Drop charges against Lynndie
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
from a Salon article:
"While the world already has been horrified by pictures of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, the Pentagon warns there are many more photos and videos that have not been disclosed."
"While the world already has been horrified by pictures of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, the Pentagon warns there are many more photos and videos that have not been disclosed."
SlickTony
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 25, 2002
- Posts
- 6,344
Black people were often lynched, right up into the 30s, and the lynchings were not only viewed as public events like fireworks displays to which people brought picnic lunches, but they were photographed and the photographs made up into postcards which people sent to their friends, often with an arrow pointing to them if they happened to be in the picture.
One would have thought that People Didn't Do This Anymore.
BTW, does anybody besides me think it's weird that the whole country--or at least a lot of very loud voices--in my country--was howling with outrage over a two-second view of Janet Jackson's tit, but are accepting with equanimity, in the name of freedom of information, a lot of BDSM photos spashed all over public print?
One would have thought that People Didn't Do This Anymore.
BTW, does anybody besides me think it's weird that the whole country--or at least a lot of very loud voices--in my country--was howling with outrage over a two-second view of Janet Jackson's tit, but are accepting with equanimity, in the name of freedom of information, a lot of BDSM photos spashed all over public print?
Last edited:
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Could the occupation of Iraq have been planned more incompetently? Did we donate new band instruments to a high school civics class in exchange for a plan to rebuild the civil structure? Were any military strategists consulted?
It's hard not to see this entire episode as the end product of the poor planning that led to the need for haphazard hiring of civilians, to be intermingled with military personnel with no clear chain of command. The Sec. of Defense never exactly answered Senator McCain's question about who was in charge of the interrogations. If he doesn't know, did the MPs know?
We put these people into a situation so surreal, it's like nothing they've been trained for. They work in a dungeon that should have been history as soon as we evicted its original owners. Contrary to all the hearty pep talks about bringing democracy to Iraq, they discover that they're supposed to use this dungeon for essentially the same purpose Saddam Hussein used it for - to make difficult prisoners "have a bad night," "get the treatment," and be "loosened up." We screw up the alleged rebuilding to the extent that the civilian population outside the prison walls hates them almost as much as the ones in the cells. And we make them answer not just to military officers, but to mysterious civilians whose chosen profession is Freelance Interrogator.
Then we give them some handcuffs and leashes and a camera, turn our backs, and make dinner reservations in Georgetown. Nothing bad will happen, right?
Not all of the criminals are in the photographs. Or in Iraq, for that matter.
It's hard not to see this entire episode as the end product of the poor planning that led to the need for haphazard hiring of civilians, to be intermingled with military personnel with no clear chain of command. The Sec. of Defense never exactly answered Senator McCain's question about who was in charge of the interrogations. If he doesn't know, did the MPs know?
We put these people into a situation so surreal, it's like nothing they've been trained for. They work in a dungeon that should have been history as soon as we evicted its original owners. Contrary to all the hearty pep talks about bringing democracy to Iraq, they discover that they're supposed to use this dungeon for essentially the same purpose Saddam Hussein used it for - to make difficult prisoners "have a bad night," "get the treatment," and be "loosened up." We screw up the alleged rebuilding to the extent that the civilian population outside the prison walls hates them almost as much as the ones in the cells. And we make them answer not just to military officers, but to mysterious civilians whose chosen profession is Freelance Interrogator.
Then we give them some handcuffs and leashes and a camera, turn our backs, and make dinner reservations in Georgetown. Nothing bad will happen, right?
Not all of the criminals are in the photographs. Or in Iraq, for that matter.
G
Guest
Guest
Yes, I know. Glad you made the point. P.shereads said:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Zimbardo's homepage
http://www.zimbardo.com/zimbardo.html
====
prison experimient home page, with slides
http://www.prisonexp.org/
=====
A brief account
http://psychology.about.com/library/weekly/aa060100b.htm
"From Sing Sing to the Basement of Jordan Hall" > Page 1, 2, 3, 4
In August 1971, an advertisement appeared in the Palo Alto Times: "Male college students needed for psychological study of prison life. $15 per day for 1-2 weeks..." Seventy men responded. Among them, two dozen were chosen to participate in the experiment because based on interviews and a battery of psychological tests they were judged to be the most normal, average and healthy. They were then assigned randomly, by a flip of coin, either to be guards or prisoners. Those assigned to be prisoners were subsequently "arrested" in their homes by Palo Alto police.
They were booked at a real jail, then blindfolded and led to the basement of Jordan Hall, which had been remodeled to resemble a real prison. Each prisoner was searched, stripped naked and deloused. They were then made to wear smocks with their prison ID numbers both in front and in back. Those assigned to be guards were given uniforms and instructed to maintain control of the prison but not to use violence.
What happened next was so shocking that the experimenters (i.e., the psychologists) had to call off the planned two-week experiment after only six days. Two days into the experiments, the prisoners started to exhibit rebellious behavior. They began to taunt and curse the guards and even stage a revolt. The guards were enraged and retaliated, initially by using a fire extinguisher. They broke into each cell, stripped the prisoners naked, took the beds out, forced the ringleaders of the prisoner rebellion into solitary confinement, and generally began to harass and intimidate the prisoners.
They also applied psychological tactics such as setting up a "privilege cell" for model prisoners to break the solidarity among prisoners. Alternately, they also put "bad prisoners" in the "privilege cell" in order to create confusion, suspicion, and aggression among prisoners. By then, these research participants had really taken on the roles that they were randomly assigned to play.
Guards applied total control on each prisoner's life, including going to the toilet. Prisoners were often not allowed to use the toilet and forced to urinate or defecate in a bucket in their cell, but not allowed to empty the buckets. Repeatedly, guards also punished prisoners by forcing them to do push-ups, jumping jacks, cleaning out toilet bowls with their bare hands, and acting out other degrading scenarios. Often, they also coerced prisoners to become snitches in exchange for reduced abuse.
Especially when they were bored or thought that the experimenters were not watching, their treatment to the prisoners would escalate and became more pornographic. The humiliation and dehumanization got so severe, that the experimenters had to frequently remind the guards to refrain from such tactics.
The prisoners, on the other hand, started to experience acute emotional disturbance and rage. They exhibited disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, withdrawing, and behaving in pathological ways. As a result, researchers had to release five prisoners from the experiment prematurely. Other people connected to the experiment were also sucked in by the situation.
