Abu Ghraib accused goes on trial

[Keevan_Colton]

The trial is under way of US soldier Charles Graner, accused of abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.

Spc Graner, a reservist who worked as a prison guard in the US, was pictured in several of the now-notorious images featuring hooded or naked prisoners.

He faces charges including conspiracy to mistreat prisoners and assault, which could lead to more than 17 years in prison.

Spc Graner's defence will argue the abuse was sanctioned by his seniors.

His lawyer, Guy Womack, said: "Spc Graner received orders from his direct superiors. There is going to be evidence that he complained about the orders."

Spc Graner's court martial at Fort Hood in Texas began with jury selection on Friday, and full proceedings are expected to get under way next week.

Among the pictures that sparked the scandal over abuse at Abu Ghraib were images of Spc Graner giving the "thumbs-up" over the body of a dead detainee and appearing to punch another, hooded, prisoner.

Accusations

Two of the charges against Spc Graner - for obstruction of justice and adultery - were dropped by prosecutors.

Spc Graner reportedly fathered a child with another Abu Ghraib guard, Pte Lynndie England, awaiting trial for the alleged abuse of detainees.

Pte England was infamously pictured with a naked detainee on a leash and faces up to 38 years in prison if found guilty of the abuse and sexual humiliation of prisoners.

Three of Spc Graner's colleagues have already been sentenced for their role in the prison abuse.

The Pentagon and the Bush administration have insisted the abuses were the result of a rogue group of soldiers at the prison.

However, critics maintain that there was much more to it than that and that senior officers and officials must be held accountable, says the BBC's Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs.

BBC

[Aaron]

Too bad the bitch that is the root cause of all of this, Brigadier Karpinski is getting off scott free.

[Edi]

Too bad the bitch that is the root cause of all of this, Brigadier Karpinski is getting off scott free.

Not just Karpinski who should be at least investigated, it goes all the way up through Sanchez to the Pentagon, Rumsfeld and the White House, which means that they will never be charged.

Edi

[Aaron]

Not just Karpinski who should be at least investigated, it goes all the way up through Sanchez to the Pentagon, Rumsfeld and the White House, which means that they will never be charged.

Edi

SOP in every military I've been exposed too, is to charge the lowest guy on the totem pole and save the officers careers.

[Darth Wong]

Makes sense since the officers are the ones making the decisions. That's the problem with an organization conducting its own investigation of itself: an inherently stupid idea.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Not just Karpinski who should be at least investigated, it goes all the way up through Sanchez to the Pentagon, Rumsfeld and the White House, which means that they will never be charged.

Edi

SOP in every military I've been exposed too, is to charge the lowest guy on the totem pole and save the officers careers.

Here we see that vaunted military honor at work among those gung-ho career officers. Assholes.

[Aaron]

Here we see that vaunted military honor at work among those gung-ho career officers. Assholes.

Yes integrety and honour in the military are on the way out. If they ever actually existed.

[Edi]

Not just Karpinski who should be at least investigated, it goes all the way up through Sanchez to the Pentagon, Rumsfeld and the White House, which means that they will never be charged.

Edi

SOP in every military I've been exposed too, is to charge the lowest guy on the totem pole and save the officers careers.

Granted that my experience is only with the Finnish military, but here the officers actually end up with more severe consequences for screwups than the rank and file if they had anything to do with it through direct orders or negligence of supervision. Might be something to do with the rank and file (including NCOs up to sergeant unless they are enlisted professional personnel who've done their conscript time earlier) being conscripts, but the system comes down like a ton of bricks for even slight fuckups. During my time in basic our platoon commander got investigated, transferred out was forbidden from having any contact with conscripts after having us do pushups on the firing range when one guy had an accidental discharge (two guys were hit by bullet shrapnel). Screwups that result in serious injury or death almost always see the officer responsible severely punished for even minor neglect, so to me the attitude of not cleaning house when there are obvious abuses is incomprehensible and lowers my general opinion of the armed forces in question, though my opinion on the individuals serving in them is not affected.

Edi

[Aaron]

SOP in every military I've been exposed too, is to charge the lowest guy on the totem pole and save the officers careers.

Granted that my experience is only with the Finnish military, but here the officers actually end up with more severe consequences for screwups than the rank and file if they had anything to do with it through direct orders or negligence of supervision. Might be something to do with the rank and file (including NCOs up to sergeant unless they are enlisted professional personnel who've done their conscript time earlier) being conscripts, but the system comes down like a ton of bricks for even slight fuckups. During my time in basic our platoon commander got investigated, transferred out was forbidden from having any contact with conscripts after having us do pushups on the firing range when one guy had an accidental discharge (two guys were hit by bullet shrapnel). Screwups that result in serious injury or death almost always see the officer responsible severely punished for even minor neglect, so to me the attitude of not cleaning house when there are obvious abuses is incomprehensible and lowers my general opinion of the armed forces in question, though my opinion on the individuals serving in them is not affected.

Edi[/quote]

I'd have to say that the Finnish military is different precisly because it is a conscript military. In their case they have no choice but to punish the officers as the soldiers really had no choice on whether to sserve.

But every volunteer army that I've been in/exposed too, tends to punish the lowest guy they can. As Darth Wong pointed out it's probably because the officers are in charge of the investigation and won't punish their own. In the case of the CF it's partly because the officers are told from the time they join that the enlisted ranks are scum.

[Edi]

I'd have to say that the Finnish military is different precisly because it is a conscript military. In their case they have no choice but to punish the officers as the soldiers really had no choice on whether to sserve.

That has got to be one big reason, but it's not like the grunts aren't punished for their screwups, but the standards for neglect are looser for them.

But every volunteer army that I've been in/exposed too, tends to punish the lowest guy they can. As Darth Wong pointed out it's probably because the officers are in charge of the investigation and won't punish their own. In the case of the CF it's partly because the officers are told from the time they join that the enlisted ranks are scum.

That's frankly stupid. I don't see how there can be any gain in such an adversarial setup where the default condition between enlisted and officers is mutual contempt. Our system also handles investigations so that if it requires a board of inquiry, it's taken either to a different branch of the affected chain of command or outside it altogether, and our officer corps tends to look very harshly on those in its ranks who tarnish the reputation of the whole.

I suppose it's also a factor that when the basic conscript time is as short as it is (max 360 days) and every officer has had to go through the same shit, there is no such stark division as in e.g. the Canadian and US forces. Besides, if anything, the people who are officers in the Finnish army went through more shit in the Reserve Officer Training part of their service (before being returned to the units they started out from) than the average private does during his whole time.

That's why I at least think that it might do a lot of good if officers in professional militaries were required to do at least one year of basic training the same as the enlisted before getting started on the officer part of it, then they would likely have less attitude problems.

Edi