- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
When I saw this article, my jaw dropped. An article DEFENDING a sociopath, a torturer of political prisoners, a man who reveled in the sufferings of his victims.
Benjamin's argument is this. No one from the Bush administration has been held accountable for the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib prison...so why pick on some poor schlub like Charles Graner, who after all, was only doing what he was told to do? Well, Mister Benjamin, you can kiss Graner's pimply behind all you want, but it doesn't change that fact that he is a remorseless criminal who is getting exactly what he deserves. He's in prison because that is where he should be. "Does Graner deserve jail time while Vice President Dick Cheney prepares to reenter private life, and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld puts the finishing touches on his memoirs?? YES. YES. And YES.
Graner is a big, whiny baby. "Having the lights on" is "torture" to him? I'm sure the prisoners he battered would have loved to have been subjected to "torture" like that; it sounds a lot more endurable than being stripped naked and beaten to a bloody pulp.
Even before Abu Ghraib prison, Graner was a disturbed and dangerous man. He put mace in someone's coffee for a "joke"; he was abusive to women. What a guy to put in a position of authority in a prison!
I can't believe this article was even written. How can someone who committed such foul crimes, someone who has no remorse whatsoever, be the subject of a sympathetic article about how he's being unfairly persecuted?
Just because Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield are not in jail cells is no reason to let Graner loose. His crimes were heinous. He deserves to remain in prison for the duration of his sentence.
"Sympathy" for Charles Graner? More like sympathy for the devil.