The experimenters forgot that they were there to observe and collect data. Instead, they started to assume the role of prison staff and supervisor. A priest who visited the prison started to contact parents of the prisoners about arranging lawyers to bail them out. The parents, who had visited the prison themselves, seem to also have forgot that theirs sons had the right to withdraw from the experiment. They actually started to arrange lawyers. And a lawyer actually came... Next Page > Stanford Prison Experiment (Cont'd) > 1, 2, 3, 4
http://www.zimbardo.com/zimbardo.html
====
prison experimient home page, with slides
http://www.prisonexp.org/
=====
A brief account
http://psychology.about.com/library/weekly/aa060100b.htm
"From Sing Sing to the Basement of Jordan Hall" > Page 1, 2, 3, 4
In August 1971, an advertisement appeared in the Palo Alto Times: "Male college students needed for psychological study of prison life. $15 per day for 1-2 weeks..." Seventy men responded. Among them, two dozen were chosen to participate in the experiment because based on interviews and a battery of psychological tests they were judged to be the most normal, average and healthy. They were then assigned randomly, by a flip of coin, either to be guards or prisoners. Those assigned to be prisoners were subsequently "arrested" in their homes by Palo Alto police.
They were booked at a real jail, then blindfolded and led to the basement of Jordan Hall, which had been remodeled to resemble a real prison. Each prisoner was searched, stripped naked and deloused. They were then made to wear smocks with their prison ID numbers both in front and in back. Those assigned to be guards were given uniforms and instructed to maintain control of the prison but not to use violence.
What happened next was so shocking that the experimenters (i.e., the psychologists) had to call off the planned two-week experiment after only six days. Two days into the experiments, the prisoners started to exhibit rebellious behavior. They began to taunt and curse the guards and even stage a revolt. The guards were enraged and retaliated, initially by using a fire extinguisher. They broke into each cell, stripped the prisoners naked, took the beds out, forced the ringleaders of the prisoner rebellion into solitary confinement, and generally began to harass and intimidate the prisoners.
They also applied psychological tactics such as setting up a "privilege cell" for model prisoners to break the solidarity among prisoners. Alternately, they also put "bad prisoners" in the "privilege cell" in order to create confusion, suspicion, and aggression among prisoners. By then, these research participants had really taken on the roles that they were randomly assigned to play.
Guards applied total control on each prisoner's life, including going to the toilet. Prisoners were often not allowed to use the toilet and forced to urinate or defecate in a bucket in their cell, but not allowed to empty the buckets. Repeatedly, guards also punished prisoners by forcing them to do push-ups, jumping jacks, cleaning out toilet bowls with their bare hands, and acting out other degrading scenarios. Often, they also coerced prisoners to become snitches in exchange for reduced abuse.
Especially when they were bored or thought that the experimenters were not watching, their treatment to the prisoners would escalate and became more pornographic. The humiliation and dehumanization got so severe, that the experimenters had to frequently remind the guards to refrain from such tactics.
The prisoners, on the other hand, started to experience acute emotional disturbance and rage. They exhibited disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, withdrawing, and behaving in pathological ways. As a result, researchers had to release five prisoners from the experiment prematurely. Other people connected to the experiment were also sucked in by the situation.
The experimenters forgot that they were there to observe and collect data. Instead, they started to assume the role of prison staff and supervisor. A priest who visited the prison started to contact parents of the prisoners about arranging lawyers to bail them out. The parents, who had visited the prison themselves, seem to also have forgot that theirs sons had the right to withdraw from the experiment. They actually started to arrange lawyers. And a lawyer actually came... Next Page > Stanford Prison Experiment (Cont'd) > 1, 2, 3, 4
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Lewd said,
Pure,
You are having a fucking laugh surely????
Prisoners of war/conflict/call it what you will, deserve to be treated with a certain respect.
You do NOT treat prisoners of war in the disgusting way as portrayed in the pictures I've seen.
EVERYBODY involved, from Lynndie up to the prison General should be put on court-martial for these acts and, if found guilty, pay for their actions with jail time. They have committed acts contrary to the Geneva convention, among many other crimes.
How the hell can we cry out when our people, when taken prisoner are mis-treated, when we are guilty of the same??
Let her off??
She deserves to be treated the same way!
"the same way"-- i.e., violate the conventions you're endorsing in the same message. You thirst for revenge.
Perhaps everyone should pay, but why equally. Scale the punishments, from a reprimand for her to jail for Rumsfeld. Curious why you stopped at the "Prison General" (=head of prisons?)
====
upfront said,
I read that paragraph three times with growing disbelief.
"... who had the misfortune to be photographed with a leash tied to an Iraqi's neck". Awwww, poor woman!
It's a wing of a prison over a several month period with dozens of guards, their supervisors, and higher administrators, up to the pentagon. The footsoldiers in the photos are indeed unfortunate, as for example in being pilloried by you here as much (or more) than those who instigated and directed the whole operation.
---
Lewd:
"Poor woman" indeed!
I suppose she "just happened" to be photographed posing, making fun of prisoners genitals too??
Lewd, you're complicating the picture by citing your buddy as if it were me. I did not say, "poor woman."
By the way, what brig time do you think appropriate for making fun of a man's genitals? 3 months? A year?
====
liar said,
I'm with lewd.
There are, simply put, things that you just do not do.
This soldier was most certainly not alone in degradingly humiliating prisoners of war, protected by the geneva convention as well as common god damn decency. But does that mean that she was innocent? Give me a break.
I didn't say she was innocent, i.e., did nothing wrong. I said her guilt, in a legal sense, is minimal. In view of the leaks compromising her and not the higher ups, the case against her is fatally compromised; it tends to throw the administration of justice into disrepute. Hence the case should be thrown out.
She, as well as everyone else who can be smoked out as participating in this, and everyone responsible who either were active in these actions, or looked the other way, or were criminally ignorant, deserveds to be put behind bars.
This would be a patent injustice. You seem entirely unfamiliar with the Nuremburg trials, and the idea of higher-ups' primary responsibility. Indeed you offend common sense, in your treatment of complicated crimes, i.e., you'd put the executive defrauder in jail as long as his secretary??
