sandy2

Charles Graner Jr Abuse Scandal

▼

Charles Graner Jr Abuse Scandal

from JoeUser Forums
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? I don't believe it. If I, as a private citizen, were to do what he did, I would be sentenced to more than 15 years for say 15 counts of assault and battery, sexual assault and other charges. But he, as a soldier, gets less than this? Oh, and lets just throw out the fact that he actually (in my mind) "undermined" the war by giving us bad press. If I were a right-wing nut job I would call that treason. Now, I admit that this guy is being used as a scapegoat. That does not undermine what he did. Further, it shows that more action needs to be taken against the perpetrators of this crime against humanity. Since he was considered by the army to be a member of a group of "rouge" guards, then they should all be prosecuted. I don't really believe this nonsense, because I feel that this action was obviously allowed by senior members, and also was probably condoned and egged on by senior members. At the least, these senior members are guilty of criminal negligence. I can't believe that we stand by and let these people get away with giving substance to our reputation as a bigoted country that violates the rights of Muslims.
politics
21,171 views 36 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.


You're absolutely correct.  They'd be shipped out of country, pronto.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hot Carl has confirmed for us that he's just an arrogant prick who enjoys insulting people, so now we know to ignore him.

Now I gotta go ice my thumbs.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #18 By: Hot Carl (Anonymous) - 1/18/2005 5:34:13 PM Lol, I called it all the way Daiwa, here in the reality based community


If you live in a reality based community then I'd REALLY hate to see a fantasy based one.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
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


Untrue, again and again abuses have occurred which were not punished or where the level of punishment is well below that acceptable in civil courts. For example, 2 soldiers were discharged for killing Iraqis in custody. That's it. They were let go. Granted if it happened again they woul;d be prosecuted, but that's only because of the huge media fuss over Abu Ghairb. Another example would beSouth Korea. Just go read the Korea international war crimes tribunal. US trrops for decades were effectively immune from prosecution. Why do you think they are so disliked in many countries. it's because justice is not seen to be done for teh few bad apples among them.

Paul.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

Untrue, again and again abuses have occurred which were not punished or where the level of punishment is well below that acceptable in civil courts.


That's not true.  The military punishment might seem a little light compared to civilian punishment, but, as I said before, they military's powers are sometimes greater than that of a civilian court when it comes to servicemembers.  Just because the general public doesn't hear every detail of the case, doesn't mean that people 'get away' with crimes. 


The 2 soldiers you mention were not just 'let go'.  There was a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction in rank (those 2 were almost immediate), there WAS time served (trust me on that one) and they got Bad Conduct Discharges, making them felons.


I think what drmiler meant when he said the military would come down on them before the local courts had time to react was the military's ability to remove people from the local area quickly.  I can tell you from experience the military doesn't fuck around when it comes to criminal acts...

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #30 By: dharmagrl - 1/20/2005 10:34:14 AM
I think what drmiler meant when he said the military would come down on them before the local courts had time to react was the military's ability to remove people from the local area quickly. I can tell you from experience the military doesn't fuck around when it comes to criminal acts...


This is true. Unless you've been in the military or around and seen stuff like this happen you really have no idea.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is true. Unless you've been in the military or around and seen stuff like this happen you really have no idea.


Exactly.  When we were stationed overseas we knew a couple of dues who got themselves into a little trouble downtown...and as soon as the military had secured jurisdiction over them they were on the next plane CONUS.  If I remember correctly, the time elapsed between crime, jurisdiction hearing and removal from country was less than 48 hours.  If you know anything about military procedures and they time they take, you'll see just how damn quick that is.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
they got Bad Conduct Discharges, making them felons


They murdered Iraqi prisoners in cold blood. In any civil court they would be in prison.Now maybe this is the rare case where the military courts are not seen to have done a proper job. I'll accept that the civilian courts sometime screw up as well.

The problem however is that the courts of the victim and not the guilty should have jurisdiction. What is required is that if a soldier commits a crime against a foreign national then that foreign national needs to see justice done. Too often this is not the case (though in Charles Graner's case I believe it has been).

paul
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

In any civil court they would be in prison.


They did (are doing) time in a military brig.  Just because the media reports that they were discharged it doesn't mean they were simply 'let go'.


As for jurisdiction....military personnel are literally property of the US government; therefore the government prefers to impose military justice rather.  There's always a jurisdiction hearing before a judge before jurisdiction is ever set in which both parties are allowed to plead their cases and state why it's in everyone's best interests to have jurisdiction.


As for the victims...the military has a victim/witness liason officer (usually the prosecuting attorney) who will be in constant contact with the vic/wit the entire length of the case (before, during, and after trial) to ensure that their feelings are known.  It's not a case of the military just bundling the criminal off and keeping everyone else in the dark.


Military Justice is a complicated thing.  I'm still learning new things, and I've been around it for 11 years.  What it may seem to be on the surface is actually very different to what it really is.

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just because the media reports that they were discharged it doesn't mean they were simply 'let go'.


This was a point that I admit I did not know.

In that case I'd say that the US military has a serious problem with communications. They really need to get the message across to the people who have been wronged (not just the victims but their fellows) that justice is being done.

Paul.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #35 By: Solitair - 1/24/2005 4:27:43 AM
Just because the media reports that they were discharged it doesn't mean they were simply 'let go'.


This was a point that I admit I did not know.

In that case I'd say that the US military has a serious problem with communications. They really need to get the message across to the people who have been wronged (not just the victims but their fellows) that justice is being done.


They in all probablity already have. They just aren't letting the media know for one reason or another.