Charles Graner Jr Abuse Scandal

Good article, sandy. I can't wait to see the pro- torture folks' comments The prisoner abuse scandals should be unambiguously condemned by left and right; sadly the Bush supporters do everything they can to obfuscate, politicize and trivialize this. I'm pretty sure if a cure for cancer were discovered tomorrow the Bush supporters would find a way to be pissed off about it and do their damndest to turn it into a lft vs. right issue.

Good call. I've been waiting to read somewhere on JU about how "he was justified" and the "Muslims all deserve this kind of treatment". I really can't look for it anywhere else, because, well, this is the only place with people dumb enough to believe it.

Actually I think 10 years is about right for his crime.

While has been found guilty this must be balanced against other crimes and potential crimes. What he did is certainly less that the cases where prisoners have been murdered. Likewise his methods and the level of torture applied was not as severe as could have occurred. Some would argue a black and white case for full 15 years or nothing, but I believe that there are varying levels or torture. All are wrong and all must be punished, but the punishment must fit the crime. In this case I believe it has.

Paul.

Good call. I've been waiting to read somewhere on JU about how "he was justified" and the "Muslims all deserve this kind of treatment". I really can't look for it anywhere else, because, well, this is the only place with people dumb enough to believe it.

Appalling, isn't it?

Charles Graner Jr Abuse Scandal By: sandy2 Posted: Sunday, January 16, 2005 on Independent Left leaning Rants and Raves Message Board: Politics Well... he got off with 10 years. I for one am outraged. The maximum sentence was 15 years- still too little, but instead of giving him even that they gave him a below maximum term

Have you been reading the news lately? Maximum sentencing guidelines are GONE!

Did you read the trial transcripts?  That he got 10 years is just short of miraculous.  While the question of his guilt or innocence is not set in stone (and I do beleive he did some of the stuff), I dare say most of you would be screaming over a railroading if it was you in that position and not him.

Read the transcripts, and then cast those stones.

sadly the Bush supporters do everything they can to obfuscate, politicize and trivialize this.

I really can't look for it anywhere else, because, well, this is the only place with people dumb enough to believe it.

Well, I'll be. Talk about a little projection and pre-emptive insulting & bitching. Jesus. Condemning everyone who might disagree with you with generic insults is a great way to foster a rational dialog. 'Course, that assumes you might want one, an iffy assumption it appears.

And clearly you've not read (or simply ignored) statements by me and many other "Bush supporters" roundly condemning what these soldiers did. Hostile detainees should be treated harshly, short of torture, but we should take no pleasure in it, as was clearly the case here, nor should those responsible for ensuring discipline within the ranks of guards go unpunished.

Whether Graner's sentence was "fair" or not will depend on one's personal frame of reference. I don't know enough about the UCMJ to comment on the appropriateness of the sentence, but it should be understood that the UCMJ is quite different from civil criminal code.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I feel that this action was obviously allowed by senior members, and also was probably condoned and egged on by senior members.

But his 'seniors' covered their asses.  Yes, the issued orders to 'soften' prisoners, but they left the methods of softening up to the guards.  Graner got one charge of assault reduced to battery, that contributed to him getting less than the max.  Plus, there was the influence from those further up his chain of command to take into account. 

Not to rub salt in your wounds, but if he can be a good boy and behave himself whilst he's incarcerated at Leavenworth, he won't do the full 10.  Time off for good behaviour should see him out in 5 and a half or 6 years.

Not to rub salt in your wounds, but if he can be a good boy and behave himself whilst he's incarcerated at Leavenworth, he won't do the full 10. Time off for good behaviour should see him out in 5 and a half or 6 years.

See now this is ridiculous. Do the tortured Iraqi's get the chance to lessen their pain and emotional suffering they will suffer from for the rest of their life? I don't think so. Shame on the Military Justice System. I think this Garner should be tried in a civilian court for war crimes.... or wait that would defy... nevermind. I think he should be tried in a civilian court anyways because I don't find it fair he gets a lesser scentence than I or any other civilian would get for such behavior. I think that he has already shown his inability to "be a good boy".

Reply #9 By: sandy2 - 1/17/2005 9:46:34 PM Not to rub salt in your wounds, but if he can be a good boy and behave himself whilst he's incarcerated at Leavenworth, he won't do the full 10. Time off for good behaviour should see him out in 5 and a half or 6 years. See now this is ridiculous. Do the tortured Iraqi's get the chance to lessen their pain and emotional suffering they will suffer from for the rest of their life? I don't think so. Shame on the Military Justice System. I think this Garner should be tried in a civilian court for war crimes

This will *never* happen. Civilians are not allowed to try our military unless the military personel in question commited a crime in the civilian sector.

Civilians are not allowed to try our military unless the military personel in question commited a crime in the civilian sector

Hence why many believe there is a problem with the system. The military can always use the arguement that their very presence dictates that it's no longer a civilian sector. So no US soldier on duty will ever be accountable to the civilians.

paul.

Hence why many believe there is a problem with the system. The military can always use the arguement that their very presence dictates that it's no longer a civilian sector. So no US soldier on duty will ever be accountable to the civilians.

Maybe in your country, but not here.  A GI can take 2 steps off a post, and commit a crime, and he will be tried in Civilian court.  It does not matter if that base was the only thing for 100 miles around.

Reply #11 By: Solitair - 1/18/2005 3:59:03 AM Civilians are not allowed to try our military unless the military personel in question commited a crime in the civilian sector Hence why many believe there is a problem with the system. The military can always use the arguement that their very presence dictates that it's no longer a civilian sector. So no US soldier on duty will ever be accountable to the civilians. paul.

Well then the *many* would be wrong wouldn't they?

Well then the *many* would be wrong wouldn't they?

This pompous attitude is not appreciated Dr.Miller. And, I really am beginning to lose control over my ability to not comment about your abuse of emphasis.

This pompous attitude is not appreciated Dr.Miller. And, I really am beginning to lose control over my ability to not comment about your abuse of emphasis.

I think we are not reading the same post.  Dr merely said he was disagreeing with Paul, and that if many beleived as he did, then they would be wrong.  How is that pompous?  That is disagreement, not pomposity.

A GI can take 2 steps off a post, and commit a crime, and he will be tried in Civilian court.

That's not necessarily true.  A lot of bases and commands have a jurisdiction agreement with the local court system. See, if a civilian court tries a person, the military cannot legally reprimand that person for the same offence - so the military, especially in misdemeanor cases like DUI's, will take jurisdiction and apply punishment themselves.  I've seen it done a few times....and sometimes the military comes down harder than civilian courts do.

Sandy, you do realize that Graner's discharge makes him a felon, don't you?  Hopefully you can take some solace in that....

That's not necessarily true. A lot of bases and commands have a jurisdiction agreement with the local court system. See, if a civilian court tries a person, the military cannot legally reprimand that person for the same offence - so the military, especially in misdemeanor cases like DUI's, will take jurisdiction and apply punishment themselves. I've seen it done a few times....and sometimes the military comes down harder than civilian courts do.

I will grant you that, but then that is an agreement between the post and the surrounding community.  And only means he/she will get worse being tried on base, instead of locally.  Your response only re-inforces the point I was making.  GIs are not above the law.

Me: - ' I can't wait to see the pro- torture folks' comments...sadly the Bush supporters do everything they can to obfuscate, politicize and trivialize this'

Fake Doc #1: 'While the question of his guilt or innocence is not set in stone' (Apologizing)
Fake Doc #2: 'Well then the *many* would be wrong wouldn't they?' (Obfuscating)
Daiwa: 'me and many other "Bush supporters" roundly condemning what these soldiers did' (Yeah, right. Politicizing)
Daiwa: 'Well, I'll be. Talk about a little projection and pre-emptive insulting & bitching.'

Lol, I called it all the way Daiwa, here in the reality based community we use the scientific method. We observe the world around us and make hypothese(ese)(ese). Past actions are ofter the best predictors of future behavior. It's a mathematical certainty that whenever a "lefty' (or 'good person', as they should more accurately be referred to) writes a blog that makes sense the idiot Fake Doctors show up and drag the debate down to pre-Mesozoic levels. That's a bad thing, not a good thing. So I ridicule them, because here in the reality based community bad actions are discouraged via negative reinforcement. It's also fun and easy. I participate in several online forums and have never seen a critical mass of stupidity as large as the Bush Supporter Bloc here at JoeUser. I play online games with 12 year old children at The Zone who are more civilized than these clowns.

Sandy and other civilized folk who are annoyed with The Idiots: may I make a suggestion? These bozos are unworthy of commenting on your blog and their idiot comments drag down the level of discussion. Take your halo off and delete their comments. Don't blacklist them; I think it's better to make them go through the trouble of thumb-typing their grunts, then delete their drivel. I don't think they can be conditioned to act civilized but maybe they will think twice about 'stupiding up' a good thread with their inane comments.

Fake Doc #1: 'While the question of his guilt or innocence is not set in stone' (Apologizing)

You misread my post completely.  It was no apology.  It was a statement of fact based upon the integrity of the witnesses. I did not apologize for his behaviour, nor do I now.  I merely stated that the sentence was just.  Or do you have a problem with that?  Seems you got it all wrong.  And it is you that is dragging things down. I dont see anyone else excusing him or exhonerating him.  We just dont want to lynch him, but apperantly you do.

You are a sad misguided wrong creature of your own habits.

Sandy and other civilized folk who are annoyed with The Idiots: may I make a suggestion? These bozos are unworthy of commenting on your blog and their idiot comments drag down the level of discussion. Take your halo off and delete their comments. Don't blacklist them; I think it's better to make them go through the trouble of thumb-typing their grunts, then delete their drivel. I don't think they can be conditioned to act civilized but maybe they will think twice about 'stupiding up' a good thread with their inane comments.

You just accomplished in one paragraph what no one else could with any type of name calling or facts.  You painted your true colors as an ignoramus that does not beleive in honest open discussion, just lynch mobs and name calling.

And you hide behind a shield of anonymity.  You are just an internet bully.  bravado behind a keyboard to make up for your own perceived impotence.

Reply #14 By: sandy2 - 1/18/2005 4:24:47 PM Well then the *many* would be wrong wouldn't they? This pompous attitude is not appreciated Dr.Miller. And, I really am beginning to lose control over my ability to not comment about your abuse of emphasis.

I was not being pompous. And to be quite honest the way I write is no concern of yours. Your are not my teacher, nor my father/mother, nor my wife.

Well then the *many* would be wrong wouldn't they?

So you honestly believe it is acceptable for soldiers to commit any offense they like while on active duty in any country they like without any civilian court having the right to try them? Look at the antagonism that this attitude has generated in the Phillipines and other pacific islands. Look at the serious anger in Iraq. This anger is not unfounded, it comes from knowing that US soldiers can do what they like to your country and never have to answer to your people for this. That's wrong.

Paul.

This anger is not unfounded, it comes from knowing that US soldiers can do what they like to your country and never have to answer to your people for this. That's wrong.

The investigation, arrests and now a conviction in connection with the Abu Graib problem would tend to go against your assertion. There were abuses, they were discovered and investigated. As a result heads are rolling. Need I point out that, the actions perpetrated by Charles Graner and others would not have been investigated or prosecuted in most of the countries from which complaints are coming? In fact, they would have been considered pretty humane, compared to what abuses are commonplace.

Might I also point out that, if the U.S. led coalition did not intervene, far worse would still be going on in Iraq, except then you would be arguing that Hussein and his henchmen were being "contained".

And only means he/she will get worse being tried on base, instead of locally. Your response only re-inforces the point I was making. GIs are not above the law.

Well, that's not always the case either.  Sometimes the military comes down seemingly lighter...but it's not lighter, it's just different.  Instead of imposing a one-time fine, the military can force someone to forfeit all pay and allowances for multiple months, and take away rank to boot.  They can also make them a felon by giving them a bad conduct discharge, something that often a civilian court cannot do. 

I wasn't aware that I was trying to re-inforce of negate anyone's point; I thought I was just telling y'all what I know from working in Military Justice....dispelling myths and rumors, etc.

Reply #22 By: Solitair - 1/19/2005 6:09:05 AM Well then the *many* would be wrong wouldn't they? So you honestly believe it is acceptable for soldiers to commit any offense they like while on active duty in any country they like without any civilian court having the right to try them?

Right. I'll tell you right now if that were to happen that the US would come down on the military person that the local government would not have time to react.