Drop charges against Lynndie

[Svenskaflicka]

...and after reading this thread, my Ignore List has gotten another member: Pure.

The jury's motivation: For starting a ridiculous discussion, and defending a criminal's actions.

 

[cantdog]

Buddha on the jury

I have an easy time forgiving people.

Plus I have a deep mistrust of the systems of justice, and all authority generally, mostly because of my dad, I suppose.

In my experience you do not ever get justice from them. So I like to bow out of problems like this.

If she and the others, only she and the others, who were in the photos, go down while everyone else gets away, then it is not justice.

If the commanders get little "naught naughty boy" stickers on their records, like Oliver North did, while the Lynndies get screwed to the wall and hounded to distraction, then it is not justice.

I have no faith in these systems at all.

cantdog

 

[shereads]

Damn it. Just this morning I was thinking that if Bush and/or Rumsfeld wanted to apologize to the prisoners, they should f**king well do it in person, in Iraq. What's the f**king point of apologizing on f**king television to people living in a dungeon?

Now I see that the first of the MPs to face court martial will be tried in public in Bhagdad. I don't defend their actions - I'm sickened by the pictures - but to be put on display in Iraq where their safety can't be guaranteed, isolated from their families, while the people who basically told them to disregard the Geneva Convention and do whatever it took to win the War on Terror are sitting in Washington?

Where is the honor of the people in command?

I hope the f**king Dream Team volunteers their services, and demands the right to use the words of the Commander in Chief as part of the MP's defense.

Justice won't be served until George W. Bush is quoted in court: "All this talk about the Geneva Convention is just legalese."

What a weasle. If he doesn't take responsibility for this, he's beyond vile.

 

[shereads]

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.

It's a nice fantasy, isn't it?

But in a military court martial, the court has a remarkable amount of leeway in determining what evidence can be heard. Whether or not the MPs are allowed a civiliain attorney is also, I believe, left up to the disgression of the court, though I'm not sure about that.

Even if Johnny Cochran and Roy Black and Perry Mason volunteer to serve as defense attorneys, they can only present what they are allowed to present. Does anyone really believe that the Pentagon will allow a military court to embarrass the president?

 

[Pure]

Minimal guilt. (PS for Svenska)

While the possibility proposed by Mabeuse, lessened or even minimal punishment, is a humane one, the issue of guilt, is not well dealt with, either by mab or by the first 'string-her-up' posters. The issue seems to be 'she did it; it's in the photos.'

First of all the 'it' is unclear; is she holding a leash to a man, for instance, or did she put the man on a leash? Is she holding the leash, just for the picture? What are the facts?

Even were the action clear, two further elements are required for guilt: (=criminal culpability). Striking a blow is not necessarily a criminal assault, and even a video of that blow does not necessarily solve the problem.

The Uniform Code specifies 1) 'intent' for establishing most offenses, and well as 2) capacity to morally choose, which in turn requires capacity to assess alternatives. The intention behind the blow, is determinative of whether it's criminal assault (prosecutable under the Uniform Code).

1)Her intent was not necessarily to torture or even abuse. No evidence is cited. Her intent may well have been, to make the person uncomfortable, so he would give good info to his interrogators. In any case, it must be proven conclusively, for guilt, in a legal sense, to ensue. A photo cannot do that, yet many posters here apparently believe they can somehow divine intent.

2) Second, her capacity to choose, is undermined by the prison context (as per Zimbardo), not to say the military one. One might reasonably hypothesize that she's told: These are not prisoners of war, or members of an army, but terrorists, who remain dangerous to you and other police. They would kill you if they could, and their colleagues are plotting to put bombs in mosques and by the roadsides. They are unlawful combatants to be dealt with according to the officers and the president.
Probably this is what the guards at Guantanamo are told.

Some of these points are made by the author, below. It is arguable that her superiors set up, intentionally, a situation in which moral choice was minimally if at all possible. She was besides being pressured, given a 'misdescription' of the situation what would have precluded a proper assessment of the acts.

In short, I hypothesize lack of robust intention and diminished capacity for moral and reasoned choice, which should lead to a finding of no or minimal guilt; or better, preclude a robust finding of full guilt.

