Charles Graner, described as the ringleader of the abuses at Abu Ghraib by the people he describes as the ringleaders of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, was found guilty of maltreating prisoners, conspiracy, dereliction of duty, committing indecent acts, and assault. The case illustrates a basic difference between Western civilization and the more extreme parts of the Islamic world: here, an abuser of captives faces more than seventeen years in jail; there, abusers of captives are considered heroes.

One passage in the Associated Press article on the verdict caught my attention: "One witness, Syrian prisoner Amin al-Sheikh, had characterized Graner as the 'primary torturer,' who merrily whistled, sang and laughed while brutalizing him and forced him to eat pork and drink alcohol in violation of his Muslim faith." Two observations: 1. Torture occured at Abu Ghraib, but what the prisoner describes is not torture. Forcing people to engage in activities that violate their conscience is clearly wrong and all, but it's not like Graner was making the prisoners wash down raw pork with Stroh's. 2. How, precisely, did the Syrian Mr. al-Sheikh find himself in an Iraqi prison?

I would blog on this for several more hours (really, I would), but it is Friday night and I plan on torturing myself with ribs and Labatt's Blue.

C'mon Soldiers get with the program, if you are going to kick a little dune-coon ass, dont take pictures of it!! Duh!