Lyndie England found GUILTY

#1
The ugly little wench has been found guilty of absuing prisoners

I wonder how she will feel when big Willma wants to abuse her? 8O

Lynndie England, the US Army reservist photographed grinning as she humiliated Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison, was convicted yesterday on six charges of detainee abuse.

Pte England, 22, became the most famous face of the Iraq abuse scandal.

She was found guilty on four counts of maltreating detainees, one of conspiracy and one of committing an indecent act.

She is yet to be sentenced, but faces 10 years in military detention. England recently gave birth to a boy fathered by another convicted prisoner abuser, Charles Graner, who is serving a 10-year term. Yesterday she showed no reaction as she stood at attention to hear the verdict at Fort Hood, Texas.
Telegraph
 
#2
Well I don't see a problem with her being found guilty. She was caught on photos humiliating prisoners when all is said and done. If she ever thought that she could get away with saying that she didn't know what she was doing was wrong, or that she was forced into doing it then she hadn't got the mental capacity to look after herself, let alone prisoners.
 
#3
Only 10 years??

Not only has she abused prisoners but she has done so much damage to the war out there. Actions like hers will have helped them to recruit more people against our soldiers and she only gets 10 years...
 
#4
I can never understand the mentallity of these people, why the hell would you photograph yourself doing it?
They should throw away the key
 
#5
jest265 said:
Only 10 years??

Not only has she abused prisoners but she has done so much damage to the war out there. Actions like hers will have helped them to recruit more people against our soldiers and she only gets 10 years...
Okay, accept your logic. So why was Piers Moron allowed to get away with only having more free time to write his book then? He did just as much damage and was just as effective as Lyndie England. The only difference pay and position. Why not get that twat behind bars too?
 
#7
I see no real difference between Lyndie England or Piers Monstrous.

They where both sufficiently detached from the sharp end to not really care about the consequences of their actions.

The both sought to justify their actions in the light of a wider issue (ie the war).

They both claimed to be acting under orders. England from her "superiors", Monstrous from his moral masters in the Fleet Street mafia.

Monstrous should get ten years. I know of a couple of choice candidates for his cell mate. Incidently didn't this paragon of journalistic virtue once write the Scum's gossip column?
 
#8
Plant-Pilot said:
jest265 said:
Only 10 years??

Not only has she abused prisoners but she has done so much damage to the war out there. Actions like hers will have helped them to recruit more people against our soldiers and she only gets 10 years...
Okay, accept your logic. So why was Piers Moron allowed to get away with only having more free time to write his book then? He did just as much damage and was just as effective as Lyndie England. The only difference pay and position. Why not get that t**t behind bars too?
I totally agree, he should be behind bars.
 
#9
Well really, I know the man's a cnut but think about it, telling lies isn't a crime, (just as well it isn't in his profession) torturing people is.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#10
No, but Sedition quite possibly still is, even though the CPS wouldn't dare prosecute anyone for it.

The lies he peddled very probably led to attacks on UK Soldiers that would not otherwise have happened.

The cnut (I won't call him a man) is a self-seeking treasonous swine, fit only for horsewhipping.



The likelihood of the CPS prosecuting ARRSE for libel, rather than that scrote for anything, has restrained me somewhat.....
 
#11
petermtm said:
Well really, I know the man's a cnut but think about it, telling lies isn't a crime, (just as well it isn't in his profession) torturing people is.
Ah, but printing lies IS a crime! This is doubly so when those lies cause sombody or some group harm. It's called lible, and as far as I can see Piers Moron is guilty as sin, for allowing what were blatant made up pictures to be printed when they would have a direct effect on the safety of soldiers working in Iraq. He was after all the editor of the slimey rag that professes to be a newspaper, and as such is responsible for its content.

Although no angel, and ugly as sin, all she did is point at some prisoners private parts, hold a dogs lead and humiliate people in her care..... which is wrong. But she was put in a position of power she obviously wasn't prepared for, surrounded by idiots who were at best as bad as she was and should have known better and she didn't have the education to have alarm bells go off in her head when she saw the camera.

