I hope this doesn’t sound too stupid, but what would have happened to her if she had said “no” when allegedly told to pose for these pictures or participate in the torture of prisoners? How would that have worked? Would she have been disciplined? Is there a way to anonymously report this kind of thing or let someone know that you’re being ordered to do something against the Geneva Conventions?
Sorry, but bein a Civilian Prison guard means hes had sufficient trainin to know you dont strip your prisoners pose em in sexual positions and take pics w/your friends. and both had basic military training which includes the Military code of conduct, which would have prohibited their conduct. Neither deserves a pass IMHO
What a load of crap. Most of the prisoners in question were there because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They hadn’t been trying to kill anyone at all. Let alone US troops.
Unless the military kept the personnel in Abu Ghraib totally in the dark, in which case they really should have asked a couple of questions.
She is a twit. Those who played along with her posed nonsense are just as bad, and if it comes to light that orders came from anywhere, military or private, then I hope like hell that the heaviest, largest of books will be thrown at them.
You have this a little backward. It wasn’t England who said today that “it was all in fun.” It was a witness for the prosecution:
No doubt England’s testimony will be something along the lines of “I was coerced into following illegal orders.” It’s up to the court to decide whose claims are closer to the truth. Both sides certainly have powerful motives for lying, so there’s no call to go condemning England on the basis of the very first day of testimony.
You know that, I know that, I’m not so sure the guards knew that.
I’m not saying her behaviour is “excusable.” In my second sentence in this thread I said she should be punished. I do think that fear and hatred can explain barbaric behaviour, in the sense that fear and hatred often motivate such behaviour. Please–I never said Lynd did nothing wrong, only that I didn’t think she was a monster.
I wasn’t trying to argue Lynd’s case in particular, I was trying to argue that the circumstances over there can create a situation where, to someone who’s a participant and not an observer, it seems like degrading prisoners isn’t that bad. Couple the sense of helping your country (“They’ll get more information out of them, which will save lives!”) with fear and hatred (“And besides, they’re scum!”) and I think situations like this can be explained (though not excused).
I like to distinguish between empathy and sympathy. I understand empathy to be understanding anothers position, and sympathy to be empathy coupled with a high level of support or agreement.
I don’t think empathy, i.e., trying to understand someone else’s position, should ever be withheld because you think someone evil. If you do, it makes it that much easier to slap on the electrodes and point your thumb at their nads…
Metacom any idea how many of the guards didn’t participate? there’s what 6, 8? being charged? lots more were there.
First, what PFC England appears to have done is reprehensible and, if convicted, she is diserving of appropriate military punishment.
Second, I believe that people up to the very highest levels of the chain of command were responsible for creating the conditions that led to the abuses committed by PFC England and others. I have not, however, seen any evidence that the higher leadership authorized or condoned the particular abuses that have been reported.
What I do not understand is why there has been no focus on the culpability of the junior officers directly responsible for the supervison of PFC England and her colleauges. Although I do not condone what she has been accused of, I can understand how a young soldier in a difficult and toxic environment can cross the line. However, where I see a significant amount of fault is in the the platoon and company officers that permitted that difficult and toxic environment to spin out of control. I cannot see how we are prosecuting the PFCs and SPCs who did these things without calling to account the Captains, Lieutenants and senior NCOs that did nothing to prevent these atriocities.
I find it impossible to get worked up over Lynndie England in particular, because she is so obviously a patsy. Torture, rape and murder are de rigeur at U.S. prison camps in Iraq, it’s quite obvious it’s been okayed from on high, and the big public trial is this England idiot who posed for some pictures?
This trial is a snow job; the plan is to convict her and punish her, then just drop the whole matter. Within months the general public will remember that “something was done, there was a trial or something” and the horrors can be resumed.
She is in some strange way kind of cute.
I don’t know. I’d like to, though. I’d be even more interested in knowing how many knew and did nothing about it–I think they deserve to be court martialed too. The welfare of those inmates was their duty. Given how the photos were distributed, and that this involved so many guards and occured in relatively public areas of the prison, I’m afraid this number may be rather high…
So that’s what a Cockausian woman looks like!
Rumsfeld has left Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller–the guy who recommended the “techniques for softening up the prisoners” in charge of the prison.
So what’s really going to change?
From the left-wing, knee-jerk liberal, pinko, commie, fellow-traveler organization, Military.com:
Rumsfeld later rescinded the order, although his approval was in effect at the time of the “irregularities” currently under investigation.
And the intent, motive, or prompting for these events does not seem to have originated as low in the chain of command as Rumsfeld:
(That last point gives me a wonderful feeling about Bush-influenced jurisprudence)
bolding mine
By this specious logic, when Hussein is brought to trial, he should simply declare that he had the authority, as head of state, to “suspend” various international laws that might have interfered with his running of the country of Iraq, citing his fellow head of state, G W Bush, who has decided that he can ignore the laws of his own country and has violated the UN charter by invading a country that was not attacking (nor threatening to attack) the U.S.
Nixon said something like, “If the president does it, then it’s not against the law.”
I’m curious about this, too. What if she refused her orders?
Of course there’s a way. Pay close attention to tomndebb’s post #34, and then on November 2nd, send a loud and clear message to the world, and especially the Arab nations, that you will not support an administration that would condone and encourage this type of contemptible treatment of human beings anywhere on the planet, and cast your for John Kerry.
Best propaganda for American style democracy possible.
“Well, when our Maximum Leader is full of shit, we can chuck his ass out. Kinda messy sometimes, but beats the crap out of what you got, no?”
No, according to the CNN article quoted in the OP, it was a second-hand quote from England herself:
(bolding mine)
And I’m fine with condemning England just on the basis on the photos I’ve seen, thanks. Unless she can say it’s the best Photoshop job that’s ever been done. My whole point of arguing in this thread is that whatever is going on at higher levels is a separate issue – a very important issue, don’t get me wrong – but that it does nothing to absolve England of blame.
As unconscionable as it would be to have lower-ranking officers take all of the blame in this situation, it’s just as bad to have everyone get to the point of saying, “Well, I was only following orders” and lay all the blame on the executives. That creates an environment where people feel powerless to do anything, and think that just by voting out the current administration, everything will be fine. It all comes down to individual people and individual decisions.
Right, you didn’t say it was excusable, and I never meant to imply that it did. But what I’m objecting to is the idea that it’s England’s superiors who are the “real villains” in this case. There’s no doubt that there is a chain of command who was aware of and guilty of the stuff that went on in the prison – much more capable posters than I have already provided evidence here.
But I think it’s dangerous to act as if anyone is capable of the same actions if she were put in the same situation. It’s defeatist, and it perpetuates the idea that we’re all just automatons working at the whim of a corrupt administration. Every person has the power to decide what’s right and what’s wrong, and to act on it. Even if she is a redneck.