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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
With the repeated claims that this man was not the/a ring leader and that he was simply following those alledged 'abuse' orders, I find it very ironic that he showed ongoing patterns of not being able to follow simple orders and yet, he claims he was just following "orders" when it came to making naked pyramids, abusing and beating prisoners, all the while laughing and whistling, taking pictures of his prize abuse victims, taking naked pictures of Ms. England and then posting them up for all to see, etc., etc., etc. Oh yeah...he was following "orders" though, won't he, and if he was following those alledged "orders," he, as others, sure got a hell'va kick out of following those alledged "orders," huh?

This may be off interest?
Sergeant says Abu Ghraib guard often defied orders


FORT HOOD - Army Spc. Charles Graner had a habit of disobeying orders from his military police superiors while serving as a guard at Abu Ghraib prison, according to testimony today from the first witness for the defense.
Master Sgt. Brian Lipinski, then the top noncommissioned officer in the 372nd Military Police Company, said under cross-examination that Graner wore his hair too long, altered his uniform in violation of regulations and refused to stay away from Pfc. Lynndie England despite being repeatedly told to do so.

"He just didn't like to follow orders," said prosecutor Maj. Michael Holley asked Lipinski.

"That's true, sir," Lipinski said.




seekerof

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Still defending the real masterminds of the abuse Seekerof? still thinking that Rumsfeld is Innocent and people just hate him?

What kind I said Seeferof, but from the president down they all knew about the abuses and approved them.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Nobody is defending anything here, Marg.
The investigations into this need to continue and will.

But after reading your comments, I realize that you are ignoring the simple fact that if this man was following those alledged abuse orders, how is it that he showed a recorded trend that he couldn't follow simple orders? If he couldn't follow those simple orders, how is it that he could be expected to follow and adhere to those alledged abuse orders?



seekerof

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
For the sake of arguement, let's say that Graner did indeed mastermind these efforts and the influence he had is what coerced others to join him in a blatant disregard for human rights. The amount of time these abuses occurred in and the nature of the situation, i.e. prisoners of war and the quest for information regarding WMD's, suggests that higher authorities were aware of these actions. Indeed, it is stated in the very article Seekerof submitted at the bottom, that these actions were encouraged.

Noone of higher authority is going to be held responsible. The system that produced the factors causing these actions will not suffer further scrutiny. I'm glad Graner got a slap on the wrist, but what of the government? It gets re-elected.....



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Only ten years...
Even for one of the participating soldiers that committed one of two acts should have received more than a mere ten years, let alone someone like him.

If anyone here can view the following pictures and still believe that only ten years in prison is adequate, then they are just as bad as the people that purported such acts, for it made me sick to my stomach.

(Warning Graphic Content)
Pictures of your soldiers shameful acts against humanity.

If they are ever released I would not be suprised if every single one of those prisoners joined the resistance after such treatment, even if they didnt follow them in the first place.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   
What I don't understand is why the pictures were taken. They had to realize that there would be a chance that others would see them - did they think that one day they would/could brag about this? The only reason you take pictures is to show them off. There were many involved in this and they do appear to have enjoyed their role in it. What the F@$#?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Alright. Assuming that it is true that he does have a history of disobeying orders. Then why the hell was he allowed to continue his vocation ? Can't see where this sort of testimony is gonna lead. Refusing to follow orders is more than ample grounds for a Court martial. Yet he was left to CONTROL AND DISCIPLINE others ???



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   

as posted by dixon
Can't see where this sort of testimony is gonna lead. Refusing to follow orders is more than ample grounds for a Court martial. Yet he was left to CONTROL AND DISCIPLINE others???


Dixon, having served, Mr. Graner's not following orders, as they pertain to: "...wore his hair too long, altered his uniform in violation of regulations and refused to stay away from Pfc. Lynndie England despite being repeatedly told to do so," are not necessarily court martial offenses. But what this does show is Mr. Graner's trend or pattern of not follow orders. That being said, what this exemplifies is that larger violations are preceded by smaller violations: a trend and/or pattern.

His direct superiors should be questioned as to their neglect in keeping track of this individual or to find out if they were aware or not of Mr. Graner's activities, in regards to the abuse's he, and others, were perpetuating (ie: were they or were they not complicit in this).





seekerof



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Seekerof the excused that he could not follow orders is typical when court martials are done against military soldiers, remember I was a military wife for 22 years and my husband served in various occasions on military court when we where in Quantico Va.

Really you need to know more about how the courts works, when it come with probably cause.

Funny that that particular reason for his motives were "no following order" you get office ours for that, alone, but occurs he was not an active duty personnel.

You don't get it, he had problems following orders, but the orders was to used any means to get the prisoners to talk so actually he did follow orders.


The orders that came directly from Rumsfeld and Bush.
on how to threat prisioners of war and "terrorist" and "insurgents"



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

as posted by marg
Really you need to know more about how the courts works, when it come with probably cause.


