Graner sounds like a real sociopath, doesn't he? Stalking and harassing his ex-wife. Making fun of "friends".... really pathetic. It doesn't seem like much of a surprise that he was a prison guard. Hope he gets the book thrown at him. He certainly wreaked a lot of havoc in a lot of people's lives--and in our country's status.
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 05.10.05 - 3:24 pm | #

I agree that the Abu Ghraib situation was not the worst war crime ever perpetrated.

That said, Alberto Gonzales appears to approve of torture, and we knowingly send captured Iraqis to other countries where they will be tortured.

I thought we were better than that?
Mitzell | Email | Homepage | 05.10.05 - 4:15 pm | #

Careful, Dr. Santy! The trials are still in progress, you are not anonymous, and there is such a thing as professional conduct.
Solomon2 | Email | Homepage | 05.10.05 - 4:50 pm | #

It does seem sad that these guys' collective actions reflected on the entire US military. There are a few bad apples everywhere in every profession.
Unodostres | Email | Homepage | 05.10.05 - 5:26 pm | #

Yes, Unodress, the bad apples lead right back to the White House!
Collin Baber | Email | Homepage | 05.10.05 - 10:00 pm | #

> That anyone could believe for a moment that this kind of behavior and the resultant events at Abu Ghraib would be condoned by a professional military service is completely absurd.

The error, you see, is idiots like Baber above, who insist that we have no professional military. They are all like that, donchaknow?
ObloodyHell | Email | Homepage | 05.10.05 - 10:20 pm | #

> That said, Alberto Gonzales appears to approve of torture, and we knowingly send captured Iraqis to other countries where they will be tortured.

> I thought we were better than that?

It depends. I have yet to hear of any specific "tortures" defined, so please make sure you have one in mind before complaining about it, along with whom and what they are believed to be part of. Then we can discuss the appropriateness of it.

Always remember,
1) These are not US Citizens, they aren't protected by the Con.
2) These are not POWs. They are not protected by the Geneva conventions.
3) Anything they get, they are lucky it's not worse. They are the ones chopping off heads. Let 'em try that with, say, a Chinese diplomat. See how much mercy China gives them.
ObloodyHell | Email | Homepage | 05.10.05 - 10:24 pm | #

'BloodyHell you don't seem to understand the concept of a "Civilized Nation". But that's not suprising...Most Conserves don't believe in that concept anyway. Please Note the following to your comments:

1) True they are not US citizens but they are still HUMAN, and under any CIVILIZED NATION's ethics are certain guidelines to follow when dealing with Humans of any nation, color or creed! (I think the Bible says something to that effect-right??)

2) They SHOULD be considered POWs!! After all-we are at War with them right?? They way "King George" and his hench-men have interpretted international law and the Geneva Convention is sickening!!!

3) If you've ever been on a battlefield (while fighting is going on! Not a Civil War battlefield after the fact!) you would notice that it is the most brutal place on earth. So why as a CIVILIZED NATION should we carry the battlefield into the prison just like Saddam did??

With that said-Graner & England are not representative of Your Military as a whole, but unfortunately are representative of the inidividuals that fight for you. In some cases it is a GOOD thing to have this level of brutality/cruelty-like say the battlefield...But as you can see it can also be a BAD thing.
JollyFE | Email | Homepage | 05.10.05 - 10:44 pm | #

"I have yet to hear of any specific "tortures" defined, so please make sure you have one in mind before complaining about it, along with whom and what they are believed to be part of. Then we can discuss the appropriateness of it."

Come to my blog for the documented tortures. Torture is NEVER appropriate.
Collin Baber | Email | Homepage | 05.11.05 - 1:32 am | #

Collin - I have read your blog, and t he so-called documentation - well, wonder how much of the documents you have posted are credible. Anyways - say, you are a US unit in Iraq and have captured a couple of suicide bombers. Now they need to get info in order to find other suicide bomber wannabees, and t he people who are running this operation. Do you think that these jihadi suspects will talk , or give up any usable or credible info, if you read them their Miranda Rights? Well, if you believe t hat, you, like all other self-hating, leftist Americans, are living in some kind of a fantasyland.
anon | Email | Homepage | 05.11.05 - 8:11 am | #

Dear Anon,

Thank you for your having taken the time to read the documentation gathered from multiple sources. What has been read is so utterly shocking that I can only shake my head for what damage has been already been done by the scandals and try to imagine some way that America may be able to regain its' 4GW moral compass.