At very least, no one on this board has seen and posted good evidence that would refute this hypothesis, and thus, until the evidence is examined, is scarcely in a position to be talking 'jail time' or even guilt (or 'criminality') as would be established in a court.

-------

Tom Gorman, the mantra of our time
http://64.176.201.250/View Point/Board06/messages/379.html

[excerpt]
The Uniform Code of Military Justice specifically states that members of the military must obey the lawful orders of their superiors; implicit in this is that they are allowed to disobey unlawful orders. More explicit is one of the supreme laws of the land mentioned above, the Nuremberg Principles: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." This was the principle under which people were hanged at Nuremberg; you cannot argue that you were "just following orders." Thus, any person, military or civilian, is responsible for their actions if they violate international law.

There is an important exception, though. An individual is responsible only if "a moral choice was in fact possible to him [or her]." It is debatable whether members of the American military have such a choice, given that they are so often pushed into the service by socioeconomic circumstance, are relentlessly brainwashed into following orders without question, and have a diminished capacity for moral reasoning intentionally drilled into them. (For more on this, see "On Killing" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman.) Still, those who are aware of this moral choice are required to disobey unlawful orders. Those of us outside of the military, who have only the brainwashing of comparatively weak government/media propaganda to contend with, have an even greater obligation to resist the treason of the Bush Administration.
[end excerpt]

NOTE:
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djcil/articles/djcil13p389.htm

There is a fine, detailed discussion of
"Defense of Superior Orders", by J. Insco, in a Duke law school journal.

He argues that the order must by "Manifestly Illegal" for following it to lead to a crime in military law. IOW, one is generally to infer that an order is lawful. The subordinate is not culpable, in respect of mens rea (intention), where the illegality of the order would be unclear to a reasonable person.

Insco: "When the Manual for Courts-Martial was revised in 1969 the subject was covered under the category of "Special Defenses" and provided: "

[Insco quoting the Manual:]
Obedience to apparently 'lawful' orders. An order requiring the performance of a military duty may be inferred to be legal. An act performed manifestly beyond the scope of authority, or pursuant to an order that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know to be illegal, or in a wanton manner in the discharge of a lawful duty, is not excusable.

[end]

------
====

Svenska: I'd be honored to be on your ignore list, and hope you'd remind your soulmate to re-place me on hers, after half a dozen broken promises to do so.

I'm glad you can tell 'criminality' from a couple photos. Perhaps you can solve your employment problem by becoming a psychic.

 

[hiddenself]

Pure:

There are multiple moral and legal issues to consider but your proposal doesn't have a leg to stand on by any measure.

1. Punishment has to be proportional to guilt. Agreed. And higher-ups who determine "policy" genreally bear more responsibility than simple foot soldiers. But not bringing the big fish to justice (perhaps because it's beyond our powers?) is not sufficient justification for also letting the smaller fish get away scott free. We do what we can.

2. People who commit a crime actively and repeatedly and on their own initiative are certainly more culpable than people who only go along relunctantly. Sure, that has to be looked at. But again, it is a matter of degree. Reluctant participation does not lead to absolution.

3. Everyone has a choice under even the most coersive environments. Lack of education, training, loving family, whatever, does not take away that choice (as many historical examples prove). Although these may be mitigating factors, they are not sufficient to absolve the perpetrator of a crime (generally, only limited cognitive or mental capacity can do so). We expect adults to know about certain basic social laws and act accordingly, no matter what their prior life situation (we certainly expect that with lesser transgressions, such as theft -- why wouldn't we expect it with torture?). And it's not like we are talking about a particularly sad life story here. She (and her fellow soldiers) were run-of-the-mill normal Americans. That crap about sad life experiences etc was discredited decades ago in the social sciences.

4. What we've seen in Iraq are war crimes (if a bit "civilized" in their nature -- noone cut off anyone's balls or took out any eyes or whatever) no matter what euphemism is used. Lots of Serb foot soldiers (to not dig far into the past) have received lengthy prison sentences for similar crimes. For Milosevic and the top brass we are looking for decades' incarceration (even though there is no evidence that they condoned or even knew about the specific abuses -- they should have known and prevented it). Apply the same standard to everyone? That's the acceptable standard in the western world today.


