What's worse? Sex or Torture? This is funny and true

[Alfie Higgins]

Arianna Huffington
Wed Aug 10,10:41 PM ET

Here’s all the proof you need that the lunatics have taken over the Pentagon and DoD asylums (that is, if the lunacy of their Iraq policies hadn’t already convinced you):

Four-star General Kevin Byrnes, the third most senior of the Army’s 11 four-star generals, was sacked over allegations that he had an extramarital affair. Meanwhile, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq during he Abu Ghraib torture and abuse scandal, is being considered for promotion to, yep, four-star general.

Talk about your utterly perverted priorities.

Now, it long ago became clear that the Bushies inhabit a bizarro, topsy-turvy universe -- a place where being utterly wrong about slam-dunk WMD earns you a Medal of Freedom, dismissing a “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.” memo earns you a promotion to Secretary of State, signing off on torture makes you AG material, another 123 American soldiers being blown up is the mark of an enemy in its “last throes”, and outing an undercover CIA agent (and then lying about it) merits a vote of confidence instead of a pink slip.

Nevertheless, the Byrnes firing is still stunning. Consider: in modern times, no four-star general has ever been relieved of duty for disciplinary reasons; prior to this incident Byrne had a spotless military record; he has been separated from his wife since May 2004; the allegations do not involve anyone under his command or connected to the DoD; and he was already set to retire in November.

Something doesn’t add up. Would the Army really can a four-star General with 36 years of service, three months shy of his retirement, because he screwed someone other than his wife... in the middle of a war? We are at war, right? No wonder speculation is mounting that there has to be more -- much more -- to this story than is being told.

Was the affair with a man? Was the man underage? Did he not only ask, but also tell? Was, say, one of the Bush twins involved? Did the illicit liaison entail incredibly kinky behavior... something involving a dog leash, women’s panties, fake blood, a Koran, and a Lynddie England mask?

Or was Gen. Byrnes busted for engaging in straight, vanilla, missionary, once-a-week-with-the-lights-off boffing with the slightly overweight neighbor lady down the street?

Is this what it takes for Rummy and company to continue seeing themselves as paragons of virtue who will do whatever is necessary to hold people accountable for their private conduct...while turning a blind eye to the wanton assault on decency and morality that has marked our handling of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Bagram?

In other words, it’s the s-e-x, stupid! The GOP base will eat it up. A little unnerved that Roberts gave a freebie to the gays? Don’t sweat it. The Bush administration demonstrates it will not stand for a leader who breaks his vows (other than vows to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak, that is).

My only question is: was Rummy given photos of Gen. Byrnes en flagrante delicto? Must have been. If you’ll recall, Rumsfeld told Congress that it took him months to look into the reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib because, even though he’d been alerted that U.S. soldiers were humiliating and torturing naked Iraqi prisoners, “It is the photographs that give one the vivid realization of what actually took place. Words don’t do it.”

Of course, once Rummy and the White House did see the photos from Abu Ghraib, they didn’t leap into action, they leapt into damage control -- treating the worst American military scandal since My Lai not as an international land mine that could flatten our country’s moral high ground but as a PR problem that could be spun, manipulated, stonewalled and, ultimately, swept under the rug.

And they were right. At least as far as the American electorate was concerned. The feelings of the Arab world are a whole other matter.

Here is the vile and pathetic scorecard from the Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo outrages: Only one high ranking officer involved has been demoted (Gen. Janis Karpinski, the former head officer at the prison). One! Indeed, many of the others involved have been promoted, including two senior officers who oversaw or advised on detention and interrogations operations in Iraq -- former deputy commander Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski and Col. Marc Warren, formerly the U.S.’s top military lawyer in Baghdad. And the former top intelligence officer in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, was also given a promotion. Meanwhile Maj. General Geoffrey Miller, who had a hand in both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and who new evidence strongly suggests instigated some of the worst interrogation tactics, has yet to be held accountable... The same, of course, goes for Rumsfeld.

