Posted on 05/04/2005 11:33:02 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Those who left these people unsupervised are as guilty as the ones doing the deeds. And the people who took the pictures ought to be shot for shear stupidity.
Just my opinion...
I agree.
they want to punish her with 160 years. Her commanding officer got 10 I believe.
"She's a PFC so please don't giver her too much credit for creating this controversy."
She may not have created the controversy, but she sure did have a hand in it (on a leash too). I'll bet those photos aired on Al Jazzera and in print in many Arabic publications too.
If she violated military protocol in regard to interrogation, dishonorably discharge her. But, she didn't do anything most of us wouldn't do to a terrorist or war criminal to get information to save a loved one's life.
It's just another example of how the ACLU-like mentality that favors criminals and terrorists more than it has a concern for protecting the innocent has infected even the military.
The acts committed by these idiots were not the acts of the interrogation. They were the acts of people mistakenly placed in a position of responsibility. By the way, do you also think the pictures discovered of Graner and England having sex at Abu Graib were part of the secret mission they claim to have been ordered to do?
Sexual and physical abuse is unacceptable. But, in regard to England, the only thing I've heard that she was involved with was forcing those being interrogated to undress and leading a few around on a leash. If that's all she did, she shouldn't be facing jail time.
If true, those involved were guilty of incompetence and deserving of a dishonorable discharge.
It's ridiculous, though, to put someone in jail for up to 10 years for being incompetent and humilating alleged terrorists and war criminals. She's facing more time in jail than real criminals like rapists and child molesters.
It shouldn't be a crime to humilate a POW. Physical or sexual abuse, yes, that is a crime. Using a dog leash and forcing them to strip naked? Absolutely not.
This is politically-correctness at its worst. Those making mistakes that are trying to defend the nation from evil are vilified as being worse than rapists and child molesters.
That may be true. And if so, they are guilty of incompetence, not a crime worthy of jail time, let alone more jail time than a child molester or rapist.
In fact, what you would do to a terrorist may well constitute abuse worthy of jail time. I understand you how you feel that way. But, given that you do, how in the world can you support seeing this woman going to jail when he motive was to save American lives?
Only in the minds of liberals.
Who are WE laughing at? In addition to the iraqi terrorists with panties on their heads, the american left who finally calls for 'sexual morality' and 'resisiting sexual abusers' but only when they can twist it to try and stain our military's reputation.
Go soak your head.
panties on the head, nude pile ups...are NOT torture and do not even come close to it. They are college fratboy pranks at the very worst. You apparently never were invited to join a frat. And I can see why.
blah blah blah to all your left winged whining about our soldiers committing such terrible acts... oh the horror!!!
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.
Tough.
Lyndie will walk. Get over it.
bye nutcakes.
I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform. Lyndie England and her ilk think it is just play time. She is a disgrace to the uniform and should get a dishonorable discharge and time in prison.
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.