They don't say he wasn't ordered to have the dog unmuzzled, they say he could have disobeyed the order.
re: abu ghraib* (*prison in iraq)
army times
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
trial focuses on qualities of soldier
Discussion is locked
29 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
They don't say he wasn't ordered to have the dog unmuzzled, they say he could have disobeyed the order.
- Collapse -
Prosecutions states
Prosecution attorneys said they?ll prove the opposite: That Cardona, 32, could have said no when asked to follow orders that violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
In other words
His superiors told/ordered him to do something they should not have.
He followed orders,
He is charged because he followed orders.
The ONLY way he should be charged is
EVERYONE of his superiors should be charged, Starting a the highest rank and when each and everyone one of them ischarged AND found guilty
THEN, and only then, he and the other dog handlers that ''followed orders'' should be charged
- Collapse -
Just in case you don't understand my point
The Major tells the Captain, the Captain tells the Lieutenant, the Lieutenant tells the Sargeant, and so on and so on, until the grunt gets the message.
If any one of the superiors ''does their duty'' and does ''as you say''
In fact he would never hear the illegal order.
The ''grunt'' isn't put in the position of having to chose between ''disobeying an unlawful order'' and ''obeying an unlawful order''. He wouldn't even hear it.
- Collapse -
failing to stop the order does not absolve the "grunt" of his duty to disobey it. I know the whole purpose of your line is to have the President indicted for this, but it doesn't wash.
- Collapse -
I'm not surprised.
Rumsfeld says I can stand at my desk for 6 hours a day.
I don't see why prisoners can't "stand in one spot" for the same length of time.
- Collapse -
... conceding that he WAS following orders.
Don't you find it odd that apparently none of these guys "following orders" have named names of those whose orders they supposedly followed?
- Collapse -
Defense attorneys for an Abu Ghraib dog handler said they will prove that Sgt. Santos Cardona was following orders when he used his unmuzzled military working dog to scare, intimidate and attack detainees.
Prosecution attorneys said they?ll prove the opposite: That Cardona, 32, could have said no when asked to follow orders that violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
They said they'll prove ''the opposite'' which would be ''He wasn't given the orders''
BUT, the prosecution is going to prove
''he could have said no'' (disobeyed).
Which would REQUIRE the orders to be given.
RIGHT or WRONG?
Is this person a lawyer?
Notice dog with no muzzle
Lawyers for Miller have argued that he has already answered questions on whether he discussed with US officials in Iraq the need to use dogs against prisoners, and he has denied doing so. In previous interviews with lawyers for the accused dog handlers, Miller asserted, ?At no time did we discuss the use of dogs in interrogations.?
Miller?s announcement that he would not testify in the case, however, comes shortly after defense lawyers reached an agreement with prosecutors to obtain the testimony of Colonel Thomas Pappas, the former commanding officer at Abu Ghraib. Pappas has agreed to testify in exchange for immunity from prosecution, and this raises the possibility that he may testify that he did in fact discuss the use of dogs with Miller.
Pappas told investigators in the past that he did discuss the use of dogs with Miller, a statement that has been corroborated by other witnesses, including the former warden at Abu Ghraib.
- Collapse -
If the defense asserts that he was following orders, the prosecution refutes that and they don't have to show or disprove that orders were given to destroy his defense
- Collapse -
... is prosecuting the misconduct. To the extent that the defense will "prove" he was "following orders", the prosecution essentially can just show otherwise. Two-pronged approach: (1) Dispute that orders were given, but if that defense argument is convincing, then (2) demonstrate how that does not absolve the person following an order they knew to be illegal.
Parse away.
- Collapse -
As I said in a previous post all his superiors should be charged and found guilty then the "lower ranks" should be charged.
IF any of his superiors are not found guilty, then the lower ranks should not be charged.
If his superiors said NO then he wouldn't have to make the choice.
NIP the illegal order "in the bud"
- Collapse -
the jews gypsys werent at war with the germans.
thses "people are at war
nice troll i mean try
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic