Reply
Tue 11 Jan, 2005 03:10 pm
Lawyer: Iraqi Abuse Was Like Act of 'Cheerleaders'
Mon Jan 10, 2005 02:47 PM ET
By Adam Tanner
FORT HOOD, Texas (Reuters) - A lawyer for Charles Graner, accused ringleader in the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, on Monday compared piling naked prisoners into pyramids to cheerleader shows and said leashing inmates was also acceptable prisoner control.
"Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?" Guy Womack, Graner's attorney, said in opening arguments to the 10-member U.S. military jury at the reservist sergeant's court-martial.
Graner and Pvt. Lynndie England, with whom he fathered a child and who is also facing a court-martial, became the faces of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal after they appeared in photographs that showed degraded, naked prisoners.
The prosecution showed some of those pictures in their opening argument, including several of naked Iraqi men piled on each other and another of England holding a crawling naked Iraqi man on a leash.
Womack said using a tether was a valid method of controlling detainees, especially those who might be soiled with feces.
"You're keeping control of them. A tether is a valid control to be used in corrections," he said. "In Texas we'd lasso them and drag them out of there." He compared the leash to parents who place tethers on their toddlers while walking in shopping malls.
Pictures of the humiliating treatment of the prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad prompted outrage around the world and further eroded the credibility of the United States already damaged in many countries by the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Apart from arguing that the methods were not illegal, Graner's defense is that he was following orders. "He was doing his job. Following orders and being praised for it," Womack told the court, adding later that Graner would testify in the case.
The chief prosecutor, Maj. Michael Holley, asked rhetorically: "Did the accused honestly believe that was a lawful order?"
Initial witnesses described how Graner, wearing gloves, led several guards in stacking naked prisoners accused of leading a prison riot into a pyramid on November 8, 2003.
"That's Corp. Graner right there," Pvt. Jeremy Sivits, who is serving a year prison sentence for his role in the abuse, said as he pointed out Graner organizing naked prisoners into a pyramid..........
Full article here:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7283965&src=rss/topNews
I have heard lawyers say a lot of stuff - and, while some have very high ethical standards, I generally know that one is lying (as, here at least, they are not supposed to do knowingly in court) when they say "My client instructs me...." a lot.
But - really, ought any kind of ethics prevent one from making the kind of defence written about above?????
I mean the cheerleader/leash defence - the "not illegal" would be par for the course, of course.
I heard the cheerleader comparison on the news last nite. Horrifying that he thought it was okay to compare naked prisoners to cheerleaders.
Lawyers are hired guns.
In this particular case Granier's actions have been given extensive media coverage and commentary.
I think his lawyer--the "gun" hired in Granier's defense--is trying to restore some balance to his clients actions.
Of course by trying to pooh-pooh Granier's behavior as that of a high-spirited, patriotic, fun-loving kid he may offend the 10 member military jury on grounds of taste or common sense or both.
What do you do when your client is guilty as hell? You try to make it seem that the load of guilt isn't all that severe because the offenses were so petty.
Do you consider there to be no bounds to this attempt?
I think the argument is appalling and won't do his client much good.
But of more concern to me is the distinct possibility that an idiot like Granier (and a few others) may be the fall guy for all the abuse that went on. The higher-ups will be spared any blame.
That troubles me more!
As wrong as what these interrogators did was, it is certainly benevolent in the extreme compared to the way the insurgents treat prisoners.
Brandon9000 wrote:As wrong as what these interrogators did was, it is certainly benevolent in the extreme compared to the way the insurgents treat prisoners.
And if we all we aspire to do is to meet the standards set by murderers and thugs, then we can all give ourselves an enthusiastic pat on the back for a job well done.
Brandon9000 wrote:As wrong as what these interrogators did was, it is certainly benevolent in the extreme compared to the way the insurgents treat prisoners.
Sigh - a short time indeed to the usual stuff intruding.
Is it possible for this thread to concern itself with the subject matter of what is ethical behaviour in terms of defence strategies, instead of the usual "yah boo sucks, they hit first" stuff?
dlowan--
Sheepskin or not, some lawyers have good taste and common sense and some don't.
Who should censure this military lawyer? The Granier jury will deliver judgement on his behavior when they convict or acquit. I'm not sure how the military legal system works.
Remember this sort of Boyish High Spirits logic was voiced by Rush Limbaugh and evoked support from an awful lot of dittoheads.
Repeat, when your client is guilty as hell....
joefromchicago wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:As wrong as what these interrogators did was, it is certainly benevolent in the extreme compared to the way the insurgents treat prisoners.
And if we all we aspire to do is to meet the standards set by murderers and thugs, then we can all give ourselves an enthusiastic pat on the back for a job well done.
I am not advocating sinking to their standards. The Americans who abused the prisoners should be rooted out and punished severely, just as such treatment of prisoners by Americans should have been punished in past wars. I am merely suggesting that our sins be looked at in perspective compared to the infinitely worse sins of the people on the other side.
Brandon--
Dlowan's question doesn't deal with the ethics of questioning POW's. She wants to discuss the ethics of lawyers, a totally different situation.
You're off topic.
Noddy24 wrote:Brandon--
Dlowan's question doesn't deal with the ethics of questioning POW's. She wants to discuss the ethics of lawyers, a totally different situation.
You're off topic.
Her example dealt solely with the questioning of POWs. I am not nearly as much off topic as the rarely questioned practice of posting anti-Bush rants in the Science and every other board on this site.
THE OTHER SIDE!?! You have
become the other side!
Quote:'We, of course, commit our criminal acts and war-crimes in the spirit of democracy and respecting the religious and ethnic choices of our victims. Nine out of ten torture victims prefer the American Way (TM, Pat pending)! Check out our website for testimonials!!'
Mr Stillwater wrote:THE OTHER SIDE!?! You have
become the other side!
Quote:'We, of course, commit our criminal acts and war-crimes in the spirit of democracy and respecting the religious and ethnic choices of our victims. Nine out of ten torture victims prefer the American Way (TM, Pat pending)! Check out our website for testimonials!!'
State what you mean specifically, and then offer some evidence for it.
Getting back to the question here: If cheerleaders were compelled to form their pyramids, the comparison might be apt. But, as far as I know, cheerleading is a voluntary activity. So the argument is stupid.
Yes, the argument is manifestly stupid.
Noddy - you think anything goes, then, ethically, re defence tactics?
That the only judgment happens by the jury/judge?
See - if they tell LIES, and are caught, they are supposed to be punished.
I am thinking not just of this, but of other instances I have known:
eg a lawyer acquaintance of mine who was defending a guy who had repeatedly raped and abused his step-daughter - from the age of 2 up - I won't go into it, but it involved animals and lots of guns. He had carefully documented the abuse in photographs, which had been tendered to the court. By the time it came to court, the kid was 11.
The lawyer used, in his attempt to defnd the fella, the idea that (as he was INSTRUCTED by his client) the child had initiated the "sexual play".
Lots of lawyers would not have done that.
Was that unethical? Is there a limit to what is ethical in these circumstances?
The lawyer concerned said "It's not my job to do anything but follow instructions". Hmmmmmmm.....
Dlowan--
I'm not sure who can judge a military lawyer.
I believe civilian lawyers can be judged by their bar associations and professional societies.
You are aware that many child molesters are convinced that the kids--even toddlers and babes in arms--"led them on" and initiated the sexual contact. Some of these creeps insist (in spite of their lawyers' advice) on blaming the kids in open court.
I had an uncle who did a great deal of pro bono work defending the scum of the earth. He was an honorable man who never stretched the truth to obtain an acquittal. He also practiced in a more ethical time.
I have known lawyers who were fired by their clients (frequently non-paying clients) because the lawyers wouldn't bend the truth to guarantee an acquittal.
Personally, I'm an ethical, intelligent human being and and spurious, dishonest courtroom tactics annoy me.
Unfortunately we live in a time when the end excuses the means. I think lawyers can still be disbarred for unprofessional behavior, but the standards for professional behavior are lower than they used to be.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace