Of course it was, just like all the other torture and murder of innocent civilians. It has all been extensively assessed in a completely impartial manner, and all the people who were even slightly involved have been identitifed and punished.
Abu Ghraib Investigator Details Pentagon Cover-Up: I Thought I Was In The Mafia
Intel Staffer Cites Abu Ghraib Cover-Up
Rumsfeld's Abu Ghraib Cover-Up Revealed
Cover-Up of Abu Ghraib Torture Puts Troops at Risk
Of course there is no abuse reported there. Just like Pvt. Manning...
You do realize who is overseeing his stay, right? Do you think she is the only female likely there?
Civilian statutes only specify life sentence and death penalty charges as punishment potential for denial of bail. The only other relevant statutory factor would have been flight risk and a good defense lawyer would have signed his client up to all sorts of bail conditions to overcome any flight risk argument.I think the initial set of charges carried a sentence upwards of 50+ years. The additional ones push it to life in prison.
I never claimed they were "proof". But as you can clearly see, history has yet to document the obvious. And you are again peremptorily dismissing facts provided in two of the articles because they are merely "biased"?Alledged cover-up doesnt mean there was a cover up. None of those links actually prove anything, and the alternet and progress ones are quite biased in their opinion.
There is nothing "specific" about my allegations. I am claiming that if Pvt Manning is so obviously abused in such an absurd manner, even before his so-called trial, that it quite likely to occur at all levels of this farce of a judicial system. That essentially the same people with the same training ran Abu Ghraib, Baghram, and Gitmo provide even more credence that the system is hopelessly broken. They seem to understand following orders much more than they do acting in a legal, just, and fair manner.You are making some specific allegations against the US Disciplinary Barracks. Can you provide valid proof to back up that claim?
So you are contending that the CWO is never present in her own cellblock during these periods?Simply because the section is overseen by a female warrant officer that is simply not proof that the guards are female, nor that he has to report naked to one each morning.
In 2009, it was 1,184 Army, 1,088 Navy/Marines, 641 Air Force, and 45 Coast Guard. A lot lower than I thought, especially given the number of judges.Anyone want to guess how many court martial proceedings are processed every year? Mobboss, can you help us out here?
It is not really that high of a volume given the number of judges. You really should spend a day at a criminal docket call in Collin, Denton, or Dallas, Texas counties. Some of those judges get more done by 9 a.m. than it appears that the typical military judge gets done all month. Heck, even the district judge (felony only) in rural Webb County has a tougher workload.In any case, the point is there are a lot.
Winston Churchill said:Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash.
Civilian statutes only specify life sentence and death penalty charges as punishment potential for denial of bail. The only other relevant statutory factor would have been flight risk and a good defense lawyer would have signed his client up to all sorts of bail conditions to overcome any flight risk argument.
I never claimed they were "proof". But as you can clearly see, history has yet to document the obvious. And you are again peremptorily dismissing facts provided in two of the articles because they are merely "biased"?
There is nothing "specific" about my allegations. I am claiming that if Pvt Manning is so obviously abused in such an absurd manner, even before his so-called trial, that it quite likely to occur at all levels of this farce of a judicial system. That essentially the same people with the same training ran Abu Ghraib, Baghram, and Gitmo provide even more credence that the system is hopelessly broken. They seem to understand following orders much more than they do acting in a legal, just, and fair manner.
So you are contending that the CWO is never present in her own cellblock during these periods?
In 2009, it was 1,184 Army, 1,088 Navy/Marines, 641 Air Force, and 45 Coast Guard. A lot lower than I thought, especially given the number of judges.
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/annual/FY09AnnualReport.pdf
By contrast, one suburban/rural county that I have cases in typically handles indicted charges in the 10,000 - 15,000 range per year with a lot fewer DA/judge resources than the military.
You only get discharged for breaking "don't ask don't tell" though - hence why the navy figure is low compared to the army.
Correct, but in a civilian court, he would have been free until the government finally got around to making that charge and if he had obeyed all the conditions of bail for that long, it is likely the judge would still let him remain free, perhaps subject to a couple of more conditions.Well, now with the inclusion of the charge of treasonous activity, it is indeed now a capital crime.
It actually includes stats on that, but I restricted my answer to what was aksed. The nonjudicial punishment numbers were higher than I expected.I was going to get to that, and thats the yearly report published for US Courts Martials. What it doesnt include are lower forms of punishment, like Article 15s and General Officer reprimands.
I'm not, as crime rates are often tied to poverty and in the military, the entire population is employed. Plus you are screening out many that have a criminal record, so you are not getting hit with the repeat offenses that subgroup tends to have.People are often surprised that the 'crime rate' in the military is almost always significantly lower than its civilian counterpart.
Correct, but in a civilian court, he would have been free until the government finally got around to making that charge and if he had obeyed all the conditions of bail for that long, it is likely the judge would still let him remain free, perhaps subject to a couple of more conditions.
It actually includes stats on that, but I restricted my answer on what was aksed. The nonjudical punishment numbers were higher than I expected.
I'm not as crime rates are often tied to poverty and in the military, the entire population is employed. Plus you are screening out many that have a criminal record, so you are not getting hit with the repeat offenses that subgroup tends to have.
Like an increased suicide rate, even although they are supposedly screened for mental illnesses before they are allowed in?
The average soldier and average citizen have the same clean rap sheet. It is likely some combination of discipline and steady income and screening that explain the differences at the non-average criminal end of things.As to the crime rate thing, your average soldier is also subject to a bit more discipline than your average private citizen. Discipline does have some benefits apparently.
Like an increased suicide rate, even although they are supposedly screened for mental illnesses before they are allowed in?
http://www1.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/suic-f04.shtml