The message is clear: overseeing a system that led to prisoners being buggered with chemical lights and having electrodes attached to their genitals will get you a leg up in Bush’s military; giving the high, hard one to someone other than your wife will get you booted out the door.

Gee, it looks like David Brooks is right -- we really have become a more virtuous country.

 

[sophia jane]

I was curious if this story was legit, cuz it seems fairly ridiculous to me. This is what I found: article

This is absolutely insane, if this is all there is to the story.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Arianna Huffington
Wed Aug 10,10:41 PM ET

Here’s all the proof you need that the lunatics have taken over the Pentagon and DoD asylums (that is, if the lunacy of their Iraq policies hadn’t already convinced you):

Four-star General Kevin Byrnes, the third most senior of the Army’s 11 four-star generals, was sacked over allegations that he had an extramarital affair. Meanwhile, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq during he Abu Ghraib torture and abuse scandal, is being considered for promotion to, yep, four-star general.

Talk about your utterly perverted priorities.

Now, it long ago became clear that the Bushies inhabit a bizarro, topsy-turvy universe -- a place where being utterly wrong about slam-dunk WMD earns you a Medal of Freedom, dismissing a “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.” memo earns you a promotion to Secretary of State, signing off on torture makes you AG material, another 123 American soldiers being blown up is the mark of an enemy in its “last throes”, and outing an undercover CIA agent (and then lying about it) merits a vote of confidence instead of a pink slip.

Nevertheless, the Byrnes firing is still stunning. Consider: in modern times, no four-star general has ever been relieved of duty for disciplinary reasons; prior to this incident Byrne had a spotless military record; he has been separated from his wife since May 2004; the allegations do not involve anyone under his command or connected to the DoD; and he was already set to retire in November.

Something doesn’t add up. Would the Army really can a four-star General with 36 years of service, three months shy of his retirement, because he screwed someone other than his wife... in the middle of a war? We are at war, right? No wonder speculation is mounting that there has to be more -- much more -- to this story than is being told.

Was the affair with a man? Was the man underage? Did he not only ask, but also tell? Was, say, one of the Bush twins involved? Did the illicit liaison entail incredibly kinky behavior... something involving a dog leash, women’s panties, fake blood, a Koran, and a Lynddie England mask?

Or was Gen. Byrnes busted for engaging in straight, vanilla, missionary, once-a-week-with-the-lights-off boffing with the slightly overweight neighbor lady down the street?

Is this what it takes for Rummy and company to continue seeing themselves as paragons of virtue who will do whatever is necessary to hold people accountable for their private conduct...while turning a blind eye to the wanton assault on decency and morality that has marked our handling of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Bagram?

In other words, it’s the s-e-x, stupid! The GOP base will eat it up. A little unnerved that Roberts gave a freebie to the gays? Don’t sweat it. The Bush administration demonstrates it will not stand for a leader who breaks his vows (other than vows to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak, that is).

My only question is: was Rummy given photos of Gen. Byrnes en flagrante delicto? Must have been. If you’ll recall, Rumsfeld told Congress that it took him months to look into the reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib because, even though he’d been alerted that U.S. soldiers were humiliating and torturing naked Iraqi prisoners, “It is the photographs that give one the vivid realization of what actually took place. Words don’t do it.”

Of course, once Rummy and the White House did see the photos from Abu Ghraib, they didn’t leap into action, they leapt into damage control -- treating the worst American military scandal since My Lai not as an international land mine that could flatten our country’s moral high ground but as a PR problem that could be spun, manipulated, stonewalled and, ultimately, swept under the rug.

And they were right. At least as far as the American electorate was concerned. The feelings of the Arab world are a whole other matter.

Here is the vile and pathetic scorecard from the Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo outrages: Only one high ranking officer involved has been demoted (Gen. Janis Karpinski, the former head officer at the prison). One! Indeed, many of the others involved have been promoted, including two senior officers who oversaw or advised on detention and interrogations operations in Iraq -- former deputy commander Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski and Col. Marc Warren, formerly the U.S.’s top military lawyer in Baghdad. And the former top intelligence officer in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, was also given a promotion. Meanwhile Maj. General Geoffrey Miller, who had a hand in both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and who new evidence strongly suggests instigated some of the worst interrogation tactics, has yet to be held accountable... The same, of course, goes for Rumsfeld.

The message is clear: overseeing a system that led to prisoners being buggered with chemical lights and having electrodes attached to their genitals will get you a leg up in Bush’s military; giving the high, hard one to someone other than your wife will get you booted out the door.

Gee, it looks like David Brooks is right -- we really have become a more virtuous country.

When you accept a commission you become a gentleman by act of congress. You also become liable to disciplinary action for acts not consistant with being a gentleman.

I live near West Point. A roster of the actions of Courts Martial is posted. By far and away, sexual misconduct is the leading cause of action. Thefts, or more serious action constitute only a small part of the roste for any given month.

this is true now, it was true when I arrive dhere and the Philanderer in Chief was getting blowjobs in the white house. Taking this as an excuse to attack the Bush administration is spurious. Even going back as far as WWII a positive return on a wasserman test was grounds for loosing your commission.

Edited to addd: The wasserman was the standard test for Syphills

 

[Guest]

I'm just wondering why people can't find a political forum to post their "True" speculation on and have to post it on a fiction writers' forum. Must be a democrat.

 

[logophile]

Edited to addd: The wasserman was the standard test for Syphills

My favorite OB/GYN here in town is a Dr. Wasserman. No relation.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My favorite OB/GYN here in town is a Dr. Wasserman. No relation.

ROFLMAO,

That would have been an unfortuneate name back then

 

[minsue]

I'm just wondering why people can't find a political forum to post their "True" speculation on and have to post it on a fiction writers' forum. Must be a democrat.

I'm wondering why people can't be at all consistent in their views of what's appropriate to a fiction writers' forum. Must be a repubican.

 

[impressive]

I'm wondering why people can't be at all consistent in their views of what's appropriate to a fiction writers' forum. Must be a repubican.

First coffee spew of the morning.

 

[impressive]

When you accept a commission you become a gentleman by act of congress. You also become liable to disciplinary action for acts not consistant with being a gentleman.

I live near West Point. A roster of the actions of Courts Martial is posted. By far and away, sexual misconduct is the leading cause of action. Thefts, or more serious action constitute only a small part of the roste for any given month.

this is true now, it was true when I arrive dhere and the Philanderer in Chief was getting blowjobs in the white house. Taking this as an excuse to attack the Bush administration is spurious. Even going back as far as WWII a positive return on a wasserman test was grounds for loosing your commission.

Edited to addd: The wasserman was the standard test for Syphills

It's the hypocrisy, though. I can't stomach it.

 

[Pure]

Colly said,
By far and away, sexual misconduct is the leading cause of action.

iirc, correctly, the 'misconduct' of female officers gets much more attention and discipline. you're ok with that?

also, given the common nature of adultery (et al), one notices that the sex charges are a convenient way of 'getting' someone---i'm thinking of that chap who was a muslim minister/visitor to Guantanamo, that they were trying to prove was a spy/agent. somehow adultery came up, iirc.
all the spy charges were dropped. you're ok with that?

as imp says, there's a lot of hypocrisy involved, if we assume that officers has the same habits as other males. they have many opportunities, too, around bases, and in foreign countries. i remember my father boffing a little Ko- rean gal. so let's estimate that, for officers, perhaps a third or more are 'guilty' of adultery. compare that with the laying of charges/courts martials.

hey colly, we dem sympathizers LIKE our philanderers! going back to FDR and the studly JFK. gives 'em a kinda regal quality [you guys are into the hiding, skulking, breast beating, mea culpas (e.g., re "Ike", Bush Sr.)] gotta problem with that?
heck you guys even write books on 'virtue', while screwing around!

though the dems have their probs with foreign policy, but personally i prefer the party of open moral degeneracy to the party of hidden moral degeneracy. you?

 

[cloudy]

Colly said,
By far and away, sexual misconduct is the leading cause of action.

iirc, correctly, the 'misconduct' of female officers gets much more attention and discipline. you're ok with that?

also, given the common nature of adultery (et al), one notices that the sex charges are a convenient way of 'getting' someone---i'm thinking of that chap who was a muslim minister/visitor to Guantanamo, that they were trying to prove was a spy/agent. somehow adultery came up, iirc.
all the spy charges were dropped. you're ok with that?

as imp says, there's a lot of hypocrisy involved, if we assume that officers has the same habits as other males. they have many opportunities, too, around bases, and in foreign countries. i remember my father boffing a little Ko- rean gal. so let's estimate that, for officers, perhaps a third or more are 'guilty' of adultery. compare that with the laying of charges/courts martials.

hey colly, we dem sympathizers LIKE our philanderers! going back to FDR and the studly JFK. gives 'em a kinda regal quality [you guys are into the hiding, skulking, breast beating, mea culpas (e.g., re "Ike", Bush Sr.)] gotta problem with that?
heck you guys even write books on 'virtue', while screwing around!

Pure,

I read Colly's reply as well, and nowhere in it did I see where she was "okay" with any of it. She was just stating facts.

You might want to rethink your reply above. Your personal dislike of her politics is causing you to insert your own spin on what she actually said, and it's not becoming at all.

 

[sophia jane]

The thing that bothers me is that the man was separated from his wife, and in the process of divorce. Having an "affair" with another woman, if it happened during the separation, hardly seems like conduct unbecoming.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'll never understand what one's private sexual life has to do with either beling a leader or a gentleman. Is there some sort of Vow Of Gentlemanliness you have to ascribe to? Do our leaders take a Chastity Oath upon assuming office?

There's got to be more here than meets the (FB)I. If this guy were in with the powers that be, they could have just as easily have swept this under the rug as cashiered him. Someone wanted him gone for some reason, and I doubt very much it was his private sexual activities.

 

[Pure]

on 'unbecomingness'

dear cloudy

please note that:

pure: you're ok with that?

is a question.

likewise, though there is no substantive question in the last part of my posting, i clearly state a "personal preference" for open degeneracy and am obviously sounding her out on the issue.

how do you Alabamians like your degeneracy?

PS. I like Colly's politics just fine, since she's far more informed than many liberals. one must admire all literate republican sympathizers: i put her in the category of Wm F Buckley.

 

[Guest]

I'm just wondering why people can't find a political forum to post their "True" speculation on and have to post it on a fiction writers' forum. Must be a democrat.

I'm wondering why people can't be at all consistent in their views of what's appropriate to a fiction writers' forum. Must be a republican.

Min, you were much kinder in your response.

My first thought upon reading Dran's comment was "Fuck you."

 

[Guest]

Min, you were much kinder in your response.

My first thought upon reading Dran's comment was "Fuck you."

Point taken.

Bye-bye.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It's the hypocrisy, though. I can't stomach it.

I don't know. It would seem, a four-star General officer being sacked for the same crime Jr. officers are reprimanded all the time would lend some sense of the standard being applied across the board.

As to promoting Sanchez, he should be if he's earned it. Holding Abu Grahib against a theatre combat commander would be the same as holding the president accountable for the acts of a liquor store thief while he was in office. There are just too many levels of responsibility between him and the crime to make it remotely fair. The base commander, whether she knew about it or not, can legitimately be held accountable as she was responsible for everything that took place on her base. After that? In a war zone you have multiple overlapping levels of command, and the number of commanders between the theatre commander and the base comannder of a reserve MP batalion is huge.


To Doc:
I'll never understand what one's private sexual life has to do with either beling a leader or a gentleman. Is there some sort of Vow Of Gentlemanliness you have to ascribe to? Do our leaders take a Chastity Oath upon assuming office?

