Lynddie England gets 3 years!

Not that I expected otherwise but this is a ridiculously low sentence! Not only a small number of people were used as scapegoats to cover commants given by superiors and practices known but not these people are getting away with it!

That is a ridiculous sentence and it will definately create more trouble in Iraq ( like it hasnt gone pear shaped enough allready...). It is the form of sentence that makes people take the law in their own hands...

...I do wonder if an Iraqi does this to Miss England...will he get three years only? This is just sickening...


On the other hand her story reveals a background that becomes more and more common among armies. X person has a lousy job, chances are he is bossed around and he needs to make someone feel miserable as they do. He joins the army and gets to have, and in turn abuse authority...

The american legal system has reached a new all time low...

3 years, and yet Rumsfield and others who ordered and condoned this not only walk free, but have been rewarded.

ichi :bow:

Pretty ridiculous sentence for an obvious sadist and disgrace to the US Military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Pretty ridiculous sentence for an obvious sadist and disgrace to the US Military.

---

Yup, wasn't she up for a max of 10? She should've been sentenced to every day of it.....

Quote:

---

No officers have gone to trial, though several received administrative punishment.
Graner on Tuesday supported testimony from a defense witness that officers failed to control the guards at the Baghdad prison, creating stressful conditions that disoriented England and led her to take part in the mistreatment.

Graner testified that he, England and others who worked the overnight shift in a high-security section of Abu Ghraib had scant supervision.

"It seems like the junior soldiers were on their own," said Graner, who England has said is the father of her infant. "We had little leadership."

Graner said he told officers about detainee maltreatment, which he claimed was done by order of military intelligence personnel. And at times, he said, military intelligence officers actually were present for the abuse.

"I nearly beat an MI [military intelligence] detainee to death with MI there," he said before Col. James Pohl, the judge, interrupted his testimony.

---

...

I agree with the all the sentiments above. She deserved the maximum. The conditions that created this went far up the chain of command, at least all the way to Rummy.

I still remember some statements by military personnel in Iraq when this first broke. They referred to the clowns involved in the scandal as "those idiots who just lost the war."

Good. If, as everyone claims but no one has proven, she was just following orders from authorities in such powerful positions as the Sec of Defense, she really wasnt in a position to act any differently.

Although I find it hard to believe that Rumsfeld sits around thinking up fun ways to torture arabs, if he was involved then this private had no recourse and should not have been punished.

Interesting. I think her CO should be the one blamed. I don't know if it goes up as far as Rummy or not, but if she did it on her own free will and nobody said a word then it's obviously her fault as well as her COs responsibility for not bringing up the issue, or not having knowledge of it. I think everyone knows how big of a mess Iraq is ending up and so the court found little sentiment to maximize her sentence. I think this "occupation" of Iraq is lost. and I think it was lost before American troops ever arrived. Its just not in America's best interest to treat the Iraqis like Saddam did, and sadly a unified Iraq could only ever be controlled by a ruthless dictator. Not to mention it doesn't help the situation with people like Private England, or countries like Iran and Syria constantly meddling with the process. I think we should opt for the best possible escape plan, supporting the Kurds, disliking the Sunnis, and leaving the Shi'ites alone.

Ablative shielding applies to combat and court marshals.

[Comic strip 206 as it will change in a couple of days]

Good. If, as everyone claims but no one has proven, she was just following orders from authorities in such powerful positions as the Sec of Defense, she really wasnt in a position to act any differently.

She was in the military Panzer , which means she was in a position to refuse orders(if she was indeed ordered) if she thought they were wrong .

Responsibility should go up the food chain imo.

To have not trained soldiers to treat prisoners with respect is gross negligence on the part of superiors - they should take blame too.

The most important is that now the US military have done what they have to do and can move on. In reality, the most important here is not the prisoners, its the image of US military. Surely one can have opinions on who is most guilty or not, but for me, the fact that people have been tried and convicted is enough and shows that US military is better than the enemy and take the responsibility we expect from them. :bow:

The most important is that now the US military have done what they have to do and can move on. In reality, the most important here is not the prisoners, its the image of US military. Surely one can have opinions on who is most guilty or not, but for me, the fact that people have been tried and convicted is enough and shows that US military is better than the enemy and take the responsibility we expect from them. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

The most important is that now the US military have done what they have to do and can move on. In reality, the most important here is not the prisoners, its the image of US military. Surely one can have opinions on who is most guilty or not, but for me, the fact that people have been tried and convicted is enough and shows that US military is better than the enemy and take the responsibility we expect from them. :bow:

---

You are most honorable in your sentiment here :bow:

I second Redleg's kudos for BR.

As a matter of jurisprudence, it would probably have been more correct to award her the recommended 4-6 year sentence that had been suggested. All judges find it harder to sentence an innocent child to the absence of a parent than they do to sentencing the parent for their wrongdoings. Perhaps the clemency wasn't for Ms. E so much as the innocent youngling.

Pappy is too right with his ablative comment. I am annoyed that GCMs were convened on perpetrators while their responsible CO's were only dealt with administratively. I know that administratively does not mean they "escaped" justice, but it doesn't "feel" comparable.

This is an area that always requires attention. As the old Guard/Prisoner psych experiment teaches, abusive behavior is too easily possible in such situations. Moreover, many of these incidents appeared to have little or no value in soliciting intelligence -- the only (and maybe not even then sufficient) excuse for such actions.

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

3 years, and yet Rumsfield and others who ordered and condoned this not only walk free, but have been rewarded.

ichi :bow:

---

Rewarding them? That sends quite clear signals, doesn't it? What Lynddie did is what Rumsfeld and co. wants their wives do to them in the bedroom, why else accept/reward it... ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

The most important is that now the US military have done what they have to do and can move on. In reality, the most important here is not the prisoners, its the image of US military. Surely one can have opinions on who is most guilty or not, but for me, the fact that people have been tried and convicted is enough and shows that US military is better than the enemy and take the responsibility we expect from them. :bow:

---

Well actually I disagree. All this sentence and court case were a sop to justice. It's all very well saying we are superior because we had a case and banged up some minor player for 3 years. But meaningless if you then ignore the systemic failures and grander injustices that have led us to see pictures of prisoners kicked, beaten, attacked by dogs, hung from ceilings, sexually abused, etc.

3 year sentence for one private? Gah!

3 years too many!

We all know my views on this ~D

Being dispelled from active duty would have been enough, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Perhaps the clemency wasn't for Ms. E so much as the innocent youngling.

---

I suspect that's right. I had not realised that aspect and it does totally changes my view of the sentence. I understand there's a much wider context to this, but if you look at the individual herself, it's not like she's going to be abusing any more prisoners in the future.

Lets see... in war more officers get high grade medals because it was their decision that made the heroic effort possible.

In court marshals enlisted get charged because it was their decision that made the henious crimes possible.

Is this a classic case of class corruption?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Lets see... in war more officers get high grade medals because it was their decision that made the heroic effort possible.

In court marshals enlisted get charged because it was their decision that made the henious crimes possible.

Is this a classic case of class corruption?

---

I have seen officers get Courts Martial several times in my military career. Your statement here is nothing but a generalization about one event, and I suspect that you haven't seen the number of convicted officers serving time at Ft. Leavenworth for thier criminal behavior.

Lets see Pvt England did a spefic act.

The Brigade Commander has also recieved something for her failure to command her unit.

The difference of degree, PVT England did a spefic crime - the Officer failed to preform her assigned duties. The criminal offense was done by the Private. No matter how much I believe a failure to command your unit should be a crime - its not, its only a military career ending adminstrative punishment.

Now if someone can prove that someone ordered the guards to act in such a manner - then they can be charged for a crime also. But until then - your building a generalization and that is all it is.

Edit: And I would still hold the enlisted soldiers responsible for following what is clearly an unlawful order.

Do or do not officers get commendations, promotions and medals for the good performance of their unit during conflict?

I would rather see 4-5 but...

3 years seems good enough. She needs to have jail time but nothing to long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now if someone can prove that someone ordered the guards to act in such a manner - then they can be charged for a crime also. But until then - your building a generalization and that is all it is.

---

I agree here. I find it incredible that she would've recieved specific orders to perform these acts. Maybe some general instructions about 'softening up' prisoners- but the amount of depravity displayed by her and others makes the idea that they were specific orders seem ludicrous. Also, less mentioned are the photos of the guards engaged in sex acts with each other- not prisoners. I highly doubt that those acts were under orders, and I doubt even more that any reasonable person would follow such an order.

Sick people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Do or do not officers get commendations, promotions and medals for the good performance of their unit during conflict?

---

Some do - some don't. Depends on how the chain of command feels about the issue. I know of officers during Desert Storm who commanded units that did well - that recieved absolutely no special medals or promotions for it.

In fact Desert Storm did not result in any special promotions that I know of.

Enlist soldiers also get medals, and commendations for performance of thier units during a conflict also.

You made a generalization about the military - Are you now trying to strawman your way out of it now?

She is not the only one being imprisoned for this. Her then boyfriend, quoted in an article above, got the full ten years for his leading role in the abuse as did others. England got three years because she was judged to be a rather simple follower, not a ringleader, and because of her child. Simple as that. Should the punishment go further up the chain? Maybe, but without direct involvement the officers and CO will suffer only with regards to their careers (though IIRC they were a reservist unit anyway). The administration will understandably take no heat since there is no smoking gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Rubbish. Under this administration, it's impossible for anyone--officer or enlisted--to know whether or not they have the authority to disobey orders. Look at the officers who were fired for telling Bush that he would need more troops to invade Iraq, for example (oops!).

---

Speaking of rubbish. Coming from someone who has never served in the military. Get a grib on your hate for Bush and attempt to understand how the military command structure and discpline structure works before making such statements.

Oh by the way - what they did in questioning the plan is not disobeying orders - its questioning and pointing out the problems with the course of action - which is also allowed.

And do you have prove that they were fired for questioning the orders - or are you just making that up also?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Pray tell then Redleg: Did you always know when it was okay to disobey orders? If you were somewhat dumb, and your superior ordered you to beat up the prisoners, what would you do?

---

Lets see - that is an obvious illegal order. So I would go to the superior of that person and inform them of the situation. The part that gets fuzzy is if the superior told me to make them uncomfortable - but the answer for that is the same as for the obvious order - go the the superior and ask them for guidance on the issue.

If that individual confirmed the order as stated - then I would inform that superior that I believe that he is giving me an illegal order and I would not perform the order as given.

THen I would allow the military process to take care of it.

By the way GC - I have disobeyed orders that I have felt were unlawful during peacetime in just such a way. Once as a LT, Once as a Captain. Lets see I got out as a Major - so let that tell you if the process works as it is suppose to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Some do - some don't. Depends on how the chain of command feels about the issue. I know of officers during Desert Storm who commanded units that did well - that recieved absolutely no special medals or promotions for it.

In fact Desert Storm did not result in any special promotions that I know of.

Enlist soldiers also get medals, and commendations for performance of thier units during a conflict also.

You made a generalization about the military - Are you now trying to strawman your way out of it now?

---

Quote:

---

Is this a classic case of class corruption?

---

My question was is there more of a one way street when it comes to positive bonuses compared to negative as per most class systems.

How much are NCOs and Officers supposed to be involved in the day to day runnings of a unit?

A private doing something wrong is an individuals fault.

Half a dozen is a problem in that section.

It would be systemic if found in multiple units across a broad range.

My issue is, is it fair that the officer can get the kudos in higher proportions to the the rap over the knuckles?

Or is it just a mere fact that this is a problem further down with the NCOs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Rubbish. Under this administration, it's impossible for anyone--officer or enlisted--to know whether or not they have the authority to disobey orders. Look at the officers who were fired for telling Bush that he would need more troops to invade Iraq, for example (oops!).

---

Rubbish? Are you for real? You're trying to tell me that if you were in the military and ordered to perform sexual acts on your girlfriend in full view of prisoners and your peers you'd say "yes sir!" and snap to it because you wouldn't want to jeopardize your career? Give me a break.