Military Judge Rejects England's Plea Deal

FoxNews.com ^ | May 4, 2005 | AP

[cweese]

FORT HOOD, Texas — A military judge on Wednesday rejected Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea agreement in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal after another prisoner's testimony cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Earlier in the day, Pvt. Charles Graner Jr., the reputed ringleader in the scandal, contradicted a key part of England's guilty plea, in which she said she knew she was committing wrongful acts when she took part in the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees. Graner said that the notorious photos taken of England at the prison had a legitimate use, endangering England's guilty plea to seven abuse charges. Under military law, a judge can formally accept England's guilty plea only if she knew at the time that what she was doing was illegal. The judge, Col. James Pohl, planned to question England again Wednesday afternoon to try to clarify her state of mind when the abusive acts occurred. Graner, who is said to be England's ex-boyfriend, was found guilty in January and is serving a 10-year prison term for his role in the scandal. Pohl abruptly stopped England's sentencing hearing after Graner testified for the defense that three pictures he took of England holding a naked prisoner on a leash were meant to be used as a legitimate training aid for other guards.

[jec41]

Something else, I have no problems, with torturing the sob's. In fact if it was up to me, I would 'outsource' their care,


You might misunderstand me. I really don't care what they do to them. Just don't flaunt it. No pictures, no bragging , no internet. Do what you have to do and keep your mouth shut. Give no advantage to the news or enemy. These soldiers caused their own grief.

[Mom of 2 Marines]

I don't think that Lynndie is the brightest tool in the shed, but at her age I believe there was a certain amount of influence exerted by her "boyfriend" Graner, who is a real piece of work.

What I would like to know is this: the mother of 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano, the Marine accused of murdering two Iraqi prisoners, has started a web page called Defend the Defenders. The purpose of this site is to raise funds to pay legal fees for members of the armed forces on trial, who evidently are not content to make use of what the military provides.

Will Lynndie get any of those funds so she can also hire a civilian lawyer, or does all that money go to Pantano so he can pay his high-dollar spokesman?

Just curious...

[Robert_Paulson2]

I have no idea what other folks and their websites are going to do with the money people send them.

What I find concerning is that the liberal money 'attack our military men and women' machine is so well funded, their spin meisters so prevalent, that our soldiers would have to resort to hiring outside counsel and spokespersons, just to try and get a fair shake in the real world.

This in itself is indicator that these "trials" are for the benefit of the public, and international consumption. If this is a REAL war, we should not give a rip and should defend our soldiers to the hilt. If it's a p-c thing, which I believe it has become, then public perception is going to increasingly become the more important aspect of the war....

and apparently the liberals want it to be that way.
They cannot defeat this logically or legally so they are going with what they know... attacking our military personnel in the press, via emotional feel-good bullshit that panders to the extreme left and right...

the 'panty protesting' crowd is transparently anti american, saying this reflects poorly on us.

Not it does not.
Roasting a private contractor alive, eviscerating and cooking his innards, while decapitating him and castrating him, and stomping on the blackened shell of the man who is now crust and ashes.. THAT is abusive.

Would to God, our enemies were like us, and put panties on his head and a dog collar on him, JUST before letting him go free...

No way is the 'panties are the worst torture we could ever do' crowd, going to win on this.

I suppose we may want to start looking at some prominent former military freepers doing something about raising the funds necessary to hire spokespersons for our accused military men and women.

I am of the opinion that Soros has folks on staff payroll, posting here regularly. I wonder what kind of money they make?

[ElPatriota]

You might misunderstand me. I really don't care what they do to them. Just don't flaunt it. No pictures, no bragging , no internet. Do what you have to do and keep your mouth shut. Give no advantage to the news or enemy. These soldiers caused their own grief.

No, I agree with, professionals interrogators have always done it very quietly [smile]. But I did not want anyone here to missunderstand me. I support the Military (w my money to the wounded, etc), but I hold them to high standards. This woman and her boddies, were vulgar, unprofessional... and HURT the image on such an outstanding organization. I simply wanted to clarify my position. Point well taken!

[ElPatriota]

...doing the deeds. And the people who took the pictures ought to be shot for shear stupidity.

CORRECTOMUNDO again! :)

How can ANYONE, in today's technological world, be such a STUPID, MORON, BRAIN-DEAAAAAAATH, AS**** to take these pictures and not think the catastrophic potential to hurt the Military. You know what? - I happen to believe, that there isn't anyone THAT STUPIIIIIIIIIID!... The one who took pictures.... knew what he was doing! - and he should be shot for treason. Sorry :)

[matymac]

and I agree she should be discharged. I disagree with a prison term until all those in her chain of command answer fully for their role in this affair. If she deserves to be punished than all those involved, form top to bottom also deserve the same punishment.
I still think the "crisis" was overblown and if putting panties on the heads of possible terrorist is the worst thing done than we seriously need to rethink our approach to the war on terrorism.
Boo whoo for the friggin' terrorist and who gives a rat As@ what Teddy or Al Jazera think or what they have to say on the matter, this ain't no popularity contest...And as far as I know Teddy was hating Bush before all this happened and the vast majority of those who watch Al jazera hated us even before the pantie parties...

