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: Graner Found Guilty, Sentenced to Ten Years

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
The military trains its recruits to follow orders and not deviate from prescribed procedures and protocols unless someone up the chain of command orders otherwise. Are you saying that THE training no longer works and everyone over there in Iraq is doing whatever the hell they want regardless of their training. That would indeed be a brave new world.


Sure, and soldiers/sailors are also ordered to rape women where they are stationed at, they are also told to steal cars even inside the bases, they are told to dissapear when they were supposed to report for duty or stay at the barracks....

Are you telling me that all soldiers/sailors are squared away?.... HA.....

There is always a group or more of sailors that do pretty much anything they want, some suffer the consequences, others if they have it covered, will not even spend one day at the brig.


[edit on 15-1-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ancientsailor
I for one thought, even if the so called big shots told me to do this, I would of been court marshalled for not following orders. Guilty or not of war crimes of POW, prisoners are not treat, never treated like that. They violated the code of conduct in my book. Now the rest of the ring will be bitting the bullet.


Not you don't. If you don't follow an order that is morally unacceptable and goes against the USMCJ you don't have to follow the order. It is true that if the order is given by one of your superiors and you don't follow it you will be sent to the brig, but eventually if you continue to bring this up someone in the chain of command is bound to listen and do something about it. Quite a few sailors/soldiers just don't have the guts to go against the orders of a superior, even when the order goes against the USMCJ.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
And as such, despite the mention of some within this thread, findings indicated that Mr. Grainer acted voluntarily and independently. There were no "higher-up" superior orders for him to do what he and others did at Abu Ghraib.
seekerof



Cut/Pasted from an L.A. Times article:"Womack showed the jury a counseling report Graner received at the time the abuse was occurring.
It said, in part, "You are doing a fine job…. You have received many accolades from the MI unit here. Continue to perform at this level, and it will help us."



Graner was at the very least being encouraged by higher authority and that proves that superiors were aware of the situation, no action was taken to stop the abuse; alas it was encouraged; and they as of yet, they are sidestepping any responsibility. Graners actions are deplorable. So is the slam-bam-thankyou, maam trial that pins all the blame on one person where a hierarchy exists. Convenient that every time a scandal occurs, only one face emerges as the problem and our system with its amazing susceptibilty to corruption and even more astonishing capacity to "flavor the truth" avoids scrutiny once again.

Refer to Owells "1984" and the "5-minute hate." That's what it is all about....



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Muadibb,

As much as I enjoy reading your posts I must comment upon how naïve your statements sound at times. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary you always come down on the side that says: government is good and can do no wrong, no evil people in government, no evil emanates from people in positions of authority, mommy and daddy (ie. government and authority figures) do no wrong or, if they do, I cannot allow myself to recognize it, I can't speak of it, it's just toooooo scaarrryyy . . . waaaahh!, all bad things are done by the little people on the bottom of the socio-political-economic ladder.

No offense intended. This is just my personal observation based on countless posts I have read where these types of issues are discussed. Keep up the thought-provoking discussion. After all, you do lend much needed fairness and balance to the threads.


[edit on 1/15/2005 by dubiousone]

[edit on 1/15/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Well, he didn't get the maximum.

A military jury Saturday sentenced Army Reserve Spc. Charles Graner to 10 years in prison, downgraded him to private with loss of pay and gave him a dishonorable discharge after convicting him on charges of abusing detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. At the sentencing phase of the court-martial he said that he was merely following orders from civilian contractors and military intelligence

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 15-1-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Thank you for that lovely article mention from the L.A. Times, of all places.
Irregardless of what the article asserts, I guess you missed what else I said?


As such, even "if" he was following orders, doing so does not mean that he is exempt from responsibility for his subsequent actions that pertained to those alledged "orders". The Nuremburg Trails give prime example of those that tried to use the excuse that they were following "orders". Doesn't cut it, and certainly doesn't make for a credible excuse, whether it was torture or abuse.



IMHO, I don't care if he was following "orders," as has been mentioned, and as was probably neglected to be mentioned in that lovely L.A. Times article, Mr. Grainer could have choose to not follow those orders. In the event that he did follow those alledged "orders," he, as with the others involved, are not exempt from responsibility.

Using the excuse that you were following orders, in such an applied case of rape, torture, and/or abuse, is about as lame as those who high-tail it to Canada because they don't want to fulfill their obligations with the military, for which they signed the dotted line and agreed to do. Simply lame!

I bet he follows orders at Levinsworth though.






seekerof



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Seekerof- I am truly shocked! "irregardless"?


Anybody know what life will be like in Leavenworth (sp?) Do these guys only serve a portion of the sentence if they play nice? Do they have the same nasty "pruno" related violence, shower beatings, and punk rapes that "normal" prison has?

Surely it won't be a cakewalk but I am interested to know how military prison differs from civilian incarceration.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Irregardless of what the article asserts, I guess you missed what else I said?


As such, even "if" he was following orders, doing so does not mean that he is exempt from responsibility for his subsequent actions that pertained to those alledged "orders". The Nuremburg Trails give prime example of those that tried to use the excuse that they were following "orders". Doesn't cut it, and certainly doesn't make for a credible excuse, whether it was torture or abuse.


seekerof



No, I did not miss the rest of your post. My response was meant to address your statement of fact, i.e. "findings indicated that Mr. Grainer acted voluntarily and independently." This statement implies Graner to be the "end all, be all" of authority in this situation. That was not the case.

I was not attempting to argue Graners responsibility by stating he "was following orders." I agree with you. He could have chose to act against the encouragement/orders. He didn't. He should face consequences. But, I wanted to expand the attention to include the involvement of his superiors and the level of corruption evidenced by their knowledge of the situation. The finger should point to the entire system, especially when you factor in the intelligence bumbling associated with 9/11and the initiation of the war in Iraq. The only thing I disagree with you on is the scope of the investigation and the emphasis on one person as the sole point of responsibility. Convenient that we can now assume justice has been done now that one man is convicted and sentenced.....



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
MSNBC article at www.msnbc.msn.com...
dated 1-16-2005 says this:


Graner did not testify during his trial, but during the sentencing phase Saturday he took the witness stand to repeat the defense claim that the jury clearly rejected: that he had been ordered by intelligence agents at Abu Ghraib to abuse the prisoners to make them easier to interrogate.

His attorney, Guy Womack, asked him why he was smiling in the infamous photos, some of which were shown while Graner spoke.

“I’m smiling now, and that’s a nervous smile,” Graner said.

Graner described himself as a by-the-book prison guard corrupted by superiors who ordered him to physically mistreat and sexually humiliate detainees.

He said he initially resisted pressure to mistreat prisoners, but his Army superiors made it clear to him that he was expected to obey the commands of the military and civilian intelligence agents who ran his part of Abu Ghraib.

Graner said a lieutenant in his unit told him: “If (military intelligence) asks you to do this, it needs to be done. They’re in charge, follow their orders.”

He said he now knows that those orders were unlawful, but “at the time my understanding is that they were (lawful), or I wouldn’t have done them,” he said.

* * * *

A month later, President Bush urged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to make sure that any guilty U.S. soldiers be punished for “shameful and appalling acts.”


In effect, "get the little guy." And that is exactly what is happening.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I would have liked to see Graner get the maximum, however I believe that he is correct in one thing: Someone higher ordered them to do this and he is the higest this will go :shk:



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Yeah I agree this fella is obviously the fall guy protecting Rumsfeld and comapany, i heard two top ranking generals were ready to come forward and name names, but maybe they have been silenced.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
You mean his Cheerleader defence didn't work ??

Awwww, it seemed to have so much substance to it.. Schuckkkkks ....... IMO, his darn counsel should be responsible for some of his upcoming down time..



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Iraqi anger at abuser's jail term

The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says with elections only two weeks away, violence wracking many areas and daily life for many people a harsh struggle for survival, most Iraqis have not exactly been following the Abu Ghraib prosecutions with baited breath.

