Colonel Reprimanded Over Abu Ghraib Abuse
Army Reprimands, Fines Col. Thomas M. Pappas Over Abu Ghraib Abuse, but No Charges Filed
Associated Press | May. 12, 2005
By ROBERT BURNS
The Army reprimanded and fined a colonel who was in charge of an intelligence unit at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq during the period of prisoner abuse, but the service chose not to press criminal charges, an official said Wednesday.
Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, based in Germany, had faced the possibility of criminal prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but a two-star general instead administered what the military calls nonjudicial punishment.
Pappas is among the highest ranking officers whose actions have been scrutinized in the abuse scandal. Only one general Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski has been punished. She was demoted to colonel.
The question of whether Pappas would be relieved of his command had not been settled Wednesday, according to an Army official who discussed the matter only on condition of anonymity because it had not been publicly announced.
Pappas was not accused of ordering abuse or participating in it, but the Army said some soldiers under his command were involved and he was faulted for two instances of dereliction of duty.
Maj. Gen. Bennie Williams, who decided not to press criminal charges, ordered Pappas to repay $8,000 in salary and gave him an official letter of reprimand. Taken together the penalties essentially stop him from being promoted in rank and thus hasten the end of his career.
Pappas had the option of refusing the nonjudicial punishment and contesting the allegations in a court martial, but he chose not to, the Army official said.
The Army said it verified a finding by previous Army investigations that Pappas had failed to obtain approval from superior commanders before authorizing an unsanctioned interrogation method: the presence of military dogs during interrogations as a method of scaring prisoners.
The Army also said Pappas was derelict in his duties by failing to ensure that soldiers under his command were informed of, trained in and supervised in the application of interrogation procedures.