Judge rejects Englands Guilty plea CNN right now

[rodeodance]

I will post a link when I find it .

[rodeodance]

1. Mistrial declaired by judge

[rodeodance]

4. means her plea was also thrown out.

[ronnykmarshall]

2. Link

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050504/ap_on_re_us/prisoner_abuse_england_49

and may I add :wtf:

[rodeodance]

5. thanks for the link

[dolo amber]

8. ...

:wtf: indeed...

[shadowknows69]

11. You may

and I second that :wtf:

The judge's final statement is a little cryptic in a hopeful kind of way. maybe he thinks more heads should be rolling (he's right, BTW judge the man's name is Don)

[Don Claybrook]

37. Please be more specific

Not all the Don's in the world are hateful warmongers, you know. Don't send a military judge after me, please. :)

[shadowknows69]

3. because of the "she was oxygen deprived BS?"

This country is oxygen deprived.

[rodeodance]

9. her superior (already in jail) said pics had leg. usage was the reason

[funkybutt]

14. If she really was oxygen deprived,

she could have suffered many different degrees of impairment. Have you ever known anyone who was oxygen deprived at birth? I have and it's a pretty significant and obvious impairment.

[radwriter0555]

21. If she was oxygen deprived, then she's retarded? The US Military takes in

retarded and impaired recruits? Huh?

[funkybutt]

33. Maybe you're being sarcastic

I don't know.

I'm not saying that she'd be classified as retarted although I have had people ask me if my relative is just that.

It appears that she struggled in school and always needed special help but was able to mantain a decent overall grade point average.

It doesn't take the best and the brightest to perform many of the military tasks. I don't think the best soldiers are necessarily those with the highest IQs...doesn't take a rocket scientist to say "yes sir!"

[democracyindanger]

42. Did she know right from wrong?

According to testimony, yes.

Did she have a choice to NOT do the wrong thing?

According to her testimony, yes.

Did she make the choice to do the wrong thing?

According to her testimony, yes.

Why, oh why, are people looking for reasons to apologize for this war criminal?

[proud2BlibKansan]

54. Amen!

It is incredibly disheartening to read DUers trying to excuse her despicable behavior.

[FourStarDemocrat]

135. True, but how did masks, hoods, leashes and other torture paraphanalia

find their way into more than a dozen US military prisons in the region and Afghanistan? They didn't come in with the troops. /They got there because certain people at the top sent them there and order s came down the ranks. THEIR heads should be rollin', not just this low-ranked trash Lyndie England.

[funkybutt]

62. I didn't say that she didn't know right from wrong

I think that she did know that it wasn't right. I just think that she had less capacity to stand up to her superiors and refuse to obey an order than...say, her counterparts of normal intelligence. Therefor her disability should be considered...and seriously. I think she also would have less ability to consider the consequences of these actions than a normal person.

My relative who suffered oxygen deprevation simply does not operate at the same mental or emotional level of normal adults. This is a very serious disability i'm not making up an excuse to "apologize" for her.

[TahitiNut]

78. "Killing is wrong." "Go kill."

Gee ... I wonder why anyone might have difficulty knowing right from wrong! :eyes:

"Abortion is wrong." "We'll fly you to Switzerland for an abortion."
Gee ... I wonder why anyone might have difficulty knowing right from wrong! :eyes:

"You'll need parental consent." (("It was my father who raped me."))
Gee ... I wonder why anyone might have difficulty knowing right from wrong! :eyes:


I'm not at all convinced that the difference between right and wrong is well-understood by many. Let's empty the prisons.

[democracyindanger]

94. Thanks for making it clear

that you think there are cases where torture would be hunky-dory. That's a pretty messed up position to take, but you're welcome to it.

[Eloriel]

113. TahitiNut can definitely speak for himself, but you do YOURSELF no

favors with a crude misrepresentation of his comments like this one. It's downright comedic.

I'm pretty sure TN doesn't think there are cases where torture would be hunky-dory, but there were PLENTY of cases where the U.S. Military and entire chain of command, including the CIA operatives and the contractors at Abu Ghraib, and the immediate superiors including the head honcho General Sanchez, right on up thru Rumsfeld straight to Bush and his attorney Gonzalez -- all of whom said, basically, that torture was okay. THESE particular "techniques" came from Gitmo (via that Major who then took over the prison system after the fallout and negative publicity, once again putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop) and/or Israeli counterintelligence who were probably responsible for those wonderful sexual humiliation tactics.

I get a little annoyed with people who imagine themselves SO pure that they can judge Lyndie England so harshly that they want the book thrown at her. Maybe they just don't understand military culture -- a culture of "do what you're told and shut the fuck up about it or else," a culture where the massacre at My Lai, for example, didn't come out until years after it happened, a culture where Lyndie England and Charles Graner are the scapegoats and the REAL people respnsible will likely never pay for their crimes, a culture where you are SUPPOSED to be able to disobey an illegal order but actually doing so is a whole 'nother matter and can land you in way more trouble (including dishonorable discharges) than simply following through quietly or trying to keep away from the problem (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil).

Throw in someone who isn't particularly sophisticated, isn't real strong anyway, is from a go-along/get-along culture herself (I'm assuming, frankly, but I'll bet I'm not far wrong), and NOW we also know isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, and you've got a perfect prescription for disaster.

[Toots]

123. You speak the truth

:thumbsup:

[democracyindanger]

127. You know what's really annoying?

The lengths to which some people will go to find a loophole through which England can be be absolved of responsibility for her actions. It's clear that there are plenty of folks who think that as long as you didn't come up with the idea of torture, it's okay to go ahead and do it. The actual torturer bears no responsibility--just the people who gave the order. Gee, I guess the idea that all involved should be made to answer for their crimes is an unreasonable one to have. It appears that unless and until we can convict all of them in one fell swoop, that nobody should be convicted.

As for the "do what you're told and shut the fuck up about it or else" culture, as you put it--it didn't prevent Hugh Thompson from stopping My Lai. "Just following orders" wasn't an acceptable defense for German concentration camp and Japanese POW guards. I'd like to hear why the standards we hold enemy combatants to are too high for our own criminals. And if that argument can be made without drawing comparisons to abortion--I mean, what the fuck does that have to do with torture?--then perhaps it won't invite "crude misrepresentation."

England was asked if she knew what she was doing was wrong. She said she did--and she testified that she made the choice to do the wrong thing. Hell, she didn't even do it because of military culture, she did it because she wanted to be liked by her friends.

And, just to remind ourselves what we're talking about here:



She was doing this by her own admission because she wanted to 'fit in.' Dumb, smart, rich, poor--she wanted to be cool, so she participated in a war crime. Come up with all the mitigating circumstances you want. England knew it was wrong and freely participated. She doesn't even make the argument that the purpose was to extract military information--which wouldn't make the crime any less of one, but at least the crime would've been committed for a more serious purpose than just wanting to be liked by the cool kids.

When you get mad about none of those higher up the chain getting busted, remember that none of the "scapegoats" pursued to any large degree evidence that they were following (illegal) orders to torture prisoners in their care. A few made statements early on...then nothing. If anyone was in a position to begin a movement to prosecute higher ups, it was England, Graner and the rest. But none of them did.

I don't think I'm "SO pure." I know I'm not. But I would hope that placed in the same situation, I would do the right thing. Apparently, there are those who assume that they would do the same thing as England--which is a pretty sad admission.

I wonder if Bush is ever put in the dock, and he says that he ordered torture and helped orchestrate the illegal invasion of Iraq because he just wanted to fit in with the neo-cons, and that years of alcoholism and cocaine abuse caused mental defects--if the same people who are clamoring to England's defense will give Chimpy the same sympathy. At least they'd be consistent.

[TahitiNut]

134. (Back after power failure.) Eloriel's response is excellent..

I appreciate that. We've disagreed but have never knowingly misrepresented one another in those disagreements. (I wish I could say that about others.)

Once upon a time, when I was far less experienced, I saw things as easily as you describe them. After serving in a combat zone, that clarity is (thankfully) not quite so self-righteous. I suppose it'd be a waste of time to again make reference to the Stanford Jail Experiment or Stanley Milgram's studies ... since that would just make the world seem cloudier. It's harder to rant in self-righteous zeal when the world gets cloudy.

Unless and until one has served in the insanity of a combat zone, it's damned near impossible to imagine, I suppose ... but some people do seem to manage it.

