Lyndie England defense!!!!

[lanparty]

Will Lyndie England's defense help bring down the Bushies. Lyndie was the girl holding the leash in one of the abuse photos.

I'm actually behind Lyndie because she looked downright depressed in the leash photo. She didn't look like she was "enjoying her work" like the other guards!!!!

Apparantly, she wants to call Paul Wolfowitz as a witness to testify on what their orders were.

[Bandit]

1. LOL ~ Smiley Gal didn't enjoy herself ~ You funny person

Big Shit-eating grin means nothing I guess.

[HootieMcBoob]

3. Smiley Gal and Lyndie England are two differnt people

Smiley Gal is blond. Lyndie England did however look like she was all for whatever they were doing in the one "thumbs up" picture with the cigarette hanging out of her mouth.

[tom_paine]

2. Go, Lynndie! Don't take the fall for your Imperial Masters!

Redemption is at hand, Lynndie! Come clean.

[Solly Mack]

4. While her defense might aid in bringing down the "upper level" criminals

she's still as guilty as homemade sin.

She was legally obligated not to follow an illegal order..and ANY order, suggestion, or memo that encourages torture IS illegal.

She gets no pass from me.

[op6203]

9. I agree

Plus she was definitely smiling in other pics....

OP

[lanparty]

10. She's a private in a foreign country!!!!

What do you think they'd do to her if she disobeyed orders. They'd court-martial her ass and boot her with a dishonorable discharge.

I'm sorry, but you cannot expect enlisted personnel to be held responsible for issues of "command and control". They shouldn't be prosecuting a SINGLE enlisted person until they've prosecuted the officers. The officers BY DEFINITION are responsible for the conduct of their subordinates!!!!

But not ONE SINGLE officer has been charged yet in conjunction with the Abu Ghraib scandal!!!!!

If you or I were there, we'd likely follow orders and do our BEST to minimize the damage.

[Solly Mack]

13. Yes I can ,and do , expect enlisted personel to follow the law

My husband *IS* enlisted (just got back from Iraq in April) and I fully expect him to keep his dignity,maintain his integrity, and to hold onto his humanity...even if it means being court-martialed.

Fact is...and this is a fact....if a superior tells you to violate a lawful order (not to torture), then a soldier is legally obligated under military law to disobey said order...and to report the offense.

The enlisted should be prosecuted for what they did...just as their superiors should be prosecuted for the orders they gave.

They get no pass from me. What they did endangered my husband and shamed the country....they aren't the only guilty but they are guilty.

[lanparty]

18. The "law" for enlisted personnell ...

... is largely whatever their Lieutenant tells them.

This is why the prosecution of ENLISTED personell for this is OBSCENE!!!!

I DO think they should be admonished for their actions. But in strictest terms, they are NOT responsible for their actions when they are following orders from their officers. The OFFICERS are responsible starting from the Lieutenant up!!!!!

Unless your under any illusions, these people are trained to kill. And they're expected to kill on command. It is the responsibility of the OFFICERS to kill the correct people!!!! What goes on in the military is not the same as what goes on in normal society. We have no obligation to obey ANY order in society. Within the military ... you ARE!!!!

I think we're back to the arguments in "A Few Good Men". The personnell in that film were charged with murder. But they were merely following the orders given to them by their Lieutenant.

[Solly Mack]

19. Uh, no...that's just not true

Military law applies to enlisted personel as well. Having lived a military life for 10 years, I can assure you of the truth of that statement. You really don't understand command structure if you think an LT is the final word in anything.

And why on earth would I be the one under any illusions????...afterall, I actually live on a military post. I am actually married to a soldier...and I'm the one who actually lives with the consequences of military law.

it doesn't matter what order they were given to torture...under military law, it's ILLEGAL to obey an illegal order. Ergo, they are commanded, by military law, to go by the LAST legal order...which is to follow the Geneva convention. That's why the enlisted are being charged....they failed to follow legal orders. And when they failed to do it, they condemned themselves.


Lynndie England is guilty of war crimes...like it or not. Bush Inc are as well...and they need to go down, too. Yes, the officers are too..but that in no way mitigates Englands responsibility for her actions.