Sexual misconduct has been grounds for disipline across time and across different services. Most people aren't aware that Reihardt Heidrich, of infamous fame as the liquidator of the jews was only in the intelligence division because he had been drummed out of the navy. His offense? Saying he would marry one woman, then marrying another. No sex even, just the fact that he acted like a cad. When you accept a commission, you accept the Unifrom Code will, in many cases supercede your rights. Blomberg was sacked for marying an ex-protitute. Basically, if the action you are taking is not the action a gentleman could be expected to take, you risk censure.The list of officers who faced disciplineary action for conduct unbecomming is something of a who's who. Custer did before he was even commisioned. Supposedly for dallying with the commandant's daughter while at West Point.

Pure:
iirc, correctly, the 'misconduct' of female officers gets much more attention and discipline. you're ok with that?

also, given the common nature of adultery (et al), one notices that the sex charges are a convenient way of 'getting' someone---i'm thinking of that chap who was a muslim minister/visitor to Guantanamo, that they were trying to prove was a spy/agent. somehow adultery came up, iirc.
all the spy charges were dropped. you're ok with that?

as imp says, there's a lot of hypocrisy involved, if we assume that officers has the same habits as other males. they have many opportunities, too, around bases, and in foreign countries. i remember my father boffing a little Ko- rean gal. so let's estimate that, for officers, perhaps a third or more are 'guilty' of adultery. compare that with the laying of charges/courts martials.

I don't make the rules. I don't have any say in their enforcement. But then again, I didn't agree to abide by them, which officers do.

Basically banging someone isn't against the law for you or I or even for your father, unless he was a comissioned oficer. Non coms, recruits, even Warrant officers, are not held to the same standard. But the officer class holds iitself to be of better class and they pay for that distinction by being bound by a separate and more stringent code of conduct.

If they choose to act outside the bounds, they risk disciplinary action. They know this. Many of them ignore it. They are, by banging said Ko-rean girl, running their own risks.

I don't know that the "rules" are even specifically stated. I don't know who or by what mechanism allegations are made. I do know the majoirity of those posted at West Point are handled by a 3 judge pannel at court martial.



At Large:

I'm not acting as an acvocate, just pointing out relevant information. I'm not offering commentary on the institutions or rules.

I am saying, you can't apply your conception of right/wrong or individual rights in this situation without considering the structure of the military and the different code, under which they operate.

I'm also opining, that hurting the career of the theatre combat commander over Abu Grahib is rediculously vindictive. Day to day, he deals with only the most senior officers of his own service and with the liason officers of the other services. His orders are general and it's rediculosly unfair to assume he has any responsibility for the actions there. Unless orders or memos exist he knew, his deniability is beyond plausible, it's darn near assured.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly said,
By far and away, sexual misconduct is the leading cause of action.

iirc, correctly, the 'misconduct' of female officers gets much more attention and discipline. you're ok with that?

also, given the common nature of adultery (et al), one notices that the sex charges are a convenient way of 'getting' someone---i'm thinking of that chap who was a muslim minister/visitor to Guantanamo, that they were trying to prove was a spy/agent. somehow adultery came up, iirc.
all the spy charges were dropped. you're ok with that?

as imp says, there's a lot of hypocrisy involved, if we assume that officers has the same habits as other males. they have many opportunities, too, around bases, and in foreign countries. i remember my father boffing a little Ko- rean gal. so let's estimate that, for officers, perhaps a third or more are 'guilty' of adultery. compare that with the laying of charges/courts martials.

hey colly, we dem sympathizers LIKE our philanderers! going back to FDR and the studly JFK. gives 'em a kinda regal quality [you guys are into the hiding, skulking, breast beating, mea culpas (e.g., re "Ike", Bush Sr.)] gotta problem with that?
heck you guys even write books on 'virtue', while screwing around!

though the dems have their probs with foreign policy, but personally i prefer the party of open moral degeneracy to the party of hidden moral degeneracy. you?

