Ready.
When any military abuse is publicized, the top brass, the full generals, all claim to be "fool-generals" to avoid responsibility. There appear to exist even quite long-period abuses. Was not that their responsibility to command/manage their subordinates to avoid any abuses? If command is not about systematic management-and-controls, what is it?
By contrast, what I suggest at this site, the armaze framework, and any arm ordered by any armaze, is founded with its responsibilities. It is not centralized. No one to silence the rank-and-file who objects to an atrocity. It is vice versa. The armaze rules enforce responsibilities of others, to join forces to remove any abuser out of function.
The existence of torture is quite abhorrable. But the full horror is the attempt of US government, in 2004, to make war-crimes tolerated. Criminals could be punishable, but if even the laws get lost, it is a system of abuse - with torture.
This is one of those cases I notice as cues of a possible anti-christ's calling, which is to invent fake-legitimacies to beget chaos, through escalation of mutual atrocities.
Such a case of neglect-the-atrocities, is comparable to the "untriable" (ccourt-exempt) status of the military government period, which followed the military coup in Turkey, in early 1980s. A lot of abuses are reported. But the lack of court-triability, leaves them unpunishable.
Is it only a co-incidence that the case study about a general, which was about the commander of the U.N. troops in Somalia where abuses (tortures, rapes) occurred, was starred by that very general who was the personal-aide ("yaver") of the leader of that 1980 coup. Will he not be punishable, ever? No responsibility? What could justify rapes, as "a part of war," at all? Would a breach of anti-war-crime laws, let such rapes as in Somalia, be unpunishable, too? Could they go on?
That case-study: A full general. How is that serious? referred to his commandership of U.N. troops in Somalia, next to the later committed, other abusive absurdities by him - unexplainable-to-exist, unless systematically supported, by the "silent-viewers," the other full-generals.
Since Vietnam, USA appears to rather avoid international conflict - unless they can justify it on self-interest terms. An important motivation is to silence/comfort the American citizens, who want to avoid an appearance as illegitimate bullies, who get involved "where they are irrelevant." This may not necessarily help, though, as it is so often interpreted as bullyhood to gain material advantages, such as petroleum, etc. It stands to erode the American legitimacy, when other, non-self-interest, cases of abuses, could be neglected.
It also pleases the old (dormant/stealthy) colonialists, as they had always worked with local-tools. It is, in fact, such local-tools that commit most, if not all, atrocities.
And whether such "local-tools," the local-and-cruel tyrants, or some citizen of USA commits an atrocity, it is almost invariably the case that, it is publicized forcefully, and worked against, by the Americans. This is very important, as it tells about a people, who do not keep silent, when another of them does, or backs, evil. Unfortunately, it is a rare virtue, in many other countries in the world.
Although Islam does order it (e.g: fairness, even if the relatives, or important/powerful brought to court), that is not necessarily the applied case, even in the so-called Islamic countries. Torture appears to be prevalent, in especially the third-world countries - whether "Islamic," or not.
Most of them claim to be "western-oriented," any way. Many aspects of Islam tend to be denied to the people, in several of the so-called "Islamic" countries - including Turkey, although permitted in USA, Netherlands, etc.
The catch is that, unless the Americans reflect about the two ends of the issue together, they may be stuck in a position as "the bullies," while their emphasis was to avoid it.