What's fair for me?
The soldiers involved should get anywhere between 2 and 5 years in prison. The generals responsible and their political bosses (Rumstud and Dubya) could do with 8-10. And I am being generous. My own personal judgement.

Oh, and that's not taking the killings into account. I suspect things are much grimmer than they appear.

 

[Pure]

Hi Hidden,

Thanks for your calm and well stated posting.

I do take exception to this, however:

4. What we've seen in Iraq are war crimes (if a bit "civilized" in their nature -- noone cut off anyone's balls or took out any eyes or whatever) no matter what euphemism is used.

There are some possible murders (as you later note), and apparently one rape--thus far. Tonight's CNN has the first of the new photos that Rummy warned us about: Guards are setting German Shepherd dogs on a shackled, standing, naked man. The commentator says the photo series shows the 'dropping' of the man, and his bite wound.

Increasingly England looks like small potatoes.

Oh, and I did not make the 'sad story' argument, which you attack.

That said, You are one of the few exceptions to the 'hang em high' arguers:

You have agreed to a main point that the degree of guilt is proportional to the level. Your proposal is a bit oddball [I say this with no malice ], in that you say LE (or foot soldiers) should possibly get 5 yrs, and Rummy 10. Do you really claim she (they) is 1/2 as culpable? I'd suggest 1/200, if you want my opinion. For his 10 years, that's 18 days.

Regards

 

[shereads]

There's not much point deciding how much prison time anyone ought to get until there's a trial. For all we know, one or more of these MPs was (a) a sadist who was delighted to be encouraged to indulge the urge; or (b) not in Iraq at the time, but Photoshopped into the scene by aliens from the planet Zanbar. More likely, the truth is what most of us are guessing it is: young people caught up in a sick group dynamic, encouraged and implicity coerced by Military Intelligence officers and civilian interrogators.

We won't know until there's a trial. If evidence is suppressed, as some is likely to be if it leads too far up the ladder, we may never know everything.

Pure, I appreciate your compassion for Lynndie and the others. I even admire it. It's hard for me to get past my initial loathing of everyone who participated in what appears to be happening in those pictures. But, as Dr. Mabeuse pointed out in another thread, none of us can say how we would react in the same situation. The urge to be part of the group has to be enormously tempting when it's just "us versus them" in an alien culture.

And jesus, how many times have they heard their president say that the rules have changed since 9/ll? They've heard him applauded when he talked tough about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo.

If they thought they were helping fight the so-called War on Terror by tormenting these people, they aren't the only Americans who've been brainwashed into believing that it's not only permissible but heroic to set morality and compassion aside.

I can't agree that there should be no trial. We won't know anything about what happened, and why, and just how bad it became, until some evidence is presented.

I wish I thought there would be justice. I don't. This entire affair is now in the hands of people who thought "Justice Department? John Ashcroft. Perfect man for the job." Justice in their world is just another tool of control.

 

[Pure]

Good posting, Sher,

Yes, the possibilities need to be explored; but while your England as sadist is possible, as is her taking torture orders on the internet from Rummy himself, there is a presumption of innocence. The *least incriminating possibilities need to be considered, and you're certainly in that area, at your bottom line.

Just for the record, I did not say 'no trial' or call for there being no inquiry.

I said, or meant to, 'no trial for the ordinary footsoldier or guard', (lowest level folks) but that doesn't rule out disciplinary proceedings. I'd prefer those lead to expulsion from the Army, where warranted.

There should be *trials* of those who were supervisors, bosses of the prison, and DOD nabobs in charge. Those could bring all the untoward events to light. Also, as at Nuremberg, ordinary guards of exceptional sadism or brutality--such as, perhaps the fellows with the German shepherds--should also to be tried.

I think Tutu's principle for South Africa applies, however, apart from all this 'judicial vengeance.' It's better for the truth to come out in procedings, given some contrition/remorse of the parties, than have the proceedings generate long prison terms.

 

[upfront]

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!