I guess your reading and comprehension skills are in question? You did fail to read and comprehend that I mentioned that I served myself? Hello?! And as to what you insinuate, you are somewhat mistaken in that, that is not always the applied case.

But getting back to Mr. Graner and your continued belief that he was following orders, further investigations will ultimately reveal whether Mr. Graner was indeed "following orders" or he, as others, where acting outside of orders, huh?

As stated, Mr. Graner showed a pattern of disobedience to following simple orders. The trend further is exemplified by the simple criminal theory and methodology that breaking rules, laws, etc. goes from smaller acts committed to larger acts committed, hence my comment that those larger acts of disobedience and infractions were preceded by smaller acts of disobedience and infractions.

It remains to be seen whether his direct superiors were knowingly complicit or not.




seekerof



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Seekerof as usual getting out of this one, it has become obvious that sometimes you even lose in your own worlds.

I am going to leave it at that we will have more nice threads on the follow ups of these abu ghraib's fall guys.

And for the master minders we already have from the horses mouth that Mr.Bush re-elections is the OK of the American people to agree with the actions in Iraq, so officials in the government should not be held accountable.

When my husband heard that on TV his mouth actually drop open.

That tells you what is in the mind of our leader and the consequences of his actions he feels not evil he sees no evil as long at the littler guys get blame for it. No good Seekerof, no good.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Marg, your right, in that, we "even lose in your own worlds", huh?

Btw, whats your husbands opinion on this?

as posted by seekerof
As stated, Mr. Graner showed a pattern of disobedience to following simple orders. The trend further is exemplified by the simple criminal theory and methodology that breaking rules, laws, etc. goes from smaller acts committed to larger acts committed, hence my comment that those larger acts of disobedience and infractions were preceded by smaller acts of disobedience and infractions.


The problem here is the continued use of the tired cliche' of military personnel simply "following orders". It was used in the Nuremburg Trials, and was proven a non-legitimate excuse. Personal responsibility is a two edged sword when one crys that he or she was simply "following orders'. Another problem arises: were they "following" orders or where they acting voluntarily outside the bounds of orders? It's apparent that you, as with some others, have already concluded that they were following the orders of their superior officers, whereas, it has yet to be revealed or determined as such in a military court of law. Interesting, huh? I guess we can all simply throw that old adage of "innocent till proven guilty" out the window, eh?

Despite the coincedences and correlations that you have mentioned, I find it odd and hard to believe that some would honestly believe that these people, who committed these acts, were not acting outside of prescribed orders, that in fact, as you and others assert, they were working within them. As such, did those orders include making naked pyramids, whistling and laughing while beating the crap out of captives, taking humiliating and indecent pictures, etc, etc., all in the name of "following orders"?

Let the investigations continue, is my motto.
But IMHO, regardless of it being possibly found that Mr. Graner, as others, may have acted outside of prescribed orders, you, as with others, will continue to refut and contest otherwise, eh? Makes for circle logic, doesn't it? And makes trying to get to the bottom of what really happened rather pointless, being that it will simply be continually spewed that they were following the orders of their superior officers, huh?




seekerof

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Well, the "cheerleader" defence certainly points towards really nothing else to be seen from this guy's defence. Well, suppose that the others can expect less time if found guilty. The Statement of Facts will say that he is THE RINGLEADER and the tribunal has convicted on that Statement of Facts and the charges laid. Looks like the matter is closed. Rummie (whether guilty or not) has just hit a home run with this verdict. The tribunal has affirmed that THE RINGLEADER is the person who loves cheerleading routines.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
One thing Seekerof before you get lost again in your "reasoning" we all do, right now you completely has gone around the "Bushes" my husband only concern is as to these actions are going to do for the moral of our troops that regardless of what you and I may think as to the guiltiness of Graner, to them even if Graner is guilty of his sick game, some troops find ironic that following orders equals becoming a fall guy.

My husband believe he was guilty and he was burn for it, but he also think that is more that miss the eyes.

Now how do you think about Mr. Bush's statements of no accountability, how do you think that is going to feel withing the military community?

You forgot that soldiers held in high esteem their position as defenders of the US but who is going to defend them for the mistakes of others higher up in the chain of command.

By the way Graner parents are upset and they may be talking, but I feel that they will be quietly restrain for their sons sake.


Have you ever heard of "hidden tribunals" some think that they really exist, and has been around even for a long time.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

as posted by Marg6043
....before you get lost again in your "reasoning"....

Definitely not lost in my own reasoning. Simple logic really, Marg.
It was you that brought your husband into this discussion, and it was I that asked a simply observation question. No harm was meant and no foul intended.
As stated:

as posted by seekerof
The problem here is the continued use of the tired cliche' of military personnel simply "following orders". It was used in the Nuremburg Trials, and was proven a non-legitimate excuse. Personal responsibility is a two edged sword when one crys that he or she was simply "following orders'. Another problem arises: were they "following" orders or where they acting voluntarily outside the bounds of orders? It's apparent that you, as with some others, have already concluded that they were following the orders of their superior officers, whereas, it has yet to be revealed or determined as such in a military court of law. Interesting, huh? I guess we can all simply throw that old adage of "innocent till proven guilty" out the window, eh?


