Posted on 01/12/2005 6:38:52 PM PST by weegee
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.
"He wants to do his own thing?" Holley said.
"Yes, sir," the sergeant responded.
England, who is awaiting trial on Abu Ghraib abuse charges, gave birth in October to a child who Army prosecutors say was the result of a relationship with Graner.
The testimony raised questions about the very foundation of Graner's defense: When he abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib, he had no choice but to follow orders from military and civilian intelligence officers.
Graner, a 36-year-old reservist from Uniontown, Pa., is the first soldier to be tried in the case. Graner is accused of being the ringleader of abuse at Abu Ghraib. He is charged with conspiracy, assault, committing indecent acts and other offenses. He could get up to 17 1/2 years in a military prison if found guilty by a jury of four Army officers and six enlisted men.
Lipinski also testified that Graner initially lied about the cause of face and neck injuries suffered by a detainee in November 2003.
Graner and then-Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick told Lipinski and an officer that the detainee tripped on a pile of rubble in the prison, the witness said. But later Graner admitted that he slammed the prisoner against the wall, Lipinski said. The impact was hard enough to leave a smear of blood on the wall.
Lipinski said Graner was warned then about his conduct and told that leaders of the 372nd would be watching him. The warning came after the offenses Graner is charged with, according to prosecutors.
Lipinski was called by the defense as a way to introduce a report about the wall-slamming incident because the report also included references to military intelligence officers praising Graner and others for softening up prisoners for interrogation.
He was not the only defense witness who ended up offering useful testimony for the prosecution.
Frederick, earlier a prosecution witness, was called back to testify about the role played by intelligence officers.
He said they knew about the use of force, and that they didn't tell them the guards to stop.
"They told us we were doing a good job, and to keep up the good work," Frederick said.
But under cross-examination, Frederick said he once refused to follow instructions from a military intelligence officer because that person wanted him to use too much force. He said Graner was with him when he refused.
Prosecutors rested their case Tuesday after an Iraqi detainee testified by video that Graner stacked him and others into a naked human pyramid and later forced them to masturbate in front of female soldiers while pictures were taken.
Another detainee said Graner forced him to eat pork and drink alcohol in violation of his Muslim faith, and on one occasion made him thank Jesus for keeping him alive at the notorious Baghdad prison
"What we have here, is failure to communncate."
Wasn't the commnander of that Abu Grab scene a female reservist? Yeesh. and she was never held accountable for not maintaining discipline in that unit.
I guess this is a lesson to every leader -- large violations are preceded by smaller ones.
True - very true!
Yeah, he probably told her that he only wanted to have hair as long as hers.
I think the office you're thinking of was a Brigadier General, and she wasn't the commander of the prison -- she was the commander of the MP brigade that had units in several locations. In fact, it wasn't clear to the MP's whether the prison was under MP control or run by MI folks. That uncertainty seems to be one of the problems that led to this abuse.
Everything I've seen about Graner indicates he was a punk, a bad apple that can bring down a unit. I have no sympathy for him.
That being said, they have really overblown this whole thing.
The Miltary was dealing with this before the press got hold of it. Let them continue
Can I ask you about your first sentence? Wouldn't it have been better if the unit had "brought down" this guy before he "brought down" the unit? That's what sticks in my mind -- wouldn't some good leaders have dealt with this guy long before he got so out of control and did so much damage?
You're right-if the leadership had dealt with him, this whole thing may have never happened.
The whining and sniveling of the BG that headed the unit indicated the quality of Leadership. I see Graner as a rogue that probably intimidated the Junior Officers and Senior NCOs that din't have the stones to deal with him.
Or quite possibly, the ones that did have the stones knew they didn't have the backing of the Senior Leadership
Yes,the Brigadier General female was on tv several times after this broke.I believe she was a reservist who had no expierence in this area. She struck me as very stupid and running from accountability.
Graner is simply one of a 1,000 nutcases in the US military. To put him in a position of authority, was simply a mistake by the leadership...they should have noted his behavior and kept track of him. The best punishment in this case...is to take 20 of the prisoners that he mistreated...and let them have an hour in a cell with him tied up. He deserves whatever they dish out. I have no pity for the guy...he knew better...he even sat there and drew junior enlisted personnel into his game.
I'm sorry, but you paint with a broad brush. The military is like any large organization. There are bad apples.
Unlike many organizations, they have pretty effectve ways of dealing with them, left to their own devices.
What you suggest is not justice, but vigilantism (SP?). I understand your sentiment, but military law is quite effective when left out of the media spotlight
It's sad the bad guys have got such a huge propaganda victory from this "scandal." (And by "bad guys" I include the terrorists AND their friends in the anti-American media.)
BINGO! ... Clintonoid civilianized reservist officer in charge who didnt lead the unit properly nor enforce discipline, and a bad apple who was allowed to become a rogue operator. Recipe for => Trouble.
But only 1 of the 2 parts of the equation will be court-martialed.
"before the problems got so huge."
Well, in the scheme of things, the problems are NOT huge. A few cases of abuse in a *war zone* ... the MEDIA STORY IN BOLD CAP FONT COVER PAGE OF NYT IS WHAT MAKES IT HUGE.
In Iraq, innocent people are killed everyday, and our soldiers as well ... a couple of suspected terrorists made to parade naked is small beer compared to the other travesties and tragedies inherent in a conflict.
Yet these tiny incidents are made to seem like the rape of Nanking... (for the uninformed, that was the 1937 incident where over 30 days Japanese soldiers killed and raped *300,000* Chinese civilians; the same japanese army that stole Korean women, made them sex-prisoners for their soldiers for years on end, had the Bataan death march etc. etc.)
This abuse was blown wholly out of proportion by a media eager to defeat our efforts in Iraq.
MPs have always been in short supply
I was an AF SP for over 20 years. Never had enough bodies, and we had to compromise on the bodies we had, often keeping people that didn't belong just to fill manning.
The break with good faith that the senior leadership accepted in this case is inexcuseable.
What it led to is sad. The propaganda victory you speak of is directly caused by their malfeasance
It's a bit confusing, but the woman MP general in question was also named Lipinski. I can't seem to find some of the articles about her which I read earlier, but here's one that turned up in a Google search.
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/columnists/mikeromer/article13.html
My impression at the time was that she was incompetent, promoted over her head because she was a woman, and incapable of maintaining discipline within her command. Naturally no one dared say so, because criticizing a woman general officer would be a real career-killer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.