-----
pussy chaser said,
I agree lewd..but no matter what someone is going to fall hard to appease the iraqi's, as long as it is a guilty party..no probs
All of you fellows are so caught up in your outrage that you make little sense, other than 'hang em all.' Is this 'hang the little guy out to dry' attitude a feature of a self-designated righteous group of macho males?
What, if anything, would activate the higher thought processes? I see mainly lynching urges channeled through the keyboard.
Pure,
You are having a fucking laugh surely????
Prisoners of war/conflict/call it what you will, deserve to be treated with a certain respect.
You do NOT treat prisoners of war in the disgusting way as portrayed in the pictures I've seen.
EVERYBODY involved, from Lynndie up to the prison General should be put on court-martial for these acts and, if found guilty, pay for their actions with jail time. They have committed acts contrary to the Geneva convention, among many other crimes.
How the hell can we cry out when our people, when taken prisoner are mis-treated, when we are guilty of the same??
Let her off??
She deserves to be treated the same way!
"the same way"-- i.e., violate the conventions you're endorsing in the same message. You thirst for revenge.
Perhaps everyone should pay, but why equally. Scale the punishments, from a reprimand for her to jail for Rumsfeld. Curious why you stopped at the "Prison General" (=head of prisons?)
====
upfront said,
I read that paragraph three times with growing disbelief.
"... who had the misfortune to be photographed with a leash tied to an Iraqi's neck". Awwww, poor woman!
It's a wing of a prison over a several month period with dozens of guards, their supervisors, and higher administrators, up to the pentagon. The footsoldiers in the photos are indeed unfortunate, as for example in being pilloried by you here as much (or more) than those who instigated and directed the whole operation.
---
Lewd:
"Poor woman" indeed!
I suppose she "just happened" to be photographed posing, making fun of prisoners genitals too??
Lewd, you're complicating the picture by citing your buddy as if it were me. I did not say, "poor woman."
By the way, what brig time do you think appropriate for making fun of a man's genitals? 3 months? A year?
====
liar said,
I'm with lewd.
There are, simply put, things that you just do not do.
This soldier was most certainly not alone in degradingly humiliating prisoners of war, protected by the geneva convention as well as common god damn decency. But does that mean that she was innocent? Give me a break.
I didn't say she was innocent, i.e., did nothing wrong. I said her guilt, in a legal sense, is minimal. In view of the leaks compromising her and not the higher ups, the case against her is fatally compromised; it tends to throw the administration of justice into disrepute. Hence the case should be thrown out.
She, as well as everyone else who can be smoked out as participating in this, and everyone responsible who either were active in these actions, or looked the other way, or were criminally ignorant, deserveds to be put behind bars.
This would be a patent injustice. You seem entirely unfamiliar with the Nuremburg trials, and the idea of higher-ups' primary responsibility. Indeed you offend common sense, in your treatment of complicated crimes, i.e., you'd put the executive defrauder in jail as long as his secretary??
-----
pussy chaser said,
I agree lewd..but no matter what someone is going to fall hard to appease the iraqi's, as long as it is a guilty party..no probs
All of you fellows are so caught up in your outrage that you make little sense, other than 'hang em all.' Is this 'hang the little guy out to dry' attitude a feature of a self-designated righteous group of macho males?
What, if anything, would activate the higher thought processes? I see mainly lynching urges channeled through the keyboard.
Last edited:
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Thanks J.
[i"Newjack" is the term for a new prison guard at SingSing, where the author of this book - having been denied access as a journalist - applied for training as a guard and worked undercover for a year. I recommend this if you have an interest in how power is wielded by people in uniform, and by the ones they guard. Not the same dynamic as a p.o.w. prison in a foreign country, but there are insights here into the "infantalizing" of prisoners and how they and the guards react.[/i]
Newjack: Guarding SingSing
by Ted Conover
The National Book Critics Circle Award
------------------------------------------------------------------------
excerpts from amazon and publishers's weekly reviews:
Conover correctly and vividly captures the essence of that life, its tedium interspersed with the adrenaline rush of an "incident" and the edge of fear that accompanies every action. He also details how the guards experience their own feelings of confinement, often at the hands of the inmates:
"A consequence of putting men in cells and controlling their movements is that they can do almost nothing for themselves. For their various needs they are dependent on one person, their gallery officer. Instead of feeling like a big, tough guard, the gallery officer at the end of the day often feels like a waiter serving a hundred tables or like the mother of a nightmarishly large brood of sullen, dangerous, and demanding children. When grown men are infantilized, most don't take to it too nicely."
Given the monotony, dehumanization, and imminent dangers, why would anyone choose this profession? A good accompanying volume is Lucien X. Lombardo's Guards Imprisoned (1981. o.p.), which points out that, in areas of high unemployment, these are the most lucrative jobs requiring a minimal amount of education. Furthermore, some officers- not all- can wield a kind of power hard to emulate in the outside world.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...ding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
_
[i"Newjack" is the term for a new prison guard at SingSing, where the author of this book - having been denied access as a journalist - applied for training as a guard and worked undercover for a year. I recommend this if you have an interest in how power is wielded by people in uniform, and by the ones they guard. Not the same dynamic as a p.o.w. prison in a foreign country, but there are insights here into the "infantalizing" of prisoners and how they and the guards react.[/i]
Newjack: Guarding SingSing
by Ted Conover
The National Book Critics Circle Award
------------------------------------------------------------------------
excerpts from amazon and publishers's weekly reviews:
Conover correctly and vividly captures the essence of that life, its tedium interspersed with the adrenaline rush of an "incident" and the edge of fear that accompanies every action. He also details how the guards experience their own feelings of confinement, often at the hands of the inmates:
"A consequence of putting men in cells and controlling their movements is that they can do almost nothing for themselves. For their various needs they are dependent on one person, their gallery officer. Instead of feeling like a big, tough guard, the gallery officer at the end of the day often feels like a waiter serving a hundred tables or like the mother of a nightmarishly large brood of sullen, dangerous, and demanding children. When grown men are infantilized, most don't take to it too nicely."
Given the monotony, dehumanization, and imminent dangers, why would anyone choose this profession? A good accompanying volume is Lucien X. Lombardo's Guards Imprisoned (1981. o.p.), which points out that, in areas of high unemployment, these are the most lucrative jobs requiring a minimal amount of education. Furthermore, some officers- not all- can wield a kind of power hard to emulate in the outside world.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...ding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
_
KarenAM
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2004
- Posts
- 576
One of the stranger and yet not uncommon fallicies I encounter is the idea that if person #1 does a bad thing and person #2 does something worse, then person #1 should be forgiven. In this case:
Ms. England was photographed mistreating Iraqi prisoners. There is enough evidence to accuse her of breaking international law regarding the treatment of prisoners.
