…is still going to jail.
Quote of note:

As that defense is presented at their courts-martial, the central question of Abu Ghraib — whether what happened there was aberration or policy — will become crucial.

"We intend to put the military on trial for their breakdown in leadership, structure, guidance, policy," Mr. Bergrin said. The proceedings will begin this week, when Specialist Sivits is expected to plead guilty in exchange for leniency, and then testify against other defendants.

But the most immediate task for the other accused soldiers is proving that they were doing what their superiors wanted. "Our defense says he was following orders and that he believed the orders were lawful," said Guy L. Womack, a lawyer for Specialist Graner.

Accused G.I.'s Try to Shift Blame in Prison Abuse
By ADAM LIPTAK, MICHAEL MOSS and KATE ZERNIKE

Published: May 16, 2004

This article was reported and written by Adam Liptak, Michael Moss and Kate Zernike.

Six of the defendants in the Abu Ghraib abuse case once all bunked together in a tent in Baghdad. But as the most important military prosecutions since Vietnam unfold, each soldier is struggling alone to explain away seemingly irrefutable evidence captured in frame after frame of disturbing images, and they are pointing fingers at one another, minimizing their roles and blaming the government.

One defendant, Specialist Megan M. Ambuhl, says she was merely a bystander who treated the Iraqi detainees kindly, giving them copies of the Koran and making sure their meals contained no pork.

Specialist Jeremy C. Sivits, in a statement to investigators, described brutal conduct by Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick II and Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr., who, in turn, call him a liar.

Then there is Sgt. Javal S. Davis. His lawyer, Paul Bergrin, accuses the government of abusing him by interrogating him for 20 sleepless hours right after he worked a 60-hour shift at Abu Ghraib.

The defendants' challenge is to convince military courts that the pictures of abusive treatment of Iraqi detainees, which have generated a storm of criticism, do not begin to tell the whole story. Each has a personal version of events but one theme unites them: they contend they were following orders.

Sorry folks.

This was undeniably a series of war crimes, and if the Bushistas had respect for international order (which of course they don't else we wouldn't be having this discussion) you'd be tried in Zurich or something.

Maybe you have to be on the side with the most remaining weapons for the "I was following orders" defense to work.