Posted on 05/14/2004 1:26:56 PM PDT by txradioguy
Private First Class Lynndie England's contention that she was ordered to abuse Iraqi detainees, thus justifying her actions, simply won't wash.
England and some of her fellow Army Reserve comrades are facing court martial for mistreating captured Iraqi soldiers at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison compound where Saddam Hussein's henchmen once mercilessly tortured and killed inmates. Jessica Klinestiver, England's sister has stated that she is "outraged" because undue blame has been heaped upon England. "That's not like my sister to do anything like that at all," she said.
But the images tell a different story.
Perhaps England was ordered to pose for seamy photographs: One with a cigarette dangling from her smiling lips as she points to a naked prisoner's genitals, the other as she holds an animal leash attached to a collar on another prisoner. But how could a 21-year-old mother-to-be (England is five-months pregnant) deemed responsible enough to work in an enemy prisoner facility in a war zone obey such an order? And then act is if she's enjoying it?
Twenty years ago, I was in a position not unlike England: Similar in that I was a Marine lance corporal — equivalent in rank to an Army PFC — and my duties carried with them a great deal of responsibility for a young man. Dissimilar in that I made a flash decision far different from what England made even when she had more time to consider it.
I was with a Marine Detachment aboard a ship sailing somewhere off the eastern seaboard when a security-violation alarm was sounded throughout the ship.
Whenever such an alarm was sounded, the sailors knew to stop work and stand fast. The Marines then raced to all of the weapons spaces to ensure that none had been breached.
Any member of the ship's crew — officer or enlisted — caught moving in any of the spaces was immediately detained, handcuffed, and taken to the primary Marine post where he was questioned. Once the ship was declared "secure," the detained-and-questioned sailor was reminded in no uncertain terms why he must obey the rules of the ship during a security violation, whether a drill or not. The sailor was then released to an officer in his assigned department, where he usually underwent a second dressing down for failing to follow ship's rules.
During this particular violation, however, one of the sailors was caught running through a passageway and he physically resisted the Marines when he was confronted. He was quite a large lad, and it subsequently took two Marines to wrestle him to the deck in a prone position. There he was searched, cuffed, helped to his feet, and hurried to the primary Marine post.
That's where I — armed with a .45 automatic and a nightstick — was stationed as the acting Corporal of the Guard. When the two Marines brought the big sailor in, I directed them to remove the cuffs and hold him standing against the bulkhead, his legs were spread and his arms were splayed out from his body and above his head. It was just as we had been taught to do.
Being angry, the sailor cursed a few of the junior Marines who began taunting him. I directed everyone to "shut up," while I phoned his department.
Within minutes, another Marine — the Sergeant of the Guard — strolled into the post. He began shouting at the sailor and then directed me to break the sailor's hands with my stick. Stunned, I turned to the sergeant and asked why.
"Don't you dare question me, Smith," he snapped. "Break his f***ing hands."
I flatly refused. There was no need to break bones. The sailor had been completely subdued and was incapable of resisting further. Not surprisingly, the sergeant began shouting, inches from my face, and threatened to punish me severely for not obeying the order. But I had no choice in the matter. The order was simply wrong: It was immoral and thus unlawful. The incident was never brought up again.
Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are bound to obey orders, even if there is a high probability that they may lose their lives. But no one is ever bound to an unlawful order. To do so, as England and her fellow soldiers say they have done, and then to dismiss their own responsibility in carrying out those orders is technically no different than an SS camp commander supervising the shoveling of humans into ovens, and then justifying his actions as those of an obedient soldier.
So how could a group of Americans in the 21st-century participate in the abhorrent behavior we've seen in the Abu Ghraib pictures? Some conspiracy theorists argue that PFC England's military-police unit was directed to soften-up the prisoners for forthcoming interrogations by some black-ops unit operating outside the rules and regulations of the U.S. Army. Others have suggested that orders came from the CIA or perhaps even high-ranking officers in England's chain of command.
If so, the softening procedure went far beyond what it was supposed to be. If nothing else, England's apparent glee and the fact that photographs were taken clearly illustrate that it was nothing more than a series of stupid, sophomoric abuses of power by a few bad Army apples. The entire Abu Ghraib ordeal smacks of a lack-of-supervision, not orders from the top.
Soldiers and Marines weren't perfect in my day either. On my ship, the abuses young leathernecks endured at the hands of senior Marines was far worse than anything seen in the images from Abu Ghraib. Hazing and other martial rites-of-passage ran the gamut from severe beatings (sometimes to temporary unconsciousness), being stripped naked and shackled to pull-up bars, backs and legs whipped with belts and the flat edges of swords, and bare heads smacked with belts and steel helmets. Blooding winging (a ritual wherein newly graduated Marine parachutists had their jump wings pinned directly into their chests). In one case a Marine private was severely burned — the result of his genitals and abdomen being painted with highly flammable boot-edge dressing and then ignited with a cigarette lighter. This incident nearly resulted in punishment for the Marine commander (who was not present during the incident). But no one ever accused or even suggested that President Ronald Reagan, as commander in chief, had any connection to any of it.
