Posted on 05/16/2004 9:32:23 AM PDT by jmstein7
The female GI who is at the center of the storm over allegations of mistreatment at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison has told military investigators that she received no specific orders to abuse detainees.
A transcript of her May 5 military interview obtained by the New York Times shows England was asked, "Did anyone ever give specific orders of how to 'break' detainees?"
"No," England answered point blank. Instead she told probers that military intelligence merely encouraged them to keep doing whatever they were doing to soften prisoners up - "that we were doing a good job."
If true, England's admission suggests that the idea to use sexual humiliation to break Iraqi prisoners originated with the accused MPs - and not with higher-ups on site or at the Pentagon.
A lawyer for Specialist Charles Graner seemed to echo England's comments, telling the Times that the orders his client was following were usually general in nature.
"Most are not specific. Some are pretty clear. The exact wording, it's hard to say," attorney Gary Womack told the paper.
Neal Puckett, the lawyer for Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski who oversaw Abu Ghraib, said the testimony by England and others would complicate any legal defense attempting to pin blame on higher-ups.
"I think they are going to have a hard time demonstrating that they were instructed, that they were to specifically to strip these guys naked and pile them up on the floor," Puckett told the Times.
Court records of interviews with other suspects in the Iraqi prison abuse scandal show that military intelligence officers might have authorized interrogation tactics that included sleep and food deprivation and intimidation with muzzled dogs.
But the same witnesses said none of the orders sanctioned hitting Iraqi detainees, building naked pyramids or having them photographed while simulating sex acts.
So the New Yorker Magazine article from Hersh is wrong. Wonder when there will be an apology issued?
What the heck are you talking about? Backup your malicious claims with evidence. Where is the proof she is a criminal.
People in our prisons? Get a grip! Theses are Iraqis and Middle Eastern suspected terrorists.
Well, I hope the "backlash" is in the form of an Abrams M1 tank on the offensive. I'm sick of these people, whether they are in our extended family or not, they have been put on notice.
RB
I disagree. If it happened to me, I would not merely be humiliated. Frankly, I would rather lose my head than be forced into participating in sexual acts with members of my own sex. No. We put far too little importance on sexual acts these days, thanks in part to Clinton.
But the main thing to be worried about is not the effect on the captives. It is what we allow ourselves to accept and to do. It you dismiss this as a little thing abroad, it will become a little thing at home. We walk a thin line already. Almost everything sexual is acceptable. We have one standing restriction - consent. Throw that out the window and what do we have left?
Do not excuse it. The president is right.
It's probably related to the fact that the backgrounds of the contract interrogators is so tinfoil/black helicopter hidden by the administration. It's been speculated, with actual circumstantial evidence, that they are associated with the IDF and Shin Bet (former workers from there or who had been trained by IDF and Shin Bet). That would be explosive information in the Arab world-- that the US is allowing those with such Israeli ties to interrogate Iraqis. So, it's kept quiet.
I think the photo was published by the WaPost (I could be wrong). I've seen it on TV. Anyway, I'd guess the documentation could be found there. I know at least one of the attorneys for the guards has said it. It was an interesting picture-- taken from a second floor railing by another guard. It's the same photo, but from two separate angles-- this one shows the wires and smoke and mirrors of the shot, so to speak.
staged
adj 1: written for or performed on the stage; "a staged version of the novel" [ant: unstaged] 2: deliberately arranged for effect; "one of those artfully staged photographs" [syn: arranged]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obligatorily remarking at the seriousness of the offenses of these troops, I don't see them as being deliberately set up for some other effect. It looks to me like "Gee are we having a party here, or what"
What effect do you suppose that these brilliant minds were aiming at?
No, it's already been said that the pictures were used to threaten other prisoners and the families of the prisoners. Arabs aren't like Americans. Making American prisoners be humiliated would strengthen their resolve. Arab prisoners would be broken by such humiliation. All you have to do is think about how theocratic societies feel about sexual humiliation. Or, just recall that putting your boot on a picture of GHWB in the Baghdad Hotel was considered the highest insult.
