A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
Correction: Just found out that SGT Smith did reduced to E1, forfeiture of pay and allowance AND a bad conduct discharge.
[UPDATE2] SGT Michael Smith was only sentenced to 6 months behind bars. He won’t be demoted or lose pay and allowances. The prosecution is now gearing up to charge another of COL Pappas’ fall-soldiers, Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, on May 22.
Photo from AP[Update] What do you know? Thanks to the testimony of a selfish, turncoat Colonel who forgot everything they taught at those leadership schools, Sgt. Michael Smith has been found guilty of six of seven counts. Those six counts he was found guilty of include: trusting your superiors, hoping your commander is an honest man, putting faith in your leadership, falsly thinking that a field grade officer had his back, misunderstanding that a soldier could get a fair trial with his commanding officer testifying against him, and doing what was specifically approved of in writing by his commander.
Now, to be fair, he did do some stupid things. He videotaped his dog engaging in leud acts with two other [consenting] soldiers. Is it stupid? Yes. Should he have been charged for that crime? No. I don’t think what he did was in keeping with good order and discipline, but illegal? Come on. Meanwhile, Col. Pappas is enjoying his steak and potato dinner with his family feeling good about himself.
Smith faces a maximum of 8 years in prison. Tomorrow, the sentence will be handed down. SGT Smith’s family is asking for leniency. His older brother recently died of a heart attack.
One officer that didn’t sell his soul to the devil was CPT Craig Hager, one of Smith’s former commanders. He wrote that his experience with Smith left the impression that he is an “excellent soldier, a reliable noncommissioned officer, and a good dog handler despite what he was accused of.”
Hager said Smith needed “no additional supervisions despite what he was going through.”
A panel of four officers and three enlisted soldiers found Smith guilty of mistreating a prisoner with his unmuzzled, barking and growling dog; guilty of mistreating two juvenile detainees at Abu Ghraib by harassing and threatening them with the dog; guilty of using his dog to make detainees soil themselves out of fear; and guilty of failing to use his dog solely for authorized purposes. Wait a minute!! COL Pappas DID authorize at least some of these counts. But, we’ll forget that.
I’m usually really good at pointing out the good news happening in the military, but I have to digress a little.
On Tuesday, The Sun reported on the beginning of a trial for SGT Michael J. Smith. Smith is a former Abu Ghraib prison guard and dog handler. He is accused of ausing his military working dog to bark and growl at deatinees. The accusation is that the purpose was to make them defecate or urinate on themselves. I don’t want to speculate on the guilt or innocence of these people. I do find it shameless that a soldier is on trial because a detainee was barked or growled at. I’ll have to remember this is a criminal offense the next time I’m walking around the neighborhood and someone’s dog I don’t like starts barking at me and I feel “scared”. In all fairness, Smith is also accused of getting so close that the dog actually bit someone. Again, the trial will settle all that.
Colonel Thomas Pappas
The fact I’d like to point out that the media seems to be glossing over is a little more disturbing to me. One of the witnesses, a Colonel Thomas M. Pappas, is a witness for the PROSECUTION. Col. Pappas has admitted to approving the use of dogs in a few instances. Here’s the disturbing part of all this and I’m fed up: Col. Pappas has been granted IMMUNITY in exchange for his testimony.
Here is a guy that is guilty of allowing and approving this supposedly illegal technique and he’s testifying AGAINST the very people he allowed to commit the “crime”. In both the Sun article and the Washington [Com]Post articles, there is barely a paragraph about the Colonel’s involvement. At least in the Compost article they mention that the Colonel “accepted an administrative punishment, which included being relieved of command and fined $8000.”
Congratulations, Col. Pappas for turning your back on the very soldiers you were supposed to command and be responsible for. I wonder why SGT Smith wasn’t offered immunity, “administrative punishment”, and “a fine” to testify against Pappas… I wrote about my frustration with the way soldiers are being punished in this war on terror back in May of last year when the Abu Ghraib thing was still a big deal. I remember that the names of all the enlisted people were being slung around the mud while “unnamed officers” were given light punishments.
Col. Pappas now only needs submit his retirement paperwork and be on with his life with only his conscious to worry about. Meanwhile, the very soldiers following the orders and approvals he personally signed are facing years in prison, demotion, dishonorable discharge, and public humiliation. What kind of message does it send to our troops in the field when our commanders create policy, we inforce that policy, and then the commander testifies against us with no worries of consequences?
Personally, I don’t think there is anything wrong with putting a dog in a prisoner’s face and letting the dog bark and growl at them as long as there is no way the dog can harm that person. Why should I care that a guy that just got caught planting an IED on the roadside is scared? I don’t, so that’s a rhetorical question. What I do care about is that Colonel Pappas’ abandonment of his command responsibility.
According to AR 600-20, Army Command Policy, “In addition to being mentally, physically, tactically, and technically competent, soldiers must have confidence in themselves, their equipment, their peers, and their leaders. A leadership climate in which all soldiers are treated with fairness, justice, and equity will be crucial to development of this confidence within soldiers. Commanders are responsible for developing disciplined and cohesive units sustained at the highest readiness level possible.”
Later in the regulation, Chapter 2-1b plainly states, “Commanders are responsible for everything their command does or fails to do.” I can’t find anywhere in the regulation that commander’s should sell this authority in exchange for immunity. Then again, I’m probably blaming the wrong person. Why was immunity offered to this officer in the first place? Sounds a little nepotistic to me.
What is the purpose of even having dogs in the prison if they weren’t there to scare the prisoners into submission and follow directions? Smith’s attorney, CPT Jason Duncan, said during his opening statement that “the dogs were there to bark at deatinees, they were there to scare them.” Arabs have a fear of dogs. They believe they are dirty.
(21) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
555FAA71-9003-E525-37025352646A88C8
Hi Gaby, you can email me at tracylin.hogan@yahoo.com and i will ta
Army Review of PTSD Will Reinforce Combat Veterans Not to Seek Help
CJ, we thank you for your service and all you have been through and ho
Army Review of PTSD Will Reinforce Combat Veterans Not to Seek Help
Who would WANT a PTSD diagnosis? Only a fraud would. I would give an
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
HI EVERYONE, I KNOW THAT THIS JOHN BULLARD JR. IS A SCAMMER FROM E
Jess Dawn
I don’t know if I ever told you about a 1SG that came to our detainee facility and wanted to meet a man that was responsible for the death of one of his troops. I hated not being able to let him. The man just lost a soldier, was emotional, and he wanted to get at this prisoner.
The thing is, we are better than other nations who choose not to follow the laws of war. Having a dog just to scare the prisoners (while it might be personally gratifying at times) is not legal. No one should be getting immunity. The soldier would have gone through training on how to handle detainees and if not again someone else should be in trouble. The officer should in my mind receive the most punishment. As an enlisted soldier even as an SGT we are supposed to be able to look to our officers for what is acceptable. I am not taking any blame off of the SGT, I believe to be a guard at the time soldiers received training on what was legal and not.
Scaring the piss out of a prisoner does not always help us complete or mission of getting more bad guys off the roads. While I agree that personally I have no qualms giving terrorists a taste of their own medicine. I would prefer to get the info to save more of the prisoners.
Anthony
Couldn’t agree more. I wasn’t reaing your blog when this was making big news, but I wondered then why the only soldiers mentioned were enlisted, and all relatively low-level enlisted at that. Where were the LT’s, the CPT’s, the MAJ’s, LTC’s, COL’s? We heard only about enlisted soldiers and that pathethic excuse for a General, Karpinski.
CJ
Brig. Gen. Karpinski became Colonel Karpinski. Didn’t matter though since she was able to retire as a BG. Didn’t even merit a slap on the wrist.
Chad
That is so wrong!!!
Beth* A.
