Abu Ghraib Guards Say Memos Show They Were Scapegoats

[sabra]

Source: WP

When the photos of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced in 2004, U.S. officials portrayed Army Pvt. Charles A. Graner Jr. as the ringleader of a few low-ranking "bad apples" who illegally put naked Iraqi detainees in painful positions, shackled them to cell doors with women's underwear on their heads and menaced them with military dogs.

Now, the recent release of Justice Department memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques has given Graner and other soldiers new reason to argue that they were made scapegoats for policies approved at high levels. They also contend that the government's refusal to acknowledge those polices when Graner and others were tried undermined their legal defenses.

Graner remains locked up at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., about halfway through a 10-year prison sentence for detainee abuse, assault and dereliction of duty. His lawyer said this week that he is drafting appeals arguments centered largely on the revelations in the memos and a newly released congressional investigation into the interrogation practices.

President George W. Bush "was so disappointed in what happened, yet the whole time he knew what was going on," said Graner, answering questions through his wife, Megan, who also worked at Abu Ghraib. He is the only one of about a dozen soldiers tried for abuses at the prison who remains incarcerated.

...

But the Abu Ghraib photographs also depicted some actions, such as punching or stomping, that bear no relation to the techniques described in the memos, as well as others that were improvised by guards, such as forcing detainees to masturbate or to form human pyramids while naked.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043004077.html

[merh]

1. Yes, they have been used as scapegoats. But ...

They committed the crimes, they abused others.

I've worked under circumstances where my superiors ordered me to break the law. I refused. They had a choice - they chose to be animals.

I wonder how many service people have faced charges for refusing lawful orders that involved torture and abuse.

If there are such service people, they are the ones that deserve justice and their records cleaned.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. But CIA officers were given immunity for the same thing

without any effort to even investigate what they did. I agree with you that all people are accountable for their actions, but the President clearly does not. To treat the CIA folks to a blanket, blind pardon while letting a few take the blame for thier superiors is just wrong. If the CIA folks are protected because they were 'following orders' then the same should apply to the volunteer grunts who followed orders. If following the order was a crime, giving it was more of a crime...so where are those indictments?
Selective justice is in fact not justice, and it is often the very opposite of justice.

[merh]

6. I don't think the CIA agents should be given the immunity.

And if they tortured before the memos (which we all know they did) they get no immunity.

[Hannah Bell]

7. but they *did*.

[merh]

9. the legal opinions were to cover their asses.

despite the fact that they were written, many CIA agents resigned, took demotions with transfers and hired outside counsel and got insurance.

The torture was before the memos and some was after, after the memos were withdrawn.

[Amonester]

2. "We were just following orders." works for many...

So George W. Bush LIED again? nah.... git outta here! :sarcasm:

No Justice

[EFerrari]

3. Graner is a manipulative criminal who may be a scapegoat but also is guilty as hell. n/t

[Overseas]

4. K&R to see highglight what happens when you toss out the Geneva Conventions and

our former principles of benign treatment of prisoners of war.

Once the Executive Branch tells its DOJ to craft memos that expand treatment to include torture techniques (for which we executed others in the past), all bets are off.

Once you sanction brutality, then all bets are off.

And I believe the privatization of some interrogation also encouraged more abuses.

[stillcool]

8. The thing I wonder about is..

those memos were very specific as to how the application of torture fit within their carefully crafted legal guidelines. Even if you allow that these military/intelligence interrogators were not guilty for following the interrogation techniques they were ordered to use, it seems to me that these techniques were often administered way outside the parameters of what the government declared legal torture.

[kpete]

10. Abu Ghraib Guards Say Memos Show They Were Scapegoats

Source: Washington Post

washingtonpost.com
Abu Ghraib Guards Say Memos Show They Were Scapegoats

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 1, 2009

When the photos of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced in 2004, U.S. officials portrayed Army Pvt. Charles A. Graner Jr. as the ringleader of a few low-ranking "bad apples" who illegally put naked Iraqi detainees in painful positions, shackled them to cell doors with women's underwear on their heads and menaced them with military dogs.

Now, the recent release of Justice Department memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques has given Graner and other soldiers new reason to argue that they were made scapegoats for policies approved at high levels. They also contend that the government's refusal to acknowledge those polices when Graner and others were tried undermined their legal defenses.

Graner remains locked up at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., about halfway through a 10-year prison sentence for detainee abuse, assault and dereliction of duty. His lawyer said this week that he is drafting appeals arguments centered largely on the revelations in the memos and a newly released congressional investigation into the interrogation practices.

President George W. Bush "was so disappointed in what happened, yet the whole time he knew what was going on," said Graner, answering questions through his wife, Megan, who also worked at Abu Ghraib. He is the only one of about a dozen soldiers tried for abuses at the prison who remains incarcerated.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043004077.html

[Iowa]

11. Yet another reason to prosecute the higher ups...

No more excuses. This country is fully capable of "looking forward" and "looking backward" simultaneously. Let's get on with the trials.

