Iraq: Lynndie England - Torturer or scapegoat ?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Goatman, Aug 2, 2004.

?
  1. Bang on - she broke the rules and should be punished

    63.3%
  2. Plainly guilty - but under duress. She should walk.

    11.7%
  3. She's a patsy who's been set up.Prosecute Rumsfeld.

    13.3%
  4. What crime? Get a sense of humour!

    11.7%

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    From Reuters:http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5836777
    By Jim Loney
    MIAMI (Reuters) - A twice-delayed hearing for a U.S. soldier photographed holding an Iraqi prisoner on a leash, set for Tuesday, is a key step in the legal wake of the prison abuse scandal that shook the Bush administration's war effort.

    Pfc. Lynndie England, the military police officer who became the public face of inmate abuse at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, faces a hearing to determine if she will be tried on charges ranging from prisoner abuse to committing indecent acts.

    England, 21, was charged along with six other U.S. military police reservists in a scandal that outraged the Arab world and prompted an apology from President Bush, who placed the blame on a small group of soldiers.

    The photographs, viewed around the world last spring, damaged U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq in the middle of a bloody insurgency.

    England has said she was just following orders when she appeared in the infamous pictures, including one where she held a naked Iraqi on a leash and another in which she pointed at a prisoner's genitals, a cigarette dangling from her lips.

    The hearing is called an Article 32 investigation and will be held at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where she is stationed. Evidence will be presented and a military hearing officer will decide whether the case should go to trial. It has been delayed since June as the military filed new charges and England's defenders made changes to their legal team.

    She is charged with conspiracy to mistreat Iraqi prisoners, assaulting prisoners, committing acts prejudicial to good order, committing indecent acts, disobeying an order and creating and possessing sexually explicit photographs. Some of the charges were not related to prisoner abuse.

    Maximum penalties include a dishonorable discharge and up to 38 years in prison if convicted.

    England's lawyers, who have called their client a "poster child" for flawed U.S. war policies, will be allowed to call witnesses at the hearing. But their request to call Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to the witness stand was denied, the lawyers said.

    England, a member of the 372nd Military Police Company, returned to the United States from Iraq after becoming pregnant. U.S. media reports have said the father of her child is Spc. Charles Graner, one of the other soldiers charged in the abuse scandal.

    Lawyers for some of the accused have said intelligence officers told them to soften up the prisoners for questioning. The Pentagon has denied sanctioning rough treatment to make inmates talk
    ---------------ends-----------------------


    If you heard John Humphry's 'On the Ropes' interview with the female Brigadier (Janet Karpinski)who was this girl's ultimate boss, it is pretty plain that high level US Army personnel were told to 'Gitmo-ize the operation ' at Abu Ghraib......in other words, to change the regime there from one of containment to one which more closely resembled the activity at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay.

    I suspect that the order to get tough with Iraqi prisoners came from that famous hardman Donald Rumsfeld.

    I can't help feeling that this girl was simply following orders and lacked the the experience or personality to challenge the legality of those orders....of course it is no more of an excuse for torture and degradation of civilian prisoners in 2004 than it was in 1945.

    The essence of this, is that the US govt cannot afford to free her without alienating world ( and most importantly Arab) opinion.

    Tough call.


    ' Put not your trust in princes' - The Earl of Strafford

    Le Chevre
    --
     
  2. No decent human being should treat another like she did, unless it's in Amsterdam and you're paying for it :roll: . She should know right from wrong and what she did was plain wrong, whether ordered to or not, it is ill-treating POW's and is against the Geneva convention, so she should have had the moral courage to say no. Otherwise we, as allies, just lower ourselves to their standards.

    God, I sound like a tree hugging lefty 8O
     
  3. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    Not at all - I agree......but a 19 year old STAB from a trailer park in West Virginia was never going to say ' Nope - you do it ' to her bosses now was she?

    I think she knew perfectly well that it was wrong and should pay the penalty. In ordinary circs that would probably be a fine, disrating and maybe dismissed the Service. But this is a political show trial and she'll go to Levenworth.

    I also think that there were people MUCH higher up the food chain who should be held to account for what happened......and what is STILL happening in Guantanamo....sadly I'm too old and cynical a goat to think it's likely to happen


    << THERE IS NO JUSTICE - ONLY ME.... >> Mort

    Le Chevre
     
  4. Under the Geneva Convention Soldiers are allowed to Disobay orders they deem to be unjustified, in the case of the treatment of POW's the PFC should have refused, she would not have been disciplined. She CHOSE to carry out the abuse and in some photos appeared to be enjoying it. People like her and her superiors give the rest of us a bad name and lead to rumours and inuendo such as the false photos published in that s**t rag the mirror. She should be charged for war crimes and tried accordingly where by she should name and shame her superiors.
     
  5. I would like to have voted both first and second choice. She should go down for what she did, but those above her, encouraging and directing the abuse should also face the walk of shame.
    The inquisition should look as high as it needs, and all those found to be implicit in the activity should be looking over their shoulder. That in no way gives little miss trailer trash carte blanche to do as she sees fit. I seem to remember that "I was just following orders" carried no weight at Nuremburg or currently at the Hague.
     
  6. chimera

    chimera LE Moderator

    It should also be noted that the detainees were not PWs, and therefore one wonders how much of the Geneva Convention the US thought it had to apply
     
  7. But didnt Rumsfelt alledgedly say that in the case of Iraq "The Geneva convention does NOT apply" to his Chief of Staff when probed about the whole Abu Ghraib affair.
     
  8. He is probably Lekta`s source on the inside. :twisted:
     
  9. That doesn't answer the question. Either A) You are a sad BNP t0sser living amongst the fortunate ones who escaped the loony Sadman. or B) You are serving out there - in which case you need to open your eyes.
     
  10. Someones biting just received this by PM

    "Some sort of hard man are you????????????? dont call me wa***r"

    Just answer the question W****R
     
  11. Yup, she should be walloped for what went on in that place.

    But, so should Rumsfeld if he issued the directive.

    The US has decided to pick and choose when the Geneva Convention applies. That totally sucks and shows that this whole thing is being planned on the back of a fag packet. Thanks to these eejits, innocent people are being kidnapped and be-headed by a group of zealots. This whole sorry shite-mess is manna from heaven to them. Hey! The more, the better for them. It just gives them credibility and a good excuse for their actions. Inevitably, it fuels itself.

    The US has fcuked up. If we are to beat these people, then we have to be better than them.... and that includes how we treat them.

    As for that fcukwit seds77774 - you, my friend, are a complete fcuking w****r. Why don't you fcuk off and annoy people elsewhere. :twisted:
     
  12. Troll off you crotchless t0553r
     
  13. She may have been 'following orders' but what swung it for me was that she was smiling in the photos. Surely if this genuinely happened under duress she would not have looked so bloody smug and happy about it all.
     
  14. I think she is probably just one of those people who permanently walk around with a brain-dead smirk on their faces.... :roll:
     
  15. You don't need Standing Orders to ascribe standards of basic human decency and to suggest simply following orders does not excuse the thick as fcuk trailer trash minger!