[newfarm4000n]

If she deserves to be punished than all those involved, form top to bottom also deserve the same punishment.


collective responsibility ?? For individual actions ?? Why can't criminals blame themselves for a time instead of being "a victim of the system". I say let this careless and stupid woman rot for a long long while.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"For cryin' out loud, Abu Ghrab was an issue for the demoncRATS. Medals should be given to our soldiers like England & Graner NOT jail."

So we should give medals to those that give an issue to the democRATS?

[AngieGOP]

You are correct. I don't care if she stuffed lit fireworks up their behinds....I just wish she didn't look like she was at a frat party. It is an insult to those in uniform who take their jobs seriously.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You used the examples before of Hiroshima and Dresden; they are COMPLETELY different.
Only in the minds of liberals."

No, only in the minds of people who don't have their heads up their asses. Hiroshima and Dresden were done for MILITARY reasons, with clear MILITARY objectives. The degenerates at this prison had ONE objective; to satisfy their depravity. There were no interactions. It was the same bestial behavior that happens in prisons around the world, with the same characters in charge. Graner had already gotten in trouble over here for prison brutality before going to Iraq. It was all about the kicks they could get.



"The only people who got a good laugh were depraved S.O.B.'s.
Well then you should be the only one rolling on the floor. "


No, the depraved S.O.B would be you, because you think this is all so funny.

"Instead of the normal military folks and families who think it's funny as hell too."

The average Military family does NOT think this was funny, only the sick, amoral ones like you. They may think it has been overblown (I agree; it was an isolated incident with almost no connection to anybody else in the military other than the perps.) Unlike you though, most military families understand the idea of military discipline and the concept of obligation to obey the rules of military engagement. Moral degenerates like Graner or Lynndie don't make the rules. Nor, thank God, do you.


"Wars are by nature of their execution immoral...the reason for going to war may be righteous, but the execution of a war plan ALWAYS kills innocents, displaces populations and accidently imprisons, tortures and interrogates the wrong folks at times... using means YOU panty waists won't approve of. EVER."

If you would get your head out of your ass for one minute you would find that at no point have I said that I am against the war, or that I even have a problem with torturing prisoners when necessary. There was no necessity here. They made no interrogations. It was strictly for the fun of the guards. We have rules in the Military; soldiers don't get to pick and choose which ones they can obey. When we start letting them get away with obeying the rules only when they wish, we will cease to have a military and will instead have a mob with weapons. Kinda like the terrorists we are fighting there.


Again, you think that war is by definition immoral. The reasons may be right but the execution is not, blah blah blah. What utter crap. If you believe an act to be immoral you are a moral traitor if you do not say something against it. This war is moral. The accidental killing of civilians in the course of fighting it is moral. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima to save American and Japanese lives was moral. Sodomizing a prisoner of undetermined status with a flashlight is NOT moral. Oh, you conveniently keep forgetting to remember that charge, and the charge of rape against some guards. It was not just putting panties on their heads.

You said in a later post than the one to me that you suspect that all of us who actually are standing up for military discipline and against the moral depravity of a few lone guards are on the payroll of Soros. Yeah, sure. Your entire debating *style* has been ad hominen attacks. Anybody who disagrees with you is a liberal anti-military, anti-american lackey of Soros. You spit in the faces of military families with your fantasy that they share your amorality. Most Americans know that what these few soldiers did was wrong.

"They are college fratboy pranks at the very worst. You apparently never were invited to join a frat. And I can see why. "

Our soldiers are not college frat boys. Any college frat boy who did what happened with these guards would be spending time in jail if caught. And your marvelous ad hominen attack really furthered your case logically.

We can all see what makes you so mad about this case. YOU wish you were there so YOU could take part in all the *fun*. It's just the type of thing that gets you off. No need to worry, you can always look for work in prisons right here. They are always looking for people of low intelligence like you.

[Robert_Paulson2]

dresden was specifically carried out by the allies on civilian populations for non military objectives.

read it, and spout your hype to folks who don't remember or know.

tens of thousands of innocents were targetted in hiroshima and nagasaki as well.

nice try to rewrite history.
killing the enemies civilian populations by tens of thousands was what ended the war. it is also part and parcel of our national defense 'mutual assured destruction' policy wherein we have THEIR civilian populations targetted to this day, Russia, China and quite a few others.

War is hell pal.
get the petunias outt yer butt.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Our soldiers are not college frat boys.

---

actually many of them are.
shows what you know.
go back to the democratic underground troll, soros has your check waiting.

[Robert_Paulson2]

It was not just putting panties on their heads.

---

Until proven in a court of law, it is all unproven.
even the pictures.
The lady is innocent until then.
And I don't believe the other crap you liberals try to add in there to make it something YOU think americans will find horrific. Most of us don't find this 'horrific.'

War really doesn't reflect the kind of pollyanna 'morality' you want to imply here. Neither does finding an accused soldier guilty, before they are even tried.

stick that in your morality computer...
YOU find them guilty before trial. Morality my arse.
False morality is all you have. Go back to DU.

Of course, to liberals like yourself, our soldiers were all guilty before they even fired a shot in Iraq.

I find your hypocracy quite ridiculous.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"dresden was specifically carried out by the allies on civilian populations for non military objectives."

You really need to reread your history. It was done to break the enemy. That is a military objective. It's a strategic as opposed to a tactical objective, but it had to do with winning the war. What the degenerates at the prison did had nothing to do with any military objective. You have been told this but you ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your sadistic needs.

"tens of thousands of innocents were targetted in hiroshima and nagasaki as well."

I already stated (you obviously can't read) that I thought that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified and moral. It saved lives. It had a purpose. What happened in the prison had none other than the gratification of moral degenerates like you.


"nice try to rewrite history."

Nice try to rewrite what I wrote. You obviously have never read a history book either.

"get the petunias outt yer butt"

As soon as you get your ass out of yours :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Our soldiers are not college frat boys.
____________________________________________________________
"actually many of them are.
shows what you know."

Again, you are an idiot. They are SOLDIERS, not frat boys. They have all made oaths to obey the rules of the military. What they were before they entered the military is irrelevant. Only a moron like you would want an army of drunken frat boys defending you.

"go back to the democratic underground troll, soros has your check waiting."

Actually it is fake conservatives like you who are more likely on the take from Soros. Saying the most outrageous things to make us all look bad. Pretending to be Christian to boot, when your morality is no morality. I don't believe it mind you; I am not a tinfoil hatter like you. Your not smart enough to make money from your stupidity. If that job you crave at the prison falls through though, you really should give Soros an email.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Of course, to liberals like yourself, our soldiers were all guilty before they even fired a shot in Iraq. "

No, since you can't read, I said from the beginning I support the war. It was the proper and moral thing to do. We need to finish the job by going to Iran, Syria, and the other countries that are actively supporting terrorists.

It is YOU who have found our soldiers guilty. You smear all of them by suggesting that what they do is *right* but *immoral* because war is immoral. An action cannot be right and immoral at the same time. Isn't going to happen. Hiroshima was right and moral. Doing what these asses did at the prison was wrong and immoral. From a military standpoint it was idiotic. Not that that would be a problem for you. War is hell and anything goes, whether it helps our side or not. Whether it has anything to do with winning the war. If they felt like doing it, well, who are we to say no? Military rules be damned. The cause be damned. Whatever their feelings were is OK. If they felt like disobeying their sworn duties, that's just OK with you.

It's moral relativists like you who would have as all become the terrorists we are fighting.

[Mom of 2 Marines]

"Our soldiers are not college frat boys."

Not yet, anyway. Isn't that why so many of them go into the service? To get college money? Look how many got pissed off when they found out they had to actually go and fight - some of them said, "Well, I only joined because they said they'd pay for college..."

At least my kids can't make that claim because the Marines don't pay for college and they had already graduated when they signed up.

[Robert_Paulson2]

you are the one saying SHE is guilty and should be punished... before even tried.

pathetic that you call others "moral relativists".
roflmao...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"you are the one saying SHE is guilty and should be punished... before even tried.

pathetic that you call others "moral relativists"."

She IS guilty. I saw the pictures. She admitted she was guilty. She has not denied that she was in the pictures. Graner never denied he took part in the things he was accused of. The idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty is ONLY a legal concept. Only before the law is she considered that. WE don't have to wait until a trial to know that she is guilty as sin. I don't need a trial to know that Bin Laden is guilty. Do you?

What do you care anyway? You don't believe in morality in war. She hasn't had a trial yet? Neither did anybody in that prison. Which is why hundreds were eventually released after they had been there for a little bit. It was right and moral to round them up and detain them. But we did not know to what extent most of those prisoners were involved with the terrorists (misnamed an insurgency). You don't mistreat people whose status you are not sure of. Not only is it not moral, it's stupid from a military standpoint. I have no problem at all with torturing someone you know to be guilty for information. They didn't try and get any info here.

A moral relativist like you doesn't care. Whatever they felt like doing is OK to you. All our soldiers can do whatever they feel like, no matter what their sworn oaths and their duties are. Now that is pathetic.