Ten-year jail term for Abu Ghraib ringleader

[Dreamer128]

US soldier Charles Graner has been sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for playing a leading role in the abuse of prisoners in the Abu Ghraib jail near the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

A military jury in Texas found Mr Graner guilty on Friday. On Saturday they sentenced him to five years less than the 15-year maximum jail term demanded by the prosecution.

Mr Graner, together with his girlfriend Lynndie England, featured prominently in photographs showing the abuse and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at the jail. The images caused an international outcry when they were published.

Throughout the trial the defendant and his lawyers insisted he was acting on orders from his superiors.

(rnw.nl)

[Lucern]

The "pyramid defense" that they talked about to the local media was ridiculous. An attorney of some sort basically said that cheerleaders do it all the time. Well, they aren't forced, they aren't naked, and it's not designed to humiliate or cause pain.

Despite the rulings on these cases, I'm not buying the "handful of bad soldiers" explanation. These folks still had to have known it was wrong, so as long as these cases aren't used to avoid looking for a more systemic problem, so far so good.

[ 01-16-2005, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Lucern ]

[Dreamer128]

Originally posted by Lucern: An attorney of some sort basically said that cheerleaders do it all the time. Well, they aren't naked,

If only.. then again, that would make it impossible to get a green card.

[Davros]

Good point Lucern, but the sad news is they seem to be writing it off to a few bad apples and there is no intent to dig for a systematic problem. The stories out of Gitmo make me think there is something to what Graner said in his defence, but there also seems to be no doubt he took things further than anyone else.

[Cerek]

"Psychological conditioning" of prisoners or detainees is a normal part of any interrogation process. Civilian police often will question a suspect for hours on end without any rest in order to "wear them down". Another technique is to make the suspect believe you know more than you really do.

Military prisoners have always been subjected to various forms of "psychological conditioning" also. Some of it borders on torture and some of it is outright torture. Other methods - such as sleep deprivation - are not torturous, per se, though it is unpleasant for the prisoner in question.

A certain level of "conditioning" is to be expected in any military interrogation, but the events at Abu Gharib obviously went FAR beyond what the superiors would most likely have ordered the guards to do. Then again, that is how superiors escape prosecution. They can give a general order to "soften the prisoner up", then claim they never meant for specific events to occur.

I personally can't imagine that the Iraqi prisoners would have been successfully "softened up" by any of the "normal" methods. Thier hatred for the U.S. is almost inbred and is cultured their entire lives. Being "mean" to them is only going to reinforce this deep-seated hatred and make them more determined NOT to cooperate. Rather, the guards should have broken the mold of what the Iraqi soldiers pictured Americans as being like and shown them unexpected levels of kindness and courteousness.

I'm certainly no military expert, but just on general psychology, it seems that would have been far more effective in getting the prisoners to lower their guard and be more forthcoming with information.

Either way, I'm glad to see steps being taken to prosecute those involved - even though they are most likely nothing more than sacrificial lambs. Still, the world community is looking to us to "do the right thing" and any other verdict would have been unacceptable.

[Davros]

Good post Cerek. I was worried about where you were heading in the early parts, but you showed what you were thinking in the middle, and finished it off well.

I agree .

[Azred]

Ten years might not sound like enough to some, but this guy faces ten years in federal/military prison, notably tougher than "normal" prison.

I have news for this guy's defense team: "I was only following orders" is a defense with extremely terrible precedent (i.e., Nuremberg Trials).

[Lucern]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but were not many of the Abu Ghraib prisoners actually just criminals, not military combatants or POWs?

Assuming they were criminals, or any part of the tortured population were criminals, then this falls in line with almost all torture - it wasn't done for information. From the folks I've worked with, torture is extremely difficult to get a grasp on. The "Why" of it haunts them. They eventually settle on some combination of "They hated me, it was political/religious persecution, and they were making an example."

And Davros, I'd like to add to your "Reasons to be suspicious of further (higher up) involvement: Mr. Gonzales's infamous "Torture Memo" - the legal defense of presidential torture authorization. It's easy to discount it, unless you've read it. Creepy stuff.

None of this is a matter of policy (I hope), but I'd be happier if everyone who supports and advocates torture is weeded out of our governing body.

[shamrock_uk]

Correct. The Red Cross estimates that only 1 in 10 of American prisoners are actually terrorists. Maybe that's why they weren't getting much information out of their interrogations... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Khazadman Risen]

You'rte wrong about getting more onformation ot of the prisoners with kindness. They would look on this as weakness and just laugh it off.