Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
to help fill out some of the information about the chain of command in the Abu Ghraib abuses, and the state of the investigations, as of January 2006:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011102502_pf.html
[link at signature]
"...Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the commanding officer at Abu Ghraib, accepted immunity from prosecution this week and was ordered to testify at upcoming courts-martial. Pappas, a military intelligence officer, could be asked to detail high-level policies relating to the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib..."
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=torture,_rendition,_and_other_abuses_against_captives_in_iraq,_afghanistan,_and_elsewhere&hr_us_bases_and_interrogation_centers=hr_abuGhraib
[link at my signature]
but, he is a violent asshole who has a long history of abuse of prisoners while working as a corrections officer in the PA Department of Corrections...
it seems torture & abuse are both his job and his hobby.
look it up.
This article glosses over some very glaring actions by Graner that occurred well before Abu Ghraib--as a corrections officer in Allgheny County he was suspended for forcing prison inmates to participate in a game of "simon says" where cattle prods were used on the inmates that failed the game. Also, his German wife when he lived in Greene County and worked at SCI-Greene was abused by isolation and forbidden from learning english or meeting with German-speaking individuals even for basic companionship. There is no mention of her fleeing to a woman's shelter with her children to escape her abuse.
he should be where he is. He is not the only one who should be there but he is where he should be.
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?
...as a corrections officer in Allgheny County [sic] he was suspended for forcing prison inmates to participate in a game of "simon says" where cattle prods were used on the inmates that failed the game.
Makes one wonder what he'd have to do in order to be fired from his corrections job, let alone prosecuted, doesn't it?
I agree with some of the other posters here that solitary confinement is a serious matter and that Graner probably did not get thrown in repeatedly for trivial offenses like leaving the soap in the shower.
That could very well be, but you're not basing that opinion on any more evidence than anyone who thinks the opposite, and it's well-known that solitary confinement is frequently abused in prisons, particularly maximum security ones like Leavenworth.
The fact is that going to war did not all of sudden turn Charles Graner into a grinning sociopath. As the record shows, he was a bad guy long before he ever set foot in Iraq and putting him at Abu Ghraib only brought out the worst of his already sadistic tendencies.
None of the accusations against him of sociopathic behaviors came before he fought in the Gulf War of 1991. Oh, did you forget that? Must have. He served in Desert Shield/Storm and was traumatized by the experience and sought psychiatric help when he got back from the military (or VA? it wasn't clear in the article) but was denied. Many think he might have suffered from PTSD. Anyway, the abusive behaviors started after that.
Trauma in wartime and untreated PTSD (if he indeed suffered from it) are no excuses for abusive behaviors, but might mitigate his guilt somewhat.
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
