It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


ABUSE CRISIS: Lynndie England Found Guilty Of Prison Abuse.

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 05:12 PM
Lynndie England, of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal, has been found guilty of four counts of maltreatment of detainees, and on one count of conspiring with other soldiers to maltreat prisoners.
England faces a maximum of 10 years in prison. Her sentencing hearing is due to start later on today.
US soldier guilty of prison abuse

Lynndie England, the woman at the centre of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal, has been found guilty of abusing prisoners at the Iraqi jail.

England, 22, was found guilty on six of the seven charges, including maltreatment of prisoners. She faces a maximum of 10 years in prison.

She was the last in a group of nine army reservists charged with mistreating inmates at the prison.

She was retried after a judge rejected her original guilty plea in May.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Finally a bit of closure on the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. Lynndie England is the face of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal her face was shown all over the world having a good time abusing Iraqi prisoners.
I hope that this has been a learning experience for the military and they will prevent embarrassing events like this in the future.

Related News Links:

Related Discussion Threads:
ABUSE CRISIS: England to Plead Guilty to Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse
ABUSE CRISIS: Abusive U.S. Soldier Stories Spring Up In Arab News. Bush Counters With Arab Interview
Senior officers cleared in Abu Ghraib scandal

[edit on 26/9/2005 by Umbrax]

[edit on 26-9-2005 by Nerdling]

[edit on 29-9-2005 by Nerdling]

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:12 PM
Lynndie and her cohorts did more that create a stir by taking pictures of the stupid antics they were involved in...they opened up the sordid conditions so many prisoners were subjected to during their stay in the prison.
The outrage brought into question why there was a lack of following the terms of the Geneva Convention, culminating in the revelation that these prisoners were not POW and thereby had no rights at all...that they could do whatever they wished to them.

For this alone, I'm glad Lynndie and her naughty fellow frolickers did what they had done. They can sit in prison now and be at the receiving end. Perfect Kharma.

Perhaps this type of officially sanctioned torture won't be repeated again by nations who normally hold much higher standards.

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:31 PM
I would just like to say


what a freak

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:38 PM
I would also like to say Yaaaaaaaah!!

that woman should never have been accepted into the armed services at teh best of times.

I would also like to add that I am sitting here in my recliner with a drink in celebration BUT I am anxiously anticipating and waiting for the trials of THE SUPERIOR OFFICERS who did know this was going on and encouraged and condoned this type of abharrant depraved activities.

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:26 PM
I'll second the cheers, but hold off on celebrating until those in power that either ignored, condoned or encouraged this behaviour are found guilty as well.

Just once I want to see those in power (the colonels and generals) go down for what they have done or failed to do, either along side or instead of the troops below them.

But then again, I want to win the lottery...which is more likely to happen?

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 09:23 PM
Army sheep made into scapegoat, while brass gets a free ride.

I see no closure, I see obfuscation.

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 09:42 PM
So, better to make an example than to correct the problem? This is how corruption begins.

Sure, she's guilty and needs to pay the price, but so does the system that created the enviornment that enabled her to do the things she did. I won't settle for a scapegoat in this trial, and that's all that Lynndie England is.

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 09:07 AM

I wonder if "Lynndie England" should start naming names as to where she got all that permission to act the way she did....

20 years without parole seems about right for doing what she did (some wanted her executed, but she did not act alone, but within a larger Weltanschauung of abuse in the military).

Unless the Judge decides to strip her naked and put a dog collar around her neck with a leash attached and parade her down the street pointing at her chest and genitals in public and s'n-word'ing. But the Folsom Street Parade was last weekend...

But my original feeling is that she might want to write a book in jail naming names...

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 10:37 AM
This woman is the definitive scapegoat because she is so damned hard-looking. I know it sounds very shallow and simplistic, but it's the reality we live in. Plus the fact that she got herself knocked-up by another soldier involved in this mess, our government knows that there are very few things about England that will make the public feel any empathy towards her.

Thus endeth the lesson in Psychology 101.


posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 07:54 PM
She deserved the three year prison sentence that she got. I just
hope that she's getting mental health help while she's locked up.
She definately needs it.

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 08:41 PM
I agree FlyersFan. You can tell she is in need of mental help. # years sounds fair. Her original guilty plea was rejected I wonder if that had any effect on here sentencing.

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:27 AM

The panel found her guilty on four counts of maltreating detainees, one count of conspiracy and one count of committing an indecent act.

"Maltreating detainees"? Is this so the US govt can still laughably claim that they don't torture people? The world see this for what it is, a travesty.

It's a complete travesty. No witnesses were called (not a single Iraqi prisoner was allowed to stand up in court and report his side of what happened.

