Senate torture report confirms Bush, top officials guilty of war crimes

The matter of official approval of questionable procedures is tainted by the military system of 'performance rating' of officers.

Officers who oppose the stated desires or opinions of senior officers in their line of official rating suffer delayed promotion or non-promotion, denial of beneficial personnel actions, and personal censure and branding as 'trouble makers'.

This entire report shows that the chain of command up to and including the 'Commander-in-Chief', President George W. Bush, presented all staff officers involved with a double exposure. To agree, in order to maintain promotion probability, and to violate personal ethics in order to avoid 'making waves'.

This environment in the Army where I served caused me to be delayed promotion from Captain to Major and to deprive me of a high probability of attaining the rank of Lieutenant Colonel by the time I retired in 1975. I am by nature a seeker of right and true and a resister of pressure to conform. I champion quality control and resist pressure to please superiors with fake supporting opinion. Though I am not a 'whistle blower', I agree that it is sometimes desirable and necessary. I am 80 years old and no longer need protection from my 'superiors'.

My service never rose to the level of those involved in the 'torture' justification. However, it was a microcosm of the very same pressures on officers to protect their own career chances by providing senior officers and politicians with legal and professional judgement to support pre-determined decisions. The unofficial requirement is CYAWP.

My reference locations are, US Army Hospital, Fort Lee, Virgina; US Army Hospital, Berlin, Germany; Munson Army Hospital, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; 9th Medical Laboratory, Vietnam; and US Army Hospital, Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana. At first I believed in the integrity and honesty of Army officers in my first two assignments. My trust was betrayed. Threatened with removal before retirement, I conformed with the pattern and gained promotion a few months before retirement in 1975. A review of my official Officer Efficiency Reports would support the consequences, if not the details of the problem. I was able to comply without seriously jeopardizing my high moral standards. I did so by not 'making waves'.

Conclusion: Officers of all the military up to, and including, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are under pressure from their superiors, both military and civilian elected officials. They cannot be promoted without highly exaggerated and false efficiency ranking from raters endorsers, and approvers. In the absence of specific justification and documented deficiencies, very good and honest officers are denied promotion and opportunity for service, while liars and sycophants move up the ranks without impediment. A few very good and honest officers learn how to manipulate the system to their advantage without compromising their integrity. I learned it just in time to retire as a major with 16 years officer service.

Public exposure is the only protection against this internal infernal green machine for honest career officers and promotion competition for better service to our nation. A serious review of the promotion system would lead to improvements to eliminate the fear of career destruction. It would also lead to more honest officers of our armed services.