Do you know US soldier who blew whistle on Abu Ghraib was called a traitor?

Question

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US soldier Joseph Darby, who revealed to investigators the abuse committed by US troops at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, said he was denounced by relatives as a "traitor" but that he did not regret his decision to expose the scandal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060815/pl_afp/usiraqprisoners_060815212229

Reported to chain of command!!! give me a break!!! They would have screwed him too!!! You have any idea how chain of command in an army works!!!!!! Ever watched "Code Red"??!!

He had actually given it to military investigators first who slept over it for ages!!!

After mulling over what steps he should take, Darby said he decided to give the images to military investigators in January 2004.

"I had made the right decision that something needed to be done after I first found them," he told CNN

Answer 1

Of course.

Anyone the administration doesn't like, especially anyone who points out illegal activity by the government, is automatically labeled a traitor.

It's their way to discredit anyone who would hold them accountable for their actions.

Answer 2

I wonder just how many Darby's there are in Iraq. Are there other things going on that we simply don't hear about? Has the publicity of Darby's hometown story put a lid on whistleblowers?
We just might have to wait until some more of the Iraq war veterans finally come home and start throwing their medals over the fence to find out what really happened in Iraq.
Who would dare call them liars?

Answer 3

Richard Sauder wrote shortly after the events of 911 that "we are participating in a Black Magic show … every last person on this planet is being sucked into this thing and we need to understand that and deal with it."

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/sauder.htm

So, how have people 'dealt with it'? Many Americans still slumber on in denial, oblivious to the precariousness of their situation or else resigned to it like the musicians who played on while the Titanic sank ever deeper in the cold, black waters of the North Atlantic. Others, a few individuals, have chosen to follow Richard Sauder's advice from the article that introduces this 'diatribe' – "Do not participate in the warfare. If you find yourself in the military, consider leaving as soon as practicable". With what we now know about depleted uranium poisoning the Iraqi environment and even that of its pseudo-enemy in this Black Majic show, Israel, his advice is apt, indeed. We should cheer and support the decision of U.S. Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada to disobey an order and not return to an illegal war.

"At the June 7 press conference announcing his decision, Watada argued that the Administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq was "manifestly illegal" because it "violates our democratic system of checks and balances. It usurps international treaties and conventions that by virtue of the Constitution become American law. Watada also said, "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060717/brechersmith

Obviously, when Bush declared, "You're either with us or against us," something in this man's heart was listening. The illusion of the Black Majic show holds no sway over his vision of humanity and the rule of law among men and women, co-equal creators of the society we purport to live in. Nor should we conclude that this show is about Republican politics alone. Many writers more prolific and better-lettered than I am have pointed out the true nature of the right and left wings of the One War American Party. When Jonathan Tasine announced his candidacy in New York and challenged Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary we learned where her values were/are – she's apparently in the "you're with us" camp of Zionist-handled politicians who 'profit' from war-mongering (the opposite of 'right livelihood' as defined in Buddhism).

Answer 4

Uh guys. He didn't release it to the media. He took it to military intelligence. Where it went from there was out of his control. He took a stand for human character and morality only. As a reward, the haters came out of the woodwork to threaten him and his family.

Answer 5

He delivered it to the attention of his superiors first. They did no longer something. He became into good to leak it to the click. no longer each and every of the persons who have been detained and tortured are our "enemies". some stated they have been "terrorists" as a results of fact they have been tortured. soreness will make somebody say something. Bush insisted that he KNEW Saddam became into in touch with Al Quaeda, as a results of fact of "intelligence" he gained. That counsel got here from a prisoner who became into tortured in Egypt. That guy has when you consider that stated he advised the interrogators what they had to hearken to, just to get the soreness to stop. The allies positioned a bounty on "insurgents", and persons began handing over their associates as a results of fact they needed/needed the money.

Answer 6

Frankly, I think it would have been better if he went to his commanding officer with the evidence, instead of releasing those lurid photographs to the media. The problem could have been solved internally by the Army, instead of dragging America through the muck. That is my sincere opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Answer 7

Joseph Darby history will honer him like it or not

Answer 8

by the NEOCONS!! you must add that part.
the red neck republicans call every one that stands for justice a traitor.

he's a noble soldier and deserve a medal of honor.

Answer 9

for the sake of truth and human rights, that's the cost he had taken.

God's with him.

Answer 10

He was only serving the Empire.
Amen