• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abu Ghraib Guards Say Memos Show They Were Scapegoats

In regard to Lynddie England and Charles Grainer....

  • Not guilty. Let them go.

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • Guilty. Keep them in jail.

    Votes: 8 47.1%

  • Not guilty. They only followed orders. Let them go, but prosecute their superiors.

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • Guilty, and so are their superiors. Prosecute superiors too.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Not guilty, but administration is guilty. Prosecute Bush administration.

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • Not guilty. Superiors not guilty. Prosecute Bush administration.

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • Guilty. Superiors guilty. Bush administration guilty. Prosecute them all.

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • Don't know / No opinion.

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • Total voters
    17
danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Lynddie England and Charles Grainer, found guilty and sentenced to prison for torturing prisoners in Iraq, are filing new appeals in light of the Bush Torture Memos coming into the public domain.

Now here is the problem -

1) Both Abu Ghraib guards are being punished for following what they considered to be lawful orders. Now I realize that "following orders" is not an excuse, and this argument did not get Nazi death camp guards off the hook. But their direct superiors were also prosecuted, Hitler's staff was prosecuted, and Hitler himself would have been prosecuted, has he not committed suicide. The difference here is that those who ordered England and Grainer to torture their suspects are being let off the hook. The legal argument here is that the torture memos were supposed to absolve participants in torture of criminal charges.

2) England and Grainer did go beyond the scope of what they were ordered to do, and that should be a big factor in their sentences being upheld. However, part of their orders themselves are considered by many to have been illegal in the first place. If they are punished for following those orders, then shouldn't those who gave the orders also be punished?

3) The crux of the matter itself - Are the Bush memos smoking guns that the Bush Administration itself authorized illegal acts? There are 2 schools of thought on that - YES and NO. That is the big question which must be answered.

So let's have a vote.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
Abu Garib was a different situation and you know it.
 
Uh, the Bush memos on the waterboarding?

No. That has nothing to do with the two of them. And they weren't convicted of torturing anyone. Sloppy, inflammatory language like that does not serve the cause of the truth. And you want to serve the truth, don't you?
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Uh, the Bush memos on the waterboarding?

No. That has nothing to do with the two of them. And they weren't convicted of torturing anyone. Sloppy, inflammatory language like that does not serve the cause of the truth. And you want to serve the truth, don't you?
Click to expand...

That is an option in the poll. If your post is your answer, then choose option 2.
 
I have always suspected that alot of what happened at Abu Ghraib was ordered. I suspect as information comes out that the cases against these two will have to be re-examined, but right now, there is just not enough information to say for sure one way or another whether the convictions are just or not.
 
There is no "problem."

The Abu Ghraib guards were getting their jollies, not interrogating terrorists. Charles Graner and Lynndie England are grasping at straws to get out of prison.
 
Those 11 soldiers did NOT go beyond what they were told! This illustrates what cowards Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and more truly are. They ordered this treatment and stood by like chicken ****s while these honorable soldiers took the blame for what the admin authorized.

Bush authorized the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

Those 11 will be pardoned.
 
Of course they're scapegoats.

The whole structure of the military judicial system is to make sure the officers don't get punished for something they can blame on an enlisted guy.

The Captain of the USS Greeneville was morally, legally, and actualy responsible for the ill-timed EMBT blow that killed those japanese on the fishing boat off Hawaii. They successfully palmed that off on the sonar techs who had no control of anything, and then the officers skipped off to a cushy retirement on the wrong side of the prison bars.

The efforts of the officer caste in the aftermath of the collision of the USS La Jolla with the USS Permit in 1982 to blaime the La Jolla's sonar crew was forestalled when the Weapons Officer of that ship took custody of the sonar tapes and refused his captain possession of them. The tapes were turned over to the review board and the office in command of the LaJolla, Cdr GC Beard and the OOD at the time, a Lt. Downing, were formally reprimanded for the collision.

However, the LaJolla/Permit collision resulted in no injuries or deaths.

The general policy, however, is to blame the enlisted guy.

The Abu Graib show-trials were confirmation that the policy is still enforced.
 
What they did was beyond anything talked about or outlined in the "memo's". They did acts of interrogatin and just plain humiliation that did not fall within the guidelines, and did things at times for reasons that had nothing to do with information gathering and had completely everything to do with humiliation.

Them saying that since they were authorized to do some things they're not guilty for doing more than what they were authorized is like saying a marine that decides to randomly go murdering people at night is not guilty because he was authorized to kill the enemy so its okay if he wanted to take that farther and just kill in general.
 
What they were told to do was not in those memos. They were instructed and directed by the CIA to "soften up" the prisoners. They were told how to do this. General Karpinski testified she was not even allowed in the section of the prison by order of Gen. Gonzalez (sp?), her boss. The same group that trained the Gitmo guards were sent to do the same at Ghraib.

