Drop charges against Lynndie

[Couture]

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?
---dr.M.

Everyone keeps drilling it into us that an Islamic republic will be a bad thing. They repeat it so often that we take it as a given. They say, "Oh but it will turn into an Islamic republic...you know...Iran."

However, think of it this way. Name me one country the United States is scared of? Maybe China...but that's it. 9/11 was not a formal declaration of war by any organized country. It was a lashing out at just the kind of thing we are doing right now over in Iraq.

Our problem is that Bush and his cronies are still playing cold war games. We are in a new millennium now...and we we must change with the times or suffer the consequences. We are at war with Al-Qaeda, not with an Islamic republic we don't even know will exist or not.

We are at war with Al Qaeda. We need to start acting like it. We need to start making alliances with countries, Islamic Republic or not. We need to start mending some of the fences the CIA has broken and achieve the good will of the people, instead of providing the enemy with a brand new crop of recruits.

 

[Couture]

Here's Ann Coulter's take on the situation. And no...we are not related.

RANTEL: . . .What is your general take on all of this [Abu Ghraib]?

COULTER: Well, the point I just made on Hannity & Colmes--which no one has been making--is that this is yet another lesson in why women shouldn't be in the military.

RANTEL: Oh, really? You're bringing this up? It's funny because somebody mentioned that and I kind of pooh-poohed it. So tell me more.

COULTER: Well, you can't avoid the fact that there are a disproportionate number of women involved, for one thing, in the abuse photos. It was a girl general who was in charge of running our Iraqi prison. And, you know, for one thing, I'm a little disappointed in Rumsfeld--he allows the greatest fighting force on the face of the globe to have girl generals--what are we doing with girl generals? But I think as a general matter, besides the fact that women don't have the physical abilities to do the training exercises while carrying even a medium-size backpack, women are more vicious than men.

RANTEL: Really?

COULTER: These are a few, you know, I mean, in general, these abuse photos are manifestly a few bad apples in an overwhelmingly honorable military. I don't know if you remember, but back during the Afghanistan war--and that was even the war that liberals pretended to support--our military was trained how to bury the dead so that their heads were facing Mecca. That's an incredibly honorable thing to do--and, by the way, it's something that doesn't occur to a woman because we are vicious. You don't want us in the military.

RANTEL: Uh, uh, you're not being tongue-in-cheek here, Ann, at all?

COULTER: No, I am not. I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek about how vicious women are, but I do think it is a serious problem having women in the military. Men are used to this sort of thing. I mean, C. S. Lewis himself said, remarking on the differences between men and women, if your dog bit a neighbor's child, who would you like to go deal with: the woman of the house or the man of the house? Men are much more capable of engaging in combat and still being honorable about it. I'll give you another example that seems completely off-point and perhaps you'll think I'm insane but I was watching the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday night and, you know, Jay Leno was telling a lot of jokes, cutting both ways, and you see people, even somewhat slimy people like Richard Ben-Veniste in the audience, but he was laughing uproariously at the jokes--even the ones that were to the detriment of John Kerry or the Democrats. But the women journalists, ohhhh, they're very dour, they're angry, they don't laugh if the joke doesn't go their way. This is what women are like. Men are better at engaging in combat while behaving in an honorable way. And it is--now I will swing back to the abuse photos.

RANTEL: Yeah.

COULTER: It is simply a fact--I have only seen five of the abuse photos--there are females in two of them. We don't have a military that's 40 percent female.

RANTEL: Now there's the one picture with the girl--that woman with the cigarette hanging out of her mouth--the woman soldier with the cigarette--and she's holding the gun at the guy's genitals. Is that the one you're referring to?

COULTER: There's that one and there's also a female in a pile-of-bodies photo.

RANTEL: Right. Well, you know, this is an angle I hadn't thought of. What--

COULTER: And [unintelligible] a woman general--a girl general.

RANTEL: The brigadier general, [Janis] Karpinski.

COULTER: Yeah, and, of course, we have affirmative action to get more women generals--girl generals--running the--Come on! Come on! That's silly. No civilized society allows women in the military--this is separate and apart from the fact that you should not be allowing women to fight.

RANTEL: I'm a little speechless only because I can imagine some our listeners saying, "Ann is a woman. Ann is an amazingly successful woman, you know, three times New York [Times] best-selling author and great political commentator and successful at everything she's ever done. Why do you think that women can't do these jobs in the military?"

COULTER: Well you definitely wouldn't want me fighting in this war--all 99 pounds of me--if you want to win. [Coulter cackles]

RANTEL: But wait. Wait a minute. I recognize that there are physical differences between the average man and the average woman with the possible exception of Janet Reno, but I'm talking about--

COULTER: [cackles]

RANTEL: But you seem to be making a blanket statement that putting women in general, as females, in the military is a bad idea.

COULTER: Yes, and in addition to our manifest physical limitations, I think women are more vicious than men.

RANTEL: That would explain Hillary Clinton.

COULTER: Yes!

RANTEL: [Laughs]

COULTER: It would explain the White House Correspondents' Dinner with these dour feminists sitting, frowning at jokes that cut against them. You know, I will admit that there are many men who are women [Coulter chuckles] and there are some women who can behave like men, but as a general matter, women are overwhelmingly unable physically to be in the military and I think also psychologically.

RANTEL: Yeah, that's the part I'm getting to. So you think there's a psychological difference between them. We know the physical is obvious.

COULTER: It's in our genes to protect the hearth and home. to respond viciously to the enemies, to intruders, whereas, just think of immediately after the 9/11 attack, I was huffing and puffing and fuming the very night of it that we weren't already dropping bombs in Afghanistan?--

RANTEL: But I think a lot of guys--men and women were, don't you think?

COULTER: I suspect that actually is how the Democrats would have responded because they are women.

Well, it appears they want this Lynndi to be the fall-girl so to speak. I do hope she can get a fair trial. More fair than that poor Iraqi with electrical wires attached to his nuts anyway. However, I believe they are going to proclaim her a witch and burn her at the stake. I personally think they used her...and she does look the willing participant...but it is my belief that they wanted a woman to take a role in humiliating these prisoners...maybe as a catalyst in breaking them down.

Now, this same woman on trial...with these pictures...and every man on the jury getting even for any wrong committed against them by a woman...

Like Pure was originally saying...I do hope she can get a fair trial.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Everyone keeps drilling it into us that an Islamic republic will be a bad thing. They repeat it so often that we take it as a given. They say, "Oh but it will turn into an Islamic republic...you know...Iran."

I don't care much one way or another what kind of government they have over there, but we went over there ostensibly on an anti-terrorist campaign, and after what we've wrought in Iraq, I would imagine any Islamic republic they have over there will be very anti-American. So anti-American that they might even sponsor terrorism. And how would that look for GWB to have brought about the very thing he was trying to prevent?

---dr.M.

 

[Couture]

I don't care much one way or another what kind of government they have over there, but we went over there ostensibly on an anti-terrorist campaign, and after what we've wrought in Iraq, I would imagine any Islamic republic they have over there will be very anti-American. So anti-American that they might even sponsor terrorism. And how would that look for GWB to have brought about the very thing he was trying to prevent?

---dr.M.

You know, the longer we stay over there...the more anti-American they become. Let's let Bush dress up in a new uniform this time...since he likes those 80's shoulder pads so much, maybe we can suit the lil' monkey up in a football uniform in honor of Tillman. I'm sure Bush would think that was 'fabulous'.

Anyway, we tell 'em... we got rid of the Saddam, the heartless dictator for them...but now it appears that we are doing more harm than good. We only wish good for the Iraqi people...yada yada, America and I love the Iraqi people...and my daddy said it was time for me to turn the country back over to the Iraqis...and unless Mr. Cheyney says otherwise...that's what I'm going to do.

 

[SlickTony]

I'm willing to believe Ann Coulter is vicious. And what's this about no civilized country having women in the military? Israel does.

