Army private 'ordered to pose'

[nycflasher]

...The interview was taped Tuesday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where England, a military reservist from West Virginia, met with one of a team of Denver lawyers who have volunteered to take her case.

Asked whether worse things happened than those already seen on the photos, she said yes but declined to elaborate.

She said her superiors praised the photos and "just told us, 'Hey, you're doing great, keep it up."'

England faces a military court-martial that includes charges such as conspiracy to maltreat prisoners and assault consummated by battery, and could face punishment ranging from a reprimand to more than 15 years in prison.

No date has been set for a hearing in the case.

Six other soldiers from the 372nd Military Police Company are also charged. One, Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits of Hyndman, Pennsylvania, will face a court-martial in Baghdad next week.

After meeting with England, attorney Giorgio Ra'Shadd said she shouldn't be used as a scapegoat by the military.

"You don't see my client doing anything abusive at all," Ra'Shadd said in an interview. "I think she was ordered to smile."

Ra'Shadd said England was pulled into the situations by intelligence agents who subverted the military chain of command. He said they used England to humiliate the men being photographed so they could show the pictures to more important prisoners and threaten them with the same treatment.

"The spooks took over the jail," said Ra'Shadd, a former Army lawyer.

source

-----Hopefully, this all leads to a select group of poor leaders who made some questionable decisions re: the interogation of prisoners. Similarly, we have rogue groups of prison guards here in the US. See recent Colorado case.---Flasher

 

[st8_o_mind]

I think we will see a lot of this as the legal process moves forward. There will be charges and counter charges. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. The Nuremburg principals embodied into law that the "just following orders" defense is not a justification. The USCMJ goes furthhur saying it is the responsibility of soldiers to refuse an unlawful order.

But there seems to be a lot of gray area. Are the CIA or civilian contractors to the CIA and DIA in the chain of command?

The chain of command issues raises two seperate but related questions. One, who knew and when did they know. The second is more difficult. Who SHOULD have know but either choose not to, or presided over a dysfunctional chain of command that allowed the grotesque abuses we are reading about to happen.

Should Rummy resign? General Myers? The Commander in Chief. However you answer those questions, I think its important that the military not scapegoat the troops in the field and avoid the tough questions for those higher up on the military and political food chain.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind


But there seems to be a lot of gray area.

I think that sums it up well. For the first time in our history, perhaps, we are so scared as a nation that many are willing to allow torture in order to achieve our intelligence goals.

Isn't torture inhumane?
Doesn't it go against the very principles our society was based on?

Please... discuss.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind

Should Rummy resign? General Myers? The Commander in Chief. However you answer those questions, I think its important that the military not scapegoat the troops in the field and avoid the tough questions for those higher up on the military and political food chain.

From what I've read, the guy appointed to lead the investigation(forget his name) is a stand up guy and was given full access and freedom from reprisal(however that works) so hopefully the truth comes out.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I find it odd that she is unwilling to divulge the name of the higher ranks who ordered her to do this.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I find it odd that she is unwilling to divulge the name of the higher ranks who ordered her to do this.

Maybe she's scared of being a "rat"?

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I think that sums it up well. For the first timein our history, perhaps, we are so scared as antion that many are illing to allow torture in order to achieve our intelligence goals.

Isn't torture inhumane?
Doesn't it go against the very principles our society was based on?

Please... discuss.

The questions you raised are important. Some will argue that what happened was the result of an isolated group and they do not reflect the morality of Western society. Others will argue that what happended is the reality of warfare, an ugly reality that we choose not to think about.

Personally, I am not willing to accept either proposition at this point. If we do, there will be no need to ask the tough questions about the chain of command and civilian leadership. It may be that after a full and impartial investigation we will generally conclude that one or both of those propositions are true, but we need to ask the tough questions first.

But I want to focus on something else you wrote for a second. You wrote:
"perhaps we are so scared as nation that many are willing to allow torture in order to achieve our intelligence goals." (I fixed your spelling)

I am convinced that has happened in Iraq (and other detention facilities) is 100% contrary to our national interest. I've opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning for a lot of reasons as other readers of these boards know. I've said before that the Iraq war is a distraction from the war on terror, diverts resources from the war on terror, alienates our allies in the war on terror, and creates the very thing we're fighting...more terrorists.

Having said (written?) that, I don't support simply "pulling out,"
"cutting and running," or "declaring victory and leaving" - however folks put it. In my humble opinion, we have to finish the job.

But wether you supported the war in Iraq or not, finishing the job just got a hell of a lot harder.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I find it odd that she is unwilling to divulge the name of the higher ranks who ordered her to do this.

Missed that part of the article. Maybe if they put a bag over her head and shove a lightbulbup her ass they can get that name out of here.:

 

[KLSuddeth]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I find it odd that she is unwilling to divulge the name of the higher ranks who ordered her to do this.

why do you find this odd?

Im asking out of simple curiousity - not tauntingly

 

[NewGuy]

I don't understand anyone going the whole 9 yards by taking a stand and yet not divulging all info necessary. Where is the comitment?

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by KLSuddeth
why do you find this odd?

Im asking out of simple curiousity - not tauntingly

It is likely that her attorney won't allow her to give anything up.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
Maybe she's scared of being a "rat"?

hmmm, let me see. court martial for abusing prisoners vs. defense of following orders. no contest for me if I were in her position.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
The questions you raised are important. Some will argue that what happened was the result of an isolated group and they do not reflect the morality of Western society. Others will argue that what happended is the reality of warfare, an ugly reality that we choose not to think about.

