We Will Not Forget Lynndie England

[Wizard777]

At this point Bush has a better record of prosecuting and punishing torture than Obama does. Let us remember Ms. Lynndie England who carried out the orders from upon high. We now know these claims that were denied at the time to be truth. For her role in the tortures the Bush Administration authorized. She has been placed on trial, convicted, and sentenced to prison. She was forced to have her baby in prison and her new born son will be 11 year old before he gets to see his mother outside of a prison. Now Obama thinks the people that devised and authorized these techniques should not be inconvenienced by the legal repercussions of their actions;. I think Obama is failing to realize the true damage these illegal policies have done. Not only to our nations integrity and honor. But our own troops that carried out these orders. They too relied upon the legal opinion rendered by the DOJ and passed down the chain of command to them. Yet these lowly grunts have been sent to prison for basically not knowing better and trusting their chain of command. But the people who have formal educations in the law and are proclaimed to be scholars. These people have no burden of knowing better like Ms. England. How easy is it to be a scholar when everyone is going to say your right especially when everyone knows you're DEAD WRONG?

So the dilemma that Obama now faces is will he faithfully execute the laws in accordance to his constitutional duty as President or will he pardon EVERYONE. Beginning with the soldiers that were tried, convicted, and imprisoned. He must also remember that we are STILL at war. So there are provisions of the Geneva Convention that he must comply with to avail our troops of it's protections. He must be willing to be responsible for those in his chain of command. This includes the CIA and other international and military intelligence organizations. The Geneva Convention places responsibility for these grave breaches with the High Contracting Party and Enemy Power. Not the troops entrusted with their care. Investigation of these grave breaches should be conducted from the top down. Not the bottom up. But since this is the mis-course taken by the Bush administration. It has been established that crimes have been committed. It is also now established that those crimes were authorized by the White House. This too is a crime more commonly called aiding and abetting. Now prosecutions must follow not only the chain of command. But the evidentiary chain as well. President Obama cannot pick and choose which links of the chain he will and will not be responsible for. He must be responsible for the ENTIRE chain. Including that link forged by his predecessor President Bush.

[Obamanaut]

1. Lyndie England is out of prison. nt

[Wizard777]

2. I haven't heard anything about that.

But by the sentence she was given. The kid would 11 years old at her release. If you have a link I would be very interested on an update.

[Redbear]

4. Her original sentence was tossed and she ended up getting parole in March 2007

But, yes its sickening that Ms. England spent time in prison while the real monsters are laughing at the country club.

[Wizard777]

5. Thank you that is wonderful news indeed. If she can do her time. So can everyone else.

[Lance_Boyle]

7. How is it sickenging? She DID THE DEED

regardless of who told her it was OK - SHE WAS THE ONE on the control end of the leash. She should have spent much more than 11 years, as far as I'm concerned. To see her out early is disgusting.

[Wizard777]

10. That's part of my point. She too was relying on that legal opinion from the DOJ passed down the CC.

If Bush is not going to assert it to defend her and others. Why Should Obama even consider it in a decision to prosecute Bush Co? Further more this legal opinion that was not provided to her defense is exculpatory information she was deprived of for her defense. "Just following orders." Further more it proves that claim. That why they took the pictures and videos. They thought they were documenting legal uses of force.

[Lance_Boyle]

11. That's not why they took the pics. Not at all.

Those pics were intended to be homemade tortureporn for the those who inflicted it and those who filmed it. Doesn't the smiling and the thumbs-up give it away just a little? How about the fact that they were personal pics/videos, taken with personal (not military issue) equipment?

Obama should not consider it a defense at all. Ever. The fact that he does not seem to want to hold torturers accountable is equally as disgusting as the torture. It's like nobody holding the reins of power these days has ever heard of WWII or the trials, convictions and punishments meted out afterward. In-fucking-comprehensible is what it is. Makes me ashamed to have voted for our torture-forgiver in chief.

[Wizard777]

13. That was their account straight from the horses mouth. You're account sounds more like Bush Co -

propaganda. We know know the soldier to be more honest than Bush Co. At the time they stated they were following orders. Bush Co. denied that. We now know that Bush Co. Authorized the use of torture before the invasion of Iraq. Though they are convicted of horrible crimes. They are far more credible than anyone in Bush Co.

[Warpy]

3. Scapegoating enlisted people is prefereable to releasing

those self serving memos and exposing the real torturers at the top?

I don't think so.

[Wizard777]

8. From what I understand part of the rationale for not prosecuting CIA and others.

Is that they won't do what is needed when it's needed. That they will question superiors Etc. Basically that the legality of what they do in defense of this country should be a concern to them. I can see the light of that. However dim it maybe. But I can see the light of that. It is there. But a far wiser and much brighter course is to harshly punish those who issue illegal orders like this. Then in the future they will be damned sure of the legality of the orders they issue before they issue them. This will assurances to those who have to follow the orders. At the very least they can find comfort in knowing that if teh orders are found to be illegal. The person issuing the illegal order will be in far more trouble than they are. I favor a 10:1 ratio in sentencing.The person issuing teh illegal order will do 10 years. The person following the illegal order will do 1 year. How is you're confidence now?

But if they are going to follow that dimly lit route. What are they gonna do when they tell the troops you need to go to this country and do this that and the other. Then they say, NOPE! That might be an illegal order. We'll go to jail for following that order. Nothing will happen to you for issuing the illegal order. So we can see where YOU might think this is a good deal. But we reject it in it's entirety. We have to operate within the law and therefore cannot trust anyone operating above the law.

[cali]

6. your post is absurd and so wrong and, well, dim, that

it's scarcely worth responding to except to say the poor little pscychopathic Lynndie England has been out of prison for a couple of years. Oh yeah, and it's the JD that makes decisions at to who to prosecute, not the President.

[Wizard777]

9. By the GC it is ultimately the President that is responsible for the chain of command.

If you think Lynndie should go to jail and not Bush and the others. You should go back to freeperland. They're obviously missing their village idiot.

[backscatter712]

12. I'll trade Lynndie England for Dick Cheney...

Yes, she did the crime, and for her part, she should be held responsible, and at least for a small part, was. At the same time, she's a flunkie. She didn't give the orders, she obeyed them. She was under Milgram-Experiment-style pressure while she was at Abu Ghraib, and if she didn't do those crimes, she'd probably still be court-martialed, for insubordination. She was ordered to torture, and did what many of us would have done if she had pressure from authority figures - she obeyed. And then when Abu Ghraib became public, she was the one thrown under the bus to protect the ones who gave the orders.

That doesn't absolve her of her crimes, but to be honest, I'm not so much interested in people like Lynndie England as I am with people like Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and of course, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

They don't have the excuse "Vee vere just followink orders!" Not that that's a good excuse, but Cheney and Bybee and Bush don't even have that. And their crimes are far more serious in magnitude than Lynndie England's. England was responsible for the torture and possible deaths of maybe a few dozen people? Cheney was responsible for the deaths of 1.3 MILLION Iraqis by giving the orders that led to the invasion, to the reopening of those torture dungeons under American control, to death squads, etc. etc. etc. Would Lynndie England be guilty of those horrible crimes if Cheney, Bush and Rummy didn't give the orders that put her there?

I want Cheney, Bush, Yoo, Bybee, Rumsfeld, and everyone else in that circle that occupied the White House for eight years. They gave the orders. They invented the policies, and came up with the bogus legal justifications to cover their asses. They're responsible for far more death and misery than Lynndie England was. I want their heads.

[Wizard777]

14. Some say what's the harm? Lynndie was done irreparable harm. So we can't turn back the clock.

Call a do over. Pretend like it never happened. We just can't do it. We must continue onward toward Justice in the interests of an equal protection of law. Selective enforcement is not conducive of equal protection or rule of law.