 

[Somme]

Rumsfeld's hiding behind her?

 

[shereads]

I don't care much one way or another what kind of government they have over there, but we went over there ostensibly on an anti-terrorist campaign, and after what we've wrought in Iraq, I would imagine any Islamic republic they have over there will be very anti-American. So anti-American that they might even sponsor terrorism. And how would that look for GWB to have brought about the very thing he was trying to prevent?

---dr.M.

Not only that - his man Rumsfeld promised that it wouldn't happen.

I remember one of the early triumphant press conferences in the giddy days after Shock & Awe, there was a lot of talk about democratic elections. A journalist asked Rumsfeld what the U.S. would do if these elections resulted in an Islamic state, what with the majority of people being Islamic and all.

He answered, "That's not going to happen," then stopped taking questions.

 

[shereads]

I'm willing to believe Ann Coulter is vicious. And what's this about no civilized country having women in the military? Israel does.

Maybe she defines civilized countries as narrowly as people on this board who've said that the U.S. is the only country where we're free to have discussions like this one.

 

[Couture]

I'm willing to believe Ann Coulter is vicious. And what's this about no civilized country having women in the military? Israel does.

Israel is civilized?

 

[Mhari]

Keeping my opinion on this to myself for the moment. I do have a question that will expose my woeful ignorance of today's military, though: Are soldiers *taught* how to understand an unlawful order and what to do if they are given one? Do they actually know what the Geneva Convention states and how it applies to the situation they're in? (Okay, sorry...that was two questions.)

And a question for shereads:

"All this talk about the Geneva Convention is just legalese."

Good god almighty, did Bush *really* say that?? (I haven't even tried to keep up with all this stuff.)

 

[SlickTony]

Israel is civilized?

Well, it tries to be. Remember it's the only democracy in the Middle East. But the relationship it is forced to have with the Palestinians is deforming it.

 

[Ann Vremont]

soldiers did or should have known better

Speaking as former Army MI myself and also as the wife of an Army interrogator, the behavior on the part of the guards, including Ms. Leash, was unacceptable. I don't care if they're reservists or that they were told by civilian staff or CIA to behave that way, they've all been through basic and their MOS training. I don't care if they were told that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to "terrorists" under the Bush administration's interpretation of the treaty. MPs are briefed on appropriate treatment of prisoners, more than once, by more than one person. If they aren't sadists, then they're cowards, and they might as well have pissed on the dead bodies of the American soldiers that have been photographed and dragged through the streets--such will be the effect of the prison pictures on our continuing efforts in the Middle East.

Only offering her *humble* opinion on the matter
Ann
http://www.e-cubus.com/daemenstra400.jpg

 

[shereads]

Good god almighty, did Bush *really* say that?? (I haven't even tried to keep up with all this stuff.) [/B]

Not sure of the precise phrase, but it was quoted by John McCain when he was questioning Rumsfeld on TV last week.

I remember seeing the news story with the quote when there were issues about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. GWB explained that detainees in the War on Terror are divided into categories with and without certain legal rights. P.O.W.s have rights; suspected terrorists are not prisoners of war, they are "detainees" who don't merit Geneva Convention rights and don't fall under the criminal justice system. They're a special category of prisoner who can be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime - a policy that was created to deal with prisoners taken in the field of battle who had to be held until conditions allowed for a trial; it was being loosely reinterpreted to apply to anyone being detained for questioning in the War on Terror. I guess...Not that it's clear. These are the prisoners of whom Rumsfeld famously said that he could care less how they were treated (Suspected terrorists are evidently the same as terrorists.) But Bush assured us that all detainees would be treated "in the spirit" of the Geneva Convention, if not according to its rules.

He was asked to clarify and that's when he said it was "just legalese."

Aren't you glad you weren't hearing that as a 20-year-old army MP on your way to help out in the War on Terror by "softening up" prisoners in Iraq. You might erroneously have thought the president wanted you to do whatever it took to get the detainees to talk, and that you'd be able to tell who was a p.o.w. and who wasn't by some formula.