Personally, I am not willing to accept either proposition at this point. If we do, there will be no need to ask the tough questions about the chain of command and civilian leadership. It may be that after a full and impartial investigation we will generally conclude that one or both of those propositions are true, but we need to ask the tough questions first.

But I want to focus on something else you wrote for a second. You wrote:
"perhaps we are so scared as nation that many are willing to allow torture in order to achieve our intelligence goals." (I fixed your spelling)

I am convinced that has happened in Iraq (and other detention facilities) is 100% contrary to our national interest. I've opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning for a lot of reasons as other readers of these boards know. I've said before that the Iraq war is a distraction from the war on terror, diverts resources from the war on terror, alienates our allies in the war on terror, and creates the very thing we're fighting...more terrorists.

Having said (written?) that, I don't support simply "pulling out,"
"cutting and running," or "declaring victory and leaving" - however folks put it. In my humble opinion, we have to finish the job.

But wether you supported the war in Iraq or not, finishing the job just got a hell of a lot harder.

I couldn't agree with you more.
In an isolated way, perhaps, the mistakes in Abu illustrate the tendency of a people willing to resort to the same methods of the very terrorists they are there to capture.

America is only as good as its worst acts, and it is very important that the world see a people(in light of Abu) who will fight just as vigilantly(as in the war on terror) to condemn the type of human rights violations that led us to declare war on Iraq in the first place.

I mean, this incident reminded me of what went on in the stadium in Kabul.

It happened, we must deal with it.
It is irrelevant that most of the prisoners in Abu might have terrorist ties. Otherwise, we might as well as just stop suspects in the street and beat and torture them on the spot.

We must finish the job, now let's finish it the right way.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I don't understand anyone going the whole 9 yards by taking a stand and yet not divulging all info necessary. Where is the comitment?

Sounds like the weak will of someone who would knowingly participate in something she thought to be wrong.

But I don't want to jump to conclusions...

 

[dilloduck]

I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop. When someone starts adding up the numbers of terrorist our troops actually KILLED are we going to have to hear cries of murderers? Charged with war crimes for killing the enemy in the wrong way? Unnecessarily bashed for using exessive force? There are journalists all over the place over there looking for the most gruesome pic or story they can get in the search for a Pulitzer. The peaceniks have just begun to tell us how bad we are. You think maybe making such a huge deal out of Abu is their way of operating with some restraint? We can only hope.

 

[DKSuddeth]

It's already happened dillo. One soldier was court-martialed for hitting a prisoner in the head with a fist sized rock. The prisoner died and the soldier received a sentence of reduction in rank and a dishonorable discharge. No prison time whatsoever for murder.

In another case, and one that was pursued very wrongly mind you, during a cellblock riot the guards shot and killed 3 prisoners. These soldiers were given Non Judicial punishment and discharged from the service under a general discharge. They should not have been punished for this.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
hmmm, let me see. court martial for abusing prisoners vs. defense of following orders. no contest for me if I were in her position.

DK, I thought you knew better than to say that "following orders" was an allowable defense. While it may lessen a sentence, the excuse that you are "just following orders" is not a valid defense. If you receive an unlawful or immoral order as a soldier (or Marine) you are supposed to refuse it. I know that's easier said than done, but it is still the case.

The more I read about this, though, the more of the blame I place on the prison leadership. What kind of dipshit (sorry) officer tells his soliders that it's OK to do these kinds of things? Piss poor, in my book.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
DK, I thought you knew better than to say that "following orders" was an allowable defense. While it may lessen a sentence, the excuse that you are "just following orders" is not a valid defense. If you receive an unlawful or immoral order as a soldier (or Marine) you are supposed to refuse it. I know that's easier said than done, but it is still the case.

The more I read about this, though, the more of the blame I place on the prison leadership. What kind of dipshit (sorry) officer tells his soliders that it's OK to do these kinds of things? Piss poor, in my book.

I do jeff, but knowing who those upper ranks are, one could plea bargain for NJP or something.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
The Nuremburg principals embodied into law that the "just following orders" defense is not a justification.

That's absolutely right. Punish this individual to the fullest extent possible.

In addition, strap her to a lie detector to see whether or not her claims have merit. If so, find out who gave her those orders (offer to remove some charges on her, or reduce the time on any penalties levied), get their version of events, and then court martial them as well.

Personally, I have my suspicions that this is actually a pathetic attempt to shirk responsibility on England's part. But truth or not, she won't be let off the hook.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Asked whether worse things happened than those already seen on the photos, she said yes but declined to elaborate.

I don't know about 'worse' things, but here's a possible reason why she's not speaking up as much. Don't think this is going to help her cause very much.

LEASH GAL'S SEX PIX

WASHINGTON - Shocking shots of sexcapades involving Pfc. Lynndie England were among the hundreds of X-rated photos and videos from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shown to lawmakers in a top-secret Capitol conference room yesterday.

"She was having sex with numerous partners. It appeared to be consensual," said a lawmaker who saw the photos.

And, videos showed the disgraced soldier - made notorious in a photo showing her holding a leash looped around an Iraqi prisoner's neck - engaged in graphic sex acts with other soldiers in front of Iraqi prisoners, Pentagon officials told NBC Nightly News.

"Almost everybody was naked all the time," another lawmaker said.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/20802.htm