"Cheerleaders Do It", Claims Defense

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-01-14 06:13pm

and he's been convicted

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/14/grane ... index.html

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-01-14 10:08pm

Graner's defense was:

(A) He was following orders, which is a confession of his guilt. Smart.

(B) What he did wasn't so bad. Cheerleaders.

If this line of defense was the idea of his attorneys, they should be disbarred. "A" brings to mind Nuremberg, Tokyo and every other war crimes trial. "B" is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

If it was Graner's idea, I hope he learns a trade in prison, because a dishonorable discharge is going to screw his chances of earning a living when he gets out, along with the knowledge that he is a complete moron.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-14 11:54pm

Elfdart wrote:Graner's defense was:

(A) He was following orders, which is a confession of his guilt. Smart.

(B) What he did wasn't so bad. Cheerleaders.

If this line of defense was the idea of his attorneys, they should be disbarred. "A" brings to mind Nuremberg, Tokyo and every other war crimes trial. "B" is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

If it was Graner's idea, I hope he learns a trade in prison, because a dishonorable discharge is going to screw his chances of earning a living when he gets out, along with the knowledge that he is a complete moron.

The ability to nitpick at technicalities in a court martial is considerable less than a criminal court. Even if he did point a finger at a higher up, and even if they had proof, it wouldn't help him.

So, basically, screw him. He will probably get what he deserves.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-01-16 06:40am

And once more can we say - scapegoat. A nice quick trial with an incompetent lawyer and away goes someone of sufficiently rank that it looks like we're doing something and sufficiently low rank that he wasn't actually important. At all.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-01-16 07:50am

weemadando wrote:And once more can we say - scapegoat. A nice quick trial with an incompetent lawyer and away goes someone of sufficiently rank that it looks like we're doing something and sufficiently low rank that he wasn't actually important. At all.

The cynicism is strong in this one...

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-01-16 04:44pm

Stofsk wrote:
weemadando wrote:And once more can we say - scapegoat. A nice quick trial with an incompetent lawyer and away goes someone of sufficiently rank that it looks like we're doing something and sufficiently low rank that he wasn't actually important. At all.
The cynicism is strong in this one...

That's why he's right. The most any senior officer will face is "early retirement". Another reason Breaker Morant should be required viewing for any serviceman sent abroad.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-01-16 04:48pm

Elfdart wrote:
That's why he's right. The most any senior officer will face is "early retirement". Another reason Breaker Morant should be required viewing for any serviceman sent abroad.

For those of you who are civvies, Elfdart is right. The most any officer, Major and above will face is early retirement. The military justice system is run by officers and they rarely punish there own if there is an NCO to blame. Study the Canadian Airborne Regiments Somalia Scandal, you'll quickly see what I mean.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-01-16 05:17pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Elfdart wrote:
That's why he's right. The most any senior officer will face is "early retirement". Another reason Breaker Morant should be required viewing for any serviceman sent abroad.
For those of you who are civvies, Elfdart is right. The most any officer, Major and above will face is early retirement. The military justice system is run by officers and they rarely punish there own if there is an NCO to blame. Study the Canadian Airborne Regiments Somalia Scandal, you'll quickly see what I mean.

I'm a civvie, too. It's just that every time I hear or read about atrocities or other scandals, it's always enlisted men and junior officers who get nailed. Now every NCO or low-end officer I've ever known, met, or heard about doesn't so much as wipe his own ass without permission from higher up [this is hyperbole]. The dog that didn't bark is the bondage gear, lace panties and other items used in Abu Ghraib. I doubt they were standard issue. Someone who actually wanted to get to the bottom of things could simply follow the dog collars, but that would land Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Numbnuts in the dock, so forget it. Graner deserves prison time for what he did, but if nobody higher than a major gets sent up, it's a mockery of justice.

Post by **Coyote** » 2005-01-16 05:48pm

Perhaps the lawyer was actually thinking, "Fuck, this guy is guilty as hell... but I have to defend him somehow... I know! The stupidest, lamest defense I can imagine..."

"... my client could not have raped that woman because in fact, the defendent is impotent! Impotent! Impotent!"
"YAAAARRRGH!"

--Stravo?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-01-16 06:07pm

Elfdart wrote:That's why he's right. The most any senior officer will face is "early retirement". Another reason Breaker Morant should be required viewing for any serviceman sent abroad.

I saw Breaker Morant in class at High School. In it, you see how loyal Australian colonials (IIRC the Boer War took place at the turn of the century, so we would have been Federated too) are treated by the monarchy they fought a war for.

Of course, IIRC Schindler's Ark had a bit at the end with the recently liberated Jews arranging the execution of the German officers. Though I don't remember what happened to the enlisted men. Spielberg's film had them free to leave IIRC.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-01-16 06:56pm

ok, once again the US doesn't look like they are total fuckwits, but still I hope some heads higher then those in the top do roll because of this.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-01-16 10:51pm

On BBC World today they were discussing Courts Martial worldwide, comparing various systems.

They said that Courts Martial generally took the same amount of time as it would for an equivalent civil trial ie 3-5 WEEKS for this kind of matter - sometimes longer when "special/sensitive issues" were involved.

So this case took what? 4 days of ACTUAL court time? Thats not a show trial but its verging on it.