Two dog handlers face Abu Ghraib hearing

[Judi Lynn]

Posted on Mon, Jul. 25, 2005

Two dog handlers face Abu Ghraib hearing

DAVID DISHNEAU
Associated Press

HAGERSTOWN, Md. - Two Army dog handlers accused of using the animals in a personal contest to frighten detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison are scheduled to appear for a military equivalent of a grand jury hearing Tuesday.

Sgts. Santos A. Cardona and Michael J. Smith are charged with dereliction of duty and maltreatment of detainees.
(snip)

According to an investigation led by Maj. General George Fay, Cardona and Smith had a running contest in which they used their dogs to try to frighten detainees into wetting themselves.
(snip)

"The people who are in charge try to tell you how to do your job, even though they're not trained in dog handling," he said. "I told them nothing good is going to come out of dogs being in a hard site."
(snip/...)

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/12221000.htm
(Free registration required)

[Mojorabbit]

1. While they need to be held accountable

I am waiting for the day when the higher ups who ok'd this are brought to justice. I don't know if this country will ever be looked at the same no matter what we do in the future.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. kick

[0007]

3. Now maybe they go after the person who gave the orders

[gratuitous]

4. Object lesson for the "torture might be okay" crowd

Regardless of what Hollywood fantasy scenario gets spun out to justify torturing a suspect or a detainee, this sort of thing always happens: "Cardona and Smith had a running contest in which they used their dogs to try to frighten detainees into wetting themselves."

There's no indication that the prisoners had any usable information, had committed any action against the U.S. military, or that their fright served any objective other than the sadistic tendencies of the dog handlers.

Now, I don't know Sgt. Cardona or Sgt. Smith. Doubtless they are men with loving families and friends who longed for their soon and safe return. But sergeants in the military, to my understanding of the chain of command, do not set combat objectives and policies. They are one of the linchpins in carrying out those objectives and policies.

So, who told these guys that their little "running contest" was authorized? Or what was the atmosphere that encouraged them to come up with this "contest"? Or what breakdown in discipline did not discourage them from instituting and carrying out their "contest"? I don't know if sergeants are smart enough on their own to think about the consequences of their despicable actions should their "contestants" ever be released from Abu Ghraib, but someone further up the chain of command should have had this in mind.

So, is there any evidence that torture has become an acceptable practice in the minds of some folks in this administration? You know, like denigrating "quaint" provisions of the Geneva Conventions? Or the promotion of officers who kept their mouths shut about torture? Or the forced retirement of officers who didn't keep their mouths shut? Or public pronouncements by the administration's media proxies (paid and unpaid) that tried to make the case for acceptable torture?

Is this really what a majority of Americans believe in? Is this a discussion that we should have had by now so that our society could work out the details, implications and potential consequences of state-sanctioned torture?