Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr. has been sentenced to 10 years (out of a maximum penalty of 15 years) imprisonment for his role at Abu Ghraib, though under military court rules, Graner's case will be automatically appealed to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals and he also could request clemency from his commanding general. His parents are understandably upset, claiming that he's being used as a scapegoat. While this is true, it's also mostly irrelevant to this decision.

This issue breaks down into two parts, the first being whether or not a soldier should be stiffly penalized for following orders of this nature, and the second being whether or not he should be allowed to go down alone if he is. As to the first, there are already a number of precedents about what you are supposed to do if you are given an illegal order. Granier claimed of his orders that "at the time my understanding is that they were (lawful), or I wouldn't have done them", but there is a second issue as well: whether or not he should have known. It's remarkably hard to believe that any decent person, even one thoroughly brainwashed by the military, could fail to realize that what was going on could not possibly survive public scrutiny, and Graner himself stated that "I know the Geneva Conventions, better than anyone else in my company, and we were called upon to violate the Geneva Conventions." At some point, even soldiers following orders have to be held accountable to fundamental humanity issues, and the situation is being compared to Nuremburg by some news sources [update: the New York Times has altered the page at that last link, and the reference is gone. It is still visible from the Google News entry, however, which I have mirrored], and at least a couple of other blogs. It would appear that the jury agreed, though unfortunately the reasoning behind their decision will never be disclosed.

That leaves the matter of whether or not things should stop there. President George W. Bush would very much like everyone to believe that only 7 low-ranking soldiers were responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and the immediate military higher-ups are claiming that they had "no specific knowledge" of abuses. The problem with that is that the Bush administration has had a long standing history of using, endorsing, or justifying torture, even on children:

2003.01.25 - US Interrogators Turn to Torture Lite
2003.02.03 - Britain’s Guardian newspaper says US sanctions torture against terrorist suspects
2003.05.16 - Coalition Troops Are Accused of Torture
2003.10.08 - Claims of torture in Guantanamo Bay
2003.11.18 - Human rights group demands Ashcroft's firing over kidnapping, poisoning, and torture (and related story "Canadian kidnapped by U.S. asks for public inquiry")
2004.01.08 - Is the US military torturing Iraqis with electricity?
2004.02.28 - U.S. arranged Canadian's torture, lawyer says
2004.03.13 - Guantanamo detainees say US military tortured them
2004.05.02 - 30 more torture scandals probed
2004.06.08 - Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush
2004.06.15 - US torture in Iraq, Afghanistan: Authorized at the highest levels
2004.08.01 - Iraq's Child Prisoners
2004.10.01 - Letter 'shows Guantanamo torture'
2004.10.17 - Broad Use of Harsh Tactics Is Described at Cuba Base ("Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel said, for example, in one memorandum that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and not suitable for the war against terrorism.")
2004.10.18 - Former Guantanamo Staff Corroborate Inmates’ Claims of Torture, Abuse
2004.11.14 - US accused of ‘torture flights’
2004.11.15 - Private jet takes men for 'torture'
2004.12.17 - Torture Begins at the Top
2004.12.20 - Emails Reveal More Abuses in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay
2004.12.31 - Justice Dept. Rewrites Memo on Torture
2005.01.06 - Documents reveal Habib torture allegations
2005.01.10 - Fresh Horrors at Guantanamo
2005.01.15 - Entführungsfall belastet deutsch-amerikanisches Verhältnis (German: Kidnap case weighs down German-American relationship)

It wasn't just the military involved in the abuses, though. Two private military contractors (CACI International, Inc. from Arlington, Virginia, and Titan of San Diego, California) are also being investigated for their role in torture allegations (and food poisoning) at the Abu Ghraib prison. Unfortunately, this hasn't kept them from being rewarded with new contracts.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz noted in 2003 that the history of the use of torture by the US is much older than the Bush administration, but pointed out that there is a need for some accountability somewhere. That accountability is rather sadly lacking. "Higher Officials Unlikely to Be Tried" runs one headline, while the ACLU notes that the government is dragging its feet and withholding files in the Guantanamo investigation. At the same time that Charles Graner and others directly in the photographs are going to jail, the Bush administration is trying to appoint Alberto Gonzales, the same man who thinks of the Geneva conventions as 'quaint', as attorney general. Bush himself is claiming that the fact that he was re-elected means that there is "no reason to hold any administration officials accountable" for what has happened in Iraq, despite the fact that he only squeaked by in the election by one state, which is still being investigated for its voting irregularities, and in any case, it's impossible to know what percentage of voters was in full possession of the facts, particularly since the government has been very busy lying about them (though fortunately, at least some major news sources are starting to actually pay attention and question the official line).

For the most part, though, the US news sources are somewhat complicit in this — if you're noticing that the vast majority of links in this entry are to news sites outside of the US, that's because the US news tends not to carry this kind of story if it can get away with not doing so, though whether that is for reasons of government pressure or simple capitalism is unclear. When the Abu Ghraib pictures first came out, "only in two countries were they largely suppressed by the media—the United States and Iraq itself."

So it seems that there's plenty of irresponsibility to go around. This leaves the final question: what can we do about it? Simply staying informed, keeping an eye on international news sources, is a good start. Asking pointed questions of your local politicians is another (particularly about their support of the appointment of Alberto Gonzales), though this is best done after you've finished informing yourself so you can make credible, well-documented arguments. When the major news sources ignore politically hot stories, or are too credible with White House responses, call them on it. For those with money to spare, there is a movement running to impeach Bush, which is politically improbable, but might be worth supporting. Most simply, talk to people about the issues, once you have the links to back them up; there will always be a large group blindly devoted to the right wing (and there's no point wasting energy preaching to the choir), but there are a large number of people who might be wavering, who could be convinced to make noise or take action if they were better informed.

Feel free to start with what I've written.