Might be soiled with feces
In the trial of one of the torturers at Abu Ghraib, the lawyer for the defense has responded to the famous photo of the leashed, crawling prisoner by saying that a "tether" is a valid method of controlling detainees, "especially those who might be soiled with feces". (For some unspecified reason: who knows, maybe Iraqi detainees just like rolling around in shit?) He also compared the leash to the "tethers [parents place] on their toddlers while walking in shopping malls", and noted that "In Texas we'd lasso them and drag them out of there."
I'm not sure whether the last statement refers to babies or detainees, but in the latter case the remark may well be fair. After all, prisoners are also tortured, humiliated and killed in US prisons, at times by the same people as at Abu Ghraib.
The defence opening statement also compared pyramids of naked prisoners to football entertainment: "Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?" A novel defense strategy, I must say. If I was a prosecutor, I would certainly be stunned.
It's actually unfair to single out the defense arguments of a single low-level case. A much better gauge of the atmosphere involved is given by a look at high-level people, their views and their treatment. Indeed, Alberto Gonzales, who played a central role at the top has also undergone hearings - to be confirmed as the US attorney general.
I'm not sure whether the last statement refers to babies or detainees, but in the latter case the remark may well be fair. After all, prisoners are also tortured, humiliated and killed in US prisons, at times by the same people as at Abu Ghraib.
The defence opening statement also compared pyramids of naked prisoners to football entertainment: "Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?" A novel defense strategy, I must say. If I was a prosecutor, I would certainly be stunned.
It's actually unfair to single out the defense arguments of a single low-level case. A much better gauge of the atmosphere involved is given by a look at high-level people, their views and their treatment. Indeed, Alberto Gonzales, who played a central role at the top has also undergone hearings - to be confirmed as the US attorney general.
posted by Syksy at 02:01
4 Comments:
In all honesty, I feel sympathy for Charles Graner.
Ten years for pyramids.
Ten years for setting an example.
Ten years for finding a scapegoat.
That's a lot of time, and calling that "torture" waters down the concept.
Of course it wasn't acceptable, at all. Of course an example is needed, if not for other reasons, then for Guantanámo.
In an environment, where killing people earns a medal, it's harsh to punish a jailer for ten years for pyramid-building. For the lack of his superiors to enforce discipline, or for following the orders of the said superiors.
I'd like to see Rumsfeld do ten months.
- M
On the contrary, I think that rolling back the definition of torture from the infliction of "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" to only lasting physical harm water down the struggle against torture.
The fact that Graner is a scapegoat and that others responsible for worse things are rewarded instead of punished in no way reduces his guilt.
I kinda guessed what you'd say.
When I'm 36, ten years from now, I probably won't remember any Charles Graner dude anymore (unless there's some news fuss about this again). But if I do remember, I'll ask you then again if you still consider the sentence reasonable.
(I don't know how this stuff goes in US, maybe he gets out after serving some 67% of it. However, that's a lot anyway).
- Markus
PS.
Thought of the day: The sentence for torture should always be less severe than the criminally inflicted torture, in order for the society to ensure that the sentences for torture do not constitute torture.
If so, it would be interesting to investigate whether Graner's victims got off easier than the man himself.
Personally, I believe that 10 years loss of freedom in american prison constitutes mental torture (in the watered-down meaning of the word).
I haven't said anything about the length of the sentence one way or another.
If you want to know my opinion, it's that the reasonabless should be in the first instance measured by comparing to the length of sentences handed down for other crimes within the same justice system.
Of course, this only assesses the sentence within the particular system of justice (in this case, US courts, specifically military courts), that is, relative reasonabless.
The reasonabless of the framework itself, including the issue of absolute lengths of sentences, is a more difficult question. I don't know much about the topic, but I doubt whether absolutely long sentences have much positive effect on the level of crime, issues of accountability etc..
Post a Comment
<< Home