It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ABUSE CRISIS: Abu Ghraib Ringleader May Testify

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The accused ringleader, and assumed father of Lyndi England's child, Specialist Charles Graner Jr. of the 372nd Military Police Company is scheduled to appear in court today in Fort Hood Texas. He will be facing trial on charges of conspiracy to maltreat Iraqi detainees, assault, dereliction of duty and committing indecent acts. Graner's defense plans to argue that the Specialist was, "just following orders".
 



www.usatoday.com
Opening statements were set to start Monday in the court-martial of Spc. Charles Graner Jr., the alleged ringleader of the scandal. Graner, 36, is charged with conspiracy to maltreat Iraqi detainees, assault, dereliction of duty and committing indecent acts.

An all-male jury of four Army officers and six senior enlisted men was picked Friday to decide his fate in what is expected to be a weeklong trial. If convicted on all counts, he faces up to 17 1/2 years in a military prison.

Graner's lawyer, Guy Womack of Houston, said that while he almost never lets his clients take the stand, he may bend that rule for the Graner, an Army reservist from Uniontown, Pa.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Abu Ghraib has become a symbol of what some say is the ruthless behavior of the US military. Many believe that the actions at Abu Ghraib were not the lone acts of some soldiers, but rather a calculated, coordinated plan of torture and humiliation that was directed by the top levels of the defense department.

10 jurists that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan will hear Spc. Garner's jury trial.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
ABUSE CRISIS: Accused Abu Ghraib soldier back in U.S.
ABUSE CRISIS: U.S. Army MI Pleads Guilty to Abu Ghraib Abuse Charges




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Its interesting as his defence attorney I recall was quoted as saying that in 17 years of military trials he has never called his client tot he stand. Hard to belive that he will offer up much of a defence. While he clearly needs to go to jail, others higher up need to be court martialed as well.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Interesting news. Seems like a good idea for the defence since he is being left and hung out to dry on this one. But anyone know the scope and depth of the court martial ? Wuold be good if the defenxce teams manages to uncover and force the issue on just how high up the knowledge went and ultimately, where his instructions came from.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Its interesting as his defence attorney I recall was quoted as saying that in 17 years of military trials he has never called his client tot he stand. Hard to belive that he will offer up much of a defence. While he clearly needs to go to jail, others higher up need to be court martialed as well.

The lead defense attorney was quoted as saying that Spc. Garner is a very well spoken person, and that he believes that his testimony will help his case not hurt it.
Perhaps he will be able to speak to the directives he was given, and the attorney believes that it will help his case.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
So, the ring leader is going to testify?

People you got it wrong I don't see Rumsfeld testifying anywhere.

Can the real ringleader please stand up.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
So, the ring leader is going to testify?

People you got it wrong I don't see Rumsfeld testifying anywhere.

Can the real ringleader please stand up.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa....
I wrote, right at the top, "accused ringleader" you know presumed innocent until proven to be the scapegoat.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
I wrote, right at the top, "accused ringleader" you know presumed innocent until proven to be the scapegoat.


I guess I got confused by a second there, sorry I did not quite read the "accused ringleader" I missed the "presumed"



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Its interesting as his defence attorney I recall was quoted as saying that in 17 years of military trials he has never called his client tot he stand. Hard to belive that he will offer up much of a defence. While he clearly needs to go to jail, others higher up need to be court martialed as well.


Fred

Graner's lawyer, Guy Womack of Houston, said that while he almost never lets his clients take the stand, he may bend that rule for the Graner, an Army reservist from Uniontown, Pa.

I looked for this sentence in the USA Today article, couldn't find it? Anyway, he didn't say this was the first time he has put a defendant on the stand, only that he rarely does that. That's typical of many defense attorneys, too.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I looked for this sentence in the USA Today article, couldn't find it? Anyway, he didn't say this was the first time he has put a defendant on the stand, only that he rarely does that. That's typical of many defense attorneys, too.

The linked article has changed since I originally posted it. The first 2 paragraphs in the news item I posted are verbatim and the third I posted is the fifth paragraph from the original. Mr. Womack did make the statement.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Oops - sorry, phreak. I thought Fred posted this. Thanks for the clarification on the article.

Anyway, this "I was only following orders" won't save his butt. I still can't get over how stupid some people are, to incriminate themselves by smiling at a camera while pulling stupid stunts. He should get ten years just for being a dumba$$.




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
You are correct the "I was only following orders" line didn't work at Nuremberg, and shouldn't work here. A soldier has the right to question illeagal orders. If they came down as orders, then he would have been withing his rights to question them, and even disobey them.

My personal feeling is that the people involved in this were sadistic little turds, and they deserve what's coming to them.
Any good criminal knows you don't photograph yourself breaking the law. Duh



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join