I don't exonerate any grunt for their intentional acts. At the same time, I'll be damned if I'll condemn such widespread behavior by limiting blame and punishment to the least senior people. I don't believe they should be punished unless and until the command structure, given an even greater responsibility and the authority that goes with it, bears the burden of greater punishment.

There's no way in hell these widespread abuses of helpless prisoners occurred without command authority, up to and including Rumsfeld and higher. None. It just doesn't fucking happen!

What makes that even more certain is the disregard for taking photos. Hundreds, and possibly thousands, of them! The mere fact that the photos exist proves these people believed their actions, while "wrong," were condoned.

The military has this escape clause about "legal orders" ... yet our esteemed Attorney General is among those who created legal cover for this behavior. If the Attorney General can't distinguish between a "legal order" and those which violate the "quaint" Geneva Conventions, I find it impossible to expect it of England alone. Jail Gonzales and then jail England.

Let's remember: the "Nuremberg defense" was invalid within the context of the senior command staff also being punished!

[democracyindanger]

138. Ya know,

you bring up mixed messages about abortion to show how somebody might get confused about whether it's right or not. So by extension, you're suggesting that England and the rest may have been confused about whether torture is right or not. If I'm going to be accused of misrepresenting your feelings, it's only because you were so "cloudy" about your intent.

And your condescension aside (gee, I'm just a whippersnapper that just doesn't have the "experience" to have a valid opinion on whether torture is morally reprehensible or not, and whether the perpetrators deserve to be punished), you're suggesting that I'm exonerating those higher up the food chain.

Now who's misrepresenting whom?

But having given a longer explanation of your thinking, instead of some near-random, specious analogy to abortion rights, it's finally clear: "Jail Gonzales and then jail England."

I've posted time and time again that ALL the bastards involved need to be brought to justice. But I'm not going to take the bizarre stand that unless all involved are clapped in irons, then none should made to answer. I want, like you, complete justice--but unlike you, I'm not going to let the executioners of an illegal policy off the hook because the architects of that policy are weaseling out of it.

They knew it was wrong, even though it was condoned. They tortured the prisoners anyway. In fact, they enjoyed doing it--so much so that they took souvenir snapshots. They had opportunities to do the right thing--like the soldier who leaked the photos--but they didn't. They had the opportunity to explain command staff's role in the torture--but they didn't.

Let me repeat that last one: They had the opportunity to explain command staff's role in the torture--but they didn't. So if you're hacked off about higher ups not getting punished, you should also be hacked off about the very people who have the greatest ability to get the higher ups punished.

But instead, you excuse them. You excuse them from punishment, even though they are participating in the prevention of seeking the very complete justice you demand. Poor Lynndie and Charlie and the others are voluntarily part of the cover-up.

And in practical terms, the conviction of the actual torturers lays it out clearly for all others engaged, or likely to be engaged, in war crimes: You will be left out to dry, swinging in the wind. The officers and ChimpCo will not only cover their asses alone, you are a key part of how they'll do it. Will it make an actual difference? Don't know. But the only alternative is to let them walk, and what kind of message does that send?

The most any of them have gotten for their war crimes is what, 11 years? 11 years for committing war crimes, providing the enemy with propganda, making the fucking quagmire even more of a shitty situation than it already was. How many innocent Iraqis were killed by an Iraqi who joined the militants because he got so pissed off from seeing poor Lynndie England hamming it up for the camera? So pardon me if I get a little irritated when people weep for England, and bring up how she's not very smart, and she's poor, and she had birth defects. They all knew exactly what they were doing. And their biggest mistake--thinking Chimpy would protect them--is their own got-damn fault.

Get 'em all. And in the absence of that, at least get the ones we can.

[TahitiNut]

181. "Mixed messages" is EXACTLY the point.

"Never break the law, son!" "I'm ONLY going 10mph over the speed limit, son."

Life (in our culture) is chock FULL of mixed messages. Rarely are we ever confronted with a pure right vs. a pure wrong. Life is chock full of 'greater right's and 'greater wrong's. Even steadfast anti-abortionists ("sanctity of life" jihadists) countenance exceptions in the case of rape or incest. For the LIFE of me, however, I cannot comprehend how semen carries sin and makes that "life" less sacrosanct in their view. We're told killing is wrong. Unless we're TOLD to do so by an AUTHORITY (discernible by what they wear, for some strange reason), in which case it's OK?

You persistently oversimplify. You pretend it's a question of "is torture right or wrong?" ... rather than a question of "what's really torture?" and "who bears the responsibility?" After all, what's the moral difference between blowing off some of a person's limbs (maybe including their penis) and making them perform acts naked that aren't physically injurious? I personally don't regard that as an easy question to answer with moral conviction.

Life just isn't some Jesuit seminary when it's in a combat zone, in the military. I've had to face such questions. I decided that I'd opt for jeopardizing my own life rather than blow away children. (Thank God my resolve wasn't fully tested. The NVA I confronted were around 15 or 16 ... at least the one's I saw the next day close enough to tell.) It's hard to find that "line" you think you won't cross, when "lines" are everywhere.

For me, it's NOT a question of whether that treatment is right or wrong; it's a question of just and fair apportionment of blame and punishment.

"Sophie's Choice" is never simple.

But let me try to make something else clear, at the risk of oversimplifying.

There is no ethically legitimate Judge of the guilt or innocence of a torturer that does not also prosecute and convict the command authority that ordered or condoned it. A failure to prosecute and convict the command authority is a moral abdication of any right to prosecute and judge those at the lowest levels, merely because they're less powerful. That does not make torture "right." That does not make the torturer "innocent." That merely disqualifies the judicial (law enforcement) authority that consciously doesn't equitably and justly prosecute and punish all the culpable parties.

Anything that purports to be a "justice" system cannot exonerate the most powerful involved, and must prosecute them to the full degree of their culpability.

[democracyindanger]

183. Okay, now we're getting somewhere

Your post that started this give-and-take, I mean, we can be frank, right?--a sudden offering of an abortion analogy complete with rolling-eye smilies doesn't even come close to the fuller explanation of what obviously is some deep thinking. Hey, I admit to be curt and dismissive, too. Contrary to what has been suggested, I don't think I'm "SO pure."

Philosophically, your contention that "There is no ethically legitimate Judge of the guilt or innocence of a torturer that does not also prosecute and convict the command authority that ordered or condoned it" makes a lot of sense.

But doesn't the defense--both the attorneys and the defendants--bear responsibility in providing the bench with the arguments that higher ups participated in the criminal conspiracy?

If even the defendants don't pursue a defense that they were acting on orders, direct/standing/whatever--can you really expect the judge to make that defense for them?

And because the defense doesn't make that contention, aren't they active participants in protecting the higher ups? The argument could be made that they were offered leniency for NOT pursuing that contention, or that they were stymied by not having pieces of evidence available to them, et al.--but doesn't it come down to the fact that they are the people that are absolutely needed to prove that there were orders to torture prisoners, and that they decided not to do so?

Additionally--and I defer to you, but I have to ask--can Abu Ghraib be considered a combat zone? The decision to torture prisoners wasn't made under fire. The torture was conducted in a secure facility. Yes, the entirety of Iraq can be called a combat zone, but Abu Ghraib was a controlled, stable situation.

And as far as what constitues torture, if a prisoners are being beaten, their genitals attached to car batteries, they are dragged into hallways while wearing dog leashes and lined up, hooded and naked without any knowledge or expectation that they would live, isn't that torture? If you don't think it is, please explain how that is NOT torture.

I reiterate: You believe that an incomplete justice is no justice at all. But when the very people who have the greatest opportunity to testify for a complete justice have declined to do so, how can it be so easy to dismiss their crimes?

Tell me if this is a fair rendition of your opinion: As long as a judicial system does not prosecute all those engaged in a criminal consipracy, then those that have been prosecuted should not be--despite the fact that they have committed crimes.

[TahitiNut]

186. I definitely said "at the risk of oversimplifying" for a reason.

Consider for a moment that, in general, the civilian justice system will forego prosecution of small fry in order to get the big fish. While I oppose exoneration, I understand and won't let the perfect be the enemy of the second best. I would prefer greater penalties for those with greater power and authority, but complicity should always be punishable.

The Military Justice (oxymoron) System is the opposite. The system itself, under the authority of the trial judges, does not accept blame of the command as a defense, nor does it grant immunity in seeking higher culpability. It's a system that's designed to reinforce authority, not make it more honest.