Though the abuses at Abu Ghraib made public thus far, are less severe than what I remember from my hitch on sea duty, they are far worse in the sense that they have been publicized globally, and the victims are enemy prisoners.
Thanks to England and her little band of degenerates, the proud uniform of the U.S. Army has been stained, and both the terrorists' and President Bush's political opponents have been handed an unfortunately effective propaganda tool.
Or was enjoying herself having sex with multiple people in pictures shown to Congressmen Wednesday.
The RATS were probably more shocked...SHOCKED over her sex pics than any of the pictures of the soldiers humiliating the prisoners.
IF she had morals she would have REFUSED to participate! And reported this to higher ups.
There's one of the guys going to Courts Marshal over this that is quoted today as saying that if their CO or other superiors had known what they were doing they'd have gotten fried for it. (I'm paraphrasing) So much for the abuse going to the "highest levels" claim.
To do so, as England and her fellow soldiers say they have done, and then to dismiss their own responsibility in carrying out those orders is technically no different than an SS camp commander supervising the shoveling of humans into ovens, and then justifying his actions as those of an obedient soldier.It is different. Englund had even less of an excuse than the SS troops. The Germans likely would have been shot and their families sent to the camps for disobeying, but our military has a procedure for people to follow when given an unlawful order, with no real fear of reprisal if the soldier is right. Chain of command, IG, congressman, it's highly unlikely she would have been punished for failing to do as ordered. If there were reprisal (which would be less than death), those above her would be all the more punished when it's all over.
My guess is that one or more of her multiple "boy friends," who might out-rank her, suggested vague things to her, in a very social way, which she's now miscasting as "an order" regarding what to do. I have the impression she's also trying to say as little as possible while trying not to lie wholesale.
General court-martial sounds about right.
I'll also guess what's his name, the supposed crap-shoot sperm-donor "ends up" backing out from marrying her.
HF
"If so, the softening procedure went far beyond what it was supposed to be."
This guys needs to ride convoy escort around Fallujah. Then he might reconsider how important it is to extract information from prisoners.
Watch out...the latent feminists here on FR are bound to attack you if you criticize Pfc. England without also specifically slamming the MALE soldiers involved in the kinkiness. I know--I made the mistake of saying she seemed to have a lack of morals (gasp!) and had several feminists jump all over my case because I neglected to mention the men.
Holy Crap! That's not the same Marine Corps I belonged to...You sure this was the USMC??
Shakespeare said it best: "Much ado about nothing!"
You are SO right. Those of us with military experience understand that it is not unusual to defy an unlawful order. We were all TRAINED to do so!! THAT was also an ORDER!!
This is in comparison a frivolous example. I (as a female company commander) confronted an Infantry Major on battalion staff who had ordered a platoon in my company to cease their Christmas Party. They had reluctantly complied, I directly nixed his unlawful interference. He countered with the threat that the Bn Commander was going to relieve me. I said, that is up to him; in the mean time, don't YOU interfere in the command of MY company. (My standing up to him was more important than I knew at the time, because there were other times he tried to send elements of my company on bogus missions -- by then we were all on to him.)
The point is: you get the courage to deny unlawful orders from the training every member in the Armed Forces gets. You simply take a deep breath and speak up!
Congratulations for doing the right thing!
But not too shocked to forward cc. immediately to the porn server at Chappaqua.
Bet Slick's got his own set already, 8/12 X 10 glossy.
Well, there's your first violation of Army regs right there. What the hell? Don't these people know that churches were invented?
I agree. Personally IMHO after a year in Iraq...I don't really feel sorry for what happened to the Iraqi's in that prison. It's not like they were jaywalkers or shoplifters.
That's the price she paid by putting herself in the picture.
If it was some knuckleheaded guy who was striking poses in these little Polaroids, we wouldn't be talking about the female troops, now would we?
Don't worry Choose...I got your back on this one. I have a sopbox ready to preach from if they get too obnoxious.
Looks like garden-variety grabassing to me .... the Children's Hour.....if there was some intent to interrogate, whoever was in charge is awfully damn quiet.
The relieved brigadier, Karpinski, pointed the finger at a female two-star from some intelligence-related command who has already been rotated back to Fort Huachuca. That's still not enough to connect the dots.
I can see why someone would say to himself, okay, instead of doing all this heavy lifting with every single Bin Laden wannabe who comes through here, why don't we just take some snapshots of jihadi types having their masculine Arab pride taken away by a 4-foot-9 female PFC and let the fresh detainees absorb the picures' import, personally for each detainee, if he wants to continue to resist cooperation?
But nobody has stood up and said yet that yes, that's what they decided to do, in order to get quick breakdowns and cooperation from people who had time-critical information.
Perhaps "demoralizing" the prisoners to get their cooperation was exactly what this shambles was all about.
On the other hand, I've still got a layoff bet on undertrained, underled guards just messing around with prisoners to relieve the boredom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.