General Antonio Taguba, who investigated charges of torture in Iraq, reported numerous episodes of porno torture. At Abu Gharib, detained Muslim boys were sodomized and detained Muslim girls were raped. Detained Muslim men were stripped naked and stacked in pyramids. Some were forced to engage in oral sex with each other. Some were forced to wear female underwear. Reports from the Gunatanamo gulag are no less pornographic. One Muslim detainee was smeared with the menstrual blood of a prostitute.

Yeah, it's Lyddie England's fault. It's just a few bad apples who somehow figured out how to do all this stuff under the radar. Without their superiors knowing...

And it just so happened that people were being tortured in similar ways in Guantanomo and Afghanistan.


I feel sorry for the any Americans captured in Iraq by insurgents, because this will be all the captors think about. That there is pretty much NO BLAME here.

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:45 AM
The Spanish inquisition, before it executed people for crimes agains the state (note, not the church), would dress up the guilty as a clown before strangling them (they hardly ever burned alive, despite English propoganda.)

You'll find this hilarious since I'm usually such a hard- , when it comes to crime and punishment.

But then, I've worked in prisons, too.

Everybody in her unit were set up like bowling pins.

Her unit was trained to run a motor pool on behalf of the military police. She was used to authorizing the replacements of oil filters, not the interrogation of prisoners.

Any American who'd had actual experience in law enforcement would have known what an outrage, and liability the things she did were.

And everybody overlooks her initial testimony. Which for me was totally a giveaway, and which her plea bargain including her dropping that line of testimony:

-She answered to her C.O. only on paper and by cell phone

-She was supplied with "civilian translators" (from Blackwater Security) whom, she was told, had a great deal of experience with Islamist prisoners, and who "needed her help" to "fear up" the prisoners before the "translators" went into a room alone with an inmate . . .

-The "translators" told her it would be helpful if she took a lot of pictures of herself in the act of degrading pictures, and smiling at the camera, while no translator ever stood in front of the camera. (I can tell you what the CT's told the victims: the girl sargreant posed without covering her face because we have permission to torture and kill you if you don't talk. She isn't worried about facing war crimes trials because you're fixing to be "shot while trying to escape." )

-She never told her C.O. what the civilian translators told her to do, or that they got info from prisoners she was told not to make reference to in her notes.

-When she asked about how this helped get information, they told her that she was "taking orders from them now."

-she complained repeatedly to her CO and his own CO's, that she was unqualified, and the prison's only staff was her unit plus a bunch of unkown american civilians.

This stinks. It bugs me that people are so willing to blame her for her acts, and nobody, even on the left, sees that she was basically brainwashed into doing the bidding of some real darth vader types.

Not that she shouldn't be punished, but that her state of mind would be admissable in any civilian court in the states. And that there was clearly a conspiracy to deprive someone of their civil rights (maybe including her own self.)

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Jakomo
"Maltreating detainees"? Is this so the US govt can still
laughably claim that they don't torture people?

They were naked pictures and there were dogs barking at
terrorists with hoods on their heads. Yes this was wrong,
but it wasn't torture. What happened to John McCain in
Vietnam was torture.

Of course, we all have different views on what torture is.
But no, I don't see that what she did was 'torture'.
Wrong, definately. Torture? No.

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 03:42 PM
I think dr_strangecraft's post is a must read in this thread. It speaks nothing but pure common sense to me. Good post!

Originally posted by FlyersFan
They were naked pictures and there were dogs barking at
terrorists with hoods on their heads. Yes this was wrong,
but it wasn't torture.

Agreed, naked pictures and hoods and dogs barking is not torture. Real, cruel, painful torture is having to sit through a Hanson concert.


posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 04:45 PM
when you are more afraid of your captor than you are of justice.

when you as a prisoner are treated as an expendable means to an end.

I think the CIA's own definition of torture, is when you reveal something out of fear for your own safety.

In all honesty, I just posted what may have been an untruth. Googling deeper, I can't actually find that the CT's were either blackwater OR CIA.

The CIA, despite the movies, actually tries to 'convert' terrorists to 'our side.' Their official doctrine is that information (other than what is readily verifiable, and thus not really information) is not trustworthy unless it's willingly given.

On the other hand, after spending a weekend at the Hotel AG, you might be very easy to "convert," if refusing meant a return ticket.

posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:50 AM

Of course, we all have different views on what torture is.
But no, I don't see that what she did was 'torture'.
Wrong, definately. Torture? No.

To me, stripping a person naked and forcing them to commit demeaning acts that are forbidden in their religion and culture is torture.

Nobody is standing around with their hands in their pockets. There are rifles trained on the person, he/she is probably fettered, and has absolutely no control over the situation whatsoever.

These things were done to "break" the inmates. Not for kicks. There was a plan, however lame and immoral.


new topics

top topics


log in