Charles Graner, Abu Ghraib and Torture

I've been struggling with the results from the CNN poll asking if Graner's (the man often referred to as the leader of the abuse movement at the prison and presumed father of "leash girl" Lindy England's baby) 10 year sentence is too light, too harsh, or just about right.

Set aside for the fact that the majority of respondents say it's either too light or too harsh (a sum total of about 56%). The single largest majority was 44% saying it was too harsh.

Do I believe Graner acted on his own? Absolutely not. I think orders came directly from the Pentagon on down. But even with that, there's a difference between "softening up prisoners for interrogation" and what we saw done at that prison. Graner may not have acted in a vacuum, but how can one excuse what was done? To men, women, young boys? How can one justify that 10 years is too harsh?

Struggling with this, I happened to find a link to Ratboy Anvil from Karlo at SwerveLeft (another very good blog) and I'm glad I discovered it. Here's what Ratboy Anvil wrote:

How can 44% of polled people think that a ten year sentence for Charles Graner is too harsh in light of what he did to the detainees at Abu Ghraib prison? I believe him when he complains that he was just following orders, but that didn't wash at Nuremberg when the Nazi's tried that excuse and it certainly doesn't apply to him.

Something to bear in mind is that the detainees were just that; detainees, not convicted criminals or known terrorists, most were simply rounded up in sweeps and detained with little or no evidence of any wrong doing, many eventually released. Graner is a bully and an asshole who gets no sympathy from me whatsoever because his actions are exactly what lent legitimacy to the insurrgency.

Well said. I'll definitely be visiting this blog again.