It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Lynndie England Pleads Guilty To Abuse Charges.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
US Army Pfc. Lynndie England has decided to accept a plea deal from Army prosecutors today. She has pleaded guilty to seven out of nine charges against her, hoping to recieve a reduced sentence for her role in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. She is facing over 11 years in prison time if convicted on all charges.
 



www.cnn.com
During a morning pretrial hearing at Fort Hood, Texas, England pleaded guilty to seven charges: two counts of conspiracy, four counts of abusing detainees and one count of committing an indecent act.

CNN has learned that England could face as little as two years in prison on the seven charges, under terms of a plea agreement reached with prosecutors. Judge Col. James Pohl has not yet accepted England's pleas. England faces up to 11 years in prison.

England pleaded not guilty to two other counts against her: dereliction of duty and committing an indecent act. The prosecutor has agreed not to pursue those two charges under the plea deal.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think that England is being used as a scapegoat. With the recent lawsuit being filed to hold Rumsfeld accountable, it seems that the administration is trying to punish England for following legal orders. England and others were given orders to torture, that were made legal by the so-called "torture memo" of Gonzalez.

For all of the administrations talk of accountability they are refusing to investigate any higher up the ranks than Pfc. England. In fact at a recent press conference Rumsfeld said that General Sanchez had apologized for any wrong doing, and had a fine record.

So the Pfc. faces prison time, while the General gets to apologize. We should be demanding accountability from the higher ups on this one, and not let it go if England gets a conviction.

Related News Links:
www.reuters.com
news.bbc.co.uk

[edit on 2-5-2005 by LeftBehind]

[edit on 2-5-2005 by LeftBehind]




posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Here is a link to the Department of Defense's own website containing the transcript where Rumsfeld denies reading the findings of an Army investigation.


www.defenselink.mil...



Q Just to follow, how would you answer critics who say that the Army IG investigation, the results of that show that the Pentagon is not capable of investigating itself and isn't holding senior leadership accountable? How do you answer that criticism?



SEC. RUMSFELD: I haven't read the investigation yet. It hasn't been presented to me. I don't have a copy of it.




posted on May, 2 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
England was a willful participant in illegal activity. She is not a scapegoat, even if there are some who should be punished who are not. I hope she gets every minute of the maximum.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Some might disagree with me but I think if Lynndie England looked less like Lynndie England and more like Jessica Lynch, the outcome of this case would be much different. I'm sorry to say it because looks should have nothing to do with being guilty or non-guilty, but in this day and age they do, especially in the court of public opinion.

Peace



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
You are only allowed to refuse illegal orders in the Army.

Pfc. England was given legal orders according to a memo sent out by the Justice Department.

www.washingtonpost.com...



An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.

The document provided legal guidance for the CIA, which crafted new, more aggressive techniques for its operatives in the field. McClellan called the memo a historic or scholarly review of laws and conventions concerning torture. "The memo was not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or techniques," he said. "It was analytical."

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft yesterday refused senators' requests to make public the memo, which is not classified, and would not discuss any possible involvement of the president.

In the view expressed by the Justice Department memo, which differs from the view of the Army, physical torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the psychological harm must last "months or even years."


So she was stuck in a catch-22. Refuse the order, in which case she faces a court-martial, or follow it as she did and still end up in prison.

We need to be punishing the ones who gave the order and "legalized" torture.
How can she be punished for following legal orders?



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
None of the personnel who are being prosecuted in this matter were authorized to engage in any of the acts that were memorialized in those photos. England actually had no business in the prison at those hours, to boot. All these activities were just an extension of the sick sex parties that went on during the graveyard shift at Abu Ghraib.

The famous Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Professor Philip Zimbardo, I believe, tells the story of why and how this incident occurred.

www.prisonexp.org...

www.stanford.edu...

www.stanford.edu...

psychology.about.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.google.com...



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I disagree Grady, and I don't see what the Stanford experiment has to do with this.

The prison was not untrained civilian gaurds in a basement.

Pfc. England and others have testified that they were ordered to "soften up" the detainees.

www.cbsnews.com...


In her first interview since all of this began, one of the more famous faces of the scandal Pfc. Lynndie England, the guard seen smiling and pointing at Iraqi prisoners, said she was ordered to pose for the pictures by “persons in my higher chain of command.”


That is not unsupervised gaurds losing control, it is members of the armed forces given orders.

washingtontimes.com...



Pvt. Graner has contended that he was ordered by intelligence officers to abuse prisoners to force them to provide information on the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq.


Graner is already in prison for this, and he has been moved to solitary confinement for refusing to testify against the others.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I direct your attention to the statements below. Whether Graner was her superior is immaterial. She knew that the acts were wrong and that the abuse was unrelated to interrogation techniques. She was under no obligation to obey what she knew were unlawful orders.



"You feel by doing these things you were setting conditions for interrogations ... if you embarrassed these guys?" Pohl asked.

"No, sir," she replied.

"So, this was just a way to embarrass them?"

"Yes, sir."



The issue regarding the Justice Department to which you refer, I believe, concerned the question of whether or not these prisoners were subject to the Geneva Conventions.

Personally speaking from my own experience, I cannot believe that this kind of behavior was officially authorized, especially the photographic documentation. Everything about these incidents point to one conclusion. These were the acts of undisciplined soldiers working under corrupt Staff NCOs, who rampantly and egregiously overstepped their bounds. Believe me, I have witnessed worse things carried out under similar circumstances.

[edit on 05/5/2 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Once again, in your quote it says that Garner was England's superior.

Garner says that he was given orders to do this.

