Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, December 2, 2008 01:37 PM

  So What Exactly Was the Point of This Article?

  I'm not saying that the topic doesn't bear exploration, but Benjamin seems to be painting a pathetic picture and bringing up questions without giving any information to answer them.

  In the beginning of the article he gives the information that Graner is the only Abu Ghraib perp still in prison. Ivan Frederick and Lynndie England have been released, but they also took plea bargins, which action usually (and I emphasize usually) gives you a lighter sentence. Graner chose to go to trial. I don't know how relevant this information is, but it could explain a few things if it was in the article.

  How has Graner acted in prison? The guy is obviously a moral cypher, so it is possible prison officials thought he would be dangerous by being exposed to prisoners who could manipulate him into bad behavior? Also, the prison can't really make public alot of their reasoning for how they are treating him. For example 24-hr.-a-day lighting is not uncommon in any institution, including hospitals, where an inmate or patient needs constant monitoring. I also don't find anything unusual about the heavy shackles. Again, pretty common when you have a potentially violent prisoner.

  And no, I did not get all this from watching MSNBC, I had (and still have) friends who have worked as prison guards. Most prisons will just not take chances when dealing with violent and/or controversial felons. However I will admit I don't know the rationale behind no TV (except that it has metal parts) or no calendar.

  No, Graner belongs there. IF they are mistreating him, IF he is entitled to more privileges, then yes, definitely let him have them. I don't want any pettiness done on my account.

  As far as Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney deserving of punishment? If they can get more details on that Rumsfeld memo, maybe, but I think ultimately the damage has been done and going through some long drawn out judicial revenge is not going to help anything. But I can be persuaded. I do get some satisfaction about reading about the groups that file charges in court against them, if for no other reason that these charges, even if they go untried, are in the public record. However, the top ranks of the Bush administration have already been judged moral lightweights and total failures by most. I don't think history is going to change that much.

  What concerns me is what the lingering effects will be in future attempts to have a standing army. If the perception of most potential, thinking recruits is that the army or any other branch is going to leave them hanging in the wind when a mistake or full blown atrocity occurs, then they will, rightfully, pass on enlisting. And who can blame them?

  I don't know if the higher ups at Abu Ghraib gave the guards a blueprint on how to roust the prisoners there. They probably didn't leave a paper trail. However the fact that they didn't seem to know what was going on does not speak well for them, if that is their defense. (For God's sake, if Graner's parents saw those photos, a thousand other people saw them too.) Personally, I think the higher ups DID condone an "anything goes" atmosphere at Abu Ghraib. The power of suggestion is pretty potent if fed to the right person. Isn't that what the play "Beckett" was all about?

  —flyover52 Read flyover52's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel