Graner gets 10 years for Abu Ghraib

[joshw10]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Graner = ccape goat

It would be insteresting to hear his side of the story in 10 year.

I agree. Jail Rumsfeld instead.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Graner = ccape goat

It would be insteresting to hear his side of the story in 10 year.

I agree. Jail Rumsfeld instead.

Nah. Jail 'em both.

 

[Rogue]

Look folks, the Uniform Code of Military Justice is far more firm in its degree of punishment compared to similar civilian crimes. It was built that way intentionally to maintain strict law, order and discipline within the ranks of the military. I suggest you all read up on some of the things he was charged with and see what the maximum sentences in the UCMJ carry with them. I transported a soldier who stole a Gortex jacket (value approximately $150) and he was serving two months for it. It also stands to reason, that as an MP, which I am one myself, Graner and people like him will ALWAYS have a harsher punishment imposed because if MPs can't follow the law, who can?

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm2002.pdf

Of course, as usual, most of you assclowns won't read a single thing in the link above and you'll still spout off some ill-advised and ignorant bull$hit with little understanding of the matter beyond what mommy and daddy discussed at the dinner table last night. Has anyone read the military enlistment contract I posted yesterday in the thread discussing the sergeant who refuses to deploy back to Iraq? Didn't think so, too much common sense contained in my posts to really matter.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: inphlict
10 years!???..

What did he do again? Humiliate a bunch of TERRORISTS!! Think about what they did during 9/11 and never forget it.

I say the Geneva convention is a bunch of crap.

The Iraqis that we put in Abu Graib weren't "Terrorists" until we invaded. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and absolutely none were from Iraq.
At least get the facts straight before posting.

Q: Who were you before you were banned?

Smart man. People are not allowed to fight in their own country anymore.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: inphlict
I didn't understand the question the first time and I still don't get it. Care to elabirate what you mean?

who were you before you were banned? 😛

edit: sorry, didnt see CrackRabbit asking already, but asking again nonetheless

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Rogue
Look folks, the Uniform Code of Military Justice is far more firm in its degree of punishment compared to similar civilian crimes. It was built that way intentionally to maintain strict law, order and discipline within the ranks of the military. I suggest you all read up on some of the things he was charged with and see what the maximum sentences in the UCMJ carry with them. I transported a soldier who stole a Gortex jacket (value approximately $150) and he was serving two months for it. It also stands to reason, that as an MP, which I am one myself, Graner and people like him will ALWAYS have a harsher punishment imposed because if MPs can't follow the law, who can?

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm2002.pdf

Of course, as usual, most of you assclowns won't read a single thing in the link above and you'll still spout off some ill-advised and ignorant bull$hit with little understanding of the matter beyond what mommy and daddy discussed at the dinner table last night. Has anyone read the military enlistment contract I posted yesterday in the thread discussing the sergeant who refuses to deploy back to Iraq? Didn't think so, too much common sense contained in my posts to really matter.

From my point of view (E-3, DEP program), someone higher than him had to have been giving the orders. In that kind of situation, it may be acceptable for the soldier to follow orders. Therefore, shouldn't they be going after whoever gave the orders?

 

[joshw10]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Rogue
Look folks, the Uniform Code of Military Justice is far more firm in its degree of punishment compared to similar civilian crimes. It was built that way intentionally to maintain strict law, order and discipline within the ranks of the military. I suggest you all read up on some of the things he was charged with and see what the maximum sentences in the UCMJ carry with them. I transported a soldier who stole a Gortex jacket (value approximately $150) and he was serving two months for it. It also stands to reason, that as an MP, which I am one myself, Graner and people like him will ALWAYS have a harsher punishment imposed because if MPs can't follow the law, who can?

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm2002.pdf

Of course, as usual, most of you assclowns won't read a single thing in the link above and you'll still spout off some ill-advised and ignorant bull$hit with little understanding of the matter beyond what mommy and daddy discussed at the dinner table last night. Has anyone read the military enlistment contract I posted yesterday in the thread discussing the sergeant who refuses to deploy back to Iraq? Didn't think so, too much common sense contained in my posts to really matter.

From my point of view (E-3, DEP program), someone higher than him had to have been giving the orders. In that kind of situation, it may be acceptable for the soldier to follow orders. Therefore, shouldn't they be going after whoever gave the orders?

I think whoever that is is untouchable

 

[Rogue]

From my point of view (E-3, DEP program), someone higher than him had to have been giving the orders. In that kind of situation, it may be acceptable for the soldier to follow orders. Therefore, shouldn't they be going after whoever gave the orders?

I think whoever that is is untouchable

Not true, in either instance. There is a clearly written provision in FM 27-10 Law of Land Warfare that states that following orders given by a superior is no defense against the acts committed if the subordinate knows those acts to be unjust, illegal or wrong. Those aren't the exact words, but that is the message that is sent. I just trained a 4 hour class on the Law of Land Warfare and Geneva Conventions last weekend at drill.

It is also clearly written in the law that anyone with knowledge of the illegal acts is just as guilty with regards to the crime. The only safeguard is to immediately report it to the first available party that can stop the act(s), otherwise you can also be held accountable for the crimes.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: OffTopic
Graner = scape goat

It would be insteresting to hear his side of the story in 10 year.

Actually, he did tell his side of the story.

At his sentencing he went on for almost 3 hours about "just following orders"...that defense didn't work in Nuremberg, and it didn't work in Texas, either.

When asked if he felt any remorse, that's when he said "There's a war on. Bad things happen."

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: feralkid
When asked if he felt any remorse, that's when he said "There's a war on. Bad things happen."

Ah, yes. The age old "Bad things happen in war, so it's ok for me to mistread people." excuse. Can't even begin to express how much this line of thinking disgusts me. It's as pathetic as the "Well, everyone else was doing it." excuse.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Rogue

From my point of view (E-3, DEP program), someone higher than him had to have been giving the orders. In that kind of situation, it may be acceptable for the soldier to follow orders. Therefore, shouldn't they be going after whoever gave the orders?

I think whoever that is is untouchable

Not true, in either instance. There is a clearly written provision in FM 27-10 Law of Land Warfare that states that following orders given by a superior is no defense against the acts committed if the subordinate knows those acts to be unjust, illegal or wrong. Those aren't the exact words, but that is the message that is sent. I just trained a 4 hour class on the Law of Land Warfare and Geneva Conventions last weekend at drill.

It is also clearly written in the law that anyone with knowledge of the illegal acts is just as guilty with regards to the crime. The only safeguard is to immediately report it to the first available party that can stop the act(s), otherwise you can also be held accountable for the crimes.

"It is also clearly written in the law that anyone with knowledge of the illegal acts is just as guilty with regards to the crime.

We know for a fact that the Bush administration was well aware of what was going on in Abu Grahib.

===> ...anyone with knowledge of the illegal acts is just as guilty with regards to the crime.