy Sivits, the first soldier to face a court-martial in the abuse scandal, has told investigators "a harrowing tale" of how guards led by Spc. Charles Graner abused the detainees during nightly rounds.

The Times said that according to documents it had obtained, Sivits claimed Graner was always "joking, laughing ... acting like he was enjoying it."

Sivits, one of seven military police officers facing charges in the case, will plead guilty at a court-martial proceeding next week, the Washington Post reported on Friday.

I'm pretty sure how the barking moonbats are going to spin this.

Sivits, 24, of Hyndman, Pa., admitted in a sworn statement that he photographed the abuse but never reported it, according to the newspaper.

His offer to plead guilty was accepted by the staff judge advocate overseeing his court-martial, according to a memo reviewed by The Washington Post and lawyers representing others charged in the case, the newspaper said. But the paper said it could not be determined to which charge he would plead guilty.

The Times also reported that Sivits' statement implicates five of the other six soldiers accused of abusing detainees at the prison outside Baghdad.

Wait for it.

According to the Times, Sivits said all of the abuse was done without the knowledge of their superiors in the Army chain of command. "Our command would have slammed us," he said, according to documents quoted by the paper.

"They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay." He said Graner warned him not to say anything, telling him: "You did not see (this)."

Here's going to be the Moonbat spin. "He's lying. He's just saying this to get a light sentence, and he's been coached threatened to do so if he doesn't. It's all lies. Rumsfeld ordered it, and it was taped for George's personal viewing pleasure, just like Hitler watching the films of the July Plot conspirators being hanged and beheaded."

More reasonable people will be certainly able to argue that he's doing what he can to save his butt some pain. But I (of course) tend to accept what he says. Still plenty of blame and NCO and Officer bodies to stand up in front of the wall of professional ruin over this.

Graner's attorney, Houston lawyer Guy Womack, was not immediately available for comment but has said, according to the Times, that Graner and other soldiers were under pressure by military interrogators to "soften up" the detainees to get intelligence.

This isn't over, not by a long shot. It's entirely possible that the MI people did recommend that the soldiers do that - soften up the prisoners. If they did, it was also incumbent upon them to supervise the process. Which they either did not - or they didn't look very closely, deliberately, or otherwise.

Which means there are a few more heads waiting for pikes. For either gross dereliction, or criminal conduct.

Because even if these soldiers did this as an extracurricular activity, twisting their instructions to their own sadistic pleasure - the Chain of Command is still responsible, both the direct chain up the MP side, and the MI chain on the interrogator side.

Sorry, BG Karpinski - nothing I've seen yet relieves you and your prison commander of responsiblity here. The only question for me from evidence thus far is whether it's dereliction, gross dereliction, or criminal. I lean towards gross dereliction for the prison commander and simple dereliction for the BG. Recognizing I haven't heard the whole story - but caveating that nothing Karpinski has said changes my mind.

The whole article is here.

5 Comments

The whole thing is so depressing. It really hurts that this happened. The guys serving over there don't deserve this on top of everything else they have to deal with. I think you're calling it about right John, on what the left will say as well as the command responsibility. The fact (given, for the sake of argument) that they were doing this and getting away with it when the command would have stomped on them means nothing. It means no more than if we had been smoking dope in the Radar Shop when I was in the service and getting away with it. Command still has responsibility to supervise the troops and maintain discipline. Not that I'm worried about it. Unless things have changed a lot then the Military Justice System is going to grind everyone involved up regardless of what the press wants us to believe.
 
Oh, one more thing, about the left. If you want to know how far they'll go trying to distort what's happening to their liking you can always check DU for the whackiest of them. Check this out. Out of 226 respondents there, only 64 think Nick Berg was killed by terrorists. The rest think it was Bush, the CIA, MI, or some combination thereof. F'ing pathetic.
 
I believe I just saw over at Blackfive - that the BG had lied about how often she visited the prison. So certainly gross dereliction at the very least! Wow - you'd think that someone who got to the level of BG would know that investigators would check her calender to find out where she went and when she went there!!!
 
When did the military go back to the concept of superiors? In my time in the service, those of higher rank were called, "Seniors," not superiors. And doesn't BG Charpinski kinda prove that senior doesn't equal superior?
 
Ask the journalist who wrote the piece. It's not a direct quote, no one wrote it here, or in the comments, until you mentioned it - so I'd most likely chalk it up to journalistic ignorance.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.