Header Image


Bad Eagle Journal

Chains in Command

by David Yeagley · May 5, 2004 · 15 Comments ·

Brigadier General Janice Karpinski says the six American military personnel involved in alleged prisoner abuse in Iraq were following orders. Karpinski is making the media rounds “on leave,” and last night appeared on more than one major TV show. She was looking quite masculine on Grete Van Susteren’s show, with her navy blue double breasted sports blazer, and her white open collar shirt with blue pin stripes.

Her explanation seems as incredulous as any other, at this point. A December, 2003 report says Karpinski is in charge of 15 prisons in Iraq, and has some 3,400 National Guard Army reservists under her command. (The report also says she’s been married 29 years to Lt. Col. “George,” witout children.) This report is obviously intended to be flattering to Karpinski, yet, by it’s date, is has to be considered also essentially honest. It is no piece of cover-up or damage control. It was written 5 months before the sex scandal. It does not, however, give any clues as to the motivation or explanation for the conduct of the American soldiers in question.

The ill effects of the photos released have to have been foreseen. Therefore, it was a plan or plot of some kind. The next questions have to be directed at motivation. The media right now is absorbed in the blame game, as always, luxuriating in the scandal. Media wants names, top names, for the excitement of it all. “Who’s responsible?” is the exciting question. Motivation of the acutal perpetrators seems a little too difficult for media to pursue.

But there are only a few possibilities afforded by rational thinking:

1) The soldiers were paid by anti-American activists (of various Arabic nationalities, and also including American white liberals),

2) The soldiers themselves have personal sexual problems, either from personal history or present conditioning, and “cracked” under the tempation of the circumstances,

3) Karpinski’s incredulous explanation: they were following orders.

Karpinski’s explanation is not likely, but reflects her self-consciousness regarding ‘chain of command’ and who’s “responsible.” The blame game fits so perfectly in this situation. Amricans are used to it. Lawyers and liars and media have made us used to it.

The soldiers obviously have a lack of standards regarding sexual proprieties. War conditions pressure anyone, but, their manner of “cracking” clearly shows a personal problem in the soldiers.

There is the distinct possibility, if not probability that this was all designed to confound the war effort. It is either that, or the individual soldiers just fell into their own vices, and the whole matter is incidental.

When President Bush offers his response, it can only involved two aspects: justice, and perspective. “We’ll get to the bottom of it, and justice will be served,” is what he will likely say. And also, he may cite the incredibly wide spread depravity under Hussein, and the likelihood that Iraqis in charge, working for the new regime, are wreaking out their own revenge on prisoners.

The involvement of American soldiers will nevertheless be a focus for a good while. Maybe it’s a good thing. Maybe it will help clean up a lot. Let’s hope there’s more success there than here in America, land of the Howard Sterns and Janet Jacksons, where, once again, ‘those responsible’ were pursued, like Viacom and CBS, rather than the individual’s committing the offenses.

Let’s try to set a proper example through the new Iraqi regime. Lawyers, always the problem, pursue collectibles, not criminals. There’s more money in the big commandos than in the individual offenders. Let’s hope that we can focus directly on the offenders for a change, and not the collectibles.

Karpinski has unfortunately already pointed law and justice in the wrong direction. And we’ve already had our Clintonian apology. A lot of good that does.

At this rate, Iraq will sue the American military, or the U.S. government, like like Iran is trying to do through the Hague.

Posted by David Yeagley · May 5, 2004 · 9:36 am CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal

Read More Journal Posts »

15 responses so far ↓

  • 1 David Yeagley // May 5, 2004 at 11:09 am   

    Es gibt keine Ende.

    The wonderful, profound Arab mind. Our hand full of pervert soldiers (ordered? paid?) have sounded the depths of Arab irony, hypocricy, and stupidity. It’s all about ego, it’s all about one-uping someone else. That is the nature of conversation with the Arab mind.

    Like kids, hand-grabbing the baseball bat to see who bats first. Whose hand gets on top of the other.

