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. 

The "Hard Site" and the Failure of "Intelligence" at Abu Ghraib

The “hard site” was an area of the prison where intel was gathered, and a psychiatric area. There was also another area of the “hard site” where women and children were kept, as well as “high security” prisoners. Intelligence officers were attempting to gather intel from prisoners, but they were unable. It was in these hard sites where the prisoner MP ratio was 6:1,000.They used several interrogation techniques, for example, threatening detainees that their families were in the prison to give information. Most of these detainees, roughly seventy-five percent yielded no useful intel. 

The Location, Atmosphere, and Situation at Abu Ghraib by September 2003

Upon arriving at Abu Ghraib the 372nd Military Police were shocked to find out that they were being used as prison guards instead of combat related operations. They had absolutely no training on the procedures that came with corrections. The conditions that they found the prison in were frightening. A combination of the smell, the incinerators, the heat, and the areas where executions took place all constituted the overwhelmingly gruesome conditions that MPs, including prisoners, lived through. The prison was a daily battleground, it was shot and attacked regularly. There were only 300 MPs and over 6,000 prisoners by September of 2003. Senior ranking officers constantly requested reinforcement, but it never came. The MPs were fully aware that this only showed the lack of organization, the inability to gather intelligence, and lastly an obvious sign that the U.S was losing the war against al-Qaeda. 

American Techniques of War and Iraqi Civilians

What most alarmed me was Ken Davis recalling his experiences when he first arrived in Iraq, and asked for his superiors to tell him the Rules of Engagement. Their reaction was basically there are none, and they told him to shoot anyone who looked like the enemy. These discriminatory techniques implemented by the military is appalling. It left virtually every civilian defenseless and open targets to the military. Even though they did not have the rights like Americans to prevent from unlawful search and seizure the military used these methods to take men from their families, embarrass them, and eventually take them to Abu Ghraib for interrogation. Often times these men were just bystanders. Iraqi civilians were treated as if they had no human rights. 

The Justice Department and the UN Convention Against Torture

John Yoo and the Department of Justice would find a way to make the UN Convention Against Torture inapplicable to the War on Terror. They would say that the doctrine was not specific in its meaning like “severe”. Therefore, the Department of Justice would take it upon themselves to create a definition and interpretation of what these different provisions meant. In a memorandum sent to the White House the Justice Department would explain that torture essentially meant that either the victim had to lose bodily function, or death in order to be considered tortured. Critics would argue that this was a way for interrogators to use harsh and often inhumane techniques to retrieve often times useless information. Some also said that by applying this view on torture to Saddam Hussein’s prisons made what he was doing justifiable. However, this memo was placed into policy. 

The Geneva Conventions and the War on Terror

The Geneva Conventions are a set of international laws that protected American soldiers from any ill-treatment incase of capture. The United States has always had an abiding stance on the Geneva Conventions, and has tried to continue to uphold the laws within this doctrine to an even higher standard. This document protects American soldiers, and it is highly valued by many Americans. In 1949 as a response to the end of World War II the Geneva Conventions were signed by over a hundred countries including the United States. They were laws established to protect prisoners of war from torture, and any inhumane treatment.  After September 11th the U.S waged war against Afghanistan in hopes of destroying the organization behind the attacks of 9/11. It was here when the Geneva Conventions were put into question as to how they applied to al-Qaeda. John Yoo along with the Justice Department would maintain their stance against the application of the Geneva Conventions to The War on Terror because al-Qaeda never signed or agreed to the it terms; therefore, the U.S was able to use unconventional methods against them, in other words; total war. President Bush would declare that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al-Qaeda and the War on Terror only months after 9/11. This would be the first time in American history that the Geneva Conventions were inapplicable. 

The Context of the Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse Scandal

The contextual background of the Abu Ghraib Scandal must be analyzed and understood before making any assessment as to why the tortures, humiliations, and possibly murders took place in this Iraqi prison.The major Turning Point in the war occurred after the Jordanian Embassy was bombed by a car bomb. This was a clear sign that there was in fact an insurgency, and it was using strategic attacks to weaken the U.S.They were attacking supporters of the U.S., like the Jordanian embassy, bombing the United Nations, and any way to attack the coalition aiding the U.S. Their goals were clear; they wanted to isolate the U.S. The advancement in the insurgents use of roadside bombs further led to increased deaths and highlighted the abilities of insurgents. The effectiveness of these roadside bombs shows a greater picture which is that locals were aware and supportive of the insurgents, and without local support the U.S would continue to suffer great loses. These losses were blamed on the lack of intelligence, and a lack of understanding the impact they were making on the Iraqi people. In the fall of 2003 U.S. Intelligence would be completely rewired, furthermore, to assess who the real enemy was. The extraction of intel would be done through a massive apprehension and detention of basically any “battle ready” Iraqi male. This form of intelligence gathering would later prove ineffective as a counter-insurgency strategy. Due to unproductive interrogation techniques, Commanding General Sanchez ordered the use of harsher interrogation techniques hoping to gain useful information on who the military was really fighting.Half of his proposed interrogation policy would be shut down by Centcom saying it was “unacceptably aggressive”These inhumane interrogation techniques, the random home searches, and other ineffective military tactics only proved to further damage their rapport with Iraqi locals, and would lead to the exposure of Abu Ghraib.