The Charles Graner Court-Martial: The Abu Ghraib Ringleader and the “Orders” Defense
On this page
Army Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr., the military police guard described in news coverage as the leader of the abuse at Abu Ghraib, was convicted by a general court-martial in January 2005. The convictions were conspiracy to maltreat detainees, dereliction of duty, maltreatment, assault, and an indecent act. He was sentenced to 10 years, the longest prison term among the Abu Ghraib guards. His defense was that he was carrying out a climate of humiliation that intelligence personnel wanted. The panel rejected it, and in 2010 the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed. The court held that the defense did not show how high-level legal memos were relevant to what Graner did, and that abuse of detainees in U.S. custody “may form the basis of a maltreatment conviction.”
The Graner Record in Brief
| Item | Record |
|---|---|
| Accused | Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr., U.S. Army Reserve military police |
| Forum | General court-martial, officer and enlisted members; military judge James L. Pohl |
| Pleas | Not guilty |
| Findings | Two specifications of conspiring to commit maltreatment, one of dereliction of duty, four of maltreating detainees, assault with a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, assault consummated by a battery, and an indecent act (Arts. 81, 92, 93, 128, 134) |
| Sentence | Dishonorable discharge, 10 years, reduction to E-1, total forfeitures |
| Review | Convening authority approved; Army Court of Criminal Appeals summarily affirmed (Feb. 9, 2009); Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed (June 25, 2010) |
| Release | Released from the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth in August 2011 after serving more than six and a half years |
What the Court Found Graner Did
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces opinion in United States v. Graner, No. 09-0432 (C.A.A.F. 2010) describes his conduct on November 7, 2003. The opinion says he “exploited his position as a military policeman at Abu Ghraib … in order to abuse and demean Iraqi detainees.” The acts listed include punching a detainee “so hard that the detainee was knocked unconscious”, “helping to force the unwilling detainees into a naked human pyramid and then posing for a picture”, photographing detainees forced into sexual poses, and “wrapping a tether around a detainee’s neck, handing the tether to PFC England, and then taking a picture”. The opinion notes that photography was prohibited in that section of the facility.
The Defense: Command Climate and Orders
According to the opinion, “The defense theory of the case was that Appellant was complying with a general command climate of humiliating detainees in the belief that humiliation would make them more likely to reveal information of intelligence value”. Defense witnesses described “vague orders to soften up detainees” and said intelligence personnel “did not care what was done to detainees”.
Before trial, the defense asked the government to produce a Department of Defense working-group report on interrogation and torture, and later broader memos on the legal status of detainees. The defense offered three reasons the memos mattered. They argued that the detainees were not protected by the laws of war, “and therefore Appellant could not possibly maltreat them”. They argued that Graner “lacked the state of mind necessary to maltreat because he thought he was just following orders”. And they argued “that there was unlawful command influence in general.” The military judge found no adequate theory of relevance and invited a renewed request if relevance was later shown. The defense did not renew it.
Why the Orders Theory Failed on Appeal
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held that the judge “did not abuse his discretion” on the memos, on excluding a witness and an email, or on limiting a defense expert. On the memos, its reasoning addressed each defense theory directly:
- “There was no evidence that Appellant’s state of mind at Abu Ghraib was in any way affected by a DoD report that he had never seen.”
- “Appellant’s affirmative duty to protect the detainees under his charge from abuse was not affected by any views on the international legal status of Iraqi detainees set out in the report.”
- “Abuse of detainees in the custody or control of the United States may form the basis of a maltreatment conviction.”
- Graner “failed to present any ‘facts which, if true, constitute unlawful command influence.'”
Underneath the evidentiary rulings is the rule on orders. Rule for Courts-Martial 916(d) makes obedience a defense “unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.” An instruction to “soften up” a detainee cannot authorize knocking a restrained person unconscious or staging sexual humiliation for a camera. A guard does not escape Article 93 because others in the chain wanted results.
The Sentence and What Came After
The panel announced the sentence the day after the verdict. NBC News reported in January 2005 that “the jury of four Army officers and six senior enlisted men deliberated about two hours to determine Graner’s sentence” and that he “could have received 15 years.” Graner testified only at sentencing, repeating “the defense claim that the jury clearly rejected: that he had been ordered by intelligence agents at Abu Ghraib to abuse the prisoners”. In August 2011, NBC News reported that Graner had been released after “serving more than 6½ years of a 10-year sentence” and was “the last Abu Ghraib defendant to be released from prison.”
What the Case Settled
The appeal settled two points. First, a defense built on command climate has to connect the higher-level policy to what the accused actually knew and did. A memo the accused never saw cannot explain his state of mind. Second, a guard’s duty under Articles 92 and 93 to protect detainees in custody does not depend on arguments about their status under international law. A failed command climate can support action against the leaders responsible for it, but it does not transfer a guard’s own criminal liability up the chain.
Sources
- United States v. Graner, No. 09-0432/AR (C.A.A.F. June 25, 2010)
- NBC News (Associated Press), “Graner gets 10 years for Abu Ghraib abuse”, January 2005
- NBC News (Associated Press), “Key figure in Abu Ghraib scandal freed from prison”, Aug. 6, 2011
- NPR, “Graner Sentenced to 10 Years”, Jan. 15, 2005
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.), Part II, R.C.M. 916(d).
This case study describes a public court-martial record and the reporting around it. It is educational information, not legal advice.