Here is an interesting piece from Wired about the potential of command cover up and similar acrtivity in this set of cases.
I got to the Wired piece through this from congressmatters.com blog.
When bad news breaks it has become almost routine for those at the top to disavow all knowledge and let the hammer come down on those well down in the hierarchy. The pattern showed up again twice this week, and is now so common as to be almost standardized.
CAAF has decided United States v. Graner. Graner loses.
We granted review in this Abu Ghraib case to determine whether the military judge abused his discretion in (1) refusing to compel the Government to produce certain memoranda requested by the defense; (2) excluding the testimony of, and an e-mail
from, Major Ponce; and (3) limiting the testimony of a defense expert witness. We hold that the military judge did not abuse his discretion in any of these decisions and affirm the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA).
The Canadian Press reports that:
Charles Graner was a manipulative sadist, Ivan Frederick sincerely penitent and Lynndie England an infatuated follower who got more notice than her role deserved, according to the authors of a new book on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.
Christopher Graveline helped prosecute the defendants and investigator Michael Clemens assisted the prosecution team. They conclude, not surprisingly, that military justice was served by the criminal convictions of 11 low-ranking soldiers and the nonjudicial punishment of a handful of officers.
CAAF has decided two cases related to Abu Ghraib: United States v. Harman, and United States v. Smith.
The issue in Harman was factual sufficiency and the conviction and sentence was affirmed.
Appellant admitted to investigators that she took a new detainee, who had been placed on a box with a hood over his head, affixed his fingers with wires, and told him he would be electrocuted if he fell off the box. Appellant then photographed the victim who stood on the box for approximately an hour. Appellant admitted it was her idea to attach these wires, though military intelligence officials had not asked her or her colleagues to do so. Appellant thought this was permissible because “[w]e were not hurting him. It was not anything that bad.”
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog