[idjeff]

WTF?

Poor Guy

Oh My GOD!!!

10 years for embarrasing an Iraqi prisoner? "F" this. I could be convicted of manslaughter in the US and have a lighter sentence. F-ing ridiculous!!!!!!!!!

[Krusty]

Originally posted by idjeff:
I could be convicted of manslaughter in the US and have a lighter sentence.

The military has higher standards of conduct than you do.

Also, he was convicted on multiple counts including dereliction of duty, which is why the sentences stacked up.
From your own link that you apparently didn't read

Graner faced 10 counts under five separate charges: Assault, conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty. He was found guilty on all counts, except that one assault count was downgraded to batter

EDIT: Sorry Krusty, I meant to hit 'reply' and hit 'edit' by accident. I think I put your post back the way it was. -TI

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Krusty:
The military has higher standards of conduct than you do.

Also, he was convicted on multiple counts including dereliction of duty, which is why the sentences stacked up.
From your own link that you apparently didn't read

Here is another bit, from the opening paragraph, that you apparently missed, idjeff.

"FORT HOOD, Texas �_—�_Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr. was sentenced to 10 years behind bars Saturday for physically and sexually mistreating Iraqis"

So, why do you think the decision of a US military court over a US soldier is "F-ing ridiculous"?
Do you not respect the decision of the US military court?
Do you think he should not have been charged?
Do you think what he did was ok because it was done to an Iraqi prisoner?

This guy broke the rules of the US Army and was punished by the US Army for doing so. Where is the problem?

[idjeff]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Here is another bit, from the opening paragraph, that you apparently missed, idjeff.

"FORT HOOD, Texas �_—�_Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr. was sentenced to 10 years behind bars Saturday for physically and sexually mistreating Iraqis"

So, why do you think the decision of a US military court over a US soldier is "F-ing ridiculous"?
Do you not respect the decision of the US military court?
Do you think he should not have been charged?
Do you think what he did was ok because it was done to an Iraqi prisoner?

This guy broke the rules of the US Army and was punished by the US Army for doing so. Where is the problem?

My post is directed towards his 10 years imprisonment...he is a scape goat in this PC world.

I was in the US military...his brass is walking while he's serving.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
So, why do you think the decision of a US military court over a US soldier is "F-ing ridiculous"?
Do you not respect the decision of the US military court?
Do you think he should not have been charged?
Do you think what he did was ok because it was done to an Iraqi prisoner?

This guy broke the rules of the US Army and was punished by the US Army for doing so. Where is the problem?

Does the fact that it was the "US" have any great bearing on whether or not the judgment is fair? You seem to be very emphatic about that aspect.

[Spheric Harlot]

He was just following orders that he initially refused, but then caved in under pressure from above.

It's his higher-ups that deserve jail time.

Rumsfeld.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
He was just following orders that he initially refused, but then caved in under pressure from above.

That's what the sick bastard initially claimed. The jury found otherwise. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that some people would prefer his self-serving story to the truth.

The New York Times had excerpts of the evidence -- his boasting e-mails to his family. Very damning. He enjoyed abusing his charges.

Also interesting, the Military Intelligence troops he tried to blame his conduct on were outranked by him. He was a corporal. link

[Millennium]

I'd originally heard the sentence was 17 years; did something happen to suspend some of that or something?

Either way, I wish he'd gotten more than that, and I certainly hope that a dishonorable discharge comes along with this. Torture is not to be tolerated.

[Randman]

Yep, he got a dishonorable discharge. Too bad he won't be going to a hardcore prison. Some homeboys could really teach him about sexual abuse and other indignities.
Hopefully, more of them are going to do some real time.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Randman:
Yep, he got a dishonorable discharge. Too bad he won't be going to a hardcore prison. Some homeboys could really teach him about sexual abuse and other indignities.
Hopefully, more of them are going to do some real time.

He's going to Leavenworth. That's a very hardcore prison. However, it is a disciplined military prison where the guards behave appropriately. Unlike the way this POS probably did when he was a civilian prison guard in Virginia.

After he completes his 10 year sentence (and as far as I know, the military does not parole), then he will be discharged with a dishonorable discharge and a felony conviction. That should screw him for the rest of his life.

[Randman]

The excuse, he was only following orders, was lame. Not when his actions after the fact didn't support that train of thought.

[SimeyTheLimey]

By the way, another detail. His self-serving account of being ordered to commit his crimes that the media is making so much of were probably perjured. Those were unsworn statements. Washington Post

The 10-member military jury passed sentence three hours after hearing Graner deliver an unsworn presentencing statement, not subject to cross-examination, in which he said that superior officers instructed him take actions at the prison that he knew would "violate the Geneva Conventions."