Pure said,
"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."

-----

"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?"

I can only speak for myself, but since you seem to be making inferences that are completely unwarranted by my sarcastic "poor woman" comment, I did not say anything to pillory this woman any more or less than those who instigated and directed the whole operation. I just feel no sympathy for her for the fact that she was photographed. This does not mean that I think she is more responsible (or as responsible) than those who gave the orders, and I agree that people should pay for their actions in a manner commensurate with their level of responsibility.

It seems to me that if anyone is self-designating, it is you (you started the thread, after all). I'm neither righteous nor macho. And it is scarecely credible that this woman was an innocent bystander. Obviously she should not be made a scapegoat; I for one never suggested that. But that does not mean that the charges against her should be dropped. They should not, however, be a substitute for more serious charges against those in superior positions to her.

It is true that the media spotlight distorts the public's perception of responsibility; as reasonably intelligent people we seek to look beyond this distortion.

 

[Couture]

How can we expect the troops to respect the chain of command, when the commander in chief is a draft dodger and a war criminal. 11,000 are dead, all due to the lies of a small cabal of powerful men. If these aren't war criminals, who is?

 

[RenzaJones]

I'm not even going to say I'm not going to judge this young woman because I am just like I judge pedophiles and people who abuse their children and the like. Yes she may have been given an order and even felt a tacit sense of permission but wrong is wrong and no one can tell me that you need the geneva convention to be told not to put someone on a leash or be party to sexual misconduct. I don't buy into that because she was fucking enjoying herself and we all know when you don't want to do something or you feel ashamed by what you're doing you don't take pause to smile and pose for the camera. Do I think she should be the scapegoat? No absolutely not but I don't believe she should be freed either. Proper training for a position has no bearing, because you can't train people to have common sense and decency.

 

[shereads]

It's possible that she was not enjoying herself.

It may be a long shot, but it's possible, and the likelihood is supported by the New Yorker magazine author who's been given some of the pictures and evidently has an inside source. He was interviewed on Today Show this morning and said the pictures were probably taken for the purpose of intimidating prisoners during interrogation - like blackmail photos. "We'll show these to your family if you don't tell us what we want to know." If the pictures were the interrogators' idea, they may also have posed them and may even have told Lynndie and the others to "say cheese," or some such.

More disturbing photos are rumored, that will be a lot tougher to rationalize. I'm going to stop trying to defend the indefensible, and just say that she and the others are innocent until proven guilty - or whatever is the standard in military court - and that I think it would be a lot more meaningful to the Iraqis if Rumsfeld went to Iraq to apologize to the prisoners, in person. He doesn't even have to ba naked.

 

[The_Darkness]

Open wide, deposit feet

Well, it's been a while since I've put both feet firmly in my mouth in a post, so I'll do it today.

First off, the degrading pictures....yup. They sure are. No disagreement (and no sarcasm) there. More pictures to come. Great, Rusmfeld. That's just fuckin' awesome.

So if the Pentagon is the only one who has these pictures, why are they being leaked to the Washington Post? Maybe that question was already asked....I skipped a bunch in this thread.

Why the FUCK were they taken in the first place? Stupid fuckin' people. I'm about as sadistic as they come when it comes to hurting people...which is why I don't put myself in situations where I have to....I really do feel bad about it later...but what the fuck were they thinking?

Here's the big point though...armies are made for two reasons; to kill shit and to break shit. I don't care how humanitarian you are, I don't care what your political views are, when it comes down to the wire, armies are there to kill shit and break shit. They're trained to. Hell, depending on how much a person wants to kill and break, we have varying degrees of killage and breakage here in the States; National Guard, Army, Marines, Rangers, Special Forces, and litterally dozens of organizations that don't legitimately exist on paper but have soldiers going in to kill and break.

So these people in Iraq that were captured...they were "tortured" and they were humiliated. Yup. It's war, folks. Shit gets broken, shit gets killed. A marked degredation of the effectiveness of a soldier in combat can be seen as more and more reporters were let onto the battlefield. Publicity is bad for war. People want to see their flag put up and the other guy's flag taken down, but they don't want to see the messiness of the fight to do that.

