"Don't cheerleaders form pyramids all over the country?" Womack asked in his opening statement, in which he noted that parents sometimes use a leash to control a wandering toddler. "You've probably been at airports or shopping malls and seen children on tethers. They are not being abused."

- From a news story on the court-martial of Army Reservist Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr. for abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

* * *

If nothing else, you have to be impressed by the sheer gall of it.

Womack's client, who was a senior leader in the Army Reserve unit in charge of prisoners at Abu Ghraib last fall, is accused of conspiracy, maltreatment, assault, indecent acts and dereliction of duty. Among other things, Graner is alleged to have:

. Jumped on and hit a detainee's wounded legs with a metal baton while laughing.

. Handcuffed a detainee to the door for eight hours, resulting in a broken shoulder.

. Forced a detainee to eat from a toilet, and watched while a soldier urinated on a detainee.

. Punched a prisoner in the head, leaving him unconscious.

. Allowed a hooded and handcuffed inmate to walk into a 6-foot-tall pole.

. Boasted to a girlfriend that making prisoners masturbate while guards watched was his birthday present to her.

. Placed naked, hooded prisoners in pyramids and on leashes.

So did Graner's lawyer argue his client could never have committed such atrocities, was morally incapable? No, he shrugged some of them off as normal, acceptable behavior - like that of cheerleaders and protective parents.

For the record, these detainees were not accused terrorists. Some were simply rounded up in their homes in raids and not charged with anything.

It would be comforting to think of the guy on trial as some sadistic deviant who slipped into service through the cracks. But his lawyers and defense witnesses also say Graner was following orders to "soften up" prisoners, from interrogators who were under pressure to get better intelligence.

So now the question is whether higher-ups in the military also think that torturing and humiliating a population we were supposed to be rescuing, in ways most abhorrent to their Muslim faith, is an acceptable part of "liberating" their country.

Military investigators deny they ordered it, noting these detainees were of little value to the investigation. Which begs the question: Then why were they there? Someone obviously wanted to send a message through them.

Remember, the administration was under great pressure to prove it had valid reasons for invading Iraq, and the less it came up with on weapons of mass destruction or links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the harder it squeezed. Graner's witnesses testified that orders from interrogators to military police included to leave detainees naked, twist their arms behind their necks and apply pain to sensitive body parts.

Whatever prompted Graner's actions, many other officers are said to have taken part or watched. It's obvious that a culture had been created that dehumanized Iraqi detainees, and in some cases, condoned outright killings.

In a different set of hearings at a naval air station in San Diego, two Navy SEAL lieutenants are also the subject of abuse inquiries related to Abu Ghraib prisoners. The SEALS were working with the CIA, according to National Public Radio, in a special task force "to capture or kill high-value targets." A special agent from the Army's criminal-investigation unit testified that one prisoner died during interrogation by the CIA at Abu Ghraib.

So how does the administration feel about all this and what does it plan to do?

The White House just last month fought restrictions approved by the Senate on the use of torture in interrogations, The New York Times reported Thursday. So the restrictions were scrapped. President Bush offers more indication of how he feels by choosing two architects of his controversial anti-terrorism policies to join his Cabinet - Alberto Gonzales as attorney general and Michael Chertoff as homeland-security chief. Gonzales either wrote or commissioned memos seeking to protect U.S. officials against charges of coercive interrogation tactics, and depriving some prisoners of Geneva Convention protections. Chertoff helped design the Patriot Act, and advocated using military tribunals instead of U.S. courts to try prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

Sadly, the kind of minimizing Graner's attorney is doing isn't limited to defense lawyers or administration apologists. Some Americans also seem ready to accept any measures in the name of stopping terrorism - even against the wrong people. When I've raised concerns before, some readers tell me I'm just too negative.

Do they see a positive side to torture? If so, then those who are directly responsible aren't the only ones who've become dehumanized by this war.