Great post, but the tragedy is that the noncoms and officers were apparently convinced that their actions did not meet the definition of "torture" as defined by the Commander-In-Chief, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al.

These idiots still regard waterboarding, humiliation, sensory deprivation, threats by attack dogs, loud noise, etc., as intensive interrogation, not torture, and therefore OK under US military guidelines. What they failed to see is how the rest of the civilized world and thinking Americans define torture.

Their failure played into the terrorists hands.

Before knowing what to do with Graner, I think we'd have to find out to what degree the Stanford Prison Experiment type situation influenced him. If he was being put in a situation where virtually nobody else could have resisted either, then he should be put in intense therapy (especially as he evidently has had PTSD for a couple decades) and his superiors jailed.

Under the current circumstances, not only should everybody involved be tried at the appropriate level, but we should ensure the same standards of handling/punishment are applied to all prisoners. Either we discipline severely on tiny offenses and have that be part of the jail's code (or sentence), or we don't -- it shouldn't be up to individual prison guards.

Personally, though, I still believe what I was taught as a child: the hallmark of an advanced civilization is making decisions from rational, logical thought, and not letting base emotions be in control. The "eye for an eye" attitude belongs to societies (or subcultures in the US) that most people in ours have little respect for; we need to think carefully before deciding who to emulate.

Graner deserves no mercy,but that being said,all of his CO's right up the chain should be there with him. Start by subpoening Myers and find out what he knew and why he quashed the investigation by Graner's attorney. Then,when Obama takes office,have him form his torture committee and haul in the trio of Bush,Cheney,and Rumsfeld,cuffed and shackled if neccesary. Under oath.

It is indeed true that believing that people at the top levels of the administration deserve punishment-- and they absolutely do-- does not require anyone to feel sympathetically toward Charles Graner. But I do anyway.

It is no more permissible for America's prison system to torture him (and yes, he is being tortured) than it was for him to torture anyone else. Believing that he deserves to live a life of severe discomfort for several years (which I do) and believing that it's okay for the prison system to inflict that upon him (which I don't) are two very different things. What the prisoners at Guantanamo are going through in terms of torture is more severe, without question, but that doesn't mean that what Graner is going through is fine and dandy. "It could be worse" is never the way to set the bar for how to treat human beings. I don't care what they have done, no human being should have their own or anyone else's government devote time to trying to make them miserable, or making them miserable for no good reason. That is not the government's job.

I realize that schadenfreude is a very human emotion, and we will never be rid of it-- perhaps we shouldn't be. But that should only serve to increase our vigilance against allowing that emotion to dictate how we treat our prisoners.

Other letter writers have detailed excellently why Graner deserves to be behind bars, as well as the gross unfairness represented by the fact that he's the only one there.

Of course, he's a human being, and was also doing reprehensible things under orders. He was an integral and willing participant in the culture of sadism that took over at Abu Ghraib. He was detailing it all in dispassionately-written e-mails home, attaching grisly photos as most of us would attach new baby photos. There's no question that he deserved strong punishment in a military prison, pictures of him in Santa's lap notwithstanding.

He has been going through what our country used to call torture, and by the same morally-cancerous logic that's gripped our country since 9/11, he's more deserving of this treatment than the hundreds who have been unfairly imprisoned (and tortured) in Guantamo, guilty of no crime. The sad thing is, this case study is a perfect example of how far our moral compass has degraded, that we can so easily justify psychological torture of someone because he has also tortured.

That being said, none of this elicits my sympathy for the man who's being punished now. I wish Mark Benjamin had not confused the issue of Graner's unfair punishment with sympathy. There are many higher-ranking officials that deserve punishment, true, and we should not justify the method of Graner's punishment by comparison with his crimes. However, let's be completely clear, a criminal is a criminal, and the serving out of one's sentence should be no occasion for misplaced "sympathy."

And then the "proper authorities" - and those of you agreeing with their treatment of him - will become no better than he. I'm not saying let the man go, but let him serve out his time decently and with dignity. We gain nothing by taking on the sins of our moral enemies.

The top brass that clearly knew of, could stop, and yet fully sanctioned the behavior of subordinates at Abu Ghraib should be prosecuted and jailed also. However, Graner deserves his time. They all deserve time for what they did.

@human power:

«That said, giving him eye-for-an-eye "justice" should be beneath us. Torture should be beneath us. Selective prosecution should be beneath us. Maybe a certain new President will inspire us to leave the dark ages behind and rejoin the enlightenment. It will be a sweet day when our prisons are used for rehabilitation rather than revenge and the rule of law applies to all, regardless of circumstances.»

I grew up in post-fascist Italy, and some horrendous things had gone on in the village where I lived. I met some of the people who were rumoured to have participated in the atrocities, and heard many stories.

And I must say, at some point, when I was 15 or so, I looked at myself and, thinking of those so ordinary people who lived as I did, asked: «Are you sure that if you had been trapped in the circumstances they were in, with your brains washed by fascism taught by your elders, you would not have done as they did?» I have been asking myself that question for 40 years now, and if I am honest, I can still not answer: «No, I would never ever done those things».

Those people had been in prison, and had been released after a few years. Charles Graner should probably be in prison, even though I have to ask, why him alone (even not taking Bush & Co into account), why not his immediate superiors?

And what I cannot condone are the conditions. What do they want? Show him what it felt being tortured? Does this have to go on and on and on? I am ready to bet he got it now - he should be rehabilitated. That would be democracy. Nelson Mandela has shown the way.

I suppose the way Graner is treated is a way the poeple who decided on treating him thus use to show they have nothing in common with him.

I have to ask them my question: «Are you sure that if you had been trapped in the circumstances he was in, with your brains washed by theories taught by your elders, you would not have done as he did?»

The way Graner is treated is already the beginning of an answer. Not a good one.