Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: santini? Abu ghraib...

insomma chi sono i colpevoli rimasti in questa vicenda? 
Gli iracheni torturati e umiliati ? restano solo loro...
Abu Ghraib Officer Cleared of Detainee Abuse
Verdict Means No One in Army's Upper Ranks Will Be Imprisoned for the 2003
Mistreatment in Iraq
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 29, 2007; A05
The only Army officer to face a court-martial for the notorious detainee
abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was exonerated of mistreating
detainees by a military jury yesterday, ending a series of prosecutions
that stretched over more than three years.
The jury of nine colonels and a one-star general concluded that Lt. Col.
Steven L. Jordan, 51, of Fredericksburg, Va., was not responsible for
training or supervising soldiers who have been convicted of abusing
detainees at the prison. Jordan was also cleared of charges that he
personally abused prisoners, after prosecutors tried to link him to
supervising the use of forced nudity and the use of military working dogs
to intimidate detainees in interrogations in late 2003.
The only charge from the week-long trial at Fort Meade resulting in a
conviction against Jordan was one count of willfully disobeying an order.
Jordan was found to have contacted other soldiers about the Abu Ghraib
investigation in 2004 after Maj. Gen. George Fay told him not to discuss
it. It was the only criminal conviction secured against any officer as a
result of the Abu Ghraib abuse, and it had nothing to do with the abuse
itself.
The verdict means that no officer will serve prison time in connection
with the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib, leaving the harshest
punishment for low-ranking soldiers who were shown in the infamous
photographs that emerged in early 2004. The following year, Col. Thomas M.
Pappas, a military intelligence officer who ran Abu Ghraib, accepted an
administrative punishment and a fine for inappropriately authorizing the
use of dogs, and then-Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, a military police
commander, received an administrative punishment and was demoted for
leadership failures not directly linked to the abuse.
Although Jordan's case was expected to bring closure and accountability,
his trial merely showed that the civil affairs reservist had no direct
connection to the abuse and did not authorize harsh interrogation tactics.
Instead of a referendum on the Abu Ghraib abuse or its origins, the case
turned into an analysis of a single night's operation to find contraband
and a debate over who was in charge. Jurors determined that Jordan was not
and cleared him of three separate charges.
Left accountable for the abuse are 11 low-ranking soldiers who appeared in
the photographs -- including images of detainees in hoods, wearing women's
underwear on their heads, shackled in painful stress positions, piled
naked in a pyramid, forced to simulate sexual acts, or with a leash around
their necks. The images forced a reevaluation of Army interrogation and
detention policies, sparked numerous military inquiries and led Congress
to develop laws regarding the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
"The images of Abu Ghraib are burned into our memories," said Maj. Kris
Poppe, one of Jordan's defense attorneys, in his closing statement Monday.
"We have in our memories the vile acts, criminal acts, of soldiers at
night behind closed doors. . . . It is tempting to say some officer should
be held accountable. But not this officer."
Prosecutors tried to paint Jordan as the officer in charge of the facility
and one who should have done more to prevent abuse.
"This case is not about what the accused did at Abu Ghraib; it's about
what he divorced himself from doing," Lt. Col. John P. Tracy told jurors
on Monday, adding that Jordan created an atmosphere that led to abuse. "He
didn't train; he didn't supervise; he didn't ensure compliance."
Human rights groups following the cases since 2004 said much remains to be
done. "The military was not interested in pursuing real accountability,"
John Sifton, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, said yesterday.
"The only thing they've shown themselves committed to is putting the Abu
Ghraib scandal behind them."
Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, said no
criminal trial has delved into the chain of command or the development of
harsh interrogation techniques, despite numerous military investigations.
A lengthy Justice Department investigation has not yet led to charges
against any civilian contract interrogators.
"This was the one that everyone was waiting for, and more than anything
else, the trial and verdict in this case demonstrates that there is an
enormous accountability gap left," Massimino said. "They have almost
completely missed the real point."
Although there were brief mentions in Jordan's trial of connections
between Abu Ghraib and the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, no criminal court has explored how or why interrogation techniques
used at Guantanamo Bay migrated to Iraq. Detainees in the Abu Ghraib
photographs appeared in situations that mirrored tactics used by senior
interrogators on one of the most important detainees held at Guantanamo
Bay after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Military police soldiers have said they were instructed in such techniques
by interrogators and civilian contractors for use on Abu Ghraib's Tier 1A,
where detainees of high intelligence value were held. Abuse also occurred
there, and soldiers have received prison sentences for it, in the most
serious case a 10-year term for Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr.
In an interview with The Washington Post last month, Jordan said that he
had no connection to the abuse and that had he known it was occurring, he
would have stopped it. Jordan has been forced to remain on active duty at
Fort Belvoir for more than three years as he awaited court-martial. He has
accused the Army of making him a scapegoat in order to put an officer on
trial.
Jordan told the court yesterday that he respects the jury's decision.
"After today, I hope the wounds of Abu Ghraib can start to heal," he said,
the Associated Press reported.
The jury began deliberating on a sentence yesterday and will continue
today. Jordan faces a maximum of five years in prison and dismissal for
disobeying Fay.
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 insomma chi sono i colpevoli rimasti in questa vicenda?
Ad oggi i seguenti:
Specialist Charles Graner
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6795956/
Private First Class Lynndie England
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7988
Specialist Jeremy Sivits
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=6482
Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7988
Sergeant Javal Davis
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6843
Specialist Armin Cruz
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=939300&tw=wn_wire_story
Sergeant Michael Smith
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/22/iraq/main1430842.shtml
Specialist Sabrina Harman
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=6764
Specialist Megan Ambuhl
http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=7348
Specialist Roman Krol
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6843
Che non sia stato condannato nemmeno un ufficiale e' uno scandalo:
difficilmente i crimini potevano avvenire senza autorizzazione, e
anche se fosse cio' dimostra una negligenza criminale nel compiere il
proprio dovere da parte degli ufficiali responsabili della prigione.
Ma perche' chiedi proprio a me?
Palmiro Pangloss