When a defense attorney doesn't allow a defendant to testify under oath, but then allows him to testify not under oath in what is called a narrative, that is usually a sign that the defense attorney believes the defendant is committing perjury.

The reason the defense attorney doesn't put his client on the stand under oath when he knows he plans on lying is because to do so would be to commit an ethical violation on the part of the lawyer. He can't knowingly present false information to the court. The problem is he also can't stop his client from testifying. The narrative is the way the attorney and the judge avoid that while allowing his client his Sixth Amendment right to testify in his own defense (even if he wants to lie to the court).

[Randman]

I also think his mum should get a few months in lockup for the way she's been mouthing off following the conviction.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's what the sick bastard initially claimed. The jury found otherwise. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that some people would prefer his self-serving story to the truth.

The New York Times had excerpts of the evidence -- his boasting e-mails to his family. Very damning. He enjoyed abusing his charges.

Also interesting, the Military Intelligence troops he tried to blame his conduct on were outranked by him. He was a corporal. link

Okay, fair enough.

There is still reason to believe that this sort of conduct was in fact authoized from high up the command chain, but that doesn't really affect the severity of his misconduct then, and the justification of this sentence.

I was pleased to hear of the conviction, btw.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I'd originally heard the sentence was 17 years; did something happen to suspend some of that or something?

Either way, I wish he'd gotten more than that, and I certainly hope that a dishonorable discharge comes along with this. Torture is not to be tolerated.

News reports here say the crime carries a maximum sentence of 15 years.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Does the fact that it was the "US" have any great bearing on whether or not the judgment is fair? You seem to be very emphatic about that aspect.

Well for someone (idjeff) who has been so unstinting, and unquestioning, in his support of the US military's actions in iraq I was wondering why now he would questions the actions of that same military?

[MacGorilla]

I thought the sentence was too late.
But yes, the millitary's laws and code of conduct are very strict and well defined.

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by idjeff:
My post is directed towards his 10 years imprisonment...he is a scape goat in this PC world.

I was in the US military...his brass is walking while he's serving.

On that, we agree.

[OldManMac]

There may or may not have been "superiors" involved. Graner's answers to some of the questions, including the one asking him why he was smiling in these photos, indicates to me that he was doing more than obeying orders. He knew what he was doing was wrong; he got what he deserved.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Krusty:
[B]The military has higher standards of conduct than you do.

Exactly. There was a story that happened here a couple of years ago where a soldier from Fort Drum raped his six or seven week old son. The child almost died. The Jefferson County D.A.s office deferred the trial to the military because the punishment under the UCMJ was far more severe than what a civilian judge would be able to issue.

[skio]

10 yrs? What a joke. The soldier says he was ordered to undertake systematic abuse by his superiors... what exactly is being done to investigate those claims? How about we take him, and the his superiors right up to Rummie, and boot ****k out of them? I would, mofos.

As to the military having higher standards. That's all well and good if you're a Sandhurst trained officer; but when you have the bulk of your armed forces dragged out of the backwater of humanity, then you have a problem. No matter how good your officers are, they're still not capable of educating a bunch of monkies. This is becoming increasingly obvious as the US military starts to undertake diverse and major offences.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by skio:
As to the military having higher standards. That's all well and good if you're a Sandhurst trained officer; but when you have the bulk of your armed forces dragged out of the backwater of humanity, then you have a problem. No matter how good your officers are, they're still not capable of educating a bunch of monkies. This is becoming increasingly obvious as the US military starts to undertake diverse and major offences.

I don't have a comment about this stupid and bigoted post. I just want to preserve it.

[OldManMac]

I'd rather laugh at it. No, on second thought, we should cry.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by skio:
As to the military having higher standards. That's all well and good if you're a Sandhurst trained officer; but when you have the bulk of your armed forces dragged out of the backwater of humanity, then you have a problem. No matter how good your officers are, they're still not capable of educating a bunch of monkies. This is becoming increasingly obvious as the US military starts to undertake diverse and major offences.

Wow.

[MacGorilla]

As to the military having higher standards. That's all well and good if you're a Sandhurst trained officer; but when you have the bulk of your armed forces dragged out of the backwater of humanity, then you have a problem. No matter how good your officers are, they're still not capable of educating a bunch of monkies. This is becoming increasingly obvious as the US military starts to undertake diverse and major offences.