 

[shereads]

Re: soldiers did or should have known better

Speaking as former Army MI myself and also as the wife of an Army interrogator, the behavior on the part of the guards, including Ms. Leash, was unacceptable. I don't care if they're reservists or that they were told by civilian staff or CIA to behave that way, they've all been through basic and their MOS training. I don't care if they were told that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to "terrorists" under the Bush administration's interpretation of the treaty.

Under normal circumstances, I'd say the same. But we've been hearing for nearly 3 years that "the rules have changed." If the Secretary of Defense says it doesn't matter how prisoners are treated, and the Commander in Chief isn't able to clarify the new rules, should these guards have been smarter than the men at the top?

I agree that they were cowards and that there were some sadists among them, too. I know I'm not sadistic but I'll bet that a lot of us, under this rather bizarre set of circumstances, would be less willing to stand up for the prisoners' rights than we might ordinarily.

It's unpatriotic to disagree with the president during war time. Or so everyone says.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Keeping my opinion on this to myself for the moment. I do have a question that will expose my woeful ignorance of today's military, though: Are soldiers *taught* how to understand an unlawful order and what to do if they are given one? Do they actually know what the Geneva Convention states and how it applies to the situation they're in? (Okay, sorry...that was two questions.)

Yes. That training was given an extensive upgrade after the My Lai massacre.

RF

 

[shereads]

You know, the longer we stay over there...the more anti-American they become. Let's let Bush dress up in a new uniform this time...since he likes those 80's shoulder pads so much, maybe we can suit the lil' monkey up in a football uniform in honor of Tillman. I'm sure Bush would think that was 'fabulous'.

Anyway, we tell 'em... we got rid of the Saddam, the heartless dictator for them...but now it appears that we are doing more harm than good. We only wish good for the Iraqi people...yada yada, America and I love the Iraqi people...and my daddy said it was time for me to turn the country back over to the Iraqis...and unless Mr. Cheyney says otherwise...that's what I'm going to do.

I thought you were about to suggest we make him president of Iraq. I'm for that.

 

[The_Darkness]

It's unpatriotic to disagree with the president during war time. Or so everyone says.

I'm gonna have to disagree with everyone then. I hate GWB with a passion. I didn't get to vote last election (20 hour work day...gotta love two jobs) and I clearly can say I'd have voted for neither of the candidates.....but I digress.

It's a patriotic right to disgree with your country's leader at any time. Protesting is unpatriotic...or it can be, anyway....

Just my thoughts.

Besides, all this talk about the Geneva convention really pisses me off....goes back to how prisoners in the States (and presumably elsewhere) actually have it better off than someone making less than 20K a year. I understand ethical treatment and I don't think they should be beaten or tortured (psychologically or physically) but at the same time, I understand that the only way to get reliable intelligence is to get it from detainies/POW's or whatever your word of choice is.

And with the "War on Terror" thing, the detainies at GitMo Bay are classified (or were) as "Armed Non-combatants." There's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. They're not soldiers belonging to any one military, and since they're not professional soldiers, they're non-combatants, just like most of the rest of the world....they're civilians. As Armed Non-combatants, they are not subject to the Geneva Convention. They don't have to be given a trial for years, and if they get one, it'll be a war-crimes tribunal.

I love the legal system. Now excuse me while I drown my "love" with some booze.

 

[Pure]

Did anyone see excerpts from Taguba's testimony before the congressional committee?

He says in no cases were direct orders given, to the soldiers, to commit the acts they did.

He implicated Army intelligence, but only in terms of confusion over who was running the Abu Ghraib prison (Karpinski of the MPs; or Pappas, of Army Intelligence.)

I suspect he's defending the army brass, in that the Army Intelligence, headed by Pappas, said, perhaps not in writing, "These prisoners are to be prepared for interrogation. You are to set the conditions for successful interrogation."