Donald Rumsfeld and others in power in the American government failed to follow international law regarding the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. There seems to be enough evidence to accuse Mr. Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration of violating international law.
The fact the Mr. Rumsfeld is Ms. England's boss, and the fact that, having more power, he can be accused of more aggregious crimes than she is accused of, does not mean that she didn't commit crimes. It does not excuse her behavior. If she wishes to present evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld or her other superiors were complicent in her actions, she is perfectly permitted to do so at her trial (and I would hope she would).
But to drop the charges against her, as this thread suggests, simply because there are others who have committed more severe crimes, makes no sense to me at all. The crimes of others do not excuse hers.
Ms. England was photographed mistreating Iraqi prisoners. There is enough evidence to accuse her of breaking international law regarding the treatment of prisoners.
Donald Rumsfeld and others in power in the American government failed to follow international law regarding the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. There seems to be enough evidence to accuse Mr. Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration of violating international law.
The fact the Mr. Rumsfeld is Ms. England's boss, and the fact that, having more power, he can be accused of more aggregious crimes than she is accused of, does not mean that she didn't commit crimes. It does not excuse her behavior. If she wishes to present evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld or her other superiors were complicent in her actions, she is perfectly permitted to do so at her trial (and I would hope she would).
But to drop the charges against her, as this thread suggests, simply because there are others who have committed more severe crimes, makes no sense to me at all. The crimes of others do not excuse hers.
Rumple Foreskin
The AH Patriarch
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2002
- Posts
- 11,109
Pure, et al,
Here's one old "grunts" take on the situation.
I agree with Pure that Lynndie shouldn't be made an "example." And there are mitigating circumstances. She was a country girl who fell in with, and reportedly got knocked up by, a socio-path who'd been fired from two civilian security guard jobs.
But IMHO, that's a reason, not an excuse. She could have pulled a Nancy Reagan and just said, "No."
Based on current information, I believe the very least she should get is a dishonorable discharge. For me, the reason is simple, her actions dishonored the uniform I wore, the one millions still wear. And by so doing, she made the life of the combat soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan even more dangerous.
RF
Here's one old "grunts" take on the situation.
I agree with Pure that Lynndie shouldn't be made an "example." And there are mitigating circumstances. She was a country girl who fell in with, and reportedly got knocked up by, a socio-path who'd been fired from two civilian security guard jobs.
But IMHO, that's a reason, not an excuse. She could have pulled a Nancy Reagan and just said, "No."
Based on current information, I believe the very least she should get is a dishonorable discharge. For me, the reason is simple, her actions dishonored the uniform I wore, the one millions still wear. And by so doing, she made the life of the combat soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan even more dangerous.
RF
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
I just know we're going to be dissatisfied about this. Prosecuting the flunkies just doesn't cut it. But one of the things money can buy is impunity.
I knew a ball player from a rich family who was dead gorgeous, but he used to bitch slap his girlfriends into blowing him on the first or second date, as soon as he could get some privacy. Date rape in the strongest sense, but even though they'd all drop him, there seemed to be an endless supply of women willing to line up to be next. He was good looking, and in good shape from his athletics, and he was rich, but it seemed to me women ought to talk to each other a little more. He did this all through high school and never got in a bit of difficulty with the legal system, the ball team, any of their brothers except for two, nobody.
Scot free. Look at Ollie North! Henry K! So many monsters with impunity.
Not that the justice system is any great shakes. The cops lie, money talks...
Abbie Hoffman (I can explain him if we need to) had finally been found about seven months before the 1987 special made for TV about the twentieth anniversary of the Sgt. Pepper Album. (It was twenty years ago today...)
They interviewed George, who maintained that All You Need really Is Love, and that was his story and he was sticking to it. (Good old George.)
Abbie was interviewed for the special too. He said all you need is justice. Love you can do on your own time, but without justice the whole society is hollow, and rings false, like a gold-plated lead coin.
I knew a ball player from a rich family who was dead gorgeous, but he used to bitch slap his girlfriends into blowing him on the first or second date, as soon as he could get some privacy. Date rape in the strongest sense, but even though they'd all drop him, there seemed to be an endless supply of women willing to line up to be next. He was good looking, and in good shape from his athletics, and he was rich, but it seemed to me women ought to talk to each other a little more. He did this all through high school and never got in a bit of difficulty with the legal system, the ball team, any of their brothers except for two, nobody.
Scot free. Look at Ollie North! Henry K! So many monsters with impunity.
Not that the justice system is any great shakes. The cops lie, money talks...
Abbie Hoffman (I can explain him if we need to) had finally been found about seven months before the 1987 special made for TV about the twentieth anniversary of the Sgt. Pepper Album. (It was twenty years ago today...)
They interviewed George, who maintained that All You Need really Is Love, and that was his story and he was sticking to it. (Good old George.)
Abbie was interviewed for the special too. He said all you need is justice. Love you can do on your own time, but without justice the whole society is hollow, and rings false, like a gold-plated lead coin.
G
Guest
Guest
I see the outrage but not something to label simplistically an "attitude", nor does everyone here and on other threads have a lynch mob mentality.Pure said:
"What, if anything, would activate the higher thought processes?" is one of the most arrogant and self-righteous statements I've read by you.
Perdita
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
shereads said:
The worst one is in the White House...
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
Calculated and specific 'insults' are the trademark of 2 kinds of people. Those wishing to provoke arguement for their own salacious tittilation, and those seeking 'other' gratification.
The same can be said for contentious (read specious) statements intended purely to provoke response.
The first often follows the second.
Gauche
The same can be said for contentious (read specious) statements intended purely to provoke response.
The first often follows the second.
Gauche
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
shereads said:
I assumed that the press deliberately obscured the faces of the prisoners to keep from embarrassing them further.
Shortly after Viet Nam, I worked in a shipyard with a young vet who looked just like everyone's HS quarterback, and he used to tell us stories of how they'd slice the ears off dead Viet Cong for souvenirs. He'd even brought some home with him, though he never brought one to work, thank God. He couldn't understand it when we'd look at him in horror.