But he says, now that the verdict on Graner is out, most of those who are aware of the case believe the sentence should have been tougher.

BBC



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
findings indicated that Mr. Grainer acted voluntarily and independently. There were no "higher-up" superior orders for him to do what he and others did at Abu Ghraib.

seekerof



Which "findings" would indicate that exactly?

The "findings" of many more ATS members would be that torture was authorized at the highest levels, and international commentators constantly go up the chain to where the responsibility lies, with Rumsfeld and Bush. But international commentators are not the people putting the Bush administration (including Gonzales) on trial.

After the handling of Graner, there will be less commentary here to the effect that what happened at Abu Ghraib was "not torture". But there will still be some, go figure.


dh

posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
While Graner goes down, the private companies immersed in the torture scandals, CACI and Titan pick up renewed contracts worth $16 million and $164 million dollars respectively
observer.guardian.co.uk...

The Bush administration gets 4 more years

The CIA operatives, Army psy-ops officers, doctors and psychiatrists get to carry on their torturing in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram and Baghdad airports, prison ships worldwide, Diego Garcia if they weren't all washed away, and via proxy governments

Now Graner may be average little brainwashed robotic sadistic pervert of the kind so liked by the military, or he may be better or worse

If he was better, then under Nuremberg findings he should have refused orders and prevented further abuse by armed force against officers if necessary. But I doubt that he's a brave man.

The smiles, may, as English claimed, have been switched on for the camera under orders
But one suspects they may at least have found their work 'interesting' even though following commads

Nevertheless those kind of pictures weren't taken by fools, nor were they released by a concerned whistleblower. They were released as a psychological attack on both the homeland public and on the Islamic world

I know who should be thrown in a military hellhole for ten years or far more - the chain of command responsible for the system leading straight up to the the directors of the private companies, the directors of the CIA. military commanders, Rumsfeld and Bush

Then justice would be seen to have been done



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Good points dh. Maybe those listed as responsible need to be worried that someday, even after they leave office, they'll be nabbed while traveling abroad and brought before the International Court of Justice.

[edit on 1/16/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh
While Graner goes down, the private companies immersed in the torture scandals, CACI and Titan pick up renewed contracts worth $16 million and $164 million dollars respectively
observer.guardian.co.uk...

The Bush administration gets 4 more years


Excellent post dh, but you forgot to mention that the american public got another "shake their head and continue on with there lives" news story. Bush and cronies won't be held responsible because he was re-elected, an apt justification in the eyes of The Powers That Be and those who follow the nudgings of their puppet strings. I'm continually appalled at the level of abuse in the heirarchy and corrolating apathy in the masses. None of this is right and G.W. should not be President


dh

posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
Good points dh. Maybe those listed as responsible need to be worried that someday, even after they leave office, they'll be nabbed while traveling abroad and brought before the International Court of Justice.

[edit on 1/16/2005 by dubiousone]


What? Do you mean like Kissinger? A disreputable criminal barred from many countries?
Not these bastards
They've got lock-on



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Granted the guy is guilty with pictures and plenty of other
evidence but I find it hard to believe that this guy is the ring leader
I mean he is not even Non Commissioned officer (sergeant)
or Junior Non-Commissioned officer (Corpral)
Now I am sure that some people say that he has the same pay grade
as a corpral which is definately true however he has had none of the
training that comes with being an NCO or JR. NCO and one of the
key elements to a good military according to the Army is the leadership
after all without a brain connected to it the body doesn't know what to do.

I am not saying that the jury should have been more leanient
but I do think that this is one case where cleaning out the closets
would be a good thing...

and lets not forget this may be a suedo war but war is war and there is no telling what these prisoners may have done to our men and women...



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
They only reason he looks like the wrong guy is because he is, not don't get me wrong he was to play the fall guy, plain and simple.

He does not look like he will have the brains to alone with his girlfrend to mastermind the kind of abuses in the Abu Ghraib, because he was not.

This man was not the ring leader, he was a follower not a leader.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join