Yes, abu Ghraib is most definitely a combat zone. At the time of these events, the prisoner/guard ratio was probably about 5 times greater than anything permitted by regulations, they got shelled, and the guards/troops were subject to attacks from both outside and inside. More significantly, they were operating under the military's combat "laws" and regulations ... and not in the slightest way subject to any civil authority. None. Nada.

Regarding what constitutes torture - when the administration's most senior legal authorities are promulgating treatments that both I and you would regard as torture, just what burden can be reasonably placed on the back of a PFC to make such a legal judgment? After all, when you're KILLING people, including civilians, it's tough to find a moral compass.

Yes. I think it is. You think it is. I wonder whether we'd risk being fragged, shot, or given an assignment that was certain death for not "going with the flow." The military has some very effective ways of "cleaning out the ranks." And there ain't a GI in a combat zone that doesn't know it. There's REAL enforcement for ya.

In the final analysis, our failure as a nation to justly and fairly prosecute and punish war crimes makes us ALL responsible. Why? The "justice system" is our avatar. That's why the Nuremberg Trials had to be held in the first place.

[democracyindanger]

189. I think

and, honestly hope, we've reached the point of agreeing to disagree.

You provide an assessment from a former combat vet viewpoint that I have to respect. At the same time, England's testimony is that she knew it was wrong, but went ahead and did it anyway. Specifically, because she wanted to please her friends. Not members of her fireteam. Her 'friends.' They weren't under fire when the torture happened, and if Abu Ghraib was a big threat from inside, pulling a dozen or more prisoners from their cells can't be a legitimate response to a threat. If you're concerned that prisoners may revolt, why take them out of their cells?

But most importantly, I find it hard to see how somebody who wants to see justice done up and down the board would be amenable to forgiving those who could provide some of the strongest indictments. It's exactly like being mad that the head mafioso isn't being prosecuted, but being sympathetic to the lower rung thugs that refuse to assist in the prosecution of the heads.

In any case, I will continue to level nothing but derision at those who try to generate sympathy for England because she's poor, dumb, from West Virginia, et al. The soldier who leaked the photos may not have been the brightest bulb on the tree, either. But he's the standard we should expect, instead of lowering our standards to allow tears over England, Graner and the rest.

Anyway, thanks for your more detailed thoughts.

[Carni]

140. JMO But this all just proves that the bush culture rewards stupidity

I am sorry...legally "mentally challenged" or whatever, it is quite clear that this woman is a whacko of some kind to begin with.

Yet THESE are the types of people that the current government loves because they will do whatever they are told to do for a pat on the head, or an atta boy.

They are so dumb and screwed up in the head IMO that they have confused right and wrong. They have no concept of it.

If some shithead on AM radio says they are right and good to torture middle easterners they are right there johnny on the spot to do it with no questions asked.

Are they evil, or just incredibly stupid and attention starved?

I don't know, but I have a tendency to think they are so F'd up that they have no concept of right and wrong.

I have no clue what they should do with people like this woman--is stupidity an excuse for out and out crime?

I can't answer that, but I would definitely rather see the people that ordered her to do these things hang and don't get me wrong I don't excuse what this jack ass of a woman did in any way shape or form.

[Zhade]

141. Thank you. TN is ANYTHING but a torture apologist.

DiD's post is frankly embarassing.

[democracyindanger]

180. You're right

He wasn't making an apology for torture. He was presenting an excuse for people becoming torturers. I was wrong. I apologize. Embarassing you was certainly not my intention. Nor any of my concern.

But I digress. Because of your embarassment and TN's crystal clear analogy, I hereby change my opinion completely. From now on, I will hope the best for Lynndie. Because she had a poor upbringing. Because she was lonely. Because she had birth defects. Because somebody, somewhere was told not to have an abortion but offered a flight to Switzerland to have one.

Further, as long as I'm being sympathetic to one war criminal, I will also save a soft spot in my heart for Graner, the others who plea-bargained their way into lighter sentences without much more than a peep about the higher ups who encouraged and permitted torture, and because shit rolls down hill and love wafts skyward, I will also forgive Karpinski, Sanchez, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and any others involved in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib because they were just doing what, like Lynndie and Charlie, they thought they could get away with.

[Zhade]

182. Blah, blah, blah. You obviously misunderstood TN.

Your inability to comprehend his point bores me. When you understand his point, feel free to discuss this again.

For the record, I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but your attitude and eagerness to smear someone like TN makes your posts not worth engaging.

[democracyindanger]

184. And yet, you reply.

Wonders never cease.

[TahitiNut]

187. Zhade is generously (to me) making the point that ...

... there's a big difference between being argumentative and being pugnacious, just as there's a big difference between provoking thought and provoking animosity. Provocation and confrontation are Good Things™, as long as we provoke thought and confront issues ... not each other.

These are lines I sometimes cross myself. I try hard not to. :shrug:

[Guaranteed]

120. Beautiful post. nt

[iamjoy]

93. We're Not Apologizing....

In civilian criminal cases defense attorneys frequently argue diminished capacity.

A few other things...

1) She admitted she knew what she did was wrong. Some people respect honesty and responsibility as opposed to passing the buck.

2) We feel there are bigger fish to fry in this. She is trying to make it sound like she did this willingly, but many people suspect high ranking officers were really responsible for this. Read #1 again

3) Haven't we all done things we regret? Of course nothing on this scale (although I don't think she was involved in the "worst" offenses). But surely we have all done unkind things. Even though at the time a part of us knew it wasn't right, we listened to our worst demons and not our best angels.

Just some things to think about.

[jayctravis]

98. Right.

There is photographic evidence where multiple times she is the agressor of what I think the United States would classify as inappropriate treatment of someone who may not have been ethically incarcerated.

If the judge rejects her guilty plea she could logistically testify. We have a right to know if she did this on her own -- out of control patriotism enabling a psychological mean streak, or if she received instruction towards these acts in the employ of the military.

[LynnTheDem]

122. Yes the US military does take in mentally unstable and impaired people.

Shocking, isn't it. Wish we had a real media in this country.

[halobeam]

130. BTW... the recruits take in mentally ill and drug abusers now too

just as long as no one says anything....shhhhhhhhhhhh then we can hold off the draft??? Yeah right.

[AlinPA]

It is; to accept all these war lies, DeLay, Bush**, the theocracy that is

building.....if it were not for my kids and grandkids, I'd move to NZ.

[SGBL]

24. I would suggest you go talk to a medical doctor

instead of making medical assumptions with out any facts. If this is a true claim it does have weight. Brain damage sets in when the brain has been deprived of oxygen for only 2 minutes.

[grytpype]

35. No, the judge said she might not be guilty.

There was evidence at her sentencing phase that she was following orders, and so arguably she did not know what she was doing was wrong (an element of the charged offense).

[Liberal Veteran]

58. Good thing she wasn't in Texas....

Or Shrub would have given her the death penalty.

[Charles19]

85. Because the judge knows they were trying to get

her to plead guilty in return for a very weak sentence. They (the gov't) wanted to get her to take the fall and the judge knows it.

In a miliatry trial if the judge thinks this has occurred he/she can throw out the plea, like he just did.

The gov't wanted her to take the fall for all of this in return for a very weak sentence.

[underpants]

6. Good

That's all I have to say 'bout that

[funkybutt]

7. So they can force her to plead innocent?

I'm not really understanding this. It seems that since Rainer testified that she was obeying orders and that the photos had a legitimate use, she can not claim she knew what she was being asked to do was illegal??

Not making sense to me...

[rodeodance]

13. this could and I mean could destroy the myth of a few bad apples

[Charles19]

87. In military court the judge can change the plea if he thinks

they are making the plea as part of a deal just to get a weaker sentence. He already suspected it during the beginning of the trial and this coming out (that she was ordered to do it) only confirmed his suspicions.

[FourStarDemocrat]

137. Maybe the judge senses that she's being coerced. That there's a

COVERUP. This just may be one smart judge.

[demnan]

10. I say good

maybe someone will have to investigate the real truth about these tortures instead of pushing it under the rug.

Does anyone besides me see a new and excellent JAG episode being written before our eyes?

[shadowknows69]

16. they're too busy flying jets and fighting bad guys in JAG

to do the boring legal stuff that REAL Judge Adovcate Generals do.

[rodeodance]

20. let you imagination run--give us a few hints.

[ananda]

40. no more JAG

JAG's run has ended.

Maybe a JAG movie of the week?