At the moment, I don't prefer either of them. I don't subscribe to the idea you have to put a degenerate in office, though you do have to put a human being in there and that does mean you aren't getting perfection, morally or otherwise.

I would like to think the person of the president should be closer to the best of our best than the worst of our worst. I'm not a man, but I don't see why, for four years or eight, you can't keep your pecker in your pants or at least in your ewife or hand if you're just dying to get off. In FDR's case And Bill's, I can at least accept the excuse, would you want to fuck that? But Jackie? Come on.

Joking aside, I don't think it's too much to ask of the man we elect that he do his best to act in the most becoming manner he can when his face and actions are the world's window upon us all. Maybe I am being totally unreasonable. Maybe a man can't go four years without scoring some action on the side. Power is supposedly one of the most powerful aphrodisiacs. So maybe I am hoping for the impossible.

 

[impressive]

I don't know. It would seem, a four-star General officer being sacked for the same crime Jr. officers are reprimanded all the time would lend some sense of the standard being applied across the board.

Sorry, Colly. I was unclear. I did not mean to imply that the policy was not consistently applied. I meant that the disparity between policy and the actions of our government rub me the wrong way. (Yes, I realize that one is often applied in combat situations ... but there's still a double standard.)

 

[Alfie Higgins]

The military and the defense department are giving awards and promotions to officers and office holders who have been involved in torture and who have told obvious lies about matters related to our involvment with the Iraq War and our national security. This 4-star general is being sacked for apparantely having an affair while seperated from his wife.

The essay, I believe, was pointing out the unusual way our military/government mets out 'justice', rewarding conduct seriously determental to our war effort and international stature, while punishing conduct that from the point of view of people reading an erotic website, isn't really that awful.

Am I right or am I wrong?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The military and the defense department are giving awards and promotions to officers and office holders who have been involved in torture and who have told obvious lies about matters related to our involvment with the Iraq War and our national security. This 4-star general is being sacked for apparantely having an affair while seperated from his wife.

The essay, I believe, was pointing out the unusual way our military/government mets out 'justice', rewarding conduct seriously determental to our war effort and international stature, while punishing conduct that from the point of view of people reading an erotic website, isn't really that awful.

Am I right or am I wrong?

You are judgeing two separate lines of action by the same criterion. A criterion that doesn't apply to each. Promotion is based on time in grade and service. Over seas service, service in war time and service in hazardous duty stations accelerate your promotion schedule. Barring delitorious action for which you are convicted, your promotions will come on a more or less defined timeline. In the military, meritorious promotion is not the rule, it is the exception to the rule. It only makes sense that the president putting the country on a war footing, when active duty combat and assignment to hazardous duty are more common, there will be a rash of promotions, as service in these fields accelerates an oficer's advancement. If the DOD or Pentagon breveted someone involved or skipped them from say Lt. Colonel to Brigadier, you might have a legit beef, but that isn't the case I don't think.

Wartime or not, the code of conduct for officers remains in force. You take your chances when you act in any way that is unbecoming an officer.

Both of these dynamics work contiguously and continually. You are trying to make a link between them that simply dosen't exist. To go even further, both dynamics operate no matter whom is in the white house.

In war time, or even in times where troops are deployed to hot areas, promtions will acclerate. In war time or peace time, officers will still be subject to disciplinary action for offenses that are only offenses within the bounds of their code of conduct. A code they volunatrily submit to when they accept their commissions.

There are plenty of things to attack the Bush administration over. There are plenty of things to attack the DOD over. This is not, however one of them. The author and yourself are trying to forge a correlaton between two things that operate independantly of one another. The fact an officer of Genaral rank got nixed blooking someone other than his wife and the accelerated promotion schedule is purely happenstance. If he had gotten caught blooking her in peace time, there wouldn't even be the option as the promotion schedule would still be static. But he could still get nixed for indiscreetly dipping his wick, war time or peace.

