Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
All you're missing is a couple of colonels, a handful of majors, some captains, lieutenants, etc., who all must have been in on the caper
The chain of command in a military hierarchy does indicate that such would be the case. But you try to make it sound like some sort of implausible cockamamie conspiracy, when what transpired was more like standard operating procedure within a hierarchical bureaucracy.
It's patently misleading to insist or imply that specific orders must have been given, in regard to each abusive practice that was committed by Graner and his unit. It's sufficient for the superior officers in the hierarchy of supervision- from (above) Maj. Gen. Miller on down, to send the message to those with hands-on authority over the detainees that ordinary norms of humane conduct toward those in their custody don't apply, meanwhile keeping pointedly silent on what won't be allowed- or whether any limits whatsoever exist in that regard.
And, as I mentioned previously, it's the apparent case that the warden of the prison was kept "out of the loop" regarding the "realm of high-security interrogations" quite purposively, with overt measures taken to keep her from having complete knowledge and control over the prison for which she held supposedly full responsibility.
It's noteworthy that the Abu Ghraib scandal only came to light as the result of the ubiquitous new technology of cell-phone cameras, and the transmission of the photos via email on the Internet- a new, compact technology which allowed a glaring "security loophole" that was obviously unforeseen. With anything less than the photographic record that amounted to a "smoking gun", full containment of the torture scandal would almost certainly have been assured. Not even allegations and admissions by former participants would have been enough to merit more than a cursory mention in the news media, in and of themselves.
But- the photographs! They did their end run around the Great Wall of Official Bureaucratic Deniability...so they sacrificed a few goats, in the hope that it would appease the citizenry.
And that's where matters stand, at present...except for that lump and those scaly tails, protruding from under the rug.
YES! Everything you just said.
By all means, Graner is culpable for his actions. But the many people in our society who condone harsh prison sentences and conditions with almost sadistic glee can only do so because they don't believe that 'criminals' are humans like themselves. They explicitly write them off as 'sociopaths' as some in this thread have already done, or 'psychopaths', or 'criminally insane', whether they know what any of those terms mean or not. Knowing that you yourself are capable of doing heinous things if put in the right situation, especially if you aren't a morally deliberate person (as most of us really aren't, even if we act morally in non-extraordinary circumstances), should help to put a damper on such ravenous hatred and contempt for the 'other'; the 'bad apple'.
I remember during Graner's trial some shrink's report or his ex-girlfriend's testimony that Graner was charismatic and manipulative. Benjamin's report confirms that Graner is very good at this and that Benjamin doesn't even realize he is being used. One of the most common defenses of a perp(etrator) is to shift and act the victim. Another is "I was only following orders," the war criminal's version of "he made me do it!"
You can add sociopathic to Graner's character description. Sitting on Santa Claus' lap and having parents who love you and stand by you are not proof of being an innocent victim of circumstances.
That being said, everyone up the chain of command, including Bush 43, should be prosecuted and jailed for war crimes. I'd like to see jail sentences imposed with the longest being reserved for those at the top, including the attorneys, such as John Yu, who subverted the Constitution with their written opinions.
You can be sure that if the U.S. Justice system doesn't do it, someone will petition the World Court to do it.
What makes Graner's imprisonment cruel and unusual is that others who share the responsibility are in prison as well.
What makes Charles Graner's imprisonment unusual and cruel is that others who share responsibility are NOT in prison as well.
He can't be executed because there is no evidence he murdered anyone. Death penalty for assault (including rape) was abolished by SCOTUS many years ago now. As should all death penalty. Hasn't the government sanctioned enough violence?
But again, no sympathy for Graner. And again, shoddy journalism. He made his bed. His lockup conditions may be inhumane and may not be warranted, but he didn't get 29 months in lockup for forgetting soap. The man is a violent, unrepentant sociopath.
"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."
I see. So, you're fine with Bush pardoning him, paying him off, and then they start the whole business up again in a few years, the next time they're in power, and Elliott Abrams, fresh with a new handful of pardons, can start torturing human beings in some fresh hell hole?
You see, without the threat of execution, these people just clam up, and their guilty superiors are never brought to justice, simply because they can let him out and pay him. It's not complicated.
A few years for a few million bucks? Piece of cake. More money than he'd ever get with an honest job. But execution? Hard to pardon a guy after he's dead.
If there was any real threat to do that to Graner, he'd turn on his superiors in a heartbeat.
As for Graner not committing murder, I just think they've covered up the exterminations committed at Abu Ghraib. They've worked hard to convince us that years of systematic torture was contained in that small handful of photographs we saw.
When you think about it for a moment, that's nonsense, isn't it?
I think Graner and his superiors, going all the way up to Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, are guilty of quite a few murders in their torture chambers.
I mean, that's the sort of place they ran, and it was anything but accidental.
By the way, Guantanamo is an extermination camp as well, and it's only your need to believe that the United States is inherently good that's keeping you from realizing it.
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
