Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
the only cat caged...there!
If I were to rewrite that first draft of my comment, the sentence you highlighted in bold print would be missing.
In its place would be a more detailed accounting of the chain of command, including the statements of Janis Karpinski, Thomas Pappas, and Jerry Phillabaum, from the aforementioned Wiki entry.
..."Since the investigation of abuses at Abu Ghraib, some have suggested that Miller encouraged abusive tactics. In an interview with BBC Radio, former prison commander Janis Karpinski claimed that Miller told her to treat prisoners "like dogs" in the sense that "if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you've lost control of them".[2] Major General Miller denies that he ever made the comparison."
Colonel Thomas Pappas, head of the military intelligence brigade at Abu Ghraib, has claimed that it was Miller's idea to use attack dogs to intimidate prisoners.[3] He said the same tactics were being used at Camp X-Ray. Several of the photos taken at Abu Ghraib show dogs surrounding (and in at least one case biting) screaming, naked detainees."...
"In May 2006 Miller testified at the courts martial of the Abu Ghraib dog handlers that his instructions on the use of dogs had been misunderstood.[6] Miller testified that he instructed that dogs should be used "only for custody and control of detainees". Miller's testimony was directly contradicted, the next day, by Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of Abu Ghraib's Military Police detachment..."
Gen. Miller's testimony as to who gave him the okay and approval on the use of those tactics will most likely have to wait until his indictment on perjury charges- which, like all criminal charges, is always up to the discretion of a prosecutor, of course, rather than simply a function of the extant facts.
As for now, I can only hazard an educated as to who might have been providing the former commander of Camp Delta and X-Ray with his authorization to employ those tactics- which must have been approved by a superior- otherwise Gen. Miller would have faced criminal charges for ordering their use as his own unauthorized personal innovation, no?
So I suppose you have what you want from me, Elephantman- I admit that I lack proof that Cheney or Rumsfeld personally authorized Gen. Miller to use that grotesque array of tactics on detainees.
In turn, I invite you to make the case that my continuing suspicions are unreasonable inferences, wholly unwarranted by the available public record.
My cabdriving hands are doing eBay tonight- I'll be around.
From the judgment in the Eichmann trial, courtesy of Hannah Arendt: "the degree of responsibility increases as we draw further away from the man who uses the fatal instrument with his own hands."
It's not an excuse for Charles Graner's behavior, but undoubtedly he has been treated unfairly. The question is, are we imprisoning him because it's the appropriate punishment for he did or because he embarassed the administration and the military? If the answer is anything but the former, no wonder he isn't appropriately remorseful. Hannah Arendt's accounting of the trial shows us how important the answers to these questions are.
although it can be reasonably inferred that I intended to include the word "guess" following the word "educated" in paragraph 7 of my message-
no one will ever be able to prove it.
That would be the just and correct thing to do, not wring our hands at the fact that a thousandth of the pain he inflicted has come back to him.
Execution would send a clear message to Bush's other torturers, or the next generation of torturers.
You torture, you die. Simple as that.
Sort of puts that whole "I was obeying orders!" thing in perspective, when soldiers know that obeying those orders is signing their own death warrant.
So what are we waiting for? This guy is worth nothing except maybe as an example to others. We should help him find that purpose.
But he isn't worth nothing. When you say so you negate the whole reason to object to torture in the first place, which undermines not only your entire point, but also all of humanistic morality. If this guy can be used as a means to an end (setting an example, as you say), because he did something bad, then so may the 'actual bad guys' held at Abu Ghraib be tortured or killed as a means to an end... which, in fact, they were. This guy is in prison for doing it to them. What you've got there is an animal eating its own legs.
For anyone that's seen the grotesque pictures documenting the horrors at Abu Ghraib or who's read stories of the torture that occured there, it's difficult to muster sympathy for the human beings who could engage in such deplorable acts. They seem sociopathic and depraved: hideous nightmare figures devoid of all humanity.
Yet, when you really consider that appraisal, it becomes increasingly difficult to merely right them off. What, after all, are the chances of a unit of psychologically disturbed and spiritually irredeemable individuals spontaneously coalescing? What is the likelihood that these were merely--as the spin went at the time--a "bunch of bad apples"? The reality, I'm afraid, is far more terrifying. Though there may be a few pure saints among us, the truth is that--given the right circumstances--we are all capable of behaving as Charles Graner and his cohorts did. This does not, by any means, excuse or condone such behavior, but it should give us pause.
Victor Hugo once wrote that “The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness.” Though Charles Graner is surely guilty of despicable acts, the greatest responsiblity for his sins rests with those who shut out the lights and created the darkness in which they could occur: the people who orchestrated a set of circumstances that encouraged and, at times required, the dehumanization of both the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and their guards.
That being said, I refuse to see Charles Graner as a victim. To paint him is such a light is an afront to the true victims of Abu Ghraib: the Iraqi men brutalized for little reason other than sadistic sport. We are all responsible for our own actions. We are not, however, solely responsible for them. In this case, there is plenty of blame to go around and it is unfortunate that--in an offical sense--it has failed to do so. Holding the policy makers, commanders, and other authority figures accountable for the events at Abu Ghraib is not only required from the standpoint of basic justice, it is also a vital step towards achieving the goal that all penal systems should have: stopping the cycle of criminality and making true the seemingly hollow vow of the 20th century, "Never Again."
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
