By far the weightiest contribution to German editorial pages on Monday comes from the chancellor's office. In a chewy and densely-written editorial in the Financial Times Deutschland, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder calls for an overhaul to the euro zone's stability and growth pact, insisting that member countries should be allowed to run deficits over the current 3 percent limit. The limit -- which Germany, France and a number of other countries have surpassed in the past -- was designed to keep weaker euro-zone countries from threatening the stability of the euro. Both France and Germany insist that the increased deficits reflect the realities of today's economics and are necessary to implement needed social reforms. The statements are a reversal for Schroeder, who in the 1990s argued staunchly for the pact. Now, he says, mitigating circumstances, like if a country has introduced reforms or has spent money on measures to boost its economy, matter more than numbers on a page.

The inability of Germany and France -- the so-called motor of Europe -- to abide by the 3 percent ceiling have led some to question and even mock the value of EU regulations. Schroeder's new plan offers a turnaround in thinking, essentially returning power to individual nations at the expense of the larger EU. "The stability pact will work better if intervention by European institutions in the budgetary sovereignty of national parliaments is only permitted under very limited conditions," Schroeder writes. He says the 3 percent limit is "inadequate to deal with the complex realities of fiscal policy" and should be dropped.

Does that mean there should be no limits placed on countries -- no means of making sure one nation's deficits don't drag the whole 25-member body with it? Not at all, says Schroeder. But the rules should be soft and based on specific scenarios. Specifically, he says, "special burdens" (like German reunification) need to be considered. He also wants to make it harder for the EU to take action against nations that breach the pact. "Only if it is shown that there are serious deficiencies in its program or if the country, through its own fault, deviates from the consolidation obligations therein should an excessive deficit procedure be initiated." On Monday, 12 EU finance ministers are set to discuss possible amendments to the pact. Any changes will have to be agreed upon at an economic summit on March 22 and 23. Schroeder, it seems, is just getting warmed up.

Meanwhile, for once, German commentators have found one subject they agree on: the guilt of Army Reservist Charles Graner. Graner was a ringleader in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, in which American troops were seen beating, threatening and belittling Iraqi prisoners in shockingly inhumane ways. Graner's sentencing to 10 years, papers unanimously agree, was an easy way to put the blame for the many on the shoulders of one villain. "Almost no one believes that the torture evenings at Abu Ghraib came about as a consequence of a bored soldier on the nightshift," writes the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. "The Pentagon has gone to great lengths to issue quick statements of guilt and anger in the hope that the scandal will disappear once and for all. What, however, will not disappear, is the question of what sort of atmosphere must have been established so that such deviance could exist?" The paper also wonders who else might have been involved -- "only sworn officers or also the Secretary of Defense or even the White House?"

The business daily Handelsblatt laments the sentencing, saying the 10 years Graner got was not enough. "When one wants to set an exemplary model, one has to act swiftly and send strong signals. In the case of the abuse in Abu Ghraib, the US military court did not do this. Ten years for the torture ringleader Charles Graner is five years less than the highest possible sentence. ... The photos of Iraqi prisoners piled up on each other and forced into the humiliating positions of being put on dog leashes set off shock waves across the world. What else has to happen for a full sentence to be merited?" Like the Sueddeutsche, the paper asks "How far did such a horrendous climate push the soldiers to go?" The US administration, too should take some blame, the paper insists. "The administration is making it all too easy to reduce Abu Ghraib to a few individual cases."

The Berliner Zeitung also takes the 10, rather than 15 year sentence as a negative sign. "One thing has been made clear in this court case," the paper says. "The American military will not tolerate the torture of prisoners -- at least not when the torture gets photographed. The decision is far from a guarantee that future prisoners of war will receive humane treatment. At a time when the American government describes political prisoners as 'enemy fighters,' ignores an international pact like the Geneva Conventions, and denies prisoners of all their rights, it's hard to imagine that more people weren't so influenced by this atmosphere that they, too, no longer saw prisoners as human beings, but as inconsequential creatures." The paper applauds the verdict, but insists "Graner is a scapegoat for his superiors and also for Donald Rumsfeld. But he knew what he was doing was wrong and for that, he has to take responsibility.