Where are Lynndie England and Charles Graner now?

Lynndie England and Charles Graner

(One of the Photos released from the CD that contained 

the abuse photos from Abu Ghraib)

After being charged and convicted of abusing detainees, along with six other soldiers, Charles Graner was released from military prison in August of 2011 after serving six of his 10 years sentence. He would serve the remainder of his sentence under probation until December of 2014. It is known that Graner is still married to another soldier convicted with charges related to Abu Ghraib, Megan Ambuhl.   Human rights activists were angered that he was released from prison early. As for Lynndie England, Graner and her share a son together. After she served half of her 3 year sentence for her part in the abuse she returned home to Fort Ashby, Virginia. It was there in her hometown where she was constantly asked questions, followed and sometimes praised for what she did. From an interview in The Guardian "She's home from jail, but Lynndie England can't escape Abu Ghraib" England maintains that it was the conditions they were under as to why she subjected detainees to abuse. She also tells how difficult it has been for her to find employment once she reveals her criminal background. In addition, she explains how she is taking antidepressants and is still pyschologically affected by her experiences in Iraq. England acknowledges that even though seven soldiers were charged with relation to the abuse at Abu Ghraib it will always her face that will always be associated with the detainee abuse that occurred during the War in Iraq. 

The Senate Armed Services Committee Report on Treating of Detainees in December 2008

The Senate Armed Services Committee conducted an investigation that would delve into the treatment of detainees in U.S custody. Their report concluded an executive summary with several conclusions as to where these techniques originated and as to who and why approved these interrogation techniques. Their investigation presents various factors that contributed to the actions of those soldiers that participated in detainee abuse. These factors include, that harsh techniques were first considered in the White House. A significant amount of the report addresses the use of SERE Techniques and how these techniques were not used as a defensive measure for soldiers but SERE was implemented on detainees, which are proven to only yield false confessions. In fact, it states how General Miller ignored the warning given by the FBI that the strategies used in GITMO were possibly unlawful. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s approvals for harsher interrogation technique led to the abuse of detainees. Finally, the investigation concludes with the authorization to use harsh techniques in Afghanistan and Iraq and its’ consequence. Specifically, it states that “interrogation policies approved by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez...were a direct cause of detainee abuse in Iraq... Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody.” The Committee’s report supported that the abuse that occurred in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was not the sole responsibility of the soldiers, but high ranking officials are also at fault. 

Antonio Taguba and his report, May 2004

Numerous occurrences of detainee abuse; for example , “punching, slapping, kicking detainees; forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear; a male MP having sex with a female detainee.” The events described and listed in General Taguba’s report are corroborated by statements of confession by several MPs from the 372nd MP Company. Taguba and his team of investigators also interviewed several detainees who gave credible descriptions of abuse they themselves experienced and which were much more graphic and harsher than what MPs stated. Furthermore, his report indicates that the previous report Ryder’s Report was inaccurate, and Military Intelligence and Other Government Agencies did in fact request MPs to “prepare” or “set conditions” for detainees who would be interrogated. Lastly, he assessed that MPs were never trained for interrogation or detainee procedures, and that these MPs were in poor leadership. After reading Seymour Hersh’s “How Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, became one of its casualties.” It is clear to me that what General Taguba revealed only hurt his career. It seems as if he was seen as a traitor for revealing the military’s “secrets”. 

How did the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal become known and what was the immediate result?

Joseph Darby, Military Police, would uncover the abuse going on in Abu Ghraib when he asked MP Charles Graner for any interesting photos he's taken while in Iraq. While looking through two CDs he came across several pictures exhibiting the abuse taking place during Graner's nightshift. Darby reported the abuse to CID, he was told he would remain anonymous. The New Yorker and 60 Mins II would reveal the pictures of the abuse and would inform the world of the abuse within Abu Ghraib. After the scandal broke there was an immediate outcry form the arab world and from humanitarian organizations seeking justice for these crimes. Six soldiers were charged with the crimes that took place at Abu Ghraib. White House Administration deemed the acts of all these soldiers as the wrong doings of only these few soldiers and does not speak of the Army as a whole. Furthermore, that what occurred there was "Animal House on the nightshift". There was more to what happened in Abu Ghraib than what those soldiers did. It was a combination of failures that reached all the way to the White House, even if they were not directly involved in the abuse. In Seymour M. Hersh's news breaking article "Annals of National Security: Torture at Abu Ghraib" he states,  

"As the international furor grew, senior military officers, and President Bush, insisted that the actions of a few did not reflect the conduct of the military as a whole. Taguba’s report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels." Taguba suggested that high ranking Army officers, Military Intelligence officers and Civilian contractors be relieved of their duties and reprimanded. The soldiers that were directly involved with the abuse that occurred in Abu Ghraib do hold a majority of the blame for what happened, but it should be noted that they do not hold the entire blame. 

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, right, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers are sworn in on Capitol Hill Friday, May 7, 2004, in Washington, prior to testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on prisoner abuses in Iraq. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds) Photo: RON EDMONDS

What happened at Abu Ghraib?

It is unclear what actually took place in the interrogations; however, the reaction of detainees as they passed interrogations booths was only relief. In one instance and the only recored homicide that took place in Abu Ghraib were two MPs took photos with a deceased detainee with a thumbs up. It was here where the MPs understood that the man died after his interrogation. The Prison Riot of 2003 only made the circumstances and the conditions worse. The MPs only grew more frustrated with detainees and were confused as to why they were being attacked. This led them to increase their violent pre-interrogation techniques and enforce harsher treatment. They forced detainees, naked, to form human pyramids, they subjected them to longer more stressful positions, and they forced them into sexual positions with other detainees. 

Military Police Moved from Incarceration Staff and Placed Under Military Intelligence (MI)

The consequences of the shift in “duties” of the MPs left them in charge of “preping” detainees for their interrogation. They were told to change their sleep schedules, play loud music as they slept, anything to prepare the detainees for their interrogation and in hopes that detainees would give valuable information. Many of the MPs were put in compromising situation were their morals were questioned along with their ethics as a soldier. They were assigned to perform questionable techniques of interrogation by Military Intelligence. Female MPs were asked to take male detainees to shower and ridicule them. The change in command and the desperate need from intelligence out of Iraq prisons only further compromised the integrity of Military Police within detainee prisons, like Abu Ghraib. 

Fmr. Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski and a photo of an Abu Ghraib detainee 

Major General Geoffrey Miller, Donald Rumsfeld, Ricardo Sanchez and Interrogation Techniques

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba served as a detention prison where “high-valued detainees” were kept. It was here where Major General Geoffrey Miller, in charge of Guantanamo Bay, used harsh interrogation techniques. The sole purpose of this prison was to gain intelligence at all cost, while using the harshest interrogation methods. No one, except military personnel had access to Guantanamo Bay; therefore, it was more difficult for the public to uncover the inhumane conditions prisoners were subjected to. The techniques that interrogators used could be easily manipulated. Sec. Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved Miller’s techniques in his Action Memo in November of 2002. In fact, he wrote at the bottom of the Memo “However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours? D.R.”. The techniques he approved were solitary confinement, stress positions, forced nudity, psychological techniques. In August of 2003 General Miller was sent to Iraq to implement harsher interrogation techniques, in hopes of gaining intelligent information from detainees. Furthermore, Ricardo Sanchez issued another memo enforcing even harsher interrogation techniques. These new techniques meant more compromising situations that MPs were left in. They witnessed the forced nudity of prisoners, the stress positions that they endured, yet they never questioned their superiors.