Advertisement

Friendly Fire in Abu Ghraib Case

Share
Times Staff Writer

Attorneys for Army Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr. opened his defense Wednesday, but their witnesses may have done the accused abuser of prisoners in Iraq as much harm as good.

A former military interrogator testified that his unit had encouraged guards to use techniques to break prisoners, but nothing approaching the beatings, nudity and sexual humiliation that Graner allegedly inflicted on detainees during the night shift at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

Asked whether he ever told Graner to punch or kick prisoners, to pile them into a pyramid, make them masturbate or roll in the mud, the former interrogator, Roger Brokaw, answered each time in four clipped syllables: “No, I did not.”

Advertisement

Graner’s supervisor, Master Sgt. Brian Lipinski, praised him for sometimes escorting prisoners in a professional manner, but later learned that Graner had lied when he tried to cover up the bruises on a beaten prisoner’s face.

Lipinski said the incident resulted in a formal admonishment for Graner, and he was warned to shape up because “everyone is looking.”

Graner faces up to 17 1/2 years in prison if convicted. His case is the first contested court-martial to rise out of the Abu Ghraib scandal a year ago. The case is likely to go to the jury by week’s end.

Prosecutors put on two days of testimony by fellow guards and others this week intended to show that Graner, a 36-year-old Army Reservist, reveled in mistreating prisoners and to knock down his defense that he was acting under orders from intelligence officials.

Now, his lawyers are trying to convince the 10-member jury of Army officers and enlisted men that he was following orders.

But from the start Wednesday, prosecutors were able to turn the testimony of defense witnesses to their advantage.

Advertisement

At first, Brokaw, the former interrogator, buttressed the defense contention that intelligence officers wanted Graner and other guards to treat prisoners harshly.

Brokaw said intelligence officers wanted guards to deprive prisoners of sleep, wake them with loud music and threaten them with dogs. It was all done, he said, “to break your spirit, to confuse you, to get you to talk.”

Brokaw said interrogators were working under quotas for the number of prisoners they had to interrogate, providing more reason to soften them up.

But he denied telling guards to chain prisoners to cell bars and doors, punch them in the head, stack them naked in pyramids or force them to simulate oral sex with one another.

The testimony of Lipinski, the master sergeant, might also have backfired. He began by saying he sometimes saw Graner doing a professional job of handling detainees.

“I thought he acted in accordance with command and control,” Lipinski said. “He spoke in Arabic when detainees were not following instruction. He had gloves on and did live searches. He did a very good job, very thorough.”

Advertisement

But under questioning by prosecutors, Lipinski described an incident in November 2003 when he found a prisoner with deep cuts and bruises on his chin, nose and face being kept in a cell with blood-smeared walls.

He said Graner first said the inmate hurt himself in a fall, but eventually said he had slammed the prisoner against a wall when the prisoner became belligerent.

Lipinski said Graner was formally counseled about the incident, and was offered time off, help in dealing with stress, an appointment with a chaplain and told to reorient himself with the Army’s Rules of Engagement in Iraq.

Mohanded Juma, a detainee who testified by video from Iraq, supported the defense when he said an intelligence officer made him eat soap and chained him to a cell door for several hours.

Juma said another intelligence officer threatened to turn the dogs on him, warning that “you will see things you have not seen before.” But Juma also was critical of Graner, saying he threw pepper in his eyes and beat him with a chair until it broke. “Then they took a picture of the chair,” Juma said.

Another defense witness was Pvt. Ivan L. “Chip” Frederick II, who had pleaded guilty to abuse and was serving an eight-year prison sentence.

Advertisement

He told the jury that intelligence officers encouraged guards to bend prisoners’ thumbs, stretch their arms behind their backs in what he called a gooseneck position and force them to undergo long periods of physical exertion.

In return, Frederick said, interrogators “would tell us good job, keep up the good work.” But Frederick acknowledged that guards knew there were limits on what was appropriate in handling prisoners.

Advertisement