    Children of Arabaham they want to say? The key word there is “children.” No objectivity, no vision, no sense of the larger picture. Always acting on the immediate impulse, the first impressions, the surface emotion. And they seem deeply prone to agitation, exitement, and Aufruhrung in general. They’re having their hey-day, and their more-than-15-minutes of fame.

    Is it just from unemployment, poverty, frustration? I doubt it. It’s a disposition.

    Liberals and Arabs alone enjoy this. And attorneys. The rest of the world must be quite sick at this point.

  • 2 Raven // May 5, 2004 at 11:26 am   

    Oh, I am sure the media still will find lots of mileage in the “ARTICLE 15-6 INVESTIGATION OF THE 800th MILITARY POLICE BRIGADE”. I am surprised they haven’t tapped into some of the other reported abuses I have yet see stated in the articles I have read. Below is a abuse list taken from “ARTICLE 15-6 INVESTIGATION OF THE 800th MILITARY POLICE BRIGADE”. The link following is for the long reading of the entire report.

    “6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

    a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

    b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

    c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

    d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

    e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

    f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

    g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

    h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

    i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

    j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

    k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

    l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

    m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.”

  • 3 Hailstorm // May 5, 2004 at 11:59 am   

    Raven> as you said we’re kinda in the noodle here from the last forum. I agree with you. I was totally lost from what Yeagley’s homosexuality point was. There was no information to support his view point or any facts. I was totally lost. However, I don’t think there was any homosexuality going on there or the prisoners would’ve complained. I think they were just abused and tortured because out of vengance of their fallen comrades. It was out of hatred. I believe there was some sort of interrogation going on but the prisoners were tortured and humiliated because they had no care for the U.S. soldiers when they were captured. Raven showed good examples of typical prisoners who were captured. It happens to every country. When you’re captured, you’re tortured and interrogated. If you don’t speak, you get tortured. That’s how life is as a captured prisoners. No soldier will treat their enemies like they’re in a Hilton or a Marriott hotel. That’s if anybody’s lucky to get a soft soldier. It’s kill or be killed. I agree with Raven.

  • 4 David Yeagley // May 5, 2004 at 2:34 pm   

    I’ve never heard of this kind of perverted sexual abuse of prisoners before. We’ve all heard of rape, but much of what is listed above is clearly sex perversion. Something has changed in the military. That’s my observation.

    The whole incident could be strickly porno business in disguise, too. This is yet another possibility, but it would still come under the motivation of “money,” or, “getting paid” for it.

    Motivation guides deduction. Of course, we don’t even have the facts clear. What it the “proof” that the sandbagged prisoners were even Iraqis? Can’t see their faces. Porno industry people are very, very low minded, and get lower the longer they’re in it. Look at Larry Flint, for example.

    Who is preoccupied with perverted sex and photography? Who is more interested in that than the security of the country, than the American military effort, than America’s image in the world? Who is completely selfish in this way?

    Professional vice mongers. Porno people. Sex perverts. Homosexual activists. Etc. Where else can the paths lead?

  • 5 Kidist // May 5, 2004 at 7:20 pm   

    Twenty nine years of marriage may not mean anything. There can be many kinds of convenient arrangements. In some of the photographs, there is a woman soldier who appears a few times. She looks older. Her excitement is also very apparent, whereas the men look more embarrassed than excited. She could have been the ring-leader, and given out the directions. There are shots of her where she seems to be the ‘main focus’, ready for the camera. She may have been close with Brigadier General Janice Karpinski. They may have even talked and laughed about it. Sometimes one can’t help but to speculate, but then we have the photographs to observe.

  • 6 David Yeagley // May 5, 2004 at 8:59 pm   

    I have predicted that homosexuality will not be addressed in this issue. I hope I’m wrong. I too noticed that re-appearing woman, with short, brown hair. She is obviously playing a role.

    In all the news reports, I have yet to hear anyone ask the most obvious question: WHY THE PHOTOGRAPHS?

    If is was supposed to be humilation for the prisoners, okay, but, their faces aren’t identified. Humiliated before whom? therefore.