Sue

[Horse with no Name]

70. I wish

They cancelled JAG.:(

[OldLeftieLawyer]

101. Just keep this in mind:

Watergate happened because a night security guard noticed a piece of masking tape over the lock of an office door.

Little things sometimes set huge things in motion.

I am right now praying that the military judge is "Maximum John" Sirica in his latest incarnation.

[EFerrari]

125. I'm with you! "You can't have a one person conspiracy"

sounds very promising to me.

[LibertyorDeath]

179. Can you imagine

"I am right now praying that the military judge is "Maximum John" Sirica in his latest incarnation."

I'm not given to prayer but I'd make an exception here.

:toast:

[mac56]

12. But..but..wouldn't this make him an "activist judge"?!

That's bad-bad-bad, right?!

:sarcasm:

[rodeodance]

15. I just betcha the brass is shaking right now (unless they quick get it

under conrol).

[harpo]

17. repukes will label the judge as "liberal"

[rodeodance]

25. that is an oxymoran-- a liberal military judge. (it was a mil. judge

wasn't it?)

[qazplm]

84. what a silly statement

considering I am a liberal military attorney.

[nolabels]

Or even worse, a Constitutionalist

Go up chain of command to see who issued the policies.

At least the Nazi's didn't use sexual or religious humiliation :shrug:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

102. No, the Nazis just exterminated people

because of their sexual orientation or their religious beliefs.

Duh.

[nolabels]

124. and what exactly did the Iraqis do to deserve what happening to them?

I never try to fool myself in thinking the US is not just another warrior nation, our entire history is replete with it

[OldLeftieLawyer]

128. THAT, I agree with

But your "Nazi" remark made absolutely no sense.

[nolabels]

232. Somehow it does to me

Long story though, so I won't bore with details

[Spazito]

18. Wow, could this mean a trial where evidence of the 'higher-ups'

ordering such action as the photo-taking actually come to light? I sure hope so given the judge has looked at both Granier's statement and juxtaposed that with England's claim of wrong-doing.

[erichzann]

27. No. It means that no one will be held responsible.

[rodeodance]

30. i do not agree with you--I think this is an opportunity for it to go

beyond the few bad apples.

[endarkenment]

47. Her buddy grainer

had a trial and they basically 'redacted' all evidence that could implicate the good old chain of command. So grainer couldn't prove squat and he got 11 for doing what he was told to do. That dumb-ass girl is going to get fried too. What a sorry waste. The grunts in Iraq should take a lesson from this: you are dirt, we will wipe our asses with you and then toss you in the shitter. Why does the military support *? They f*k the troops every time.

[BornaDem]

71. "Her buddy Graner" screwed her TWICE...

once (or plenty more than that,) knocked her up, and left her high and dry on that. Now he has screwed her on her plea deal. She admitted to posing for the pix and saying it was for the amusement of the guards; Graner said he ordered her to pose for them. Now the plea deal is off and unless the General where she is stationed drops all the charges against her, she will have to stand trial and plead "not guilty" and get some long sentence instead of a maximum sentence of 2 1/2 yrs. The guy who was not involved but knew what they were doing and did not turn them in got 7 yrs. He was the first one they tried. NICE! Tell me Graner didn't know what he was doing to her!

I'm not saying this girl is innocent, but she doesn't deserve what Graner has done to her.

[customerserviceguy]

126. I agree that Graner was trying to take her down

and he seems to have done so. It seems that somewhere along the line, they had a falling out, and he's using every advantage he has to make sure she gets a sentence as long as his is.

Did she deserve it? If we believe her claims that she knew what she did was wrong, she should have gone whistle-blower early on. She at least could have provided evidence to make the government's case on Grainer a bit more of a sure thing.

The only one I feel sorry for is the poor kid that these miserable asshats spawned.

[AndyTiedye]

72. Once In the Military, All Your Constitutional Rights Go Bye-Bye

along with everything derived from common law.

DOES the military really support **, or do they just not let anybody
who doesn't talk to the press?

Does anybody think that military votes for Kerry actually got counted?

[erichzann]

55. I'm not suprised that you don't agree.

But history is on my side.

[ewagner]

68. I'm in agreement

I think she deserves some punishment for what she did but the real criminals are the ones who said this "wasn't toruture" and acceptable.....

Those are guys with stars on their collars and occupy the nicest offices of the pentagon.....

[burn the bush]

97. I hope so. Let's face it., she should be punished. But she is the least

of the ones. She probably was doing what she was told. She was involved with the guy doing a substantial amount of the torture. He was directing her. I'm not saying that's a good enough excuse. I am saying that it's the others who need to be punished. I hope she can testify against the others and bring them all down.

this is unacceptable. Of course, you guys know that.

IMO
Rummy should be charged for war crimes as should anyone who gave this order. He should never be released into the public again.
Lets say Generals, Majors, those types should do 10 years or more.
sgt. should do 5. privates 3.

Anyone simply following the orders should be given prison time, counseling, and time in gitmo.

I know everyone is gonna say they deserve more, but in war, there are blurred lines of loyalty, fucked up thought processes and extreme mind control going on continuously.

[tk2kewl]

19. Veeeery interseting....

I guess the military doesn't get to sweep the abuse thing under the rug just yet.

[rocktivity]

22. Darned activist military judges CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

From Yahoo News:

(The)...judge...Col. James Pohl...(said)...that he was not convinced that she knew that her actions were wrong at the time.

...Graner testified at England's sentencing hearing that pictures he took of England holding a naked prisoner on a leash at Abu Ghraib were meant to be used as a legitimate training aid for other guards.

...England...told the judge she knew that the pictures were being taken purely for the amusement of the guards...Pohl said the two statements could not be reconciled.

Consider the implications: If the pictures were for training purposes, that means that Graner's orders, or at least knowledge of and consent to do what he was doing, had come from higher-up. If the judge believes that England was "just following orders," then Graner must have been, too, as well as the person his superior take orders from, and so on, and so on...clear on up to the Bush White House, perhaps?

Thanks for your moral courage Judge Pohl! Maybe we'll get to take down some higher-ups in this mess after all! And wouldn't it be cool if he asked to see ALL the Abu Ghraib pics?

On edit: Oh, goody--Randi Rhodes is on in ten minutes.

rocknation
:wow:

[fob]

32. Aha, mistrial. Now I see why Lynndie's attorney let this guy testify

to things that contradict her story. Mistrial, move the whole thing a little further out and it can be quietly swept under the rug. I hope as some have said that this actually opens the door for the real masterminds to come to justice. A few bad apples my ass.

[BornaDem]

80. So do I...

because he's dumber than dog turds. He's worth exactly what she paid him - ZILCH. When these lawyers first offered to represent her, they had her accuse everybody from Bush on down of ordering her to do what she did; then they turn around and make a plea deal and allow Graner to testify, maybe even without knowing exactly what he would testify to. These people had an agenda from the beginning and they got it out into the media, BUT at the expense of this poor dumb hick who may end up serving 10 yrs. because NOBODY is representing her. If she had gotten a lawyer who was not interested in publicity for himself who told her to keep her mouth shut and made a plea deal of her admitting guilt to the same things she plead to, my guess is she would have served no time, just been kicked out of the reserves.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

103. How are you coming up with this stuff?

You're not making a whole lot of sense.

This is the best thing that could have happened to that young woman.

[qazplm]

106. no its not necessarily

it means that one of the following things is going to happen:

a. she gets a new deal that lets her plead not guilty to that charge but probably bumps up the months slightly

b. she gets a new deal where she pleads guilty and gets a worse cap on confinement

c. a or b happens and she gets the same cap on confinement

d. the "deal" is off and they go forward to contested court martial

D is the least likely IMO.

The most likely is either a or c I think, but it really means she will be back where she was today, only having wasted several months, and that's several months she could have used to work off her sentence.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

108. I don't disagree with your assessment

But, the reason I think it's the best thing that could have happened to her is that she's not being shuffled off to confinement without a word. The judge's act here has shone a light on the scandal once again, and there - if the world were fair, which I still believe it is (go figure) - will be repercussions because of what he did today.

She's not just being quietly sent away, and that's good for her. I think, though, that her scapegoat status just disappeared, which might make it very interesting.

The UCMJ ain't no day in the park, though. I remember that very well.

[David Zephyr]

23. A Pentagon Nightmare: If England Walks, That Means She Can Also Talk!

Hoo hah!