That's a fairly big generalization, of course, but as a person with a degree in History (focusing on ancient history), I can clearly say that if that's all that's being done to those Iraqi soldiers, they're getting off pretty fuckin' light. We need to shut the fuck up and let the soldiers do their job; get information so more shit can be killed and broken. When enough is dead and destroyed, the soldiers get to go home (or at least they have the pretense of being able to).

It's still going to take a decade to get a police force and military structure in place....it doesn't matter if the war is over tomorrow, coalition forces will still be there and there will still be resistance pockets until 2015. Even then, the US (and presumably UK) will still catch holy hell for turning the country over to the Iraqi people without getting rid of all dissentors.

Just my thoughts....and now it's time for work....

 

[destinie21]

Actually according to the news on msnbc as of yesterday the pictures that have been "leaked" (leaked my ass those pictures were sold.) anyway the pictures that we've seen are only the tip of the iceberg theres pictures that are rumored to be much worse. Also on a side not I notice that no one has mentioned some of the prisioners are muslim and nudity is a high offense/violation

 

[dr_mabeuse]

As much as I appreciate Pure's role as devil's advocate, I just don't think there's much to argue about here. He's entitled to his opinion, and his point about not making the low-level grunts the scapegoats for the whole chain of command is well taken, but I really don't think his arguments have any merit

I don't see anyone acting out of a 'lynch Lynndie' mentality either, at least not in this discussion. I don't see anyone calling for her blood, in fact I would say that most of us have some sympathy for her. But the notion that she was just holding the leash for a friend while he snapped a pic, even if true, is no excuse. She crossed the line into illegality as soon as she agreed to participate. In fact, if all she did was keep her mouth shut about what was going on there, she's still guilty of a crime. People in Lynndie's position should have been told or been able to figure out that it's not enough to just avoid impropriety, but that they must avoid even any appearance of impropriety. Abuse of prisoners is heinous enough, but then to photgraph it so you can claim bragging rights is just nauseating.

Yes, it's unfortunate. The whole fucking thing is unfortunate as hell, Those of us who've had dealings with the legal system know that there's a rather wide gap between legal justice and real fairness, and that's too bad, but it's the best system we have. Should the buck stop at the prison guards, though, I think you'll hear some screaming from a lot of people.

In any case, Pure can argue till blue in the face, but i don't see anything in his arguments that changes the facts as we know them, and those facts demand that she stand trial and be punished for what she did.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

Hi up,

I'm glad to hear more about your position.

up said, I can only speak for myself, but since you seem to be making inferences that are completely unwarranted by my sarcastic "poor woman" comment, I did not say anything to pillory this woman any more or less than those who instigated and directed the whole operation.

That was the problem, up. There was no sign you recognized the directions of higher ups.

I just feel no sympathy for her for the fact that she was photographed.

That's not exactly what I suggested, that we feel sympathy; rather, that we avoid falling into committing an injustice. I said, those in the photos suffered a misfortune. Today's news suggests that a character named Civets, now being courtmartialled, took the photos, and he was NOT a lowest level, untrained person.

We do not know what the photos represent, as regards the whole company of guards, i.e., are they typical, and particularly, the photos obviously don't show anyone very high up. That's unfortunate in directing attention to the lower and lowest levels.

Some of todays photos, with the dogs, do show particularly sadistic behavior that should be subject to prosecution. That is the criterion I proposed for those at the lowest levels, esp. the young, inexperienced, and wrongfully indoctrinated (i.e., not exposed to the Geneva Conventions or told they do NOT apply).

This does not mean that I think she is more responsible (or as responsible) than those who gave the orders, and I agree that people should pay for their actions in a manner commensurate with their level of responsibility.

This seems quite reasonable, up. There is an area of concord between you and me. But you do see that, even at places in your current posting, the idea of punishment commensurate with level of responsibility is not present (i.e, evident). It certainly was not generally evident in the set of early responses beginning with Lewd, and continuing with those supporting him, including Svenskaflicka.

So if I mischaracterized your approach, I'm happy to be enlightened, and sorry about the misunderstanding.

