Comments on: Judge Rejects Guilty Plea in Iraq Abuse Case

By: LJD

LJD — Thu, 05 May 2005 18:43:32 +0000

Sure, but the question is:
Does the responsibility lie with those giving the orders, those following them, or both? I would say the latter.
My point was to address the string arguing whether or not an E-4 was authorized to give orders, and if not, if she acted on her own (sick & twisted) behalf.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 05 May 2005 16:47:41 +0000

LJD: I believe several have already been convicted.

By: JackLewis.net

JackLewis.net — Thu, 05 May 2005 15:47:27 +0000

Judge rejects England guilty plea
From the Associated Press: In what military legal experts describe as a "shocker," the judge put the case of former...

By: LJD

LJD — Thu, 05 May 2005 15:01:17 +0000

However a Specialist does not have the "authority" given a non-com, like a corporal (same pay grade), the chain of command often grants such responsibility (and power)to Specialists that exhibit the ability to handle it. It is in the interest of Privates to follow the orders of Specialists, that have been so authorized by their NCOs.

The question remains though: Where were the NCOs responsible for this detatchment?

By: notherbob2

notherbob2 — Thu, 05 May 2005 14:40:12 +0000

It would be best for you to know what military procedure is before taking a position. When I was an Army Specialist, my rank was for the purpose of pay and privileges only. Corporals and sergeants gave orders that had to be followed. Specialsists were merely other co-workers who could be followed or ignored at will.

By: RattlerGator

RattlerGator — Thu, 05 May 2005 13:26:01 +0000

I understand your point on military rank; even better usage, it appears to me, would be to use their pay grade.

"Graner, then an E-4, claims to have ordered England, an E-3, to . . . "

Civilians understand the hierarchy of pay grades much better than rank.