Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help




Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-27-2004, 09:00 PM
fj bertrand's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: North Central PA
Posts: 441
"Responsible" but not "culpable". Huh??

When I was a young army reserve 2lt. being trained by WWII officers on the code of conduct, it was drilled into me that I was responsible for everything my troops did and failed to do. I learned that back in 1968. Subsequently, I did, over my 27 year military career heed those words.

Yet, it seems today, our military is being torn apart by legalesse that commanders are "responsible" for their troops action, yet not "culpable." I cannot fathom that the military is allowing lower enlisted ranks take the fall for Abu Ghraib while the O-6's and above get to retire with all the embellishments of rank and not any "culpability" for misleading orders, confusion and dereliction of duty. These rank worse, in my opinion, than VietNam. At least they nailed Calley(1lt) and Medina(cpt). I hope this torture and sadism thing goes up a little higher than present. Reading the pdf's of the reports is demoralizing and makes me ashamed to be a vet of the Army of the United States (Reserve, retired)

What a blot on the fine military lower ranks we have and shame, shame on the higher ups, from O6 to O10.
__________________
71 220D 169K wrecked
83 240D 118K sweet 4 speed
91 350SDL (one of the 60% good engines) 156K
84 300d (loaner to my sister) 189K
79 300SD (partswagen)
86 420SEL partswagen
70 220d (partswagen)
68 280s GASSER!!! under construction now
85 300sd 310K miles winter beater car retired
93 300d 2.5 turbo 168K wife's car
83 280SL euro 5 speed 155K
69 250S newest project 54K
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-27-2004, 09:05 PM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 36,544
Isn't there a full colonel who is implicated and charged? But why is the general not charged?

Before (or as...) the upper echelons are charged you need to zap every step along the chain. If not, why have a chain of responsibility if some are exempt?

Lots of questions.

Few answers.

Yet.

Patience.

B
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-27-2004, 09:15 PM
MTI's Avatar
MTI MTI is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 10,626
It ain't over till it's over. There's an Intelligence Committe report due on the CIA's involvement, particularly what they and their contractors were telling the guards to do and the practice of keeping prisoners "off the books." Without reading the two reports, the summaries seem to say that the "buck stops" at Gen. Sanchez, who was busy running a war. Neither of the two reports this week go higher than anyone in a combat uniform, which is interesting since both cite lack of planning, shortage of personnel and inadequate training.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-27-2004, 09:25 PM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 36,544
MTI, that is the diff between 'culpable' and 'responsible'. people often confuse the two because often they reside in the same person, expecially in civilian life.

As Commander in Chief, Bush is ultimately responsible for every man and woman in the military. As leader of gov he is responsible for every GS, SES or technical gov employee. The problem of blame comes with culpability.

If a drunk USAF pilot creams a busload or retarded kids, the President is responsible, but probably not culpable (unless he ordered the pilot to ram the bus).

Sanchez is certainly responsible (as are Sec Army, Sec Def, and President). But their various degrees of culpability have yet to be determined. That is, by people with open minds.

B
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-27-2004, 09:37 PM
KirkVining's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,303
Pentagon investigates itself in Abu Garib: Finds Pentagon not to Blame

Quote:
Originally Posted by fj bertrand
When I was a young army reserve 2lt. being trained by WWII officers on the code of conduct, it was drilled into me that I was responsible for everything my troops did and failed to do. I learned that back in 1968. Subsequently, I did, over my 27 year military career heed those words.

Yet, it seems today, our military is being torn apart by legalesse that commanders are "responsible" for their troops action, yet not "culpable." I cannot fathom that the military is allowing lower enlisted ranks take the fall for Abu Ghraib while the O-6's and above get to retire with all the embellishments of rank and not any "culpability" for misleading orders, confusion and dereliction of duty. These rank worse, in my opinion, than VietNam. At least they nailed Calley(1lt) and Medina(cpt). I hope this torture and sadism thing goes up a little higher than present. Reading the pdf's of the reports is demoralizing and makes me ashamed to be a vet of the Army of the United States (Reserve, retired)

What a blot on the fine military lower ranks we have and shame, shame on the higher ups, from O6 to O10.
I could not agree with you more. I read an article the other day in which a colonel who would not reveal his identity for obvious reasons said that the report is a whitewash and the real responsiblity goes right to the top, because the planning for the occupation did not provide for enough troops and did not provide for the right kind of troops, and the constant changing of long-standing Army policy towards the handling of prisoners by Rumsfeld himself lead to an atmosphere of confusion and grey areas that never existed before. The war planned and executed by military officers was brillant, the occupation totally planned and executived by Rumsfeld and his civilian deputies, especially Feith, Cambone and Wolfowitz, aided by a compliant Gen. Sanchez was totally botched and Abu Garib is just part of the total abortion they have made of Iraq. They are all going to avoid culpability by blaming it on the common soldiers caught up in this mess. Vets ought to be thinking about that, happening in the present, instead Bush wants you to be distracted about how many pieces of shrapnel Kerry did or did not pick out of his ass 35 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-29-2004, 02:08 PM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 36,544
Somebody told me that John Kerry was responsible. My informant couldn't reveal his name for obvious reasons, but he is in a position to know.

Easter Bunny
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-29-2004, 04:37 PM
MedMech
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Way back when I was a super trooper, the first line superviser got the same punishment that the soldier got for failing to train his soldier. Needless to say my troops rarely screwed up because spare time was the only thing I really valued and I didn't want to spend it mowing the Generals lawn because my troop wanted to sleep in.

I personally think the General is getting off the hook because she's a women, but I bet they will charge her after the election.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-29-2004, 05:48 PM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 36,544
I ain't taking that bet.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page