The stanford experiment might explain why they got so sadistic, but it doesn't clear the people who gave the orders in the first place.

Nor does it explain why the Justice Department guidelines had no problem with the kinds of torture they were doing until they were caught.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
It is sad to see her taken away from her child for up to eleven years.

She knew that what she was doing was wrong when she did it, though. The other soldiers who were involved in this should face justice as well.

This process should continue all the way to the top, but I think we all know that it won't.

At any rate, my thoughts are with her and her kid. It's very sad to see one grow up without it's own mommy there. That always seems to leave a sort of void. I hope it turns out o.k.




[edit on 2/5/05 by Roadscholar]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
While I agree that this young woman is undoubtedly a scape goat.. God it's humiliating to see her represent the USA to the world. Let's face it... the woman allowed her picture to be taken repeatedly while comitting war crimes. Stupidity like that should not only be illegal, but painful !



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Anyone wanna know her excuse, in asking for leniancy? Hmmmm? Anyone a little curious? You are..admit it.


www.nydailynews.com...

Her lawyer blames her actions on oxygen deprivation at birth which left her with learning disabilities, and of course the ubiquitous peer pressure. He got a West Virginia school Psychologist to testify to that effect, during her sentencing hearing.


He wants the court to show her leniancy because she didn't get enough oxygen as a kid? Because it took her a while to learn to read?

I mean, c'mon. This is just getting silly folks. If she wasn't competent, she shouldn't be there in the first place. You can't now argue that she was unfit!

I know some people want her to get off easy, because she probably is a scapegoat. I agree, for the most part. However, I wanted to bring everyone's attention to what is perhaps the lamest excuse I've ever heard.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Don't forget we are talking about someone who isn't "all there". She isn't the brightest tool in the box. She didn't speak till she was 8yrs old, and has is a follower type personality not a leader or independant.

She was lead into this by others and stupid enough not to work out the ulitmate consequences...

If someone said to her "hold this rope tied to this head" she would reply "how long".

Nice military material, but not really able to judge her own actions fairly.

Just a fall guy, or sacrifical sheep for the decisions made at the top.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Well, if it were up to me, i would have her striped and publicly bullwhipped several times.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Let's face it a four year old and your garden variety socio-path know not to have your picture taken while commiting a crime. She deserves what she gets, the consequences of her delliberate, malicous and stupid actions could have very well costs lives. The pictures of that idiot incited both malice and hatred that fueled futher violence against innocent soliders and Iraqi nationals. Every day "slow" or lower IQ'd people are sent to jail because they are vicitms of society... mother's with young children who commit welfare fraud, people who are elderly who buy illegal medication because they can't afford the exorbiant costs of precription medication, disinfrachised young people who can't connect so they join gangs, women who feel helpless and abused who shoot and kill their husbands... no one is playing the violin for them.. But this piece of s**t was not powerless, she's the one holding the leash in the pictures. She's not poor, Uncle Sam was feeding her, clothing her and paying her bills. She wasn't a loner, she was part of the crew.. one of the guys. That is what makes me sick. The Iraqi's shouldn't be shocked, they come from a country where you are guilty until proven innocent, but as an American, it makes me physically ill to know that people like her, small minded, bigoted, barely literate hicks are the beneficiary of my tax money at work. As I said before that kind of stupidity should not only be illegal, but painful.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   
The Worst Defense: “Because I Could”

I read that her counsel has brought in expert witnesses for the sentencing hearing claiming that she was "oxygen-deprived" and therefore mentally "special".

In other words, it's the Army's fault for not making her an officer.


As for government complicity, I'm reasonably convinced that intelligence agents were involved, and that Abu Ghraib was exploited as a psyop.

These soldiers made convenient scapegoats because they took pictures, are dumber than posts and are, in fact, guilty.

Perfect patsies for allowing the spooks to vanish, and they sure as hell know it.

Before Abu Ghraib, the media buzz focused on how the brave Iraqi warriors were bitch-slapping our spoiled American brats around.

After Abu Ghraib, “spoiled American brat” became “ruthless murdering oppressor.”

Coincidence? I think not.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Weighed on a comparative scale, the abuses of Abu Ghraib are NOTHING when placed side-by-side with that which is being carried out my the Islamic fanatics in the Iraqi combat theatre and in fact throughout the world.
If such methods and worse have been employed to undermine the Islamic jihadists... I'm perfectly comfortable with it.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Gee whiz, you guys act like she went around cutting off their heads or something.


So what, some Iraqis were piled up nekkid. I don't recall seeing any wounds or injuries on these guys. There was no bamboo under the fingernails. They weren't tied to a table and had water dripping onto their forehead. They weren't staked-out in the sun with wet rawhide.


Personally, having a minor idea of what is offensive to muslims, this was one of many possible interrogation methods. They could have made them live with pigs in their cells without daily clean-ups. ewww...
Better than being beat to bloody pulp...



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I think that she deserves a Freaking Medal....The Prisoners were HUMILIATED no DEAD or tortured if the soldiers actions Saved ONE American Life it was worth it...Hell lets take off the kid gloves this is no longer A war fought under the Geneva Convention these A$$`s are cutting PEOPLES HEADS OFF..........Fight terror WITH terror if Demeaning them and there Religion makes them Spill the Beans I am ALL FOR IT....



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
The judge has declared a mistrial. The article below also speaks to some animosity between England and Graner, who is purported to be the father of her infant. It appears she had been ordered in the past to remove prisoners from their cells using a dog leash.

www.cnn.com...

Torture may win battles, but honor wins wars.

So many have forgotten that...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join