| Submit your comments on this article | ||||||
| Home Front: WoT | ||||||
| Defense in court-martial rests with Graner silent | ||||||
| 2005-01-14 | ||||||
| EFL: FORT HOOD, Texas -- Lawyers for Army Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr. abruptly rested their case yesterday, without calling Graner or any senior officers to shed new light on the prison abuse scandal in which he was portrayed as the grinning, sadistic ringleader. A 10-man military jury is expected to begin deliberations today in Graner's case, the first contested court-martial in the scandal ignited last spring by photos showing naked and hooded Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison enduring humiliating abuses at the hands of U.S. soldiers.
"You don't want your friend to go to jail, do you?" the prosecutor, Maj. Michael Holley, asked Ambuhl at one point. "No, sir," Ambuhl quietly replied. Graner, who faces 17 1/2 years behind bars if he is convicted on the charges of conspiracy, maltreatment, assault, indecent acts and dereliction of duty, also had a sexual relationship with another member of the 372nd, Pfc. Lynndie R. England, while the unit was stationed at Abu Ghraib. England gave birth last fall to a son that Graner is believed to have fathered. She and two other soldiers from the 372nd, Sgt. Javal Davis and Spc. Sabrina Harman, are expected to stand trial at Fort Hood this year.
| ||||||
| Posted by:Steve |
| #46 Nice try, punk, but misrepresenting us won't win you friends or converts to the miniscule Aris-friends club. I support killing immediately those without information. Those with information should be broken down within means that ensure the info you drain is accurate. Torture doesn't do that. Argue with that logic, punk |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-14 11:54:37 PM |
| #45 nobody here defends torture. Don't be absurd. Many people here have honestly, straightforwardly, defended torture. Among those Rantburgers, some have atleast shown the desire to have *non*-sadists be the torturers. And almost all have shown the desire for the torture to be applied only to those certain to have committed terrorism. And then again some just don't give a shit. Hence Tom defending Graner as a non-sadist and comparing his smile to mine. He either is truly psychopathic and thinks the two occasions are similar, or he is an immature kid continuing his games of baiting. I believe it's the latter, but Tom insists it's the former. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-14 11:33:49 PM |
| #44 Camus wrote, "I should like to love justice and love my country equally." As for this American, I should like to defeat fascism without torturing detainees who are innocent of any association with fascist or other terror. I believe that to do so requires one to accept responsibility for exposing our sins while simultaneously insisting on the need to carry on, indeed step up, the fight against the fascists. |
| Posted by: lex 2005-01-14 10:48:18 PM |
| #43 strawman Aris - nobody here defends torture. Some would define it low - like defending you - others, myself included, think U*day and Qusay knew REAL torture. Graner was/is a thug and was rightly removed for ugly and unacceptable behavior. BTW - nice grad pics. "Fat and stupid" was a little too harsh IMHO..a little |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-14 10:47:03 PM |
| #42 Clarification: in saying, "we and the Iraqis will be able to survive the blows to our moral image", I mean our image= America's image |
| Posted by: lex 2005-01-14 10:44:17 PM |
| #41 Frank, is that an attempt to turn the thread to my nation, just to accompany Tom's efforts of turning it to my person? But just since you brought it up, Greece's recent record on torture is a bit better than the United States. For that matter, *Turkey's* recent record on torture is a bit better than the United States. But since I never referred to the United States, and certainly not to compare it to Greece, your talk of nations is irrelevant. Except ofcourse for the psychotic nationalist who sees *everything* in terms of nations. As a sidenote, it's good Graner was tried and convicted for "mistreatment". But ofcourse, I'd like to see them convict all the people who aided him in said "mistreatment" also. And let's see what will be done about those rapes and murders in custody. And a hefty sentence too. Nice to always see you rushing to the defense of torturers, Tom. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-14 10:43:54 PM |
| #40 There are two separate issues here. One has to do with abuses of power over detainees, aka torture, that were unjustified and that did not result in any intelligence or other benefit whatsoever to the war aims. These are not to be tolerated, and it is right and proper to express outrage and shame at them and to wish for more, not less, publicity so as to minimize the chance of their recurrence. A separate issue concerns winning the war. It in no way excuses the idiotic, and completely repulsive, crimes described in the official reports to assert that the larger objective here, by far, is to defeat the fascists militarily and enable the new Iraqi democracy to survive and flourish. The first issue is one that the MSM and the public, with their limited attention span, naturally elevate to the same level of importance as the second one. But the two are not of equal weight. If we lose the war, ie, if the fascists succeed in turning the new Iraq into the old Lebanon, then retaining the moral high ground will have been meaningless. If we win the war, we and the Iraqis will be able to survive the blows to our moral image. Winning ugly is not to be preferred. But it's still better than not winning. |
| Posted by: lex 2005-01-14 10:41:54 PM |
| #39 the chew toy that always squeaks. |
| Posted by: anon 2005-01-14 10:30:25 PM |
| #38 Some people smile whenever they face a camera, just like Aris bites and swallows every time he thinks he sees bait. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-14 10:01:16 PM |
| #37 Graner - tried and convicted - what's Greeces' record on convicting terrorists? House Arrest? STFU |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-14 9:57:43 PM |
| #36 feeling superior yet, Aris? Keep trying.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-14 9:56:30 PM |
| #35 You know, even Graner's *defense lawyer*, said "If there was anything wrong, it was that they took a picture and they were smiling" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4176241.stm But, nope, nothing wrong seen in those smiles by Frank G. and Tom. According to Tomm smiling over abuse is the same as smiling over a graduation, and then he claims that to be an argument I should respect rather than see it a mere continuation of his baiting games. If it was meant as a serious argument, then it shows you to be depraved, Tom. So, I think I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, and just consider you an immature kid who wanted to continue his games about me. I suggest you go that way, it's better than the alternative. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-14 9:46:43 PM |
| #34 Even graduation photos posted in my livejournal dragged from you into the thread, Tom. And you now say it's not about me. Whatever, Tom. Care to debate about elements of the *actual* issue -- for example whether the photos show Graner & co to be enjoying themselves in the inflicting of suffering? Care to use arguments that a sane person could respect? But as I said your level of debate is nothing but a desire to perpetuate your games with me, no matter the thread, no matter the topic, no matter the excuse. Play, play, little boy, that claims to be more than double my age. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-14 9:36:49 PM |
| #33 original...and extra crispy! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-14 8:21:57 PM |
| #32 Aris, if you would climb off your high horse and come down here with us normal folks, you would see that my entry #20 was a play on your entry #17 to show you the folly of your position. In fact, I used much of your text. It's not about *you*, Aris, it's about your point of view, but you're too damned arrogant to accept anything but praise from me. Thread Arisified by Aris. Graner found guilty. Everybody move along to the "Guilty" thread... |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-14 8:15:19 PM |
| #31 ROTFLMAO. Is that original, or have I been away from LGF too long? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-01-14 7:45:46 PM |
| #30 watch that flame! there's a strawman nearby! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-14 7:35:34 PM |
| #29 Refer back to #21 - thanks again for turning this thread into a discussion of *me*. And there are worse things than "pedantic assholes", or even "fussy self-righteous prigs". Apologists of torture are one of them. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-14 7:31:13 PM |
| #28 "moral? try pedantic asshole" "Fussy, self-righteous prig" kinda works, too. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-01-14 7:24:01 PM |
| #27 moral? try pedantic asshole |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-14 7:21:58 PM |
| #26 badanov> "Morality is one of those absolutes in life. There are no degrees of morality." Perhaps in some bizarre fundamelist-nutzo world (where everyone is either saved or damned, and there's nothing inbetween) you'd be correct. However in the real world, the person who's worst crime is throwing food at people in anger (ObRef Sluggy Freelance) is "more" moral than your average mass murderer or rapist. He doesn't need to have achieved saintliness to be better than a human monster. And somehow I believe I said I was too moral to be guilty of *spamming*. I didn't compare myself to you, unless you are a spammer yourself. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-14 7:17:54 PM |