    I cannot believe anyone in the American military was so stupid as to create these “photos,” knowing what would be the result. This is the work of our enemies, perhaps within our own ranks completely.

    Intelligence orders? The question still would be, WHY THE PHOTOS?

  • 7 KPS Reports // May 5, 2004 at 9:09 pm   

    Dear Mr. Yeagley:

    We are told that Arabs are especially angered by being forced into public while nude and also are strongly offended by homosexuality.

    1. Supposedly, common enlisted soldiers were told to do the torture, by Army Intelligence.

    2. So, you have PFCs personally involved in the torture … and seemingly unsupervised.

    3. And, they were allowed to take personal photos of the torturing. Those photos were obviously for the purpose of showing their friends. In other words, there was no way it would remain a secret.

    4. Torture is a war crime … would it not be hidden as well as could be possible?

    5. And, would it be allowed, and approved, for lowly enlisted people to do?

    6. And, would they be allowed to take personal photos of war crimes they were committing?

    Israel and the Jewish Neo-Cons want to inflame the Middle East, so that they can get their “regional” war … which they see ending in the destruction of Arab nations and societies … leaving Israel as the regional power.

    The problem is that it is very difficult to get Americans to approve of this massive war plan.

    But, if only they could inflame Arab emotions to the point of some unity and a somewhat unified attack on both American forces and Israel … then that would be considered justification for America to smash the Arab/Muslim world.

    But, how to inflame Arab passions … We see one method in the torture photos.

    But, what about the enlisted soldiers involved? Sacrificial lambs … the Jewish Neo-Cons don’t care about them, at all.

    What about America’s reputation? First, the Jewish Neo-Cons don’t care … plus they are Jews and they know that Israel has been torturing Palestinians for decades … so what’s the big deal? Besides, they see America as becoming the world’s Imperial power … and ruling the world … through the use and possession of massive power. If you rule the world, who really cares what others think?

    I am certain that the America torture of Iraqi POWs is widespread.

    However, I am suggesting that these particular events, currently in the news, were planned. The enlisted people were just the dupes.

    It was planned from the beginning to allow the torture … the photos … and to allow the photos to become available to the world.

    KPS Reports

  • 8 KPS Reports // May 5, 2004 at 9:14 pm   

    Dear Mr. Yeagley:

    Incidentally, YOU are not proposing one of those “conspiracy” things, are you?

    KPS Reports

  • 9 Kidist // May 5, 2004 at 9:25 pm   

    I think I used the wrong word. I think the woman had a ‘gleeful’ expression. I think she looks like she’s having a vengeful enjoyment out of looking at the naked men. Therefore, definitely, this looks like a lesbian in front of the camera. Why the photos? Probably as trophy-souvenir, to laugh over. But how did the photos become public?

  • 10 David Yeagley // May 5, 2004 at 9:35 pm   

    KPS, I’m not above conspiracy theories, especially when the alternative is to believe and accept incredible stupidity otherwise.

    However, I don’t see how these matter leads to Israel or neo-cons. I meant, I can see how it would, but, I think that would be rather stupid also. We have the rest of the Muslim world to think about, not just the Arabs that surround Israel.

    And certainly, the world would never unite behind Israel.

    Therefore, I think your theory doesn’t make full sense, to me anyway.

    I’m hoping this is just a case of stupid, sexual perversion, with even more stupid photography of it.

    Yet, this is not satisfactory. Some deeper story has yet to surface. I agree that there must be some “conspiratorial” element, even it it’s nothing more than a personal homosexual or sex pervert agenda. The consequences of these photos is beyond the pale. There has to be something deeply wrong here. It is too obvious.

  • 11 Raven // May 6, 2004 at 1:50 am   

    Right now I am a bit out of sorts, but my recent participation in connection with this subjects makes me feel obliged to offer you these links for viewing if you have not already viewed them.

    TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB – The New Yorker – it contains some testimonial bits, and what I think is pretty good insite of Sergeant Frederick, the one seen more as the “leader” of this photographic group.

    Families of the 372nd tormented by stories of POW abuses in Iraq – – Has family input on a few of the soldiers involved, including a lil bit of info on the nortorious “cigarette totting, finger pointing,short haired brunette”, Lynndie England (who happens to be only 21, engaged and carry the child of Mr. Smirking Blue Gloves, Charles Graner.),0,160127.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

    Unit’s families appalled by photos but clinging to pride

    I think these links will help shed some light on some of the thoughts and question you guys are thowing about.

  • 12 David Yeagley // May 6, 2004 at 10:04 am   

    Thanks Raven.
    I note, however, that neither article addresses the precise issues I have raised, like WHY?

    All the media is doing is gloating in the story, the complexity, the “chain of command,” the “who’s responsible” lawyer approach.

    There has yet to be a serious attempt to address the more serious questions, the questions that should have been asked first. I asked them. I’m waiting for everyone else to catch up!

    1)homosexuality and sex perversion
    2)undermining the war effort

  • 13 Karrie // May 7, 2004 at 11:58 am   

    This sort of thing very easily happens, and unfortunately for our convenient, self righteous world view, it doesn’t appear to be the result of a few “sick” individuals (or “homosexual activists” – please, give me a break)

    Either the photos were taken to show to other prisoners to intimidate them into cooperating, by threatening them with this kind of treatment, or they were actually taken as “trophy” photos.

    The fact that they appear to have women in a lot of the photos perhaps might lend itself to the explaination that they were taken with the women in them purposefully, in order to further intimidate other inmates – since having women in the room while this happened would have been even more of a horrifying thought to the other men.

    There was a lot of abuses that are documented in the official report that have NOT been photographed, by the way.

    The way this happened is by human nature (which is in all of us) being placed in a situation that allows it. Also by a grave lack of oversite regarding which techniques are acceptable for interrogation.


    The why take the photos could very well have been due to use for prisoner intimidation.

    The why are they sexually explicit – because arab men find this kind of treatment particularly horrifying. If you just beat them, or threaten them with physical harm, they would stand up in defiance forever. That could be why the interrogators used these sexually explicit tactics.

    As far as undermining the war effort, there is no evidence whatsoever that this was a posed plot to do so. If so, there would be a lot of people at top levels claiming that they were all posed for this purpose. The drive to cover one’s ass is pretty great, remember.

    Not on shred of credible evidence has been uncovered to support this theory. Therefore, it has about as much relavence as my theory that it wasn’t really our soldiers at all, but Iraqis in masks that look like specific soldiers, and really, they set up a whole fake prison to take the photos in…….. or perhaps aliens replaced our soldiers…. gay aliens!

    See? without any evidence speculative theories are simply that – speculation. What we need now is responsibility, not finger pointing speculation in order to save face, or ass, or even a desperate attempt to hold onto a particular world view.

    It’s okay to admit that some people screwed up. It’s okay to admit that this happened, and it was wrong, and we will be sure that it won’t happen again.

    That would be much more productive in winning this war over there, and making sure our soldiers stay safe – than trying to blame “homosexuals” “feminists” or “anti-war” people. Shifting blame to whatever theory is closest at hand only makes us look silly. Honor requires us to say “this was wrong, and we will never let it happen again”… and then to follow through.

  • 14 Bored, now // May 7, 2004 at 1:08 pm   


    That word doesn’t mean what you think it does. I suggest using a dictionary.

  • 15 David Yeagley // May 7, 2004 at 1:52 pm   

    Bored now? I suggest you use a larger dictionary. “Incredulous” can be used exactly the way I used it. Those of us who are literary do get truly bored with common words, and occasionally use words in obsolete or unusual ways.

    I also suggest you use an older dictionary, not a new one that has been dumbed down, nor one that includes common misuses as legit, in order to sanctify the communications of the illiterate.

    Abreviated paper back dictionaries are suitable for high school and college students with a 6th grade reading level.

You must log in to post a comment.