If Private England can walk away by from the charges in the trial either by being found "not guilty" or by the judge dismissing the case against her altogether...then the Pentagon and Bush Administration will have no "carrot" of pardon or early release to hold over her to keep her from blabbing freely to the world.

This is a nightmare for the Pentagon upper brass who want to keep this scandal at the lowest troop level possible.

If England can begin speaking freely...and if she will...then the truth may come out after all about who really ordered the abuse.

[rodeodance]

28. "You can't have a one-person conspiracy," the judge said

from Yahoo art. link above;


...The action came after Graner testified at England's sentencing hearing that pictures he took of England holding a naked prisoner on a leash at Abu Ghraib were meant to be used as a legitimate training aid for other guards.

When England pleaded guilty Monday, she told the judge she knew that the pictures were being taken purely for the amusement of the guards.

Pohl said the two statements could not be reconciled.

"You can't have a one-person conspiracy," the judge said before he declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

31. The key to me is this:

"If England can begin speaking freely...and if she will..."

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. She's still in the military right? Like they're really going to let her talk.

Let me know when the snowball freezes in hell..

edited for typo

[zipplewrath]

39. If she had anything damning

She would be talking already if she had anything particularly damning. The problem is that there weren't any real "orders". Most likely behavior was nonverbally "encouraged" through toleration and knowledge transfer. The bottom line is that it happened and in the military, command is suppose to know what's going on.

[David Zephyr]

118. To the contrary-

If there had been a carrot hinted at to her and her attorneys that her time in prison might be shortened, she would have kept her mouth shut.

Here's where the Pentagon is in trouble (from the USA Today article) "Graner maintains that he and the other Abu Ghraib guards were following orders from higher-ranking interrogators when they abused the detainees."

Graner is obviously upsetting the applecart and has publicly accused higher officers for the prison abuse. Further, he has now turned the case against England upside down. She can also have space to speak out.

This is not good news for the White House or the Pentagon. Not at all.

[zipplewrath]

226. He's lost alot of credibility

He's a lousy witness, already lost his case, and the defense he used is the one she would use.

[rodeodance]

63. yabba dabba doooooo lets hope you are RIGHT

[David Zephyr]

121. Today was a very bad day for the White House & Pentagon

From the USA Today article: "Graner maintains that he and the other Abu Ghraib guards were following orders from higher-ranking interrogators when they abused the detainees."

Graner is not going silently into the night and taking the fall for the higher-ups. Today, Graner really through down the gauntlet at the Pentagon.

More than anything, it puts the spotlight back to higher officials which is where the criminal activity was obviously authorized.

[spunky]

26. Bizarre. Almost as if they are trying to work it out so that Graner

can take the rap for her. They are seemingly letting his testimony that she thought the photos were for training trump her own testimony that she knew it was just for sadistic kicks. He is the father of her baby right? Makes sense that he'd be willing to take the fall for her so she can be free to raise their child.

Bullshit.

(edited for spelling)

[rodeodance]

36. they had a falling out from what I have heard--in fact--the artist was

drawing a pic of the babies father--Graner--at court this am. and England leaned over and said -Don't forget the horns.
Cnn or msnbc said this today.

[spunky]

43. hmm. Didn't know that. I still think she will walk. n/t

[BornaDem]

83. If this is true...

she's not as dumb as she looks. She knows she got screwed and who did it to her!

[erichzann]

29. I don't believe anything good comes from this.

[Boneman]

34. What will happen now. Is it likely the Army will drop the case.?If I were

the DNC I'd be on this thing like a fly on chit. The powerful American military tries to railroad some half-retarded girl into copping a plea that gets her 10 years so her Superiors can play golf without mental distress. GET SANCHEZ!

[rodeodance]

38. I will have to find "don't forget the horn" comment by England re: Graner

[RebelOne]

50. Go to CNN.com. It's there. n/t

[rodeodance]

52. thanks, i will

[rodeodance]

41. well, everyone was very surprized when the judge stopped the trial-this

was suspose to be a slam-duck. Onto the war, enough time wasted thingamajig.

[Javaman]

48. It appears as if many of the admin's "slam dunks" are being...

called on personal fouls. Looks like Lynndie is going to go to the line for a free throw. LOL

[txaslftist]

44. Well then, she's screwed.

The judge rejects her guilty plea, the case goes to trial.

At the trial the fact-finders get to see the pictures and will probably know she's already plead guilty. They will find her guilty, she will get a punishment that is substantially higher than her current deal.

If you think the prosecutors -the same ones who cooked up this present whitewash deal -are going to turn around and investigate her superiors, you've been drinking the Kool-aid or watching too many episodes of JAG.

And if you think this judge is some sort of hero for what he's doing, you are sorely mistaken. He knows damn well he's screwing her over, and he knows damn well nothing will come of this except her catching more time.

[spunky]

46. Don't they have the option not to retry her? This may be very good for

her.

[rodeodance]

51. Cnn was rattling off about 5 possible future actions--but no one knows

right now what will happen.

[txaslftist]

53. Sure they have that option...

...just like they have the option to dismiss the charges outright or petition to have her awarded a medal.

That ain't gonna happen. They got pictures of her holding a naked dude on a leash. It is not at all possible they will let her skate.

[spunky]

64. I might have agreed before today, but look how they are setting it up

a shrink testifying that she was "oxygen deprived" at birth, and as a result she tends to follow orders of authority figures. Then they bring out Graner in to contradict her testimony and say that she didn't know what was going on and was just following orders.

I'm not too sure how willing they'll be to toss some developmentally challenged woman in jail for "following orders."

[txaslftist]

66. Watch it happen, then.

I deal with Federal and State prosecutors on a daily basis.

She's screwed.

[spunky]

75. We'll see. Maybe I'm wrong. I just think something stinks. Why wasn't

her "oxygen deprivation" brought up before? Why wasn't her ability to determine right from wrong at issue before? And why all of a sudden does the judge think her lawyers aren't looking out for her best intrests? Presumably the lawyers knew of her "condition" and yet they let her plead guilty. I just think more is going on than meets the eye.

[BornaDem]

92. I should have guessed - another lawyer?

Fortunately, I can say I never practiced one day of law anywhere, just used the degree to secure a job that needed a legal background.

[qazplm]

88. no it doesnt

it goes back to plea bargaining and the prosecutors will either drop that charge or give her a slightly worse deal in exchange for letting her plead not guilty to it.

Her defense attorneys are not going to go to not guilty contested court martial when what she will face will be a LOT more than what she is facing now.

[BornaDem]

89. Glad somebody else has figured out what...

has happened to her. I don't think she deserves to get screwed over either.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rodeodance]

49. judge says "England may not have known what she was doing was wrong."

>
>
>Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:
>

http://abcnews.go.com?CMP=EMC-1396

>
>MILITARY JUDGE REJECTS LYNNDIE ENGLAND'S GUILTY PLEA IN PRISON ABUSE SCANDAL
>

Judge Rejects England Guilty Plea

A military judge has rejected Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and declared a mistrial. He said testimony from Pvt. Charles Graner indicates England may not have known what she was doing was wrong.

[rodeodance]

60. Here is England's 'don't for the horn's" comment about Graner

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/04/prisoner.abuse.england/index.html

......Graner, who is said to be the father of England's infant son, Carter England, born in October, is now married to Spec. Megan Ambuhl, one of the four guards to plead guilty in the scandal.

England's mother carried Carter into court Wednesday. In the morning, she removed the baby's hood for photographers; when she left for lunch, he was covered by a blanket.

Graner was also busted from a rank of specialist following his conviction, and is to be dishonorably discharged when he is released from prison. Leaving court on Tuesday, Graner handed out a written statement saying he found England's guilty plea "upsetting" but hopes it will bring her an easier sentence.

England, however, appeared resentful toward Graner. As the courtroom sketch artist, Pat Lopez, was drawing him, England leaned over to her and said, "Don't forget the horns."

[TahitiNut]

86. Does that mean she sees him as EVIL or HORNY?

Open to interpretation, I guess. :shrug:

[txaslftist]

59. Weird...

...90% of my clients admit their guilt when they are guilty. They admit it to the judge, they admit it to me, they admit it to themselves.

Oh yeah... But that 90 percent figure you quoted comes from a reliable source though, I'm sure. Like "the Practice" or maybe "Law and Order" or "CSI Miami".

Or maybe its just cynical bullshit from someone who has never actually dealt with a defendant in a criminal case.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

105. I've never had a guilty client

Not one. In almost thirty years. It's amazing, but true. Everyone I ever represented in a criminal matter assured me and reassured me, the court, and the bailiffs who took them away (sometimes) of his or her innocence.

Isn't that amazing?

:sarcasm:

[txaslftist]

114. I've had TONS of guilty clients.

Clients who admitted their guilt to me right up front and said, "Okay, I did it. What's the best you can do for me."

But all I do is criminal law. Have I had guilty clients deny their guilt to me? Sure. Is it common? I'd say no.

But we all have our own experiences.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

129. You're tougher than I am

I gradually eased out of all the criminal stuff in favor of less emotionally taxing endeavors. Kudos to you.

[AliB]

56. "You can't have a one-person conspiracy"

So the judge said.

I believe this is going up the chain of command.

I was a Marine. One thing that gets drilled into you when you're a low ranking enlisted soldier is that you always absolutely and without question follow the orders you are given.

A couple of examples:

San Diego MCRD
In one of my sister platoons during boot camp a guy broke both of his legs because he jumped off a confidence course obstacle called the "skyscraper" when his drill sergeant ordered him to do so.

29 Palms
Dozens of soldiers got sick after a PT run when the company CO ordered them to go through a sewage settling pond...which they did.

I am not making this up.

How hard would it be to order a soldier to stand next to some naked prisoners and smile while they give a thumbs up.

I'm not condoning anything they did. Following orders is not a valid defense for committing criminal war time atrocities. But I'm cautiously optimistic here that the shit is going to roll uphill.

[rodeodance]

61. if the media gets on this story we have a chance of it going higher.

[Nothing Without Hope]

65. Welcome to DU, AliB! And I hope very much that the high-ranking

oficers responsible for this horror ARE held resposible, up as high as it goes - which is the TOP. It's a conspiracy, after all, and the conspirators are in power.

But I don't expect it to happen as long as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are still in power. See my post below yours - the higher levels have already been cleared by the Army.

[Nothing Without Hope]

57. The army has ALREADY cleared the higher-ranking officers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1740900
Thread title: "MASSIVE TORTURE/ABUSE COVERUP – 4 top Army officers CLEARED"

[nolabels]

74. For which one's exactly? it looks there has to be thousands of cases

The US has a systemic problem, the perpetrators and instigators are not being held accountable so why should anybody else?

Yea, please tell me tell me about them evil insurgents again :crazy:

[Nothing Without Hope]

79. And then there's the routine kidnapping and torture by the CIA:

I strongly recommend this article about what the CIA does routinely. It's called "extraordinary rendition," and you will hear very little about it in this country. This recent article, based in part on interviews with ex-CIA agents, is by the respected British investigative reporter Stephen Grey. I consider it a MUST-READ. This article was published in a French magazine, but his story has also been broadcast on the BBC and published in a number of other venues - but you won't be hearing him on the corporate US media!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1740193
Thread title: "MUST READ- French article on US TORTURE with interviews of ex-CIA agents"

[rodeodance]

76. but that was an internal investigation--not a trial--they could be tried

--when pigs fly--i know--but hey--hope is wonderful.

[rocktivity]

139. DING DING DING! Rodeodance, you're our grand prize winner!

...they could be tried--when pigs fly, I know--but hey, hope is wonderful.
Exactly--with this mistrial, that door has been unlocked, at least. Since Grainer says he took the pictures for training purposes, he will now have to explain who either gave him orders or permission to do so. This whole affair stinks to high heaven--quite literally.

:headbang:
rocknation

[UCLA Dem]

67. whoa big news. must have been because of that other guy's testimony.

[Chicago Democrat]

69. Hurrah! Justice for once....No way is she guilty of anything.

Torture is ubiquitous in Iraq; she was following orders. Try Rumsfelt and Gonzalez instead.

[rodeodance]

73. this thread should be nominated

but i can not since i started it --we need to follow this.

[democracyindanger]

95. Yay! Invalidate the sentences of the SS camp guards!

They were just following orders! Yippee!

[Bridget Burke]

99. The bosses of the SS guards were tried at Nuremberg....

For charges of planning & waging aggressive war, to start with.

Those "following orders" did not go free. But neither did those who gave the orders.

[democracyindanger]

100. Yeah, I know that

But if you read the post I was responding to, that's exactly what that poster is hoping happens.

[lonestarnot]

110. LOL

Spanking and a year.

[Chicago Democrat]

133. Comparison of Abu Garaib to SS Guards at Nazi Death Camps

is ludicrous.

[killbotfactory]

77. It's so obvious this crap came from higher ups

1. They establish camp x-ray in Guantanamo, where they don't consider the prisoners to be POW's, and therefore not subject to protections against... whatever they do there.

2. Abu Graib isn't getting results, Rumsfeld demands results, Rumsfeld transfers the head guy running Camp X-Ray to Abu Graib to get results.

3. Around this time these pictures are being taken. Only this time, the prisoners at Abu Graib are considered POW's, or at least normal prisoners (at least one would hope, being rounded up indiscriminately off the streets and such).

4. Pictures leak, Top officials express astonishment and horror!

Coincidence? Yes! It was just a few bad apples. Right? Right. Move along.

[JRob]

81. The smoking gun is out there...

But the real question is who has the balls to pick it up and carry it in?

[noonwitch]

82. I give credit to the judge for not rubber-stamping the plea bargain

and realizing that this young lady from Appalachia did not think up the torture methods all on her own.

[qazplm]

91. this isnt what everyone is making it...

in the military judicial system, unlike in the civilian world, you have to prove that you are guilty, its called a providence inquiry. You cant just say you are guilty, you have to prove it. And if during sentence you say or do anything which calls your "providency" into question, the judge MUST question you on it and be satisfied that you arent just saying it, but in fact are and believe you are guilty.

So for example, if I plead gulity to larceny, but then during sentencing say I only took it because the building was on fire and I wanted to save it, then the judge will cancel the plea (silly example but just to show what I mean).

England, through Graner, basically contradicted one of the charges she pled guilty to by providing a possible defense (that she didnt know that the pictures were for the gratification of the guards thereby not being involved in a "conspiracy")

Judge Pohl, whom I have done several cases in front of, had really no choice. I suspect he may have tried to "rescue" the deal by getting her to give some reason why she was in fact guilty of all elements but apparently she or her attorneys couldnt do it.

it's a small loss for her as she has to do this all over again, but in the long run, its probably not a huge thing, they will re-do the deal, and in a month or two do this all over again, she'll plead guilty again, get her year plus or minus 6 months (just my guess) and end of story.

[liberalhistorian]

90. You mean the Corny News Network

actually is covering something other than the idiotic non-news "Runaway Bride" story? Amazing!

[Zynx]

96. Judges don't find waffling on guilt in a plea deal amusing.

If you plead guilty, you are GUILTY, and you don't continue to argue some aspect of innocence.

[funkybutt]

119. Are you assuming this was the intention of the Defense?

Because it looks to me like Grainer decided not to cooperate with the defense's case. How could Grainer's contradiction of England's comments be a positive thing for the Defense in any case? If they knew he would make such testimony, why would they call him.

Now if she pleads not guilty, she's already made a sworn statement acknowledging her guilt. That could be disasterous.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ksec]

107. If she was doing as told by her bosses

then wheres the guilt? Isnt refusing an order a crime in the military.

She may be guilty of being a sadistic dickhead, but the real blame goes to Bush Cheney and ashcroft.

[killbotfactory]

109. It's not a crime to refuse an illegal order in the military

I think it's the soldiers responsibility to do so.

The hard part is figuring out what's illegal when your in the middle of a warzone under horrible conditions.

[Ksec]

111. people get courtmartialed

for refusing to fight so I figured it was a crime.

[Jack Rabbit]

112. Justice must be served

The cause of justice is not served well by allowing PVT England to plead guilty. While what she did was reprehensible and she should be punished for it, I do not believe for a minute that she did this of her own accord or would have done it if she knew that her commanders in Iraq would be unable to protect her against charges like those she is now facing.

The torture scandals at Abu Ghraib and in other facilities in Mr. Bush's worldwide network of gulags reflect a failure of leadership. It would not be fair to either PVT England or any of the anonymous Iraqi detainees photographed with her if she were to be punished without those in more responsible positions also being brought to justice.

[Firenze777]

115. L. England's Guilty Plea Rejected

Maybe the dam has broken and the true chain of command will come out! At least corporate news will have to talk about it....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-england_x.htm

[LuckyTheDog]

116. Let's hope

This certainly does seem to be a case of throwing a low-level (and probably dim-witted) underling under the bus.