prigione.
Su che basi *dimostrerebbe* questa "negligenza criminale"?  Perche' e'
stato commesso un crimine?  Non e' certo sufficente.
-Stefano

 Ma perche' chiedi proprio a me?
ah, ero io quello che aveva fiducia cieca nella giustizia USA? <g>
-- 


 ah, ero io quello che aveva fiducia cieca nella giustizia USA? <g>
non mi pare di aver mai parlato di fiducia cieca, pero', al solito, se 
hai un link postalo pure.
Palmiro Pangloss
-- 
Tarpaulin: Amarcord Cold War
http://tarpaulin.blogspot.com/

 Oddio!  Il tutto italiano "non poteva non sapere".
Non ho detto che gli ufficiali processati dovevano essere condannati 
sulla base di quel teorema, ho detto che o gli ufficiali sapevano, e 
allora sono colpevoli, o non sapevano e allora sono stati negligenti 
dato che e' loro preciso dovere conoscere nei dettagli il comportamento 
tenuto dai loro uomini in servizio e, nel caso, impedire o denunciare 
ogni crimine.
Non da un punto di vista penale, ma professionale, anche se avessere 
saputo e denunciato sarebebro comunque stati colpevoli di non aver 
adeguatamente addestrato i loro uomini.


 non mi pare di aver mai parlato di fiducia cieca, 
e di fiducia? 


adeguatamente addestrato i loro uomini.
Era loro compito addestrarli?  E "addestrare adeguatamente" implica
"rendere incapaci di pensiero autonomo"?  Perche' non vedo altre
eventualita' possibili perche' vi possa essere "colpevolezza" da parte
degli ufficiali.
-Stefano

 e di fiducia? 
Che fai, ribassi? Si, di fiducia nel sistema ma non negli uomini o 
qualcosa del genere.