| #25 was watching BBC - already selling the "it remains to be seen if the Bush Administration will be unwilling to hold the higher ups responsible. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-01-14 7:05:12 PM |
| #24 , too moral to be a spammer. Too moral? You are so busted, Aris. Morality is one of those absolutes in life. There are no degrees of morality. There is either morality or there is immorality. Like viginity. You showed just how vacious your arguments are since you can state with a straight face you are too moral for the rest of us knuckle-draggers. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-01-14 6:56:48 PM |
| #23 Mighty Mouse? It's all about Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! |
| Posted by: Atom Ant 2005-01-14 6:26:02 PM |
| #22 The Sword of Irrational Angst hangs over this thread - like a vulture defending its carrion. Oooooooooh. Skeery. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-14 5:42:16 PM |
| #21 Too lazy to be a hacker, too moral to be a spammer. But thanks again for making this be about *me*, Tom. It shows yet again where your maturity level lies when you use a discussion about rapes, torture, and murder as nothing more than an excuse to keep on your kindergarten games of "baiting" me. Next time let's turn a Holocaust discussion into a discussion of Superman vs MightyMouse. That'd be fun and just as mature. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-14 5:16:49 PM |
| #20 Aris is a newly-minted computer scientist, and I can see by his smiles in his graduation photos that he is uncontrolled. No doubt a masochist and a hacker and a spammer. That may not be enough to convince a court, but it's enough to convince *me*. Take that as you will. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-14 4:39:18 PM |
| #19 Then we don't agree. When a culture sees removal of a veil (and that is one example, let's not get hung up on the example) as an affront just a step below or even on par with rape, we need to clarify the definition of rape we are using. As to your other point, I would say that if I looked back and thought about intances where someone I knew or I myself was publicly humiliated, that person usually gets angry. In the case of the these prisoners, you have to add to that anger what was certainly to start either anti-dhimmi or an anti-coalition-forces mindset (let's not forget we didn't pick these fellows up at a cafe, where they were minding their own business-they were in the field performing some pretty horrific butchery). These two things combined make me want to pause and think about all the possiblities--not just jump to the conclusion that those horrible Americans did it. I want to see as complete a picture as I can and not let x number of instances mean it happened in all number of instances. Is each accusation factual or not? Evidence should hold sway. In Muslim society, societal shame over sex is huge, and with sexual humiliation is even more HUGE and inescapable. SO OFTEN in Muslim society, victims are not believed-they are blamed and ostracized for others' crimes against them. This is such an extreme way of looking at the world that differentiating and ranking the severity of crimes becomes impossible-if it involves sex and you weren't supposed to do it, all crimes make you despicable-even ones that others do against you. That same mindset shames others for the mere suspicion that a person has done something sexually unallowed. What kind of rage would that generate in you, even if you had to experience public shame because someone else put panties on your head-to undergo eternal ridicule from your peers in that culture, as a man? Enraged enough to want to make the other side pay? I would say it's at least possible. Open your mind a little-I am not saying anyone is innocent or guilty-I don't KNOW that anymore than any of us here who weren't at Abu Ghraib KNOW it. It is probably a mixture of real crimes and hyperbolic accusations. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-01-14 12:59:12 PM |
| #18 The US military did not order rapes. Those who did rape, if they can be proved to have committed a crime, will be punished. But the overarching concept is that some soldiers got out of control, those who committed crimes are being tried and we go on to win the war. I just hope the staff at US military prisons has extra supplies of black panties and they keep the dogs fed, loud and mean. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-01-14 12:13:33 PM |