[No Elephants]

12. Yes, you were a scapegoat, and, yes, you tortured. Isn't that what you were convicted of? Torture?

[atreides1]

13. Yes and no

They were scapegoats as soon as they started using "enhanced" interrogation techniques, but as someone else pointed out earlier they became animals when they started using the inmates to fulfill their sexual fetishes.

They could have been truly courageous and did the right thing, but just like the SS camp guards, they "followed orders".

At this point in time the only thing that Bush can be accused of knowing about is the torture that was authorized in the documents that have been released, and unless Mr. Graner has evidence that he was instructed to use sexual deviancy as an interrogation technique, he's exactly where he needs to be.

Maybe when he gets out of prison he can get a job at a sex shop, or Wal Mart.

[No Elephants]

15. "Scapegoat" has to do with the punishment, not the crime. When they tortured, they

became torturers. When they were the only ones punished, no one higher up, they became scapegoats.

As far as sexual fetishes, if you are referring to the naked pyramids, the dogs, the leashes, etc., they claim that all those things were told to them and I believe them. They all relate to things that are especially taboo in Islam, like dogs where you pray, homosexuality, etc. I don't believe that the Neanderthals in Abu Ghraib who did those things would have known that without the "help" of their superiors.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. You seem to imply that bush, chaney, rummy wouldn't order sexual humiliation. Why?

They were fucking killing people. While the soldier is certainly guilty of following orders and should be sanctioned, 10 years is probably excessive given he was carrying out (illegally) his chain of commands wishes and intent. I would think five years would be about right and it's the people up the chain of command who deserve the much longer sentences.

While they have a duty to defy their superiors at the same time these are kids who for the most part do what they are told to do. That's how they were trained presumably.

I find it very interesting that you are defending the executive who ordered torture from also possibly ordering sexual torture, yet you are extremely hard on a young soldier who didn't order anything. Because he was like a guard, in the military at a prison in Iraq.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. I have always been of the opinion that no military would run a prison like that unless it was policy

[Alcibiades]

16. We need to round up these folks

give them a deal, and put them on the witness stand for the prosecution.

[Sanity Claws]

18. Why was it torture when the lowlings did it but when Bush et al

authorized it, it was not torture? How dare the administration order the prosecution of the so-called bad apples when the administration is responsible for this.
My stomach turns at both our civilian and military "justice" systems.

[Frances]

20. Why should the people who carried out the orders

be punished while the people who authorized the authors are not? For example, why is Jay Bybee (sp?) a judge sending people to prison instead of being in prison himself?

[AlinPA]

19. Bush** and Co loved Abu Ghraib, especially the pictures. They called it a "college prank".

At the time, Fox "News" had all those Bush** people on defending it and praising it.

[SpiralHawk]

21. "smirk" - xCommander AWOL (R)

"We Republicon Homelanders luv us to pass the buck and blame the underlings - It's a Republicon tradition thingy - Smirk"

- xCommander AWOL (R)

[damntexdem]

22. True, they were scapegoats. But they also did it.

"I was only following orders" wasn't enough for Nazi death camp guards or SS personnel.

But those who authorized and/or ordered what they did should receive much more-severe punishment.

[Babel_17]

25. Agreed

My post below should have mentioned that.

[Norrin Radd]

23. kr

[Babel_17]

24. Their trials might not have been fair

But civilian courts don't tend to poke their nose into military matters. I think the lawyers of the soldiers might have a case in that evidence might have been withheld. Imo that's their best shot.

I've always been curious if the chain of command broke down what with civilian contractors getting involved.

And some of these soldiers were effectively brainwashed. They "knew" Iraqi insurgents were in bed with terrorists who were going to deliver WMD's to America.

The TV sets tuned to Fox news and Cheney and Bush assured them they were righteous crusaders.

I think these convicted soldiers lawyers made a tactical decision during their trials. They knew the politics in Washington wouldn't allow them to mount the proper defense.

I don't fault the lawyers. Had they dug in their heels and made the kind of accusations we here were making the soldiers on trial would have gotten more time.

Justice for the soldiers is one issue. Another issue is that their trials didn't settle the matter. Not by a long shot.

[Djinn]

26. of course they were

doesn't mean they're not morally culpable - no aging concentration camp guard gets any sympathy by stating the patently obvious fact that the Nazi's had a policy of mass murder - as they shouldn't, so no US soldiers/agents get any pass on this shit either - especially not Graner who was pictured grinning from ear to sadistic ear whilst he tortured people. If you're willing to be photographed and you clearly enjoyed the pain, humiliation and death you inflicted on other human beings you're a sick fuck who thoroughly deserves the disgust of the rest of the world. Doesn't mean those who ordered it should get off (but seriously what former US authorities have EVER been charged for doing this sort of thing, there's a law for the rich and a law for the people like you and me) but doesn't make me want to listen to Graner's whiney ass or give him a scintilla of sympathy.