Yes, it's easier to palm the entire blame off on lower ranking enlisted....but it's our job to see that they don't. You want "justice" for England? Help make sure ALL the guilty go down...but all the guilty includes Lynddie England.

[lanparty]

21. Ok, I admit, I am external to the process!!!

So let me ask you. How many times have you directly disobeyed orders from your superior officers??? Were those orders given in a hostile zone????

Maybe I don't live on a base, but neither of us live in a war zone. Make no mistake, IRAQ is a war zone!!!!!

John Kerry has admitted to killing civilians in free fire zones under orders. Does that make him a war criminal???? Should he have been court-martialed for his actions????

[Solly Mack]

22. My husband is the soldier..a soldier who turned in marines and soldiers

for war crimes in Iraq. He reported them to CID as was his duty...he reported them against his superiors advice. Cause it was the right thing to do. It was the only thing to do and keep his humanity.

and please know I am not afraid to say any war crimes in Vietnam should have been prosecuted...no matter who committed them. So even though it's a red herring, I've answered your Kerry question. And I'm sure the family of those civlilians you say Kerry claims to have gunned down would view Kerry as a war criminal. Rusty Calley maintains he was given orders to do what he did....should we go back and reopen that case? It really depends on just how much of the truth you want. Frankly, I want the entire truth out...no matter who has to pay the piper.

War crimes fall into many categories of conception..sometimes it's a single soldier acting on his own...sometimes it's a group of soldiers acting on their own ...sometimes it's a command from a superior....but it doesn't mean they weren't war crimes. The only thing that changes is the circumstances...and while circumstances can be mitigating and point to other factors (like orders given by superiors), it doesn't change the individuals personal responsibility.

I'm sure Lynddie England has a story to tell..and a story that will include mitigating factors for her case....but she still did it.... and in the doing, she broke the law.

[lanparty]

26. Neither of us our soldiers ...

... so we are on equal ground.

First let me say that I think your husband did the right thing. I know how hard it is to disregard advice from a superior officer. I know all the charges one could be brought up on for disregarding suggestions and guidlines.

Somehow, I don't think that the guards at Abu Ghraib were "advised" to treat prisoners the way they did. The military contractors "hinted" that they should connect battery terminals to peoples genitals. They were "advised" to strip prisoners naked and stack them into pyramids. They "hinted" that they should use dogs to threaten prisoners with being ripped apart by a "low animal" (thats what dogs are there).

I sincerely hope your husband is not brought up on charges of ignoring advice!!!!

[DrWeird]

5. Maybe she was ordered to enjoy herself.

She was just following orders.

[Wednesdays]

23. I was about to say the same thing...

What, somebody ordered her to smile and flash the "thumbs up," too?

[Loonman]

6. So if somebody ordered me to kill somebody (analogy)

I'd be immune and they'd be solely responsible, right?

:evilgrin:

[Wickerman]

7. That didn't exactly work out with Charles Manson and family,

huh? Ciggie girl gets no passes.

[lanparty]

12. Lyndie didn't kill anybody.

And I would agree, if it went that far, an enlisted service member should refuse to kill a non-combatant. So far, Lyndie is indicted for holding a dog leash and pointing at a boner.

Honestly, Lyndie England looked downright depressed while holding the leash. She looked a bit snarky when pointing at the penis. But when compared to others in these pictures, she looks downright depressed and somewhat reluctant.

BTW, have you never been in a group where you were encouraged to just "get along". So you make a half-hearted effort just to get people to lay off. This is what I think Lyndie was doing with the penis pointing.

The sick fuckers using the dogs, beating prisoners and stacking are the ones who should get the book thrown at them. And of course, the officers should be KICKED OUT of the military!!!!!

[Loonman]

16. you were encouraged to just "get along".

That still doesn't make it right.

If she had any integrity, she'd have refused the order and taken whatever punishment there is for refusing orders.

[lanparty]

20. Not fair to enlisted personnel !!!!

They are systematically conditioned to follow orders no matter what. Then their is a sidenote ... "Oh BTW, if you get certain orders against treaties than you shouldn't follow them".

Lemme ask you a question. Was Private Lyndie a lawyer???? Was she well versed on the terms of the Geneva convention???? Was she an MP??? Was she well versed on how to restrain prisoners without reverting to these tactics????