I often think about this guy, one of the sweetest and most bewildered guys you'd ever meet. He really wanted to re-up, but by then the war was winding down.
That's what war does to you, though. The idea that these kids were deviant monsters is just dead wrong, I'm sure. They just got caught up in the war.
---dr.M.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Former prisoners
As the British Empire was wound up and the Commonwealth of Nations took its place, many people who had been prisoners under British rule became leaders in the newly independent countries. Some of them came to Buckingham Palace to meet the Queen.
One even joked that it was a pleasure to meet Her Majesty in person instead of being detained 'At Her Majesty's Pleasure' which meant indefinitely.
Successive British Governments have negotiated treaties with people they once regarded, and jailed, as terrorists. We still do. We are dealing with Col. Gaddafi of Libya. Not so long ago we let US planes use this country to try to kill him.
Whatever has been done to prisoners in Iraq it is against the long term interest not just of Iraq but of the occupying powers. It makes the task of rebuilding the country more difficult.
What if one of those pictured as a humiliated prisoner eventually becomes President of a free Iraq? How will he feel about the US or the UK?
What should be different about us as democracies is that we do not approve of humiliation, torture or killing of prisoners. If it happens all those responsible should be tried and if convicted should be punished.
Og
As the British Empire was wound up and the Commonwealth of Nations took its place, many people who had been prisoners under British rule became leaders in the newly independent countries. Some of them came to Buckingham Palace to meet the Queen.
One even joked that it was a pleasure to meet Her Majesty in person instead of being detained 'At Her Majesty's Pleasure' which meant indefinitely.
Successive British Governments have negotiated treaties with people they once regarded, and jailed, as terrorists. We still do. We are dealing with Col. Gaddafi of Libya. Not so long ago we let US planes use this country to try to kill him.
Whatever has been done to prisoners in Iraq it is against the long term interest not just of Iraq but of the occupying powers. It makes the task of rebuilding the country more difficult.
What if one of those pictured as a humiliated prisoner eventually becomes President of a free Iraq? How will he feel about the US or the UK?
What should be different about us as democracies is that we do not approve of humiliation, torture or killing of prisoners. If it happens all those responsible should be tried and if convicted should be punished.
Og
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Replies to some further points.
Rumple, I can live with your proposals, and essentially agree with your mitigation arguments, plus others ones. mabeuse, cantdog, and Karen have calmly made good points.
Since Karen argued in some detail, I will reply specifically.
One of the stranger and yet not uncommon fallicies I encounter is the idea that if person #1 does a bad thing and person #2 does something worse, then person #1 should be forgiven. In this case:
This is not the argument, of course. You've set up a grotesque distortion of it, to knock down, whose nature I'll detail below.
Ms. England was photographed mistreating Iraqi prisoners. There is enough evidence to accuse her of breaking international law regarding the treatment of prisoners.
Donald Rumsfeld and others in power in the American government failed to follow international law regarding the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. There seems to be enough evidence to accuse Mr. Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration of violating international law.
You make it sound, up to this point, that there are two paralllel crimes, such as A shoplifts one store, while B robs the bank next door. Then somehow suggest that the proposal is to let A off because B's crime is bigger.
The fact the Mr. Rumsfeld is Ms. England's boss, and the fact that, having more power, he can be accused of more aggregious crimes than she is accused of, does not mean that she didn't commit crimes. It does not excuse her behavior. If she wishes to present evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld or her other superiors were complicent in her actions, she is perfectly permitted to do so at her trial (and I would hope she would).
Here, you most quickly gloss over the essential points, that Ms LE has a number of directors and bosses. You suggest their more _egregious_ crimines, and STATE they don't excuse her, i.e, negate hers. That's simply a restatement of your initial point, in specific form. Further, I did not say, 'excuse'; perhaps rumple's term 'mitigate' as to culpability is the one of the key concepts.
You are willing to concede Rumsfeld might be 'complicit', but that isn't really the applicable concept; it suggests interwoven crimes, e.g., that she'd claim a boss 'worked along with' her.
But to drop the charges against her, as this thread suggests, simply because there are others who have committed more severe crimes, makes no sense to me at all. The crimes of others do not excuse hers.
This is simply a summary, so I'll pass.
-----
In brief, the arguments are for mitigation (to the point of almost zero penalty), and for the abuse of process thus far, to the extent that the administration of justice is brought into disrepute.
That is a legal criterion for dismissing a prosecution case. (I.e., it's so grotesque, as to make the system look very bad, and that's not what the military requires to preserve an appearance of integrity.).
In essence you ignore a chain of command and direction. Beginning with an illegal invasion, an arguable war of aggression since the US was in no immediate danger from Saddam's army or 'Saddam sponsored' or 'Saddam armed' terrorists.
To give you an idea of the import of that, I well review some numbers: At Nuremberg, about 30 top nazis were tried. Afterwards, about 170 lower persons were tried in 'subsequent nuremberg procedings.' These were death camp operators, and particularly brutal guards in a few cases. This is for deaths of millions of people. The nazi footsoldier or ordinary guard was not even bothered with.
Getting back to this case, Rumsfeld and other declared the US NOT to be in the Geneva conventions; they did NOT instruct soldiers about them, indeed stated that the US made its own standards. That itself may be a war crime, and a kind of overarching crime that dwarfs those of any footsoldiers, and ordinary police and guards. It's a war crime somewhat of the nature of the setting up of the Guantanamo facility, though vastly more lethal. (And the ordinary Gitmo guard should not be prosecuted, either.)
Compare the thing to a Colombian drug lord's enterprise, which involves planning a vast, grown and import scheme, killing various persons, bribing others, and look at the henchmen, all the way down. Then look at the illegal harvester of the coca, a peasant. He or she just wants to make a small living, and ignores the bigger picture. A person in such a position, deserves minimal or no penalty, esp. if his or her bosses are NOT called for penalty. This is commonsense justice.
Further there is, as stated in the Taguba report, directions of operations were by army intelligence. Their directions were conveyed to the military police, in a process Taguba describes are non-standard, improper and dangerous (my summary). And the footsoldiers would be unaware of this.
MPs were brought prisoners already improperly treated, hooded, and due for interrogation. The instruction, according to Harman (another foot soldier) was to keep the prisoners in great discomfort, e.g., lacking sleep, till the interrogations could start.
Further, the interrogators were often private contractors. These persons were, as it were, 'inserted' in the chain of command, by the pentagon. Their desires became military orders, in an non- standard and irregular procedure of whose nature the mp's and guards would not be aware. It is unclear if any contractors will even be charged, indeed if they can be (they are 'private citizens' working for the US gov., abroad). Creation of such unaccountable units in the military probably violates military SOPs.
There are a number of prison administrators and other supervisors about England who were indicating, if not directing, what these low level police and guards should do, and setting up an environment, like Zimbardo's 1971 environment at Stanford. That minor prison on a college campus, was able to produce sadistic acts from normal persons ('guards'), in a few days.
In the present case, the pressures would be 100 times greater and over a longer period. The guard became cogs in a gigantic dehumanization machine. Responsibility for setting that machine in motion extends to the top, in increasing amounts, just as in the 'drug lord' example. Responsibilit at the bottom, site of maximal coercion, is minimal. Further, as in the drug case, there is economic pressure.
The war is using uneducated poor persons as fodder, as volunteers whose terms are extended. The lowest level of 'fodder' are doing any number of crimes, from breaking into iraqui homes, terrorizing children, illegally seizing persons as combatants.
That whole illegitimate structure of who is a 'prisoner of war' and who is said not be (i.e, is 'terrorist' or 'illegal combatant'), shapes the actions of the soldiers, who are told by the higher ups, 'we will decide on the status'. What is an uneducated 20 year old supposed to do? Go to the internet and research the Geneva accords? Research 'chain of command' and military law?
Lastly, the process of publicizing the photos, of the press baying for blood, and England's being charged with assault and maltreatment are pentagon knee-jerk reactions to extreme embarrassment. Even the earlier Taguba report failed to sufficiently emphasize command issues, above, and focussed, regarding penalties, on several actual committers of maltreatment, i.e., assault and abuse.
This is a perversion of process. Although Taguba was honest, his mandate was too narrow. Further the pentagon, in secret, began to arrest and penalize the lowest persons, as he recommended, even before the media splash. This was a self serving effort, to throw a few foot soldiers to the dogs. His notations about the irregular role of army intelligence yielded no actions. No prison officials have been charged.
In sum, the 'wrong' committed was, in context, something whose penalties deserve complete or almost complete mitigation. The process so far, even where honest is detail and specifics (taguba report) is so corrupt as to be unable to proceed against the footsoldiers ---low level combatants, mps, and guards-- save in the most extreme cases, without becoming a laughing stock.
Extreme cases at Nuremberg were guards who took special delight in sending hundreds of kids to the furnaces, or having prisoners torn apart by dogs. THAT is the kind of thing the lowest level person does that properly results in prosecution for war crimes (now detailed under Geneva conventions). To put a leash on a man (if indeed England did so), or point at his genitals, even to laugh, is hardly in the same ballpark or contryside.
Technically there was a wrong, but the most, in my opinion, that should result for LE, besides the trials of higher ups, is the penalty Rumple spoke of. He, a former soldier, calls for dishonorable discharge; I would add, *without any jail time penalty beforehand*, though I don't know if he meant that.
J.
Rumple, I can live with your proposals, and essentially agree with your mitigation arguments, plus others ones. mabeuse, cantdog, and Karen have calmly made good points.
Since Karen argued in some detail, I will reply specifically.
One of the stranger and yet not uncommon fallicies I encounter is the idea that if person #1 does a bad thing and person #2 does something worse, then person #1 should be forgiven. In this case:
This is not the argument, of course. You've set up a grotesque distortion of it, to knock down, whose nature I'll detail below.
Ms. England was photographed mistreating Iraqi prisoners. There is enough evidence to accuse her of breaking international law regarding the treatment of prisoners.
Donald Rumsfeld and others in power in the American government failed to follow international law regarding the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. There seems to be enough evidence to accuse Mr. Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration of violating international law.
You make it sound, up to this point, that there are two paralllel crimes, such as A shoplifts one store, while B robs the bank next door. Then somehow suggest that the proposal is to let A off because B's crime is bigger.
The fact the Mr. Rumsfeld is Ms. England's boss, and the fact that, having more power, he can be accused of more aggregious crimes than she is accused of, does not mean that she didn't commit crimes. It does not excuse her behavior. If she wishes to present evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld or her other superiors were complicent in her actions, she is perfectly permitted to do so at her trial (and I would hope she would).
Here, you most quickly gloss over the essential points, that Ms LE has a number of directors and bosses. You suggest their more _egregious_ crimines, and STATE they don't excuse her, i.e, negate hers. That's simply a restatement of your initial point, in specific form. Further, I did not say, 'excuse'; perhaps rumple's term 'mitigate' as to culpability is the one of the key concepts.
You are willing to concede Rumsfeld might be 'complicit', but that isn't really the applicable concept; it suggests interwoven crimes, e.g., that she'd claim a boss 'worked along with' her.
But to drop the charges against her, as this thread suggests, simply because there are others who have committed more severe crimes, makes no sense to me at all. The crimes of others do not excuse hers.
This is simply a summary, so I'll pass.
-----
In brief, the arguments are for mitigation (to the point of almost zero penalty), and for the abuse of process thus far, to the extent that the administration of justice is brought into disrepute.
That is a legal criterion for dismissing a prosecution case. (I.e., it's so grotesque, as to make the system look very bad, and that's not what the military requires to preserve an appearance of integrity.).
In essence you ignore a chain of command and direction. Beginning with an illegal invasion, an arguable war of aggression since the US was in no immediate danger from Saddam's army or 'Saddam sponsored' or 'Saddam armed' terrorists.
To give you an idea of the import of that, I well review some numbers: At Nuremberg, about 30 top nazis were tried. Afterwards, about 170 lower persons were tried in 'subsequent nuremberg procedings.' These were death camp operators, and particularly brutal guards in a few cases. This is for deaths of millions of people. The nazi footsoldier or ordinary guard was not even bothered with.
Getting back to this case, Rumsfeld and other declared the US NOT to be in the Geneva conventions; they did NOT instruct soldiers about them, indeed stated that the US made its own standards. That itself may be a war crime, and a kind of overarching crime that dwarfs those of any footsoldiers, and ordinary police and guards. It's a war crime somewhat of the nature of the setting up of the Guantanamo facility, though vastly more lethal. (And the ordinary Gitmo guard should not be prosecuted, either.)
Compare the thing to a Colombian drug lord's enterprise, which involves planning a vast, grown and import scheme, killing various persons, bribing others, and look at the henchmen, all the way down. Then look at the illegal harvester of the coca, a peasant. He or she just wants to make a small living, and ignores the bigger picture. A person in such a position, deserves minimal or no penalty, esp. if his or her bosses are NOT called for penalty. This is commonsense justice.
Further there is, as stated in the Taguba report, directions of operations were by army intelligence. Their directions were conveyed to the military police, in a process Taguba describes are non-standard, improper and dangerous (my summary). And the footsoldiers would be unaware of this.
MPs were brought prisoners already improperly treated, hooded, and due for interrogation. The instruction, according to Harman (another foot soldier) was to keep the prisoners in great discomfort, e.g., lacking sleep, till the interrogations could start.
Further, the interrogators were often private contractors. These persons were, as it were, 'inserted' in the chain of command, by the pentagon. Their desires became military orders, in an non- standard and irregular procedure of whose nature the mp's and guards would not be aware. It is unclear if any contractors will even be charged, indeed if they can be (they are 'private citizens' working for the US gov., abroad). Creation of such unaccountable units in the military probably violates military SOPs.
There are a number of prison administrators and other supervisors about England who were indicating, if not directing, what these low level police and guards should do, and setting up an environment, like Zimbardo's 1971 environment at Stanford. That minor prison on a college campus, was able to produce sadistic acts from normal persons ('guards'), in a few days.
In the present case, the pressures would be 100 times greater and over a longer period. The guard became cogs in a gigantic dehumanization machine. Responsibility for setting that machine in motion extends to the top, in increasing amounts, just as in the 'drug lord' example. Responsibilit at the bottom, site of maximal coercion, is minimal. Further, as in the drug case, there is economic pressure.
The war is using uneducated poor persons as fodder, as volunteers whose terms are extended. The lowest level of 'fodder' are doing any number of crimes, from breaking into iraqui homes, terrorizing children, illegally seizing persons as combatants.
That whole illegitimate structure of who is a 'prisoner of war' and who is said not be (i.e, is 'terrorist' or 'illegal combatant'), shapes the actions of the soldiers, who are told by the higher ups, 'we will decide on the status'. What is an uneducated 20 year old supposed to do? Go to the internet and research the Geneva accords? Research 'chain of command' and military law?
Lastly, the process of publicizing the photos, of the press baying for blood, and England's being charged with assault and maltreatment are pentagon knee-jerk reactions to extreme embarrassment. Even the earlier Taguba report failed to sufficiently emphasize command issues, above, and focussed, regarding penalties, on several actual committers of maltreatment, i.e., assault and abuse.
This is a perversion of process. Although Taguba was honest, his mandate was too narrow. Further the pentagon, in secret, began to arrest and penalize the lowest persons, as he recommended, even before the media splash. This was a self serving effort, to throw a few foot soldiers to the dogs. His notations about the irregular role of army intelligence yielded no actions. No prison officials have been charged.
In sum, the 'wrong' committed was, in context, something whose penalties deserve complete or almost complete mitigation. The process so far, even where honest is detail and specifics (taguba report) is so corrupt as to be unable to proceed against the footsoldiers ---low level combatants, mps, and guards-- save in the most extreme cases, without becoming a laughing stock.
Extreme cases at Nuremberg were guards who took special delight in sending hundreds of kids to the furnaces, or having prisoners torn apart by dogs. THAT is the kind of thing the lowest level person does that properly results in prosecution for war crimes (now detailed under Geneva conventions). To put a leash on a man (if indeed England did so), or point at his genitals, even to laugh, is hardly in the same ballpark or contryside.
Technically there was a wrong, but the most, in my opinion, that should result for LE, besides the trials of higher ups, is the penalty Rumple spoke of. He, a former soldier, calls for dishonorable discharge; I would add, *without any jail time penalty beforehand*, though I don't know if he meant that.
J.
Last edited:
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
WHY THE PICTURES WERE RELEASED TO CBS
I hadn't known much about the genesis of this story until I watched Meet the Press this morning.
Those who blame the media for embarrassing the U.S. and putting our own prisoners in danger by broadcasting these photos need to know why the pictures went to CBS to be shown on 60 Minutes and why Dan Rather refused the Pentagon's request to hold off on showing them.
The father of one of the 6 MPs had attempted for months to get the Pentagon or Congress to investigate his son's claims that he and others who abused prisoners did so at the direction and command of Military Intelligence officers.
This man's letters and phone calls to 17 individuals were ignored. Out of desperation he communicated with a former Army general on his web site. He agreed to share these pictures, provided by his son - and despite the fact that they incriminate his son and others - with CBS and 60 Minutes, because it had become evident that these 6 MPs were going to be court-martialed, quietly convicted, and the problem at the prison would then be revealed to the public as something that had already been addressed and solved. In other words, the 6 MPs were to take the rap for carrying out a policy directed by their superiors.
When Pentagon called Dan Rather and asked him not to show the photos, they had had months to address the issue of scapegoating the MPs, and they had chosen to ignore the pleas of this young man's family. As the father said in a New York Times interview, "they thought they could get away with this because we were poor dirt people who could't do anything about it."
One of the panelists on Meet the Press said, when asked whether he favored the removal of Rumsfeld, said, "If I thought it would change our policy, I would answer 'yes.' But the president has said we have only two options in Iraq: stay the course, or cut and run. No one has considered a third option - correcting our course - and there's no reason to think that removing Secretary Rumsfeld will make that happen."
I hadn't known much about the genesis of this story until I watched Meet the Press this morning.
Those who blame the media for embarrassing the U.S. and putting our own prisoners in danger by broadcasting these photos need to know why the pictures went to CBS to be shown on 60 Minutes and why Dan Rather refused the Pentagon's request to hold off on showing them.
The father of one of the 6 MPs had attempted for months to get the Pentagon or Congress to investigate his son's claims that he and others who abused prisoners did so at the direction and command of Military Intelligence officers.
This man's letters and phone calls to 17 individuals were ignored. Out of desperation he communicated with a former Army general on his web site. He agreed to share these pictures, provided by his son - and despite the fact that they incriminate his son and others - with CBS and 60 Minutes, because it had become evident that these 6 MPs were going to be court-martialed, quietly convicted, and the problem at the prison would then be revealed to the public as something that had already been addressed and solved. In other words, the 6 MPs were to take the rap for carrying out a policy directed by their superiors.
When Pentagon called Dan Rather and asked him not to show the photos, they had had months to address the issue of scapegoating the MPs, and they had chosen to ignore the pleas of this young man's family. As the father said in a New York Times interview, "they thought they could get away with this because we were poor dirt people who could't do anything about it."
One of the panelists on Meet the Press said, when asked whether he favored the removal of Rumsfeld, said, "If I thought it would change our policy, I would answer 'yes.' But the president has said we have only two options in Iraq: stay the course, or cut and run. No one has considered a third option - correcting our course - and there's no reason to think that removing Secretary Rumsfeld will make that happen."
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
I think you have to separate the question of her guilt from the question of a fitting punishment.
All the extenuating circumstances Pure mentioned should be taken into account in deciding on a sentence, but there's no question that she should stand trial for what she'd done. She's been accused of committing crimes as defined in the Military Code of Justice, and her guilt or innocence should be decided by a court.
If her guilt is established, then you can start talking about punishment.
---dr.M.
All the extenuating circumstances Pure mentioned should be taken into account in deciding on a sentence, but there's no question that she should stand trial for what she'd done. She's been accused of committing crimes as defined in the Military Code of Justice, and her guilt or innocence should be decided by a court.
If her guilt is established, then you can start talking about punishment.
---dr.M.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Re: Former prisoners
Absolutely agreed, Og. I think the dispute here, if there really is one, is whether these 6 MPs will be the scapegoats for a policy that came from the top. It's evident that they were intended to be just that. If the photos hadn't been made public, we would have learned a few months from now that 6 MPs were court-martialed for "improper conduct" at a prison in Iraq. The policy itself would have changed just enough to keep the Red Cross from raising a fuss.
The only reason that didn't happen is that the father of one of the arrested MPs begged the Pentagon and Congress for an investigation, was ignored, and gave the photos to CBS as a last resort. He knew his son was ordered to do what he did and that there was going to be a cover-up. Whether the trail now will lead where it ultimately should is a matter for Karl Rove and the other people who protect the president.
He is the one who said publicly a year ago that the Geneva Convention was "just legalisms." He set the stage for this. Lynndie English and the others evidently took their Commander in Chief at his word. They'll pay the price. Will he?
oggbashan said:
Absolutely agreed, Og. I think the dispute here, if there really is one, is whether these 6 MPs will be the scapegoats for a policy that came from the top. It's evident that they were intended to be just that. If the photos hadn't been made public, we would have learned a few months from now that 6 MPs were court-martialed for "improper conduct" at a prison in Iraq. The policy itself would have changed just enough to keep the Red Cross from raising a fuss.
The only reason that didn't happen is that the father of one of the arrested MPs begged the Pentagon and Congress for an investigation, was ignored, and gave the photos to CBS as a last resort. He knew his son was ordered to do what he did and that there was going to be a cover-up. Whether the trail now will lead where it ultimately should is a matter for Karl Rove and the other people who protect the president.
He is the one who said publicly a year ago that the Geneva Convention was "just legalisms." He set the stage for this. Lynndie English and the others evidently took their Commander in Chief at his word. They'll pay the price. Will he?
great information
I agree with most of the stuff on this thread. You are talking about soldiers guarding prisoners....I know - they weren't trained for that may sound "cliche" - but they weren't. They weren't introduced to what they should have been doing. Granted what they ended up doing was inhuman...but - they were trained to fight the enemy....they weren't expecting to guard them.....so, they are young and were always taught to kill the enemy...isn't that an inhuman type of thinking...so, since they weren't kiling they were demoralizing....being young and restless....
I don't understand why the "higher ups" weren't rotating shifts...maybe that would have gotten the young and restless out...
I agree with most of the stuff on this thread. You are talking about soldiers guarding prisoners....I know - they weren't trained for that may sound "cliche" - but they weren't. They weren't introduced to what they should have been doing. Granted what they ended up doing was inhuman...but - they were trained to fight the enemy....they weren't expecting to guard them.....so, they are young and were always taught to kill the enemy...isn't that an inhuman type of thinking...so, since they weren't kiling they were demoralizing....being young and restless....
I don't understand why the "higher ups" weren't rotating shifts...maybe that would have gotten the young and restless out...
KarenAM
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2004
- Posts
- 576
Sorry, Pure. As eloquent as your response is, it does not convince me.
Yes, this war is a disaster. Yes, lots of incompotent and evil people have done bad things. Yes, many of them are going to walk free because they have power and wealth and influence.
And yes, the accusations against Ms. England are part of a broader group of accusations that can be made against many members of the American occupation.
But none of that changes the fact that there is sufficient evidence against Ms. England to charge her with a variety of crimes. If she is charged, her defense team may argue that the circumstances you detailed are mitigating ones; I said this in my original post. She deserves a trial, and will get one.
There is another point I should make: if Ms. England gets a trial, and Pure or someone like him serves as her lawyer, I can't help but think it would increase the chance that many others involved in this disaster will also find themselves implicated. Whereas, if the charges are dropped, the whole thing can be more easily swept under the rug, saving Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush, and lots of others a lot of embarassment and risk.
Just a thought, and hopefully not a "grotesque exaggeration". Such hyperbole!
Yes, this war is a disaster. Yes, lots of incompotent and evil people have done bad things. Yes, many of them are going to walk free because they have power and wealth and influence.
And yes, the accusations against Ms. England are part of a broader group of accusations that can be made against many members of the American occupation.
But none of that changes the fact that there is sufficient evidence against Ms. England to charge her with a variety of crimes. If she is charged, her defense team may argue that the circumstances you detailed are mitigating ones; I said this in my original post. She deserves a trial, and will get one.
There is another point I should make: if Ms. England gets a trial, and Pure or someone like him serves as her lawyer, I can't help but think it would increase the chance that many others involved in this disaster will also find themselves implicated. Whereas, if the charges are dropped, the whole thing can be more easily swept under the rug, saving Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush, and lots of others a lot of embarassment and risk.
Just a thought, and hopefully not a "grotesque exaggeration". Such hyperbole!
