The Abu Graib "Bad Apples" should be pardoned

ponderingturtle

Orthogonal Vector
ponderingturtle
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
54,545
It seems to me that it is becoming clear that those convicted for the photo's of the so called abuses in Abu Graib were not doing anything remarkably worse than many others. It seems incredibly wrong that they should have been convicted when others who did the same things are being protected by the president. They were clearly not "Bad Apples" but rather "Politicaly Inconvienient Apples". The pictures of their actions got out and caused an uproar.

So it was not anything that they did to the detainees that resulted in their prison terms, but rather political decisions, the lack of balls of now both presidents to say "Yes this is how we treat people, and we do not see anything wrong with it".
 
ponderingturtle said:
It seems to me that it is becoming clear that those convicted for the photo's of the so called abuses in Abu Graib were not doing anything remarkably worse than many others. It seems incredibly wrong that they should have been convicted when others who did the same things are being protected by the president. They were clearly not "Bad Apples" but rather "Politicaly Inconvienient Apples". The pictures of their actions got out and caused an uproar.

So it was not anything that they did to the detainees that resulted in their prison terms, but rather political decisions, the lack of balls of now both presidents to say "Yes this is how we treat people, and we do not see anything wrong with it".
Click to expand...

wtf? the US citizens dont think that way i gues/hope/belive
 
Dictator Cheney said:
wtf? the US citizens dont think that way i gues/hope/belive
Click to expand...

That seems to be what Obama and bush think. They knew about the pictures that are being suppressed now, and the other acts that show that these were not unique actions, but fairly typical. Bush went about protecting others who did similar things and Obama is following up on it nicely.

They just don't have the guts to say it in plain language.
 
ponderingturtle said:
That seems to be what Obama and bush think. They knew about the pictures that are being suppressed now, and the other acts that show that these were not unique actions, but fairly typical. Bush went about protecting others who did similar things and Obama is following up on it nicely.

They just don't have the guts to say it in plain language.
Click to expand...

ill leave away Bush, but i dont belive that Obama's reason to protect others that did the same is because he do "not see anything wrong with it" and sure not the majority of US citizens.

Moraly seen it would be needed to punish everyone that did such things. But i guess its more Political. Can he punish everyone that did such things?
sure its unfair for those punished, but pardon them would be a terrible signal to the world.

isnt that such a loose-loose situation?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
ill leave away Bush, but i dont belive that Obama's reason to protect others that did the same is because he do "not see anything wrong with it" and sure not the majority of US citizens.
Click to expand...

Why should they have been singled out? They were not doing anything remarkable, the only thing is that they took pictures that got out.
Moraly seen it would be needed to punish everyone that did such things. But i guess its more Political. Can he punish everyone that did such things?
sure its unfair for those punished, but pardon them would be a terrible signal to the world.

isnt that such a loose-loose situation?
Click to expand...

I don't see why we shouldn't view his protection of others as condoning their actions to a degree. He clearly thinks that they did nothing wrong to the extent that would require prosecution, just did things he did not agree with.

He is going out to cover up and protect people who did the same as these people, why should they be singled out as political scapegoats?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Why should they have been singled out? They were not doing anything remarkable, the only thing is that they took pictures that got out.


I don't see why we shouldn't view his protection of others as condoning their actions to a degree. He clearly thinks that they did nothing wrong to the extent that would require prosecution, just did things he did not agree with.

He is going out to cover up and protect people who did the same as these people, why should they be singled out as political scapegoats?
Click to expand...

mmhh good points.
 
They were already under investigation before the pictures leaked out. It just got expedited because of the leak.
 
corplinx said:
They were already under investigation before the pictures leaked out. It just got expedited because of the leak.
Click to expand...

You honnestly think that they would have been convicted of anything with out the public outrage. Why do you think the people in the current batch of photo's never were charged.
 
ponderingturtle said:
You honnestly think that they would have been convicted of anything with out the public outrage. Why do you think the people in the current batch of photo's never were charged.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case.

I think across the board the charges have been exceptionally lenient (stuff like "dereliction of duty"), and plenty of guilty parties weren't charged at all.

The photos haven't been released to the public but the people who make the decisions whether or not to press charges have all seen them. (They were even released to Congress about a year ago.)

To your larger point, while I don't think the people who did the dirty work should be singled out (I don't buy the "bad apple" theory either), I also don't think they should be granted any sort of blanket immunity or pardon. Also, at least some of these people should be forced to register as sex offenders, IMO.

The C.A.T. very specifically says that just following orders is no defense in the crime of torture. I could see plea bargaining with some of the agents that did the dirty work in order to catch bigger fish, but I wouldn't simply rule out pressing charges against them.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
The C.A.T. very specifically says that just following orders is no defense in the crime of torture. I could see plea bargaining with some of the agents that did the dirty work in order to catch bigger fish, but I wouldn't simply rule out pressing charges against them.
Click to expand...
Now just let Obama know that. He seems to think that following orders is good enough, see why he is not prosecuting anyone at the CIA who just followed orders.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Now just let Obama know that. He seems to think that following orders is good enough, see why he is not prosecuting anyone at the CIA who just followed orders.
Click to expand...
I've written and mailed three letters each to Obama and Holder.


Karpinski also thinks the Nazis were right and that "just following orders" excuses committing war crimes. She claims she and others were unfairly accused of committing crimes that she fully admits she knowingly committed (or at least allowed to happen under her command).


ETA: FWIW, owing to a pretty large expression of public outrage, Obama backed off his original position that he was opposed to prosecuting the CIA agents. Instead, he punted it over to Holder and said it's the A.G.'s decision to make.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
It seems to me that it is becoming clear that those convicted for the photo's of the so called abuses in Abu Graib were not doing anything remarkably worse than many others. It seems incredibly wrong that they should have been convicted when others who did the same things are being protected by the president. They were clearly not "Bad Apples" but rather "Politicaly Inconvienient Apples". The pictures of their actions got out and caused an uproar.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you've got your timelines screwed up. The Abu Grhaib folks were under criminal investigation by the Army before the photos went public.

Edit to add: In fact, the photos were leaked to the press by a defendant, basically as an attempt to retaliate against the army for prosecutions which were already underway. So you've basically got your causality chain backwards.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
I'm afraid you've got your timelines screwed up. The Abu Grhaib folks were under criminal investigation by the Army before the photos went public.
Click to expand...

Why should I believe that those prosecutions would have gone anywhere when there is so many similar events that are being intentionaly covered up, even by a new administration?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I don't think that's the case.

I think across the board the charges have been exceptionally lenient (stuff like "dereliction of duty"), and plenty of guilty parties weren't charged at all.

The photos haven't been released to the public but the people who make the decisions whether or not to press charges have all seen them. (They were even released to Congress about a year ago.)

To your larger point, while I don't think the people who did the dirty work should be singled out (I don't buy the "bad apple" theory either), I also don't think they should be granted any sort of blanket immunity or pardon. Also, at least some of these people should be forced to register as sex offenders, IMO.

The C.A.T. very specifically says that just following orders is no defense in the crime of torture. I could see plea bargaining with some of the agents that did the dirty work in order to catch bigger fish, but I wouldn't simply rule out pressing charges against them.
Click to expand...

Most of what happened at Abu Ghraib fell under the list of permitted interrogation techniques authorized authorized by Donald Rumsfeld in December of 2002. The forced nudity, threatening prisoners with dogs, stress positions, sleep deprivation and other abuse shown in the photos was the application of US policy, not the work of a few bad apples.
 
Kestrel said:
Most of what happened at Abu Ghraib fell under the list of permitted interrogation techniques authorized authorized by Donald Rumsfeld in December of 2002. The forced nudity, threatening prisoners with dogs, stress positions, sleep deprivation and other abuse shown in the photos was the application of US policy, not the work of a few bad apples.
Click to expand...

I agree with that assessment.

However, the C.A.T. specifically says that following orders is not a defense in the crime of torture. I'm opposed to granting a pardon or immunity to anyone involved unless we get some pretty big concession (testimony against higher-ups, for example) in exchange.

By the way, the people who conduct interrogations aren't typical low-level guards anyway. They're trained, and they all know full well that they are not only free to disobey illegal orders but are in fact obligated to disobey illegal orders.

ETA: Best I can tell, no one here believes the "bad apple" theory.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Why should I believe that those prosecutions would have gone anywhere when there is so many similar events that are being intentionaly covered up, even by a new administration?
Click to expand...

Did you not read my link? The photos were release, by one of the abusers, precisely because the prosecutions were going somewhere. If you want to hide your head in the sand and refuse to believe anything anyone says, well, I guess I can't stop you, but the evidence points in the opposite direction from the way you were heading.
 
Kestrel said:
Most of what happened at Abu Ghraib fell under the list of permitted interrogation techniques authorized authorized by Donald Rumsfeld in December of 2002. The forced nudity, threatening prisoners with dogs, stress positions, sleep deprivation and other abuse shown in the photos was the application of US policy, not the work of a few bad apples.
Click to expand...

Small problem: the stuff that Lindy England and pals were involved in didn't even involve interrogations. The victims were common criminals of no intelligence value, and they were being abused as punishment, not to extract information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom