A couple thoughts on the initial article on the Washington Post

1. This was not handled correctly from the get go. What I read wasn't Abu Ghraib, or COL Steele, or even LTC West. This was a case of underresourced soldiers in the middle of a complex ethical environment (See FM 3-24). Not every LOAC violation is a war crime. The lower level command amplified the threat that an incident like this posed by threatening GCM.

2. Striking detainees is against the rules. We play by the rules. On the other hand, it's unfair to throw soldiers under the bus when, at the highest levels of Government, officials and lawyers are saying that torture (and this is not even close to torture) is permissible. What do expect at the ground level when leadership is talking out of their ass.

3. We don't train for this, and we need to start familiarizing soldiers with the scenario where the interpreter turns out to be a bad guy. This should not be open to improvisation. Monday morning quarterback in me says if BN won't pick these guys up then keep holding them...ok, that a 96 hour violation but I don't think anyone is going to be talking anything worse than a counseling statement or a bad OER as a result.

4. I hear through the grapevine that the soldiers got dealt with a much lower level...Maybe someone at division or higher does understand military justice.