Is there a civilian trial, and a military trial aspect to this, or just the former? Its hard for me to imagine the military going along with this; I thought that Command Policy you sited with a ‘the buck stops here’ aspect to it, WAS a law of sorts!?! No?? How can that work? Obviously, it accounts for a low percentage of superiors, but how would you know or be sure as a soldier that your leaders weren’t going to drop you, the lower man on the totem pole, into the drink and save themselves? That would seem to be counter, and therefore detrimental, to the military’s whole infrastructure.
SK
Pappas needs his butt kicked. Not for approving of what they did, but for not standing up for his men. That is a disgrace.
CJ
Beth, it is a military court martial. SK, I can neither agree nor disagree with your statement. I may get in trouble.
Donna
Isn’t that always the way it goes. I thought it was just that way in civilian life but I see the military does it too.
The rules should be changed so the commanding officer can’t get immunity because he is ultimately responsible for his enlisted people. The commanding officers should be held more responsible than the lower ranked personnel.
CJ
Donna, I don’t know about more, but definitely not less than lower ranked personnel. We’re not supposed to be lemmings, but when a commanding officer signs off on something, you expect him to back you up on it.
dusgalan
The Col Pappass is evidently a kiss-ass who’ll do anything to keep his butt out of a jam. And he may not have only his conscience to worry about–it’ll all come around back to him one day for a reckoning–sellouts like this end up one day with the devil at their doorstep–at which time it’s too late.
dusgalan of mt
Warthog555
Was Sgt. Smith one of the idiots that was E-mailing photo’s? They weren’t even allowed to have camera’s in the prison. That’s what started this whole thing. Now it’s all ass covering.
CJ
Warthog, to my knowledge, this wasn’t about emailing pictures. There is a picture of his dog in the face of a prisoner. I’ll research this a little more and get back to you.
SK
No response needed CJ. Thanks;) BTW…will you be at WR the Fri night before the conference?
CJ
SK, I probably will be there that Friday. I need to check my calendar, but I can make that a specific Friday if you’ll be there.
DWL
I Personally think these things would have never become an issue if the Democratic Party did not put their selfish political agendas priority over the security of our nation and especially about the lives of our Soldiers. Abu Garb – Gitmo is ridiculous copout was hyper-exaggerated by the Democratic Party merely to stain President Bush. The arrogances of these leaders should called into account. This Col Pappas has shamed his uniform – and should humiliated.
Sgt. Smith may have been stupid by emailing the pictures – and maybe some of the actions taken were wrong… but does excuse the Democrats from grinding every detail out so the media could make sure the enemies knew? How can this be justified – all for selfish political gain..!
SK
Hey CJ, unless my flight is REALLY late, I will be outside WR with GunnNutt and her friends on the 21st. Commenter LL will also be there and hopefully some other supporters will make it too. If you can be there we’d love to meet you!
Platoon Mom Terri
I couldn’t agree with you more CJ. It’s really irritating how the command personnel seem to get away with stuff and those under them always catch the heat…. in this situation as well as many others. Makes you really stop and think, doesn’t it?
Chad
NPR actually covered this story yesterday decently instead of slanted though they did make Pappas out to be sort of disconnected in his command of his troops. This poor guy. Not the best of choices on what he did but Pappas Fritaz should have been the one taking the fall if not alone or beside him.
VSidles
I can’t believe this news on Michael J. Smith. What a crock! Does the guy have a “fan site” of sorts? I’d like to find it. I support this guy 100%. As a kid, I got harrassed all the time by loose dogs, snarling and growling AND THEY WEREN’T ON CHAINS! I wonder if I can go back to those owners and have them thrown into prison for 8 yrs??? This country has gone crazy. Send all the liberals to Canada and we’ll take their dozen or so conservatives to replace them.
Hilary
In an AOL link (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060321105309990006&ncid=NWS00010000000001) it says he was convicted of 6 of 13 counts and the judge ended up dropping one count. But with the media, each source will tell what they feel like telling.
And, yes, the act with the consenting soldiers was dumb, but shouldn’t have been in this court martial.
dusgalan
a clear and resounding message here that senior military officers in command are not to be trusted since they are incapable of being responsible for themselves.
dusgalan of mt