Posted on 01/14/2005 3:01:58 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
FORT HOOD, Texas - Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr., the reputed ringleader of a band of rogue guards at the Abu Ghraib prison, was convicted Friday of abusing Iraqi detainees in a case that sparked international outrage when photographs were released that showed reservists gleefully torturing prisoners.
Graner, the first soldier to be tried on charges arising from the scandal, was convicted of all five charges and faces up to 17 1/2 years behind bars.
The jury took less than five hours to reach the verdict.
The verdict came after a five-day trial in which prosecutors depicted Graner as a sadistic soldier who took great pleasure in seeing detainees suffer. He was accused of stacking naked prisoners in a human pyramid and later ordering them to masturbate while other soldiers took photographs. He also allegedly punched one man in the head hard enough to knock him out, and struck an injured prisoner with a collapsible metal stick.
The jury of four Army officers and six senior enlisted men rejected the defense argument that Graner and other guards were merely following orders from intelligence agents at Abu Ghraib when they roughed up the detainees.
Graner, a 36-year-old reservist from Uniontown, Pa., was convicted of conspiracy, assault, maltreating prisoners, dereliction of duty and committing indecent acts.
Each count required that at least seven of the 10 jurors to agree for conviction.
Split the difference = 11?
In this case he's accused of murder and, if there are extenuating circumstances, the tribunal should have reflected those in it's charges and final findings of guilt, NOT in the sentence meted out for the conviction. i.e., If a true murder a sentence more than one year would seem in order. If not murder then reduce the charges (Negligent homicide, manslaughter?) and sentence accordingly.
??? Who was Following orders? These twits were rogue.
Sorry, it's way out of proportion.
In fact, I wrote a piece on the "Arab Street" in which I said that far from "endangering" our troops, he probably did them a big favor in the Arab mind by humiliating these guys. Arab troops work on concepts of shame and honor, and this guy sent a message (which we in the west don't really understand) that says, "don't screw with us." It had a big effect, probably mostly positive. It's only our western thinking in which it has bad "repurcussions."
Now the media has their pound of flesh.
You think they have background checks? I guess they scaled them back over the years. It's unconstitutional to look up someone's past.
The prosecution could have probably have gotten the records during the criminal investigation, but I was thinking of some real investigative journalists talking to ex-prisoners from the facility where he worked.
Most seem to think that Graner got exactly what he deserved. I think this was a Public Relations/Politically Correct (PR/PC) sentence and was pre-determined. I think this has done great harm to the military and more harm to this nation. This is war and war is hell. It is my opinion this fiasco has caused and will cause more military deaths than otherwise would have happened. You go to war for one reason, to win. You do not let PR/PC get in the way.
The prisoners at Abu Ghraib were for the most part not terrorists -- they were ordinary criminals who were caught doing common crimes like theft, rape, or mugging and brought to Aby Ghraib because there was no other place to take them.
OK, whatever you say!! I suppose you got that information from Dan Blather on CB.S.' 60 Minutes II.
"Currently, there are a large number of Iraqi criminals held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). These are not believed to be international terrorists or members of Al Qaida, Anser Al Islam, Taliban, and other international terrorist organizations."There are many more details in the report. Have you read it? Here's a link:
http://www.agonist.org/annex/taguba.htm
MG Taguba: "Regarding Part One of the investigation, I make the following specific findings of fact: That between October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force ...
And currently there are sleeper cells in America and have been for some time. I guess they aren't terrorists until they commit another 9/11. These crimes came in 2004 not 2003 and times and inmates change.
If they had left the Kodak in their Back Pack no one ever would have been the wiser.
There aren't any WMD either but you can hid jets in the sand and that's of no importance.
"Now the media has their pound of flesh."
No, that went to the dog in the prison.
What are you saying? Of course there are. But not every prisoner in Iraq is/was a terrorist. Likewise for the U.S. Not every Arab in the U.S. is a "sleeper" agent. What does this have to do with the fact that not all of the people subject to abuse at Abu Ghraib were terrorists?
These crimes came in 2004 not 2003 and times and inmates change.
Graner was there during the time of the Taguba report. The dead person in the photo was from the same camera as the photos of Graner.
If they had left the Kodak in their Back Pack no one ever would have been the wiser.
The investigation was started a full 6 months before anyone heard of the photos in the press. CNN even reported (via a very small story) that the Army was looking into allegations of abuse before anyone had the photos. One of the soldiers there was the one who tipped off his JAG as to the abuses going on there. He was uncomfortable with the situation. The investigation would have continued without the photos. Graner would have been convicted without the photos. What the photos did was destry America's reputation among certain people in the Middle East aided and abetted by Al Jazeera and the U.S. MSM. The photos did not make the case. The photos just made money for the MSM.
There aren't any WMD either
It wasn't up to us to find WMD. It was up to Saddam to prove that he didn't have WMD. He didn't cooperate in that and suffered the "severe consequences" as spelled out in the numerous Security Council resolutions.
I believe we had already agreed that panties on the head is not torture or even really abuse. The debate was over letting a dog maul a naked prisoner's leg and another prisoner who ended up dead after an "interrogation." You rejoiced over the killing of the prisoner who was never proven to be a terrorist. Lots of Iraqis are not terrorists. Lots of Iraqis are on our side. Some who are not terrorists, but who may not support our efforts (such as common crimials) don't deserve to be killed in intense interrogations (Is is "torture" if you end up dead?).
If Graner was a abusive guard in the civilian prison system...why did the Army allowed him to be a prison MP? Manpower Shortage?
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.