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
I didn't know that MP's have always been in short supply. That explains a few things.
With the type of war we have to fight now (and for the next hundred years or more), I hope we'll see an increase in MP troops and a decrease in the area's that aren't as important right now.
The female general in charge thinks its Bush and Rumsfield's fault.
Military discipline is funny. Some officers may get it in the neck because they DIDN'T know what was happening in their command on the night shift.
"...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... "
During the hitch I served in the old army, (50's) such a thing would have never even been conceived of.
Sorry, gender is an issue because she was "incompetent" and a high ranking female. I just want to make sure that the focus is on whether the officer is competent,was there any gender promoting issues that may have put this female officer in a position for which she was not prepared or is she being a scapegoat for poor military planning, resources or overall coordination. If any of these issues are involved because she was a female, this is detrimental to all women's career options in the military and puts a bad light on all the effective female officers.
All I'm saying is that if we don't want gender to be an issue, we need to look at this situation to see if gender was a factor in resulting a negative outcome.
I catch your point, I think, and it seems reasonable.
I just know from reading history (including very recent history) that we have huge numbers of male General officers who really weren't ready for combat. So it's hard for me to be too tough on a female in the same situation, just because she's a woman.
I agree with you that gender shouldn't be a reason for special promotion. And I sense that you'll agree that gender shouldn't be a reason for special criticism either.
I have nothing against women. It's a fact of life that in the military under the present political constraints, openly criticizing a woman officer is very difficult.
There was a good deal of reason to think that General Lipinski ran an incompetent organization. But no one ever openly criticized her, except here on the web. I can only guess why, but my experience in the military some years ago suggests that dealing with an issue like that probably would take a braver man than facing the enemy in battle.
I agree that this is speculative, but not entirely groundless speculation.
"All I'm saying is that if we don't want gender to be an issue, we need to look at this situation to see if gender was a factor in resulting a negative outcome."
The issue is Graner, England and a few other bad apples! Their actions were abhorrent and opened a door for the enemy to create even more hate of Americans. I would have felt much better about it if they would have taken the prisoners out, lined them up against a wall and sent them to meet their 72 virgins! These troops had no class, no honor. They knew what they were doing was wrong and the buck should stop right there! Making excuses for your actions is B.S. If you do the crime, then shut up and do the time!
The General's name is Karpinski. She appeared on one of the networks when the incident first broke in civilian clothes and whined up a storm about persecution. A disgusting spectacle I must say.
Finally after a year of media coverage we finally hear of an E-7 and above in these peoples chain of command. The media coverage gives the impression that the prison was run by an E-5 taking orders directly from Rumsfeld. Where the hell was the leadership when these events were occuring?
Tey are one of the support services that are always overtasked and undermanned. They are taking steps to boost manning, but anytime that happens, more dirtbags slip through.
It's easy to flush a problem when manning is good. Gets tough when it's tight
You're right
Unfortunately, society has changed and certain aspects of that change have manifested themselves in our military.
This next is not to slam on the Guard/Reserves, because they are critical and do Damn fine work.
Many Guard/Reserve units are pretty loose with discipline. Things that would get dealt with in active units get left alone because of differrent attitudes, or just plain lack of time.
On the other hand-I've seen active units that would have tolerated a Graner
Your point speaks to leadership. As well as discipline.
I agree with you on your point about these characters being 'bad apples" and really causing America so much more international political damage than their stupid behaviors warranted. My question is where was Karpinsiki in all of this? She says on the one hand she was in charge and then says, " Uh, the intelligense unit wouldn't let me in there,blah, blah, blah."
I too am furious with these jerks, Graner ,et all,and agree they deserve what they get. But I don't think this was one incident and wonder where was Karpinski?
Karpinski is where the buck deserves to stop.
See, Graner's not all that bad!
The Army is protecting her to justify their policies regarding women in the military.
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.