[Beaverhausen]

117. duplicate thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1444587

[rodeodance]

131. she is the 'poster child" of this abuse scandel and it will not die-but

I do hope this can be a window of opportunity-to go higher!!

[FourStarDemocrat]

136. Love it. Put Gonzalez & Rummy on trial

[brettdale]

132. Huh???

How can a judge tell someone they are not allowed to plead Guilty? I dont get it?

[goodboy]

142. Mistrial declared in Lynndie England Case BREAKING

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/national/04cnd-abuse.html?hp

FORT HOOD, Tex., May 4 - A United States Army judge declared a mistrial in the court martial of Pfc. Lynndie England today after expressing doubts about whether she had been aware that she was committing a crime when she abused Iraqi prisoners.

[rainbow4321]

143. Dallas news...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/050405dntexengland.23fe57cad.html

A military judge on Wednesday threw out Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, saying he was not convinced that she knew her actions were wrong at the time she committed them.


The mistrial for the 22-year-old reservist, who appeared in some of the most notorious photographs from the 2003 abuse scandal, kicks the case back to square one.

<snip>

During a recess before the plea deal was thrown out, England peeked at a sketch artist's drawing of Graner on the stand. "Don't forget the horns and the goatee," she said.

[goodboy]

144. "she was unware that she was committing a crime?" Look, I agree

that she and all the others are scapegoats for Bush, Rummy, Gonzalez, and Sanchez, but What part of her upbringing taught her that what she was doing was right? Even 'dumbasses' know right from wrong, and they make a choice.

[jody]

145. Have you ever broken a law? If you have, then aren't you also a dumbass?

:shrug:

[goodboy]

147. Yeah, only I knew when I was breaking the law, I was breaking the law

Do you believe given what you've read and heard that Pvt. England did not know she was committing a crime?

[jody]

190. Was your answer "I am a dumbass just like Pvt. England"? n/t

[wtmusic]

146. This is one of two things:

1) He's letting her off the hook because he believes she's a real patriot; or

2) He's setting the stage for further investigation in hopes that the truly culpable will be brought to justice.

[mhr]

148. Let's Hope It Is Number Two

eom

[lonestarnot]

160. #2

[atreides1]

150. Well For Your Information

She's not off the hook. What this means is that the process starts all over again. The commanding General of Ft. Hood has to make a decision about what to charge her with, and then it proceeds to an
Article 32 Hearing(military Grand Jury). And with this little screw up, I don't think there's going to be anymore plea bargaining.

My question is why did the defense not figure out what Grainer was going to say, I mean did her defense team take lessons from Marcia Clark and Chris Darden?

As for further investigations, as far as the Army is concerned, there
isn't any need. The Army cleared all of the male general officers that were involved, the only one who has been adversely affected has been General Karpinski. She was the one "in charge" of the prison.

[Orangepeel]

151. or, he feels sorry for her

because he thinks she is mentally challenged and was used by Graner

I hope that it is your #2 choice, but I doubt it.

[benburch]

152. Option Three

He is letting her off the hook because he knows she is a scapegoat and even if he cannot get those who are really responsible, he can do the right thing by her.

[lonestarnot]

161. #3 better yet... do we have a number 4

[Sanity Claws]

163. It's number two

I don't think he thinks she's a patriot. What I heard was that she thought she was participating in something that was to be used in training sessions later. She was essentially following orders and didn't think she was doing something wrong.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

166. uh #2's a little reality based.

and we all know what good that is.

[Pepperbelly]

153. she was stupid but could she not have well thought she was ...

acting under lawful orders? The CIA spooks and Brass deep in the heart of a very hot war zone standing around saying do this or that ... I can see if she isn't terribly bright that she could well have just done it thinking it was what she should do.

I'm not saying she was right but I am saying I can see it as possible.

[goodboy]

156. anything's possible, I guess. Did she say in her testimony whether

or not she was following orders or participating at the request of her boy-toy Graner?

Personally I'm not convinced she's not bright enough to not know it's wrong to treat other human beings in this fashion. I wonder what the conversation was while the torture was occuring. Was it matter of fact like? Or was it, "Oooh yeah, stack 'em like that, wait, lemmee git a pitchure a dat."

[Pepperbelly]

159. it's too surreal to contemplate ...

but I can see how these desensitized little shits we've grown to soldiering age could well have a disconnect from the morality of the whole thing.

:shrug:

But I think it's possible. Real possible. When I was in the Navy, right at the end of Vietnam, I don't know how I would have reacted to something like that. I was pretty much rebellious anyway and I probably wouldn't have went for it but I can see how some people might.

[goodboy]

164. Not to

make excuses for Ms. England, but given what you've personally experienced, is it possible then, she's a victim of circumstance?

[Pepperbelly]

178. I don't know ...

She had to have known how fucked up it was ... what they were doing but things get crazy and spin faster away from you then you realize at times.

I don't know exactly how I feel about this.

[FourStarDemocrat]

167. she would be "unaware" if she believed she was following military orders

from above. And even though I think what she did was repugnant, I believe those orders came down from the top ranks, and apparently the judge is questioning this as well. This story is getting VERY interesting.

[RC]

177. I'm defending England, but I take it

you have never been in the military?
They teach group think and follow orders quite well.

[Joey Liberal]

149. Until they prosecute a commissioned officer, its all a sham

This business of going after enlisted people only has got to stop. There had to be an officer that was in charge. If not, why even have officers?

[atreides1]

154. As a former NCO

I can answer that question, we need officers to sign paperwork.
Though, during Desert Storm, most of the NCO's in my squad agreed that most officers can be replaced with a rubber stamp.

They will never prosecute a commissioned officer, because they have so many dumb ass enlisted like Grainer and his crew that will blindly follow almost any order that they are given, with no questions asked.

By the way the Army has prosecuted one officer, he didn't get any jail time. He was released from the service, and there is the Marine
lieutenant who killed two Iraqis. His defense, they were approaching
him even after he told them to stop. The biggest problem with his story was that according to witnesses, other Marines, the Iraqis were
restrained, and then shot in the back. The he leaves a sign on the bodies that basically said "if you mess with us, this is what you get".

I guess they must have been walking backwards towards


Anyway, as long as the enlisted troops follow orders, even orders that they know are wrong, they will always get the fuzzy end of the lollipop, and they deserve it.

The bravest one in the Abu Ghraib incident, was the soldier that insured that the first set of photos got out ot the public, and yet
he's the one that the rest of the unit wants to crucify. So, maybe
those caught on film were not the only ones involved.

[goodboy]

165. "the bravest of the Abu Ghraib incident..."

"The bravest one in the Abu Ghraib incident, was the soldier that insured that the first set of photos got out ot the public, and yet
he's the one that the rest of the unit wants to crucify. So, maybe
those caught on film were not the only ones involved."

Well said. Kick for your post. That soldier is a true patriot and a hero.

[lonestarnot]

162. I'll call this #5 BEST OF BEST so far!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

169. excellent point

i don't know much about the distinction between non-com and enlisted - i always get them mixed up because ive never been in the military. can you explain a little more about that distinction and how it relates.

[oneighty]

155. I am sorry for her

Her boss is banging her and giving her orders and others are doing dumb things too.

What is she supposed to be thinking?

And contrary to popular belief orders in the military are orders. Dis-obey at your peril.

180

[Mist]

170. That's just it - while she may have known the treatment of the

prisoners was wrong, disobeying orders is a bigger "wrong" in the military. While technically one can refuse illegal orders, there's probably not much support for that. She was a private in a top-down hierarchical organization. Probably didn't feel she could refuse an order.

[bpilgrim]

188. of course you are

many feel sorry for our tortures, even the ones having fun doing it, on DU these days and every one is entitled to their own opinion BUT not only is it a solders right to disobey unlawful orders it's their DUTY just like whistle blowers in the civilian world... of course they won't get any huggs&kisses from their superiors but that is STILL no excuse, even if you feel sorry for them.

fyi

peace

[oneighty]

191. I spent many years in the service

And you are wrong. EOM.

180

[bpilgrim]

222. so have i

UNLAWFUL ORDERS

• You Have A Legal Duty And Moral Obligation To Disobey An Unlawful Order


• Get The Order Clarified


• Challenge An Illegal Order


• Get The Order Changed


• Get Your Superior To Confirm The Order


• Don’t Obey, Report It

source...
http://sill-www.army.mil/JAG/low/Law%20of%20War%20Level%20B.ppt

LT William Calley

UNCLASSIFIED

It is NOT a defense to say “I was just following orders” or that an unlawful order was ambiguous.

Site of the My Lai Massacre, Mar. 1968, C Co, Task Force Baker, 11th Brigade, American Division.

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[oneighty]

223. I know I had military service.

I cannot know if you had military service.

Sort of a dead end I would say.

EOM

As you say "peace"

180

[bpilgrim]

224. then why did you contradict your self?

BTW: i can not know if you served either but besides being a dead end, it doesn't matter if you know the facts.

peace

[oneighty]

225. Do you have an agenda?

Sure sounds so. I said I fell sorry for the girl. If she is innocent or guilty as charged I really do not care.

Is she guilty or innocent? It is not for me to decide either.

And to repeat when in the Military if one disobeys an order it is at one's own peril and since you say you were in the military you know that.

180

[bpilgrim]

227. lol - now i have an agenda...

"If she is innocent or guilty as charged I really do not care."

but you feel sorry for her...

FYI: it goes without saying that when you disobey orders (civilian or military) you do so at your peril BUT it is your right and DUTY to do so when they are UNLAWFUL even in the military.

don't want to leave people with a false impression, i guess that's my 'agenda'. what's yours ;->

peace

[oneighty]

228. Boy I really do not understand your ramblings.

That is all I have to say.
I will fight no more forever.
You have outwitted me.
Or something.
Hee hee hee.

180

[bpilgrim]

229. insulting, cop outs

don't help make your posta clear, either.

cya :hi:

peace

[oneighty]

230. Peace unto you too

180

[sr_pacifica]

157. Graner deliberately threw a spanner in the works

IMHO. He was testifying for the defense and blew it---on purpose. He doesn't want her to get off easy which she could have with a "guilty" plea.

[The_Casual_Observer]

158. Who are those stupid lawyers who are hanging around her?

If this was the case, the judge is saving her ass, not her council. They have done the worst job in history!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

171. i suppose the judge has the highest responsibility

to make sure that there is a "mirage" of justice.

imagine her council's surprise when she wasn't allowed to fall on her sword.

[Gyre]

168. You do NOT need to be aware that you are breaking the law

to be prosecuted/tried/convicted for it. There is a jury instruction directly on point as to that issue.

Gyre

[SlavesandBulldozers]

173. isn't there a whole different set of laws for the military though?

i honestly have no idea.

for instance there is no jury, no? I mean not in the sense of jury of your peers?

[Sgent]

174. You do neeed

to be aware you are breaking the law to be prosecuted under the UCMJ. Different rules for the military.

Her NCO was a MP and civilian prison gaurd. She's a private, not even a PFC. Sorry, but I don't buy she has much if any culpability on this.

[proud2BlibKansan]

172. So she didn't know that

putting a dog collar on a naked man, and posing for pictures with prisoners who had been tortured was a crime?

Lawyers, question: If she had done this in the USA, would it have been a crime? Can someone put a dog collar on another person without their permission?

[goodboy]

175. my sentiments exactly. I realize she's a scapegoat, and I would

love to see Rummie, Bush, Sanchez, and Gonzalez fry for this...but good god, she still had to have known, morally at least, what she was doing was wrong.

[Matilda]

176. She probably knew that it wasn't really a very good thing to be doing,

but what would she know of the Geneva Convention? Orders clearly
came down from the top, plus she had a boyfriend she wanted to
please as well.

A very unpleasant young woman, but definitely a scapegoat IMO.

[K8-EEE]

185. The Psycho Freeprs Think She Should Get A MEDAL....

for all this from what I was reading this morning....sick mf's.

They seem totally ignorant that it has been stated that NO INFORMATION WAS COLLECTED THIS WAY....it was for "fun." What they did could ONLY contribute to the hatred and mistrust of the US military there.

But that's GWB world for ya. Good will for America? They're just flushing it down the toilet. I just hope we can get it back.

[smiley]

192. Judge Throws Out England's Guilty Plea

What the hell does this mean? Could it be... is there actually a military judge who isn't gung-ho on scapegoating an honorable American servicewoman in the name of national pride?

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/05/05/124685.html

[JohnnyRingo]

193. Indeed....The military judge told her she can't plead not guilty

AND say "she was just following orders".

IF the govt decides to try her again, she'll say she was following orders from someone, who will be subpoenaed and asked why he ordered her to abuse prisoners.

If THAT officer doesn't want to take the rap, he'll have to say he too was "following orders". etc.

I suspect it won't be allowed to go too high, but if it stops at an officer he/she will have a lot to lose (commission, pension, career).

Since the whole trial was just to show accountability, the government may cut it's losses and not refile charges.

[smiley]

195. And that could be the plan.

Graner has alreday taken most of the accountability. This may be a pre-planned way for her to shake the charges. She may have gone along with this charade the whole time knowing she could be resolved. The Goverment controlled propaganda only needs one scapegoat and since England is pregnant... Graner is out of luck!

[Erika]

198. She is not pregnant

[smiley]

202. since when?

[charlyvi]

208. She already had the baby. n/t

[smiley]

211. momentary lapse of memory

your right.

[Erika]

194. Excuse me, no honorable soldier would be pictured

holding a leashed naked Iraqi and laughing at his genitals. She may be retarded, etc. and excusable but she's not honorable.

[smiley]

196. Retarded?

[AuntiBush]

200. On Tube-News Today - Yes...

They're reporting "she" was born a blue-baby; was slow as a child... hints of mental-problems.

[kaflinn]

219. Really? Bullshit.

Last time I heard, anyone who's mental capacity was considered below the range of normal IQ, was not allowed to enlist (I believe she did enlist, but please correct me if I'm wrong).

Most eight year olds could tell you what she did was wrong. As for following orders? Sorry, that doesn't justify anything. No soldier is required to carry out an unlawful order - we established that during the Nuremburg Trials. In fact, it's incumbent upon someone to not only not follow an unlawful order, but to report whoever gives it.

[Erika]

203. Yes, Oxygen-deprived at birth

[AuntiBush]

209. You're a Genius, Erika!

Great new term to call those Freeper's: "Oxygen-Deprived!"

:rofl:

[Erika]

217. True AuntiBush

"Oxygen deprived" about says it all.

[smiley]

218. yet has nothing to do w/ the Abu Graib..

hmmmm....

[AuntiBush]

197. And to think, this is the type of kids they're giving guns too

and ordering to torture. Our gov't's pile of shit grows ever higher.

[smiley]

199. And how do you describe Graner...

And the rest of the accused.

[AuntiBush]

201. And you are?

[smiley]

204. human

[Erika]

205. It is not important how I describe them

It's the court sworn testimony.

[AuntiBush]

207. Erika is Exactly Right! Facts from Court Reports!

[Erika]

212. Thanks

It appears that the volunteer military services will now pretty well accept whomever applies. And they are not being picky. Look for those standards to go even lower as the Army missed their recent quarterly quota by 47%.

[smiley]

214. What does that have to do w/ anything.

England is a scapegoat!!!

[smiley]

213. Does that really mean anything in militay court?

[AuntiBush]

206. Here ya go.

Google Searched for you... ;)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=england+mistrial+mental+problems&btnG=Google+Search

[smiley]

210. only retarded people could be so cruel.

....give me a break.

[Erika]

215. Her superior officer said she did what she did under orders

and shouldn't be found guilty. She was no cruel, she was just following orders and didn't have the mental capacity to discern what was requested. Are you suggesting retarded people are cruel?

[smiley]

216. forgot to mention the sarcasm.

[saigon68]

220. She is typical of the "cream" recruited and skimmed by todays military

[fleabert]

221. big ugly thread last night about her...

what came of that was
1. she admitted that she was not on duty when posing was mentioned to her
2. posing was 'offered', not ordered, per her testimony.
3. she has shown absolutely no regret whatsoever for her actions

I felt much as you did, that she was the scapegoat, until I did a little more reading and research into the matter. Perhaps you will change your mind too, perhaps not, but I offer the (now locked, it got ugly) thread I read for your perusal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3587536

[bpilgrim]

231. all tortures need to be held to account if we hope to STOP this HORROR

I think the judge isn't buying the few bad apples theory (i hope so, anyways)

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/aar/af/gore/a_few_bad_apples.mp3

more...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/aar/af/gore

peace