Ten years in the Army including company command. I commanded a rapist, drug dealers, pimps in my unit and investigated charges of harrassment (cruelty) in an AR 15 investigation. I also experienced entering bachelor enlisted quarters to give a message to an NCO once and encountered him and (female) guests watching porn movies as recreation. As much as I love GI's in general, I look at those pictures and see nothing but dirtballs without adult supervision.
I also entered top secret sites and encountered the caliber of military police that provide security there.
If I were doing a planned program of the sensitivity you describe, I wouldn't assign Specialist Homer and Maybelle Tentpeg to do it.
If you need evidence Lyndie England is a criminal perhaps you need to watch television or read a newspaper once in a while. People like you disgrace the honorable men and women in uniform.
The women involved should claim that they got p.. uh peeved about the way that the male prisoners regarded them and the conditions of the women in the country, as well as the reports of the official Saddam-era torture and abuse of women in the prison. And so they reacted. They broke the law, but their actions were understandable in light of the hate the men showed for women and targeted at the worst fears of the enemy.
LOL, you gotta stop watching too much TV and start thinking for yourself. Only those in the military can disgrace the military. As a civilian, my actions are extrinsic to the military.
It took him 11 days to write a reply. ;-)
DING DING DING
No more calls, we have a winner...
Well, these people must have taken some initiative because I don't think anyone up the chain of command would have ordered them to have sex with each other in front of the the prisoners and a camera, at the very least.
To the Editor:
Why does the mainstream media continue to bash our troops and slant the news? They are fixated for 3 or 4 weeks now, on this so-called prisoner abuse “scandal”, where 6 or 8 soldiers abused (not tortured) Iraqi terrorists. So the terrorists were made to wear women’s panties on their heads and form a naked human pyramid. Big deal. Punish the abusers and move on. These prisoners are violent animals that were firing on, and killing American troops. They are not a bunch of harmless shoplifters.
Were they beheaded like American Nick Berg? Or shot, mutilated and strung from a bridge like the 4 American contractors? Does the liberal media show us these images over and over again? No. It’s selective reporting, and they never show us any of the good things happening there. How about showing us some of Saddam’s torture videos? They have the tapes. The liberal agenda is all about wearing down support for this war to hopefully bring down the President. The same thing happened during the Vietnam War.
Are things tough in Iraq? Sure, war is hell. Is it as bad over there as the media portrays? No. 90% of the country is secure and stable. Here is an actual quote from a soldier who just returned from Iraq: “I have been more scared of Iraq watching it from the news over here than I ever was over there -- and I was in quite a few little skirmishes, lots of firefights, about 75 hostile raids and I have never been so scared in my life watching it over here on this news. It's not near as bad as people think it is.” – Jeff- Moorhead, Oklahoma.
Let’s admit it. We’re at war with radical Islamists. We’re fighting this war over there because we do not wish to fight it here, in St. Louis or Los Angeles. Al-Queda is in Iraq now. They were there before the war. Saddam is an evil sadistic murderer who financed Palestinian suicide bombers. WMD, in the form of Sarin gas was just found. 25 million people have been liberated from tyrannical oppression. These are all facts, which liberals cannot dispute. Iraq is a central part of the war on terror, and Saddam had to be dealt with at some point. We are there to plant the seeds of democracy in the violence-plagued Middle East.
I guess the liberal mentality is, that war is ok as long as there is a Democrat in the White House.
I beg to differ... I was in uniform until *very* recently, and I guarantee Victoria DelSoul was and is *far* from a disgrace.
Matter of fact, I think the word "disgrace" only applies to one person here. It ain't me, and it ain't her....
Thank you, TS.
I'm not going to be getting into a childish slanging match. May i suggest you find a hobby
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.