She was NOT an MP. She did NOT have the proper training in regards to what orders were permissible to follow in that area. You CANNOT hold these privates responsible for following laws that they are NOT versed in. They weren't trained to do the job they were doing. That is NOT an excuse for disobeying orders!!!!

Those responsible are the officers and the private military contractors! And lets remember, that the actions of Pvt. Lyndie are quite mild compared to the actions of others!!!!

If the enlisted personnell of Abu Ghraib are all convicted for crimes, the issue will be considered "closed" by the Bush administration. They will have found scapegoats and they will be sacrificed for the crimes of those higher up.

Innocence for Lyndie means GUILT for the officers. GUILT for Pvt Lyndie means innocence for the officers. This game is 99% about assigning BLAME!!!! Once blame is assigned the these privates by the public (via the media), there will be no need to prosecute the officers!!!!!

[bobthedrummer]

24. We don't know that-therefore she may have been an accomplice

to murder. Or a witness. A lot of Americans in and out of uniform are now targets worldwide because of her behavior, she has aided the enemy in that regard, and I personally didn't like her references to PSYOPS at all (Col. Michael Aquino's realm of influence):grr::puke:

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

[Ganja Ninja]

8. If I was her attorney I would start by asking her ...

Who bought the leash? Did you buy it? Where did it come from?
Try to show how someone else was leading her on and suggesting what she should do.

I think she's guilty but I don't think she should take the rap alone. She's probably the least culpable person in all of this.

[lanparty]

15. They had K-9 handlers at the prison!!!

It's pretty obvious where the leashes and collars came from!!!!!

[Hunter_1253]

11. I was commanded to do it…

didn’t work at Nuremberg, and doesn’t excuse her actions today. Wrong is wrong, and if you know it’s wrong, question the order.

[lanparty]

14. Officers and SS !!!!

Officers are different than enlisted personnell. And SS are DEFINITELY different than regular army.

Officers are generally considered to have a CHOICE to withdraw and resign. Enlisted personnell really have very little choice as to their station and assignments.

ALL the personnell at the concentration camps were SS. They were the sick fucks who embraced hitler 100%. The individuals who were tried for war crimes were ALL high ranking officers. This has ALWAYS beent he standard. You hold the OFFICERS and LEADERS accountable for their command because THEY were the ones making the decisions!!!!!

[Hunter_1253]

17. Conduct unbecoming a <blank>

There are military statutes in today's service that dictate a code of conduct. Fill in officer, Marine, sergeant, drill instructor, etc into the blank. Breaking military treaties and the Geneva Convention is considered wrong, and it's a person's duty...private to 4 star general...to question that order and not go against the code of conduct. If she faced a Court Marshal for refusing to lead an Iraqi prisoner around by a leash, I doubt she would have gotten jail time or kicked out. She is just as culpable as the people who gave the orders, and because she is the one that actually did the crime, deserves jail time no matter what evidence she can bring forward against her superiors. Don't neglect her responsibility just because you, like the rest of us, want to see Rummy take the fall as well.

[Disturbed]

25. Guilty

She is guilty and so is BushCo, all of them.

What is going to get her a harsh sentence are not the few photos but the Video, which although won't be in evidence but none the less has been seen by the judges on the panel, where she is engaging in sexual intercourse with several soldiers in front of detainess. I seriously doubt that she was ordered to engage in that activity. She is lacking any moral compass and excuses that she was ordered to commit any acts of cruely, abuse and torture won't wash.

The "few bad apples" concept that the Pres. keeps spouting isn't going to well either. Most of Congress knows damn well that this was a system wide policy approved by the Pres., VP, Rumsfailed and throughout the entire command. War Crimes were commited.

Study this:

What is a war crime?
By Tarik Kafala
BBC News Online


Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."


This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes.

The statutes of The Hague tribunal say the court has the right to try suspects alleged to have violated the laws or customs of war in the former Yugoslavia since 1992. Examples of such violations are given in article 3:

* Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
* Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
* Seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science
* Plunder of public or private property.

The tribunal defines crime against humanity as crimes committed in armed conflict but directed against a civilian population. Again a list of examples is given in article 5:

* Murder
* Extermination
* Enslavement
* Deportation
* Imprisonment
* Torture
* Rape
* Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm