seven MP’s were made scapegoats based on the government’s
version of events.
The government was embarrassed and needed scapegoats.
Through its incomplete investigation, numerous internal inquiries
and unfair trials, that is what it got. There was a concerted effort
to present a public relations campaign against the seven MP’s to
convince the people that what happened at Abu Ghraib was due to
the actions of a "few bad apples".
Soldiers were judged before they even got to trial. Comparable
charges should have brought comparable sentences within the
military justice system, but in this case alone, three soldiers
received more confinement time than soldiers convicted of
murder. The other soldiers of the case all received punishments
far greater than soldiers convicted of similar offenses.
The purpose is not to judge any other soldiers or their situations,
but we think maybe after you see some of this information you will
understand our frustration at the situation and support clemency
for the MP scapegoats.
Even now, one year later, new exculpatory information is obtained
every day, and will be posted as it becomes available.
Based on what he knows of the history and inner workings of the
administration, the MPs have gained the support from Lawrence
Wilkerson, once chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin
Powell.
Catch 22 situation that soldiers faced. Supreme Court Justice
Sandra Day O'Conner has also spoken out about the need for a
clarification of rules and policies in light of confusion among
troops.
When an MP soldier with no
real knowledge of events
turned in pictures he had in
his possession for months,
the military called him a hero.
But when a military
intelligence nco, SGT Samuel
Provance, attempted to set
the record straight on the true
nature of the involvement of
military intelligence, he was
threatened with charges and
ostracized in order to shut
him up.
Not only did the prosecution
ignore the truth of what
former MP SGT Ken Davis
had to say, but they tried
many times to smear his
name by insinuating he was
testifying for his own benefit
when in fact he was
subpoenaed. He was never
the focus of the investigation
and he was never charged
with anything. He is just a
citizen, once a soldier, who
knows what Army values
are.
Since that time, similar
situations have appeared in
detention centers all over
Iraq. As in this case,
questions about policies and
standards were rebuffed.
One West Point Officer came
forward because he was
infuriated at the lack of
Army values being displayed
by the officer corp in not
accepting their responsibility.
When given the opportunity to talk with attorneys for two
soldiers on trial for years of their lives, the attorney for Maj.
General Geoffrey D. Miller said the General had decided to
invoke his Article 31 rights because he has "been interviewed
repeatedly over the last several years" about his role at
Guantanamo Bay and his visit to Iraq and he stands by his many
statements to Congress, Army investigators and lawyers.
***General Miller stands by this testimony but
he contradicted his sworn testimony
to Congress with recorded statements to
attorneys trying to defend the Abu Ghraib
MP's.
***It was recommended by military
investigators that General Miller be
reprimanded for detainee interrogation
operations but the Pentagon declined to
so.
***Many soldiers have gone to trial and
to prison and some are still facing trial while this
General invokes his Article 31 rights because he is
tired of answering questions.
--- Article 31 Rights defined (SELF-INCRIMINATION)