J.

 

[shereads]

Actually according to the news on msnbc as of yesterday the pictures that have been "leaked" (leaked my ass those pictures were sold.) anyway the pictures that we've seen are only the tip of the iceberg theres pictures that are rumored to be much worse. Also on a side not I notice that no one has mentioned some of the prisioners are muslim and nudity is a high offense/violation

BUZZZZ! You are wrong, but thank you for playing Jeapardy.



As reported in the New York Times, the father of one of the MPs who was being investigated back in January, gave the first pictures we saw to CBS News only after his letters and calls to 17 people in Congress and the Pentagon were ignored. He believed his son and the others were being made scapegoats for something they were directed to do.

By the time the Pentagon called Dan Rather and asked him not to air the photos on "60 Minutes" last week, they had had months to respond to this father's pleas to investigate his son's claims that he was acting under orders.

 

[Guest]

What Mab. said in his last post (grateful here). And I sincerely hope pure doesn't argue til his face turns blue (or pink). P.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Exactly what are the crimes these prisoners are supposed to have committed?
Is this normal procedure?
What happens from here? How do we try to make good in light of these actions?

 

[shereads]

Exactly what are the crimes these prisoners are supposed to have committed?
Is this normal procedure?
What happens from here? How do we try to make good in light of these actions?

Stay the course?

 

[Couture]

Exactly what are the crimes these prisoners are supposed to have committed?
Is this normal procedure?
What happens from here? How do we try to make good in light of these actions?

The Red Cross estimates that between 75% to 80% of the detainees are innocent. However, their guess is as good as anyone's. These people haven't been charged. The US goverment is holding them for crimes they might one day commit. Sort of like the reason we went to war with them in the first place.

This is standard operating procedure for the Bush administration. Now we just need a good distration. Homosexual marriage anyone?

To your last question. Here's how we make a good light of these actions. Our interim president goes on Iraqi TV and tells them that come June 1st, there will be new elections. These will be REAL elections. We make the Kurds responsible for security in the north, the Shiites in the south, and the Baathists in Bagdad. We call on the UN and Muslim leaders to oversee the fairness of the new election...but to be honest I could care less about how fair it is. Anyway, once the elections are over, we offer the people of Iraq in each of these 3 regions a chance for the US to stay in that region and lend a helping hand on rebuilding the infrastructure.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

thank you Couture, it was just what I thought.
~A~

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Good idea, Couture, but Bush's biggest fear is that the Iraqi's will choose an Islamic republic in an open election. And then what do we do?

That's will let them vote for their new 'leaders', but we won't let them vote on what kind of government they want. We want democracy there, but only if it's our kind of democracy.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

Two bios;
first, not wholly flattering, but interesting. sad; second, more about the family:

http://www.whiteprivilege.com/archives/american_empire/

Racism, Imperialism, and Iraq #

Good ol’ girl who enjoyed cruelty

By SHARON CHURCHER in Fort Ashby

May 7, 2004

POINTING crudely at the genitals of a naked, hooded Iraqi, the petite brunette with a cigarette hanging from her lips epitomised America’s shame over revelations US soldiers routinely tortured inmates at Abu Ghraib jail near Baghdad.

Lynndie England, 21, a rail worker’s daughter, comes from a trailer park in Fort Ashby, West Virginia, which locals proudly call “a backwoods world”.

She faces a court martial, but at home she is toasted as a hero.

At the dingy Corner Club Saloon they think she has done nothing wrong.

“A lot of people here think they ought to just blow up the whole of Iraq,” Colleen Kesner said.

“To the country boys here, if you’re a different nationality, a different race, you’re sub-human. That’s the way girls like Lynndie are raised.

“Tormenting Iraqis, in her mind, would be no different from shooting a turkey. Every season here you’re hunting something. Over there, they’re hunting Iraqis.”

In Fort Ashby, in the isolated Appalachian mountains 260km west of Washington, the poor, barely-educated and almost all-white population talk openly about an active Ku Klux Klan presence.

There is little understanding of the issues in Iraq and less of why photographs showing soldiers from the 372nd Military Police Company, mostly from around Fort Ashby, abusing prisoners has caused a furore.

