Military Judge Rejects England's Plea Deal

FoxNews.com ^ | May 4, 2005 | AP

[Robert_Paulson2]

I agree.
we should be proud of them.
they found a way to humiliate and extract information from the muzzies that did not involve pliers, gasoline and fingernails.

Loreena bobbit got off easier than these soldiers do.

We have thousands of men raped in prison here in the USA every month... guards looking on and laughing. Freepers snickering about Democrats one day being in a cell with their new boyfriends named bubba and such....

these folks in the prison were terrorists.
I don't think lindie went far enough.
panties on the head is NOTHING. NOTHING.

and its disgusting that americans would be calling for her or any other soldiers head over such trivial bulcarp.

[cweese]

Another freeper thought Graner should have been executed

LOL is right!

[dmz]

Yes. 10 years.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/16/graner.court.martial/

[Captain Rhino]

Interesting twist.

The comment "You can't have a one person conspiracy." is telling. During SENTENCING PHASE, ex-boyfriend/father of her child says something in mitigation testimony that causes the judge to think that her guilty plea to conspiracy in the previous TRIAL PHASE was not genuine or that she was ill-advised/informed/served by defense counsel. Tough break, but the MCM is pretty specific about protecting against defendants making false guilty pleas.

She may, indeed, have to go through trial. Maybe ex-boyfriend/father of her child can testify again and get her acquitted. Unlikely.

[Rembrandt_fan]

I'm an infantry vet, not a former MP, so I don't know what guardhouse policies are, exactly. I do know that we as infantrymen were given very strict instructions on the treatment of captured PWs. Interrogation was to be handled by personnel trained in such matters, for the most part, although the situation in the field could be such that we could demand information from prisoners based on immediate need to know; e.g., 'Where's your buddies? How many are there?'--that kind of thing. Sexual humiliation or outright torture were forbidden. An order to commit such acts would have been considered an unlawful one.

Lastly, information obtained under extreme duress, particularly when perpetrated by untrained 'amateurs' like Englund, has little or no intel value. She and her pals did it because they could, not because they were experts in extracting information from recalcitrant terrorists.

[Jaded]

That is such b/s. She knew what she was doing was illegal. They are trained to know that.

[kingsurfer]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/800-mp-bde.htm

The report ordered by commander Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez showed many things that were not okay. Screening processes were grossly inadequete and huge amounts of civilians acused of no crime were kept there. Nothing these "soldiers" did was part of their job. The pictures they took sullied the reputation of the US Army and help fuel dissent against the Coalition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

Taguba's 53-page report, classified "Secret" and dated April 4, 2004, concluded that U.S. soldiers had committed "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law" at Abu Ghraib. [1] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/800-mp-bde.htm) Taguba found that between October and December 2003 there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" of prisoners. In violation of Army regulations, intelligence officers asked military police to "loosen up" inmates before questioning. The report estimates that 60% of the prisoners at the site were "not a threat to society" and that the screening process was so inadequate that innocent civilians were often detained indefinitely. Guards invented their own rules and supervisors approved of their actions. Personnel lost track of prisoners, did not count their prisoners, and kept no records regarding dozens of escapes. The facility held too many inmates and supplied too few guards. Training of those on guard was insufficient, and superiors neglected to visit the facilities in person. Top military personnel disagreed on whether military police or military intelligence should be in charge. Prisoner treatment varied between shifts and between compounds.


A soldier is seen punching restrained prisonersTaguba cited numerous organizational and leadership failures at Abu Ghraib. Reservists tasked with guarding the prison population were inadequately trained, and Taguba faulted senior commanders for failing to address these deficiencies. Specifically, intelligence officers and members of one company, the 372nd Military Police Company, based in Cresaptown, Maryland, in charge of security, took part in the documented abuses.

Taguba's report cited numerous examples of inmate abuse, including:

Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.
Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.
Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.
Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.
Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.
Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.
Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.
Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.

A detainee forced to stand on boxesWriting "I am a Rapest" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked.
Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.
A male MP guard raping a female detainee.
Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.
Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.
Pouring cold water on naked detainees.
Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.
Threatening male detainees with rape.
Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.
Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.

[ElPatriota]

Again like said, maybe I am mistaken, but I have always had a high opion of the Military... because when someone puts their lives on the line - and die doing it - I respect them and admire them beyond belief.

Something else, I have no problems, with torturing the sob's. In fact if it was up to me, I would 'outsource' their care, somewhere like Pakistan or Turkey [smile], where the really know to look after them,[sarcasm] quietly, effectively or else. In fact, I do hope than when I see Bin laden again, will dead... I would hate the idea of just putting him in prion (just like Saddam now), for what?.. they can't even touch them or get the intelligence we need. Ok, enought of this... we maybe have different points of vew. see ya.

[gopwinsin04]

[Robert_Paulson2]

Americans by and large don't care.
Neither do I.
I approve of her actions.

period.

[lilylangtree]

You're stating my thoughts to a "t".

[Robert_Paulson2]

you are right, we should have done a "dresden" on them first.
nobody to whine about panties then.

[risk]

I agree - we should be looking at the people in charge. Lyndie is guilty of having an inept chain of command, first and foremost.

[society-by-contract]

Garner and England should be starved in small boxes until they die, the brutalizing, sick POS. That said, here is my Lynndie:

[Robert_Paulson2]

It's war.
War is hell.
I don't care about the reports, the pc rules of engagement and proceedures for processing enemy combatants.
It is nothing to me or most Americans.
In fact, it's stupid.

[DOGEY]

Graner said that the notorious photos taken of England at the prison had a legitimate use

can anyone explain this?

New reality game.

[kruelio]

I think this is awesome news. She was never abusing anyone. Humiliating? Yes. Abusing? No way!

That's not to say that she doesn't deserve punshment. But she definitely shouldn't be locked in prison for what she did.

[risk]

can anyone explain [what Graner meant by saying there could be legitimate use for the scandalous pics]?

The pictures could be used as threats to other inmates, I suppose.

E.g., "Repent, recant, divulge, and confess, or else you too will have panties put on your head or be inserted into a human pyramid."

I don't agree with it per se, but we're talking about discomfort compared to beheadings, kidknappings, and savage torture.

In Europe when this broke, you'd have thought it were proof that the Americans were truly fascists by the media that was playing 24/7. It's a lesson we'd better learn well: our "western" "friends" aren't really friends, and PR in the "west" "matters."