| #17 And as my final word on this thread: I personally believe in the accusations of rape and sodomy, because I find it difficult to believe that an uncontrolled group of sadists would *not* eventually rape and sodomize if it was in their power to do so. They were sadists, as their smiles prove, and they were uncontrolled. That may not be enough to convince a court, but it's enough to convince *me*. Take that as you will. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-14 12:12:30 PM |
| #16 If sodomy occurred, or rape occurred, you won't find me lining up to defend the accused. But accusation is not the same as evidence of guilt No, it's not. But continuously and shamelessly repeating the LIE that all the fuss about the Abu Ghraib abuse is about panties-on-heads and naked pyramids (as has always been the case in Rantburg) is not such a good thing either. "You have carefully skirted my points about what constitutes a sexual offense with Muslims and what constitutes a sexual offense with non-Muslims." Yes, when we have specific accusations about stuff inserted violently into people's asses, we don't need to play definitional games about what "sexual offenses" mean in different cultures. If I'd talked about people alleging vague "sexual offenses", you might have a point. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-14 12:08:08 PM |
| #15 Oh, no, what *really* matters is claiming that "thrusting a phosphoric light in the little kid's ass" truly means "removing a woman's veil", because that's ofcourse what people in *that* part of the world mean by "rape". That, according to .com, is onanistic hair-splitting, the difference between removing-veils and thrusting your dick (or phosphoric lights) into inmates. The Taguba report talks about guards "having sex" with female prisoners, but to call that rape, is probably "superior moralizing" as well. And in talking about whether the guards were sadists or not, it's "pointless pontification" to discuss whether they enjoyed the pain and humiliation they inflicted. Yes, nice "grey area" indeed. You'd wish. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-14 12:02:19 PM |
| #14 Strawman cliches? Is your sole communication skill flaming hostility? No one is saying that sodomy is no worse than removing a veil. Calm down. Your quotes indicate that at least some Americans believed there was reason to investigate. If sodomy occurred, or rape occurred, you won't find me lining up to defend the accused. But accusation is not the same as evidence of guilt. I should read the report-you are right-maybe when I am not at one of my two jobs-but the report is not the sacred and complete truth. It is part of the picture. You have carefully skirted my points about what constitutes a sexual offense with Muslims and what constitutes a sexual offense with non-Muslims. Intentional ignorance of different cultural measurements does not disprove my point. You need to learn some manners. No one wants to talk to an angry, hostile person for long-even an intelligent and witty one. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-01-14 11:59:26 AM |
| #13 Nice gray area where superior moralizing, hair-splitting, pointless pontification and endless cross-chatter can be indulged. Cool. Well that covers it for this thread. The courts don't matter, that it is the exception, not the rule doesn't matter - no... all that matters is that one can satisfy that onanistic desire to play word games and outlast all comers (pun intended) and thus declare oneself Champion Of The World! Splat! Dead. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-14 11:50:52 AM |
| #12 I'm not interested in the strawmen cliches. We're not talking about "removed veils" here, we're talking about: 1. "putting his dick in the little kid's ass", 2. "They . . . inserted the phosphoric light in his ass, and he was yelling for God's help" "coverup" and "destruction" of evidence? The Taguba report was released, and you can read it if you like, which when mentioning sodomy doesn't refer to "removed veils". As for the photographs, only a small portion has been released, I believe, so it again depends what you mean by "coverup". "First of all, the word of non-American person is not automatically more trustworthy than that of an American person" Nor is it automatically *less* trustworthy than that of an American person. But, anyway, have you seen the smiling faces in the photographs? Those smiles may not qualify as evidence that can stand in a court of law, but you should have let those smiles alone convince you about whether those people were sadists or not. This wasn't an unpleasant but regretfully necessary task they were doing. Inflicting pain and humiliation was their joy. That's sadism by definition. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-14 11:44:19 AM |
| #11 How do you know they ignored those reports? And if there is no photographic evidence, how will they prove it? Witnesses? A little problem there-a removed veil is a rape is some people's eyes. And IMO humiliation can sometimes cause people to embellish stories. Forensic evidence seems like it would be the only way to prove the allegations coming from people who hate us before the war after the war inspite of the war and would lie about us in a second. First of all, the word of non-American person is not automatically more trustworthy than that of an American person. So let's start from that point. In terms of forensic evidence, surely in the cases of rape and sodomy there must have been some evidence? Or are you saying there was an intentional coverup/destruction of evidence? |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-01-14 11:22:56 AM |
| #10 "Making non-uniformed detainees due the naked pyramid and wear panties on their head doesn't bother me at all - being stupid enough to photograph it does." Or to put it in a different way: "His crime was being caught". "Was the case about "torture" at Abu Ghraib overblown, or just not sufficiently covered to demonstrate actual sadism?" The latter. The MSM focused on things like naked pyramids and panties, because those are the ones we have the pictures of. And the right blogosphere focused on the naked pyramids and panties, because sometimes it is convenient to follow the MSM's lead. At the same they ignore stuff in the reports like rape, sodomy and suspicious deaths -- those ones we don't have explicit photos of, you see. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-14 11:15:23 AM |
| #9 This schmuck was abusing his position by banging his own subordinates, that's really messed up. He gets what he deserves, and from my experience w/the ucmj it is very fair. He'd get two years in the brig from me just for pulling the 'monica' w/young females. I'm still not sure how any other senior SNCO's or junior Officers in that outfit didn't know about all the sex antics. Making non-uniformed detainees due the naked pyramid and wear panties on their head doesn't bother me at all - being stupid enough to photograph it does. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2005-01-14 10:54:01 AM |
| #8 I bet he goes down hard and then beomes a paid mouthpiece for the left about the evil military-industrial complex. He will start an anti-war movement from prison and after his release he will meet with islamo-facists, convert to Islam, and then be elected to the Senate. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-01-14 10:52:26 AM |
| #7 Wait-I'm confused. Either the MSM has exaggerated and even further, has gotten fictional about Abu Ghraib, covering it as if it were Auschwitz and encouraging Americans to fear the worst, that we have treated prisoners to real torture, or Graner actually did something sadistic/torturous. Which is it? Was the case about "torture" at Abu Ghraib overblown, or just not sufficiently covered to demonstrate actual sadism? If troops were instructed to humiliate and demean captured anti-Coalition insurgents as part of a softening up procedure, but not use torture, did Graner go beyond that? |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-01-14 10:49:12 AM |
| #6 GK - IIRC (no link thingys, sorry), he did have a "colorful" career prior to putting on the green. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-14 10:20:38 AM |
| #5 This shouldn't take long - something he is going to hear often in the showers. |
| Posted by: anon 2005-01-14 10:18:06 AM |
| #4 Am I the only one wondering if Graner's conduct as a civilian prison guard at Uniontown has ever been scrutinized? I doubt if his sadistic conduct started when he donned an Army uniform. |
| Posted by: GK 2005-01-14 10:15:11 AM |
| #3 I have a feeling his attorney worked under the condition of "giving the defense the defendant wants" rather than "giving the defense that will win". This is a trick used by 'the system' when trying a particularly loathesome defendant, that nobody has any great sympathy for. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-01-14 10:10:21 AM |
| #2 Oops, I mistook 'they' for the defense, not Davis and Harman. Sorry, my bad. |
| Posted by: Don 2005-01-14 10:07:09 AM |
| #1 When Graner goes down, they'll plead out. It doesn't work that way. If convicted of the charges by the court martial board, the punishment is determined by a immediate second hearing before the same board to determine the punishment. There the defense is given a chance to introduce the crying children and sick parents. Each specific charge has a maximum penalty which the board can not excced, but has some liberty in the determining the harshness which can range from confinement, forfieture or suspension of pay, to as little as a letter of admonishment. However, if convicted, Graner will alway carry a federal felony conviction for the record. Good for job interviews. |
| Posted by: Don 2005-01-14 10:04:09 AM |