She was very wrong and very very stupid. Piers Moron on the other hand is very well educated and knew exactly what he was doing. He just miscalculated and there was a more adverse reaction to the pictures being fake than he had anticipated. She gets 10 years which I don't disagree with at all. He gets away scott free.

Anyone know how his interview on BFBS2 went? I've stopped listening since they decided to have him on.
 
#12
Methinks that Lindy better get the tube of KY ready as life in the military stockade at Levenworth may be a little bit fraught for a newbie!!

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Shame her cell buddy is not Piers! :D
 
#13
Plant-Pilot: We wish. IIRC, libel is a civil offence, not a criminal one - and as far as I know the Army cannot launch a libel suit. Which is a pity, since it allows the Mirror (and Moron) to get off with printing things that, had they been printed of practically anyone else, would have resulted in the Mirror's near-bankruptcy from the damages.
 
#15
Juvenal said:
Plant-Pilot: We wish. IIRC, libel is a civil offence, not a criminal one - and as far as I know the Army cannot launch a libel suit. Which is a pity, since it allows the Mirror (and Moron) to get off with printing things that, had they been printed of practically anyone else, would have resulted in the Mirror's near-bankruptcy from the damages.
I stand corrected,but does that mean that everyone in Iraq at the time or hurt since could have their day in court? Havoing said that, I'm all for adding the Mirror to the Boycott the Sun campaign or starting a Boycott the Mirror campaign, whichever is easiest. After all, after their desperatly bad reporting I haven't bought or read either for a very long time and have no wish to start.
 
#16
No such luck. Again, I'll defer to anyone with more experience (like, say, a legal degree), but my understanding is that unless you are personally libelled, you cannot sue - not least because every officer and enlisted man of the QLR would have been able to drag the Mirror through court. From what I remember, the Mirror was very careful not to name individuals in that debacle, which was probably what saved it from a legal mauling.

Edited to clarify: Somebody saying that your employer abuses POWs is not, it seems, enough.
 
#17
Juvenal said:
No such luck. Again, I'll defer to anyone with more experience (like, say, a legal degree), but my understanding is that unless you are personally libelled, you cannot sue - not least because every officer and enlisted man of the QLR would have been able to drag the Mirror through court. From what I remember, the Mirror was very careful not to name individuals in that debacle, which was probably what saved it from a legal mauling.
So if I say that the paper is sh1t they can't do anything as long as I don't name names?
 
#18
Err...actually, the Mirror could - although you'd have the defence of proving that the Mirror was sh1t. Companies can sue (remember McDs v those animal rights protesters?).
 
#19
Juvenal said:
Err...actually, the Mirror could - although you'd have the defence of proving that the Mirror was sh1t. Private companies can sue (remember McDs v those animal rights protesters?).
From that I conclude that the freedom of speech and rights that the army has always fought to maintain only apply to those who have the money and power to enforce those freedoms. Kind of makes you wonder why we bother to put our necks on the line. There should be a system that if you have served or are serving your country you should have slightly more rights than the slimey w4nkers who have only ever served themselves.

Oh in an ideal world, huh?
 
#20
Juvenal said:
No such luck. Again, I'll defer to anyone with more experience (like, say, a legal degree), but my understanding is that unless you are personally libelled, you cannot sue - not least because every officer and enlisted man of the QLR would have been able to drag the Mirror through court. From what I remember, the Mirror was very careful not to name individuals in that debacle, which was probably what saved it from a legal mauling.

Edited to clarify: Somebody saying that your employer abuses POWs is not, it seems, enough.
I have no specialist expertise in this, but that seems about right to me: it is very difficult in English or Scottish law to show that you have been libelled as a member of a group, without being personally named. The concept of "group libel" is more developed across the Atlantic (and confusingly often refers internationally to "hate remarks" against racial/religious groups).

I think that to libel an unnamed individual, the statement would have to be generally understood to apply to all, or possibly most, members of a fairly small group.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top