Those soldiers were not even MPs. They shouldn't have had anything to do with those prisoners. But, that's Rumsfeld's doing!

This has all been in the news, magazines, books and interviews. I think some of you only spit up what O'reilly and the Mannity and BushCo say. :doh Most of you wouldn't believe Bush and his thugs did any of what they are accused of "EVEN" if you saw it with your own eyes! :roll:
 
I voted not guilty let them go.

What took place at Abu Ghraib is nothing more than what can be found happening at frat houses across the country.
 
The Nuremberg argument is not germaine to this debate as Lynndie tortured no one (wasn't even a guard, she was visiting her boyfriend). I'm sorry, but I don't think that posing in a picture is like gasing people like the Nazi enlisted did. Yes, they were following orders. Graner was commended many times by CI and MI interrogators for his ability to "soften" detainees up prior to interrogation. I'm actually not a big fan of Charles "Chuck" Graner, but I do believe he is a scapegoat and should be set free.

There is more to the story of those pictures than the public has been allowed to learn, but it will be coming out in the next few weeks.

Additionally, how many enlisted personnel do you know who will buck a command? It just isn't done. Yes, Karpinski was not allowed to go into the hardsite as it was under the control of MI. Her rank should be restored as well.
 
MrVicchio said:
Abu Garib was a different situation and you know it.
Click to expand...
Dana asking people to judge this situation based on a news article. ****ing ignorant.
 
Harshaw said:
Uh, the Bush memos on the waterboarding?

No. That has nothing to do with the two of them. And they weren't convicted of torturing anyone. Sloppy, inflammatory language like that does not serve the cause of the truth. And you want to serve the truth, don't you?
Click to expand...
The answer to your question is NO. When it comes to Bush, Dana is a liberal-brained mouthfoamer.
 
I somewhat doubt these "rules" will apply to the Messiah of Obamaland.


In fact if anything similar in anyway occurs..watch Obama "Never notice" and give us a speech about the grooming benefits of lawn gnomes.

totus1.png
 
danarhea said:
Lynddie England and Charles Grainer, found guilty and sentenced to prison for torturing prisoners in Iraq, are filing new appeals in light of the Bush Torture Memos coming into the public domain.

Now here is the problem -

1) Both Abu Ghraib guards are being punished for following what they considered to be lawful orders. Now I realize that "following orders" is not an excuse, and this argument did not get Nazi death camp guards off the hook. But their direct superiors were also prosecuted, Hitler's staff was prosecuted, and Hitler himself would have been prosecuted, has he not committed suicide. The difference here is that those who ordered England and Grainer to torture their suspects are being let off the hook. The legal argument here is that the torture memos were supposed to absolve participants in torture of criminal charges.

2) England and Grainer did go beyond the scope of what they were ordered to do, and that should be a big factor in their sentences being upheld. However, part of their orders themselves are considered by many to have been illegal in the first place. If they are punished for following those orders, then shouldn't those who gave the orders also be punished?

3) The crux of the matter itself - Are the Bush memos smoking guns that the Bush Administration itself authorized illegal acts? There are 2 schools of thought on that - YES and NO. That is the big question which must be answered.

So let's have a vote.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? Is there really any doubt that the Bush memo's contain little resemblance to the illegal acts of these sick perverts?

The notion that there is any credible connection requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

The FACT that these morons have been successfully prosecuted and found guilty should be sufficient evidence that they conducted themselves outside of the Army's code of conduct.

What we have here is another mainstream media attempt to outdo the Star or other gossip journals in sensationalist journalism that hardly resembles anything that could be considered credible.
 
ADK_Forever said:
What they were told to do was not in those memos. They were instructed and directed by the CIA to "soften up" the prisoners. They were told how to do this. General Karpinski testified she was not even allowed in the section of the prison by order of Gen. Gonzalez (sp?), her boss. The same group that trained the Gitmo guards were sent to do the same at Ghraib.

Those soldiers were not even MPs. They shouldn't have had anything to do with those prisoners. But, that's Rumsfeld's doing!

This has all been in the news, magazines, books and interviews. I think some of you only spit up what O'reilly and the Mannity and BushCo say. :doh Most of you wouldn't believe Bush and his thugs did any of what they are accused of "EVEN" if you saw it with your own eyes! :roll:
Click to expand...

Do you NEVER require any facts to make your lunatic assertions? Good lord dude, such ranting is a topic for the conspiracy forums and not here. :roll:
 
Do they claim Charles was ordered to knock Lynddie up over there too? :rofl
 
They will get acquitted this time! First time around the gov't refused to disclose documents which proved that they were under orders. Also, maybe the prison's ex-commander (I forget her name) will be allowed to testify. At the same time, if we're lucky, maybe the biggest cowards of all will get their due credit. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom