Drop charges against Lynndie

[Pure]

This is a thread to promote the dropping of all charges** against Lynndie England, the US soldier who had the misfortune to be photographed with a leash tied to an Iraqi's neck. And if she is discharged or wishes to resign, the leaving should be 'honorable' in status.

She's charged with assault, and a number of other offenses, and is, I believe, being incarcerated.

I don't believe the 'foot soldier' should be sacrificed in this orgy of reparations for torture--which of course should be stopped and its *INSTIGATORS* punished. The 'orders' defense seems close to adequate for those lowest on the totem pole. I believe she was among several ordered and expected to 'soften up' certain prisoners.

{{Added May 10: I don't mean to exclude from punishment any foot soldiers, or guards of low rank who were exceptionally sadistic, prone to physical mayhem, or killing.}}

Those familiar with the Stanford 'prison simulation' experiments [of Zimbardo,see urls, below], know that 'guards' who are ordinary people may be changed into quite brutal persons, under the 'right' regimen.

I'd like to know if any agree with this idea, of if lots of people want to see harsh discipline imposed on her ass on grounds that she 'knew it was wrong' and 'knowingly followed an unlawful order."

----
{{**Added, May 10: The emphasis, here, is on the military command NOT pursuing charges against her, in such as way as would lead to any incarceration of her. A detailed inquiry into all related matters is presumed. And that, as per the manual of court martials, educative, training, or reprimand measures (for LE and other low ranked persons) may be found appropriate as 'non judicial punishments'. Such steps to occur after a fair investigation of the involvement of all 'higher ups' who may have ordered or directed the 'softening' for interrogation process.}}

 

[Guest]

At this point I cannot fully judge the woman, but if anyone else is charged too then I think she should be tried. Whatever the circumstances, that photo was one of the most incriminating and offensive (a leash! for fucksake), plus the one where she's laughing at a prisoner's penis.

Perdita

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I have to agree with Perdita on that one. I had a friend who was an MP in the same prison months back. He was involved in an incident, not directly, but was put through hell. The case ended up where 4 others were discharged dishonorably. The alleged abuse was assault, not what happened here. They didn't photograph any thing, they didn't laugh and point. They were dealing with unruly prisoners and put them down.
There is a lot more that went on with their situation, but, it holds no relevance here, accept that they were officers who took the fall and lost everything. She is a pfc that took it to a different extreme.
just my opinion....I fuck up in my job, I get fired, what makes her different to me because she wears a uniform.
~A~

 

[Guest]

This is a thread to promote the dropping of all charges against Lynndie England, the US soldier who had the misfortune to be photographed with a leash tied to an Iraqi's neck. And if she is discharged or wishes to resign, the leaving should be 'honorable' in status.

She's charged with assault, and a number of other offenses, and is, I believe, being incarcerated.

I don't believe the 'foot soldier' should be sacrificed in this orgy of reparations for torture--which of course should be stopped and its *INSTIGATORS* punished. The 'orders' defense seems close to adequate for those lowest on the totem pole. I believe she was among several ordered and expected to 'soften up' certain prisoners.

Those familiar with the Stanford 'prison simulation' experiments, know that 'guards' who are ordinary people may be changed into quite brutal persons, under the 'right' regimen.

I'd like to know if any agree with this idea, of if lots of people want to see harsh discipline imposed on her ass on grounds that she 'knew it was wrong' and 'knowingly followed an unlawful order."

I am in no position to judge this particular individual either way - I don't know enough facts.

However, I do see, and am inclined to agree with, a lot of your points here, Pure.

I am familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiments, and can understand how the behaviour of what previously appeared to be kind, rational, law-abiding and upstanding people can drastically change.

I do get the impression that this one particular soldier is being used as a sacrificial lamb.

What went on at Abu Ghraib jail was abhorrent, I could never dispute that, but it seems to be very far reaching and, more than likely, was instigated from the top down. I don't know this for sure, it's merely speculation.

I just hope those giving the orders are also held accountable for their actions. Nobody should be allowed to walk away from this untainted.

Lou

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Pure,

You are having a fucking laugh surely????

Prisoners of war/conflict/call it what you will, deserve to be treated with a certain respect.

You do NOT treat prisoners of war in the disgusting way as portrayed in the pictures I've seen.

EVERYBODY involved, from Lynndie up to the prison General should be put on court-martial for these acts and, if found guilty, pay for their actions with jail time. They have committed acts contrary to the Geneva convention, among many other crimes.

How the hell can we cry out when our people, when taken prisoner are mis-treated, when we are guilty of the same??

Let her off??

She deserves to be treated the same way!

 

[upfront]

This is a thread to promote the dropping of all charges against Lynndie England, the US soldier who had the misfortune to be photographed with a leash tied to an Iraqi's neck. And if she is discharged or wishes to resign, the leaving should be 'honorable' in status.

I read that paragraph three times with growing disbelief.

"... who had the misfortune to be photographed with a leash tied to an Iraqi's neck". Awwww, poor woman!

 

[lewdandlicentious]

"Poor woman" indeed!

I suppose she "just happened" to be photographed posing, making fun of prisoners genitals too??

 

[Liar]

I'm with lewd.

There are, simply put, things that you just do not do.

This soldier was most certainly not alone in degradingly humiliating prisoners of war, protected by the geneva convention as well as common god damn decency. But does that mean that she was innocent? Give me a break.

She, as well as everyone else who can be smoked out as participating in this, and everyone responsible who either were active in these actions, or looked the other way, or were criminally ignorant, deserveds to be put behind bars.

#L

 

[Guest]

Just to say I do understand Loulou's opinion, but it calls to mind the derfense of criminals (serial killers, child molesters) who had a history of abuse. Does that make them innocent? No. Does it explain something of their actions? Yes, but it cannot be an excuse.

It's a serious and complicated subject, don't mean to simplify it, but I do hear the excuses being put forth already, e.g., this thread's intent.

Perdita

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Of course Perdie, they all deserve a defence, and of course that defence will be to try to shift the blame to anyone else within range of the shit that's flying.

Things like: "we weren't told any better" etc etc.

We all know, all of us, that it's all bollocks.

They're guilty, the pictures prove it. All that's required now, is for a court martial, or I suspect a jury, to find the same, which as we all know, isn't a done-deal in any shape!

 

[ABSTRUSE]

She's going to hire a civilian lawyer, I didn't know that was allowed?

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Yep, it's very much allowed. In fact in the Brit army it's been common place for years. Probably has over there too.

A case like this will be different. But often, in smaller cases, a civilian lawyer will take the army idiots to the cleaners.

I've seen totally guilty soldiers get off, because the Brit MP's and their "special branch" the SIB are a bunch of idiots.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Thanks Lew, wasn't sure about that, I know the army is weird about the people they own....I mean the soldiers.

 

[pussy chaser]

Yep, it's very much allowed. In fact in the Brit army it's been common place for years. Probably has over there too.

A case like this will be different. But often, in smaller cases, a civilian lawyer will take the army idiots to the cleaners.

I've seen totally guilty soldiers get off, because the Brit MP's and their "special branch" the SIB are a bunch of idiots.

I agree lewd..but no matter what someone is going to fall hard to appease the iraqi's, as long as it is a guilty party..no probs

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Agreed!

I think anyone with any knowledgable interest in this, will want to see those responsible, all of them, go down for this in a big way!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I'm with Lewd on this one. Those soldiers deserve a stern punishment for what they did.

It's not just a matter of disrespecting prisoners of war, it's also a matter of disrespecting fellow human beings.

I don't know if anyone has thought of this, but the prisoners are, most likely, very religious men, albeit not of the same religion as the soldiers who assaulted them, and even though I don't like the way either christianity nor islam looks at homosexuality and "decency", I think it was a horrible thing to do to force deeply religious people to pose for such humiliating and homo-erotic pictures.

It's bad enough that you gloat and sing "ha, ha, we beat you! You lost the war!", but to force someone to do something that is against their religion, that's just... tacky.

Those soldiers disgraced the army. They deserve to be hung out in the press as GUILTY OF CRIMES AGAINST THE GENEVA CONVENTION

 

[shereads]

I'm angry as hell about this, you know J. And I don't know where the anger should be directed. The photographs made me sick, and the smiling faces were a component of that.

Dropping the charges would mean no investigation is warranted, and that's simply not the case. Neither should we assume that a smiling face in a photograph means what it seems to mean.

The apparent enjoyment on her face is is a significant part of what made these pictures so repulsive. Not that the acts themselves are acceptable; but if the MPs had looked nervous or just expressionless, it would be tempting to believe that they were reluctant participants, who were afraid to defy their superiors. This is a reach, I know, but someone ordered to pose for a photograph might also be ordered to smile. Would it mean she's less guilty if we knew she didn't enjoy what she was doing?

I don't know. Like you, I don't want to see her superior officers and these as-yet-unnamed "civilian interrogators" get a quiet discharge while the young people under their command are made scapegoats. But the only way to know who's guilty and to what degree, is to let them face the charges against them.

Btw, I think I know what you mean about Lynndie "having the misfortune" to be in the photographs. Not that she isn't culpable, but that the focus so far is exclusively on the ones whose pictures were leaked to the press. I hope that won't continue to be the case.

I wonder whether the prisoners to whom Mr. Rumsfeld apologized before the Senated Armed Services Committee yesterday, were given access to CNN so they could get the full benefit of the apology. Ya think?

I also wonder how they're going to be 'compensated.'

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I’m not familiar with the Stanford prisoner experiment, but I can guess what it was about: that people will do horrible things if encouraged to do them by their peers?

No, I feel for Lynndie, but she’s got to pay for this. I believe that she got caught up in a terrible group dynamic, but she did some horrible things and “they made me do it” isn’t an excuse. To let her slide would be to condone her behavior.

---dr.M.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I thought we were going to compensate the whole country by rebuilding what was destroyed in the war, restore life and put in place a new government?
Or was that a dream I had?

Oh yes, and what of those who took the pictures themselves?

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Don't worry too much about the photographers.

I bet Lyndie sang as soon as she was caught!!!

 

[shereads]

I can't help wondering what the purpose of the photographs was intended to be...Souvenirs? Something to show the family when you get back home? The faces of the prisoners are carefully hidden. Why?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Because they are OBJECTS.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

I can't help wondering what the purpose of the photographs was intended to be...Souvenirs? Something to show the family when you get back home? The faces of the prisoners are carefully hidden. Why?

Not in the dog leash photo they're not.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Because they are OBJECTS.

Yep.

but really, what was the purpose of the photos????

 

[Guest]

but really, what was the purpose of the photos????

To delight in what they were doing, to show off to their buds. The photos were passed along hundreds of emails, even used as screen-savers. P.