As for this:


My husband believe he was guilty and he was burn for it, but he also think that is more that miss the eyes.

Such as? That he was following orders of his superiors? The proof of such rests where? Has a military court of law determined that Mr. Graner was indeed following the orders of his superior officers or that because of his past recorded and documented track record, Mr. Graner had a habit of disregarding simple orders and acting outside of prescribed set orders?



Now how do you think about Mr. Bush's statements of no accountability, how do you think that is going to feel withing the military community?

That remains to be seen, huh?
The latest military pollings indicate that Mr. Bush is supported overwhelmingly by nearly 70% of military personnel and nearly that much supporting the war in Iraq. This polling has been posted within ATS previously by me. It's from Military.com.



By the way Graner parents are upset and they may be talking, but I feel that they will be quietly restrain for their sons sake

Simple conjecture, Marg.
Undoubtedly his parents should and would be upset, but then again, Mr. Graner is a grown man and is responsible and accountable for his actions, isn't he? I think his parents would feel likewise. As to them coming out and talking, that remains to be seen. What will they say in the defense of their son that their son hasn't already said? That he was "following orders"? As already mentioned, this same tired lame cliche' of an excuse was used in the WWII Nuremburg Trails and was proven not a valid excuse. Will they expose who gave those orders? I certainly hope so. It will make the work of those investigating this Abu Ghraib case alot easier, wouldn't it, especially if it was proven in a military court of law to be true?



Have you ever heard of "hidden tribunals"...

Certainly have, but in this applied case, seems illogical being that the Abu Ghraib events were made so public in the first place. Accountability must and will remain a public matter. Until it is proven that there was or is "hidden tribunals" taking place, in regards to this matter of the investigation of the Abu Ghraib abuses, it amounts to unconfirmed and unsubstantiated hearsay and speculation.




seekerof

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Nice answers, but remember your reasoning is your personal interpretation of facts, ideas and believes, so what may be the right reasoning to you may not be to me or others, remember that is what it makes us individuals.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
News reports say the jury clearly rejected Graner's defense that he had been ordered by intelligence agents at Abu Ghraib to abuse the prisoners to make them easier to interrogate. Since Graner didn't testify at his trial, but only at sentencing, and since he is the one making the claim that of merely following orders, it would appear that this defense was not well-presented. Only Graner could put flesh on the bones of that defense. There was no upside for Graner not to testify at trial. Conviction was a given outcome known to all. So, I wonder why he didn't take the stand.

In any event, even if Graner had testified, that defense should have been rejected, though it would go to mitigation. As one or more have pointed out, he's from Virginia and therefore is prone to behave that way.

Seekerof says that Graner "showed ongoing patterns of not being able to follow simple orders".

As Soficrow said, "the higher ups just know how to pick the right people."

Graner is guilty. No argument on that. The defense of merely following orders should always be rejected.

Unfortunately for you defenders of everything Bush, the abuse at Abu Ghraib continued over a substantial period of time. There is no way those in charge did not know of it. They did know and allowed it to continue. There is strong evidence that those up the chain orchestrated it. We already know that the White House endorsed torture as an interrogation technique. So, I must ask, what are you defending? Or is it just your Pavlovian response to defend authority whenever it is challenged.

Now, let's have an honest and thorough investigation of who is really responsible for this and make certain they are punished appropriately and severely. They should at minimum get what Graner got and more. And let's follow it all the way up the chain to where the buck stops. If that means impeachment of Dubya, I'm all for it. Gonzales should clearly be blocked from any position of responsibility for his official endorsement of this kind of misconduct.





[edit on 1/17/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
So, what about the sick bastards that participated in that twisted crap? They should get some time too, IMO. In their position, I don't care if someone did tell them to torture the prisoners, I wouldn't have been able to do it. Anyone who can, and thinks it's funny, should be punished and/or have their heads examined. There's something sickening about anyone who can do things like that, much less smile and laugh for the pictures.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
In the military onces you are found of a crime not defense or argument is going to change the fact that you are already guilty even before the court martial.

All the defense is doing is making the sentence better for the accused.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
It appears that Graner isn't the only one respondsible for the loss of the esteem of the United States in the eyes of the world and the subsequent loss of American primacy as leader of the world.

www.estripes.com...

Because Graner did not follow some orders does this mean that he did not follow ANY orders ever?

Because Graner did not follow some orders does it mean that he was NEVER ordered to torture?

If he didn't follow an order once or twice does that makes Graner a completely independent entity whose actions the US military bears no responsibility for?

It makes me angry that Bush has personally endorsed torture.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join