 

[Alfie Higgins]

Colleen Thomas: All you say is true. But the facts remain paradoxical.

We still are suffering the damage to the USA's good name (if we had one) due to the torturing in Iraq and in Cuba. While it looks to me like the impetus for the torturing came from high up in the military or in the administration, few or no officers or officals are paying for it. Rather, it is the poor slob who, after all, was only following orders, who is paying the price.

Of course one cannot really compare the military treatment of this 4-star general for his sexual conduct and the officers and officials for their use of and condonement of torture.

But if looks mean anything, this looks bad.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think I am failing to adequately exlain something I take as a given. So let me try this tac.

Historically, particularly in pre industrial europe, social standing was very static. A man had few option in which to advance himself beyond the station he was born in. One traditional option was the church. Another was the military.

The officer class percieved themselves as a class apart from the common soldiers and sailors. An extremely bold or successful officer might even find himself knighted or in rare instances, raised to the peerage. The captain of a man of war or the Admiral of the fleet, even if being raised to the peerage wasn't going to happen, moved in higher social strata than his birth would have permitted him to.

Officers adopted a moral/ethical code, that was more in keeping with their betters, i.e the aristocracy of the time. That tradition has stood the test of time, it has been perpetuated by the military and it remains in force today.

Officers see themselves as a better class of people than the guy with the M-16 or the sailor swabbing decks. They hold themselves to a more rigid code of conduct, in part to denote they are a class apart.

If you do not apply this self imposed perception, then you will find yourself apalled at the infractions for which officers are routinely censured. If you do apply it, you will quickly see that their code is, in places, at varriance with the rights we hold to be "general"

I still am not sure I am vconveying what I wish here, but I don't think there is an easy way to do so.

 

[Alfie Higgins]

Officers see themselves as a better class of people than the guy with the M-16 or the sailor swabbing decks. They hold themselves to a more rigid code of conduct, in part to denote they are a class apart.

I quite agree with your explanation. A large part of being an officer is the need to be morally upright. I'm not really objecting to the dismissal of the 4-star general within the context of the military.

Still, the punishment might be construed to be a tad harsh in this particular instance - not living with his wife, 3 months from retirement, no indication of coersion of a person of inferior rank. Perhaps a strong reprimand would have been enough, but I'm in no position to judge.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen Thomas: All you say is true. But the facts remain paradoxical.

We still are suffering the damage to the USA's good name (if we had one) due to the torturing in Iraq and in Cuba. While it looks to me like the impetus for the torturing came from high up in the military or in the administration, few or no officers or officals are paying for it. Rather, it is the poor slob who, after all, was only following orders, who is paying the price.

Of course one cannot really compare the military treatment of this 4-star general for his sexual conduct and the officers and officials for their use of and condonement of torture.

But if looks mean anything, this looks bad.

A paradoxx imples a relationship. If no relationship exists, then the facts aren't paradoxxical.

Officers get promoted more often and faster in war time.
This has no bearing on the officer class continuing to police their code of conduct.

I may be incorrect, but it seems to me the abuses at Abu grahib were the result in a failure of the chain of command. nless new evidence is in light, civilian contractors were issuing directives to military personelle. Within that context, there is absolutely no reason to assume officers, cut off from the circumstances, were knowledgeable about what was happening.

If we work on it being a given that the men and women of that NG unit recieved orders from someone to comply with the civilian contractors, Then you need only establish who issued that order. Apparently it was NOT their direct superior, who seems to have been ignorant of the abuses and suffered mrely beacuse she was base commander.

We can assume, unless she was lying through her teeth, that the chain of command had been circumvented. By whom, upon whose authority, has not been established, but it seems rather self evident line officers were not in the loop in this case.

On the assumption of innocence, you can't very well deny them promotion because someone below them was acting illegally without their knowledge. Without the usual chain of command, being in force, their ability to ascertain what was going on is not exceptionally strong.

None of which has anything to do with a four star general's sex life.