Female GI In Abuse Photos Talks

CBSNEWS ^ | 5/12/04 | CBSNEWS.com

[NYC Republican]

Army Pfc. Lynndie England, seen worldwide in photographs that show her smiling and pointing at naked Iraqi prisoners, said she was ordered to pose for the photos, and felt "kind of weird" in doing so.

In an exclusive interview with Brian Maass of Denver CBS station KCNC-TV, England also confirmed that abuses worse than those depicted in the photos were carried out at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, but she declined to discuss them.

England, 21, repeatedly insisted that her actions were dictated by "persons in my higher chain of command."

In the photos, England is seen smiling, cigarette in her mouth, as she leans forward and points at the genitals of a naked, hooded Iraqis. Another photo taken at Abu Ghraib shows her holding a leash that encircles the neck of a naked Iraqi man lying on his side.

"I was instructed by persons in higher rank to stand there and hold this leash and look at the camera," she said.

England said the actions depicted in the photos were intended to put psychological pressure on the Iraqi prisoners.

"Well, I mean, they [the photos] were for psy-op reasons," she said "And the reasons worked. I mean, so to us, we were doing our job, which meant we were doing what we were told, and the outcome was what they wanted. They'd come back and they'd look at the pictures, and they'd state, 'Oh, that's a good tactic, keep it up. That's working. This is working. Keep doing it. It's getting what we need.'"

England, an Army reservist from West Virginia who is four months pregnant, is now stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The interview was taped Tuesday at Fort Bragg.

England is among seven soldiers from the 372nd Military Police Company who face charges for allegedly degrading and humiliating Iraqi prisoners. One soldier, Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits of Hyndman, Pa., will face a court-martial in Baghdad next week.

"To all of us who have been charged, we all agree that we don't feel like we were doing things that we weren't supposed to, because we were told to do them. We think everything was justified, because we were instructed to do this and to do that," England said.

She told KCNC she was looking forward to having her baby and hopefully one day putting the abuse scandal behind her.

[thegreatbeast]

Do you really think someone of a higher rank gave this woman an order to participate in this buffoonery? C'mon!

[NYC Republican]

Saddam hasn't been tried yet... he doesn't need to in order to for me to know he's guilty as sin...

Now that I'm out of work I can say what I REALLY think...

She's a disgusting trash skank, who f***** around, got pregnant, shouldn't have been there, and now is trying to cover her ass... This slut disgraced our good soldiers, and if it was up to me, I'd have someone shove one of those things up her but, that dirty disgusting skank.

[NYC Republican]

Did it ever occur to you to ask me why I thought the way I did? Did you ever think that maybe I'm at work (I was) and don't have time right away to elaborate on everything I post on?

I would have been happy to tell you why I thought she was a liar if you had asked me, instead of telling me to STFU, without even an opportunity to respond.

[Oztrich Boy]

And it's not unusual for a soldier to have a civilian lawyer. Most of them, when being prosecuted by the military, do not feel comfortable with their lawyer being an officer in the military who is being rated by a senior officer in the military.

Should they feel comfortable having a civilian lawyer who holds a press conference outlining the defence case, before he has talked to his client?

[elfman2]

"But isn't half a truth still be a lie?"

Yea, and that’s why I said she’s still a disgrace. Time to find the other half.

[Oztrich Boy]

Whether or not this soldier excuses her involvement by blaming her superiors matters not in the least. She will do whatever it takes to get herself exonerated...and that is her right

I suspect you are incapable of ever understanding what is wrong with that statement.

[monday]

"Did it ever occur to you to ask me why I thought the way I did? Did you ever think that maybe I'm at work (I was) and don't have time right away to elaborate on everything I post on? "

Do what you want, but I wouldn't post if I didn't have time to do it properly, and don't expect a pass if you post an opinion without giving reasons for it. It is like tattooing "IDIOT" on your forehead.

[Triple Word Score]

You know, I don't think that's too bizarre at all.

Or maybe the media....

But still, deployed military members who would TAKE money to do such a thing shouldn't be in the service either.

[clamper1797]

At this juncture I couldn't care less

That is EXACTLY how I feel ... I don't feel ANY sympathy for these animals AT ALL. In fact ... I don't think we have done enough ....

[wtc911]

I suspect that what she’s saying is at least half true....

We'd all like to believe that she's a better person than the one we see in the pix. That desire goes out the window with the revelations today of her multiple partner sex pix from the same time/place.

She is a disgrace, all on her own.

[Sacajaweau]

Her boyfriend is of a higher rank. Let's see who loves who in the end and see if they have a quick wedding for the old "wife/husband testimony privilege". We might be able to add blackmail to her repetoire eventually.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"Well, PFC England, just about everybody there were persons in higher rank, even your boyfriend. "

Good one! ;)

I found the wording a bit odd, myself. Persons of higher rank?? Implying right out loud, that it was not an order from the chain of command . . . The military works with the chain of command, through the chain of lawful supervision. A "person of higher rank" but not a supervisor, does not go around creating chaos by instructing lower ranking persons not in their chain-of-command to do something . . . at odds with, for example, the legal orders the soldier would be getting. And a PFC or Specialist does not go around following the whims and suggestions of "persons of higher rank" who are NOT in the chain of command!

Also, note: "instructed", not ordered. She would NOT have gotten into trouble for defying an "instruction" from a "person of higher rank" not in her chain of command!!

[AMDG&BVMH]

"IF this is true, someone higher up is going to pay with his career and reputation, at the very least. Regardless of whether or not this tactic worked, the American public won't stand for it. Someone goes down for this..."

I am totally with you . . .

OTOH, I said the same thing while watching the compound in Waco go up in flames . . . In that administration, however, no one was responsible for anything. It will be different this time. The Army started the investigations before any publicity . . .

[dark_lord]

One thing I didn't see much discussion of is, would she have recognized this situation as an 'illegal order'? To us now, it might seem obvious, but....consider the following.

1st, the Geneva convention mainly focuses on soldiers in uniform. When not in uniform, those captured are supposed to have identification traceable to military authority. And a bunch of other things. But these folks in the prison were not soldiers, and in fact may be (I say may) specifically NOT covered. And if she was "instructed" to oh, say, take a naked hooded prisoner for a walk on a leash....well, specifically WHERE in the Geneva convention is this action prohibited? And be careful if you pull it up on line and jump on some of the prohibitions, because they may apply only to "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities..." etc. And those prisoners were in fact NOT classified as 'prisoners of war'.

2nd, the Geneva convention DOES NOT specifically apply to individuals. That is, it specifies no penalties for an INDIVIDUAL that violates it (at least none that I read). It is a treaty between nations. But someone can only be prosecuted for violating it in two cases, really, which are (a) the perpetrators own country prosecutes them (which applies here) or being prosecuted as a war criminal by the other side if one's own side loses a war (which does not apply here).

So if she was told - hey, the Geneva convention does not apply to these guys, they are not POWs but terrorists (technically, they may fall under the category of 'spies'), we need to soften them up for interrogation, these photos will be great to pass around to prospective prisoners to be interrogated because we will tell them we will pass the photos around their neighborhood and to all their wife's relatives....would she suddenly jump up and go "oh this is so clearly an illegal order"?

Hindsight is 20-20.

[xzins]

I understand that part of the battle is the media battle. So they shouldn't be surprised to hear their lawyer doing a press conference.

[xzins]

The question for me is do I believe that a PRIVATE could come up with that many photos, over that great a period of time, with that many different prisoners, and that many different soldiers involved, AND not have someone else notice?!!

An officer is responsible for "walking around" and KNOWING what's happening among his troops.

This is either the most grossly negligent commander in the history of the American military, OR this went up the chain of command.

Take your pick. I don't care which you choose.

[eleni121]

Your response makes no sense given the fact that you have not take the time to read the discussion. Recommended dosage: read the thread before posting inanities.

[BOOTSTICK]

I say God bless her, it's so refreshing to see a woman humiliating these stinking animals, and their stinking religion. Turn about is fair play, and when the Islamofascists apologize for their very existence, I'll stop laughing at the Iraqi prison photos.

[libsrscum]

Sir, I salute your post!

[rbmillerjr]

"if it was up to me, I'd have someone shove one of those things up her but, that dirty disgusting skank."

Hey little dude you have issues. Do you hate your mother?