Like many, England signed up to make money and see the world. After her tour of duty, she planned to settle down and marry her first love, Charles Graner.

Down a dirt track at the edge of town, in the trailer where England grew up, her mother Terrie dismissed the allegations against her daughter as unfair.

“They were just doing stupid kid things, pranks. And what the Iraqis do to our men and women are just? The rules of the Geneva Convention, do they apply to everybody or just us?” she asked.

She said she didn’t know where her daughter was being held, but had spoken to her on the phone.

“She told me nothing happened which wasn’t ordered by higher up,” she said.

“They are trying to pin all of this on the lower ranks. My daughter was just following orders. I think there’s a conspiracy. “

A colleague of Lynndie’s father said people in Fort Ashby were sick of the whingeing.

“We just had an 18-year-old from round here killed by the Iraqis,” he said.

“We went there to help the jackasses and they started blowing us up. Lynndie didn’t kill ‘em, she didn’t cut ‘em up. She should have shot some of the suckers.”

Six soldiers from the 372nd are facing court-martial. [end excerpt]

----
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/06/1083635286181.html?from=top5

The small-town girl who ended up on every channel

Lynndie England loved a good storm. During tornado warnings her mother would have to drag her back inside the house. Her teachers say she wanted a career as a storm-chaser.

Now, the perfect storm has found her.

The petite 21-year-old army reservist from the quiet crossroads town of Fort Ashby in West Virginia is the most visible character in the controversy over the abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. She is the thumbs-up girl, the pixie-ish, T-shirted soldier, smiling, pointing and posing for the camera with naked and humiliated inmates.

Soon after the release of the photographs, Terrie England was on the telephone with her daughter while watching television.

"You're on every channel," she told her. "There you are, and there's a naked Iraqi, and there's you with your thumb up." Her daughter had replied, 'I just can't believe this . . . mom, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time'."

Now, sitting in the family's mobile home, Terrie England has seen the photos more times than she can stand. "It's all over the news, but we're not hearing anything new. They just keep showing the pictures. How many times do I have to see those pictures?"


The family, still waiting to hear whether their daughter will be criminally charged, are convinced that she was not involved in any interrogations or abuse, and that she is not getting a fair go from the military she loved.

The way they see it, what is happening to their daughter is like the experience of the rescued soldier Jessica Lynch - only in reverse.

Both are from small towns in West Virginia, both joined the military soon after high school, and both found themselves in situations way beyond their prescribed job duties.

And, they believe, just as Lynch has been portrayed as more of a hero than the circumstances merited, their daughter has been painted as more a villain than she deserves.

Lynndie England, just 157 centimetres tall, is an independent sort known to speak her mind. She joined the army reserves while still a high school junior and was known for doing her work, causing no trouble and for wearing combat boots and camouflage fatigues to school.

She married soon after graduating in 2001 but the couple split up in less than a year, according to her mother. She is now in a relationship with a fellow reserve unit member and military officials confirm that she is pregnant.

When she was called to duty in Iraq, her best friend, Destiny Goin, said they cried for two hours before she left. The unit members became hometown heroes - their pictures, including England's, were posted on walls at a courthouse and a Wal-Mart.

But in January came a phone call from Baghdad. "I just want you to know that there might be some trouble," Terrie England recalled her daughter saying.

Then, the deluge: reports on 60 Minutes and in The New Yorker about abuses at the prison.

Lynndie England has told her family she was assigned to process prisoners but would regularly visit fellow reservists working on the other side of the prison.

"She shouldn't have been processing prisoners in the first place," her father, Kenneth, said. "She was trained as an administrator, a paper-pusher. At night, she would walk across the prison yard to go over and see her buddies. They were the ones doing the interrogations."

The Englands have not seen their daughter since just before Christmas, when she was home for two weeks on leave. Sick, tired and about 11 kilograms lighter than when she left, she spent most of the time sleeping.

Since January, her family says, she has been asking for legal representation, and has received none. For the past month, she has been restricted to the army base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, awaiting word on her fate for, in her family's view, being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Baltimore Sun