As for the hypothetical scenario proposed, I would definitely advise that torture NOT be used by any American unit, as torture is morally and operationally unacceptable, besides being utterly misleading and counterproductive. Any suspects captured must be rapidly isolated from others, then have Sunni clerics deprogram them using the successful Yemeni conversion template. In that way, those who see the light will then realize how badly they have been deceived by their former handlers and be given a chance to help redeem themselves by preventing further attacks.

This person would additionally investigate the macro issue of what motivates such individuals to commit themselves to pursuing such horrible acts. Dr. Stern, Dr. Cole and Dr. Hoffman have studied various facets of jihadist insurgencies. They would be able to formulate much better ideas than me.
Collin Baber | Email | Homepage | 05.11.05 - 9:00 am | #

Funny how OBloodyHell thinks that the Abu Ghraib people were the ones "chopping off heads." Lots of those people, many of whom were probably subjected to torture and humiliation, were subsequently let go after it was determined they'd done nothing wrong.
Mitzell | Email | Homepage | 05.11.05 - 9:59 am | #

The higher-ups were certainly asleep at the switch on this one. How could these people have gotten away with the reported behavior, even before Abu Ghraib happened?

At the risk of being pilloried for my next remark, I also think that the co-ed nature of the military these days does present certain extra challenges and dangers. In this case, no one seems to have understood that fact nor dealt with it appropriately. And the consequences have been horrendous, both for the inmates, the reputation of the military, and the reputation of the US.
neo-neocon | Email | Homepage | 05.11.05 - 1:51 pm | #

JollyFE,

You said: "1) True they are not US citizens but they are still HUMAN, and under any CIVILIZED NATION's ethics are certain guidelines to follow when dealing with Humans of any nation, color or creed! (I think the Bible says something to that effect-right??)"

The enemy combatants in Cuba are being treated humanely. Many are better fed than they were before they were captured. They are permitted to pray and provided with copies of the Koran.

You said: "2) They SHOULD be considered POWs!! After all-we are at War with them right?? They way "King George" and his hench-men have interpretted international law and the Geneva Convention is sickening!!!"

They CAN'T be considered POWs. It's against international law to do so because the enemy combatants were not part of the uniformed military of any nation-state. It's not interpretation. It's black and white.

Per Columbia University Press: "Prisoners of war: in international law, persons captured by a belligerent while fighting in the military. International law includes rules on the treatment of prisoners of war but extends protection only to combatants. This excludes civilians who engage in hostilities (by international law they are war criminals; see war crimes) and forces that do not observe conventional requirements for combatants (see war, laws of)."

So by international law, all of the prisoners in Cuba are war ciminals.

You said: "3) If you've ever been on a battlefield (while fighting is going on! Not a Civil War battlefield after the fact!) you would notice that it is the most brutal place on earth. So why as a CIVILIZED NATION should we carry the battlefield into the prison just like Saddam did??"

This point is irrelevant since we are NOT carrying the battlefield into the prison just like Saddam did.

You said: "With that said-Graner & England are not representative of Your Military as a whole, but unfortunately are representative of the inidividuals that fight for you. In some cases it is a GOOD thing to have this level of brutality/cruelty-like say the battlefield...But as you can see it can also be a BAD thing."

Not quite... Graner and England are representative of 0.000002% of the individuals in our military. There were a grand total of 3 people involved in these barbaric acts. If you want to draw conclusions about the individuals in our military based on that... well, that's as bad as drawing conclusions about a whole race of people based on the percentage that have committed a crime.
Bryan | Email | Homepage | 05.11.05 - 2:16 pm | #