If, over a period of months, the supervisors know or should have known what occurring (in implementing that order), then, in my mind, they may bear criminal responsibility without having made 'direct orders.' Some of the physical methods would be obvious to the interrogators.

If anyone has read Nazi history, there are VERY few documents where Hitler or any high-up person actuallly says "Kill" related to Jews. Rather there's talk of 'final solution' to the 'Jewish problem.'

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Did anyone see excerpts from Taguba's testimony before the congressional committee?

He says in no cases were direct orders given, to the soldiers, to commit the acts they did.

He implicated Army intelligence, but only in terms of confusion over who was running the Abu Ghraib prison (Karpinski of the MPs; or Pappas, of Army Intelligence.)

I suspect he's defending the army brass, in that the Army Intelligence, headed by Pappas, said, perhaps not in writing, "These prisoners are to be prepared for interrogation. You are to set the conditions for successful interrogation."

If, over a period of months, the supervisors know or should have known what occurring (in implementing that order), then, in my mind, they may bear criminal responsibility without having made 'direct orders.' Some of the physical methods would be obvious to the interrogators.

If anyone has read Nazi history, there are VERY few documents where Hitler or any high-up person actuallly says "Kill" related to Jews. Rather there's talk of 'final solution' to the 'Jewish problem.'

Didn't see the excerpts, but been trying to follow what I can. do you have a link?

 

[Pure]

If youre registered with the NY Times, which is free, I bet the transcript (of Taguba) is there, available to you, in excerpt or full. The url by itself won't work if you're not registered. OTOH the story must be front page on hundreds of good papers, like the W Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, etc.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

If youre registered with the NY Times, which is free, I bet the transcript (of Taguba) is there, available to you, in excerpt or full. The url by itself won't work if you're not registered. OTOH the story must be front page on hundreds of good papers, like the W Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, etc.

Thank you Pure, I'll look into it.

 

[Pure]

This, just off the wire. Does our Rummy have balls, or what?

White House - AP Cabinet & State

Rumsfeld Backs Iraq Interrogation Methods

14 minutes ago
Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!

By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended military interrogation techniques in Iraq (news - web sites) on Wednesday, rejecting complaints that they violate international rules and may endanger Americans taken prisoner.


Rumsfeld told a Senate committee that Pentagon (news - web sites) lawyers had approved methods such as sleep deprivation and dietary changes as well as rules permitting prisoners to be made to assume stress positions.

 

[AngeloMichael]

This is what Lynndie herself is saying about the matter in an interview she gave:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/12/iraq/main616921.shtml

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

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

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

I still see this as no excuse for what she has done. She sure didn't look like she was feeling "kind of weird" in those phontos. Following orders or not, those orders were unlawful and she should still be prosecuted.

All this says to me is there should be deeper inverstigations into the chain of command as well.

 

[Pure]

I believe the Times transcript of taguba and cambone is at

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/11/politics/11WEB-ATEX.html

I found it by searching at NY Times site-- taguba transcript-- it runs over 50 pp, as far as I see.

A person, not already registered, would probably have to do so. It takes 5 mins and is free.

 

[Pure]

Angelo,

you said

[article quoted]
England, 21, repeatedly insisted that her actions were dictated by "persons in my higher chain of command." [end quote]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Angelo: "I still see this as no excuse for what she has done. She sure didn't look like she was feeling "kind of weird" in those phontos. Following orders or not, those orders were unlawful and she should still be prosecuted."

===
She's a 21 year old hs graduate from smallville, West Va. You don't expect her to make the best defense, for chrissakes. Yes, "following orders" is inadequate as a defense.

Have you read Taguba's report or his testimony?

Items such as 'failure of leadership' and lack of proper training might be mentioned.

I'd add, misinformation from the very top as to the applicability of the Geneva conventions.

All of the above detract from the requisite 'intent' for conviction.
Further they operate as mitigating factors in assigning punishment, if there were a conviction.

Though she may deserve retraining or re-education, she does not deserve incarceration, imnsho.