Lynndie England, benevolent imbecile


PDA






Joejojoba111
May 24, 2005, 01:27 AM
"BY T.A. BADGER ASSOCIATED PRESS

FORT HOOD, Texas-- A military judge Wednesday threw out Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, saying that he was not convinced that she knew that her actions were wrong at the time."

Yup. Lynndie England can't be found guilty, Rumsfeld was given a medal, and Gonzalez promoted to one of the most powerful posts in the country. And to think the world doesn't believe that there's been an about face in prisoner treatment. :(


http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-abuse04.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Lynndie England, benevolent imbecile" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RevDisk
May 24, 2005, 02:36 AM
A military judge Wednesday threw out Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, saying that he was not convinced that she knew that her actions were wrong at the time.

[blink]

Uh... So can other sex offenders also get out of prison by claiming they didn't know their actions were wrong?

WayneConrad
May 24, 2005, 06:57 AM
Old news (this happened on the 4th), but...

This didn't mean she was not guilty. It meant she would go to trial. The way I understand it, since she had earlier said that she did nothing wrong and was just following orders, the judge was compelled (under the rules of military justice) to not accept her guilty plea. I think he said something about not being able to have it both ways.

She was convicted, by the way.

The above is mostly untrue. I had it all wrong. See later posts for better information.

Joejojoba111
May 24, 2005, 08:07 AM
Umm, that Was the trial. Now there's going to be a roomfull of men deciding a just punishment. And the compromise was only a debatable compromise on 1 of the 5 charges; "you can't have a 1 person conspiracy", and bingo just like that mistrial.

If you want an idea what her sentence will be, (re Sabrina Harman, who actually made a good show of understanding of consequences) assume it will be about a quarter of what the prosecution suggests, and prosecution will suggest about half of the maximum maybe. Unless the grand jury decides she's just a benevolent imbecile.

Now mind you Harman accepted responsibility for wrong doing, and her words actually read intelligently as to the consequences she recognizes from her actions. Compare that to this tidbit, where Graner testifies at the mistrial in question:

"During defence questioning, Graner said he looped the leash around the prisoner's shoulders as a way to coax him out of a cell, and that it slipped up around his neck. He said he asked England to hold the strap while he took photos that he could show to other guards later to teach them this prisoner-handling technique."

See, it's all just a big misunderstanding...


Now once more let's see what someoen with dignity, Sabrina Harman says::

"As a soldier and military police officer, I failed my duties and failed my mission to protect and defend," said Harman, 27. "I not only let down the people in Iraq, but I let down every single soldier that serves today. My actions potentially caused an increased hatred and insurgency towards the United States, putting soldiers and civilians at greater risk. I take full responsibility for my actions ... The decisions I made were mine and mine alone."

Lobotomy Boy
May 24, 2005, 11:56 AM
England's trial ended in a mistrial. The powers that be are deciding today whether or not to retry her. I think you are thinking about that other woman who was found guilty in the past week.

I don't think we should let the soldiers who did this off, and that Graynor (sp?)dude probably deserves the 10-year sentence he received, but England really does seem to stupid to understand what is going on. I've known people like that who ended up in the military (some of them even ended up in military police units like England), people who were for all practical purposes mentally retarded. They just hadn't been tested properly and fell through the cracks in the system. England seems like a half-wit who was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people, and if they decide not to retry her I won't mind. At least she'll be around to take care of her kid the best she can, since the father (Graynor) will be in prison for the better part of the next ten years.

MikeIsaj
May 24, 2005, 12:09 PM
Umm, that Was the trial. Now there's going to be a roomfull of men deciding a just punishment.

Unless I missed something that was not her trial, it was a sentencing hearing. Her scumbag adulterous boyfriend testified she did not know that what she did was wrong because she thought she was obeying lawful orders. She had already plead guilty. You cannot plead guilty to a crime then provide testimony that you didn't know it was a crime. That coupled with the fact that this girl is borderline mentally disabled caused the Board to reject her plea and require a Court Martial trial.

Personnally I think she should be cleared and sent home. When you learn of her background of developmental and mental disabilities, reulting form an interruption of blood flow at birth, you wonder how she ever got into the army to begin with. Personnally I see a use of the reserves as welfare.

Sean Smith
May 24, 2005, 12:28 PM
You cannot plead guilty to a crime then provide testimony that you didn't know it was a crime.

Bingo. The judge just made a very straightforward legal judgement. The defense screwed up and left him no other choice but to slap them upside the head.

LHB1
May 24, 2005, 02:25 PM
Quote: "Lynndie England can't be found guilty,"

WRONG!!! All the judge did was reject her guilty plea. He did NOT say she could not be found guilty. Now she will be tried/retried and the decision of the court martial panel can be either Guilty or Innocent just as usual.

Good shooting and be safe.
LB

ps: There was further news today that the military equivalent of civilian Grand Jury was meeting to decide/implement the first steps toward her re-trial.

Lobotomy Boy
May 24, 2005, 03:03 PM
She waived the right to the military equivilant of a grand jury. Now the military is deciding whether or not to retry her. I don't see what purpose would be served by locking her up at this point and hope they just drop the case. I've been very uncomfortable watching the talk show hosts joke about her. It's sort of like watching the schoolyard bully pick on the retarded kid.

Sean Smith
May 24, 2005, 04:14 PM
Stupid people are often also mean and malicious critters. Idiot does not equal benevolent or even particuarly worthy of sympathy. By most accounts, Ms. Forrest Gump she ain't.

XLMiguel
May 24, 2005, 07:33 PM
What Sean said. Ms Englund is an irresponsible, stupid, nasty little trollup that never should have been allowed into the military to begin with. The disgusting part is that we taxpayers will likely be supporting her and her bastard regardless of the outcome of what ever legal actions are taken by the military. :barf:

Fletchette
May 24, 2005, 09:18 PM
Sheeesh! Isn't that a little harsh for someone who just held a piece of leather? It isn't like she beat anyone to death (as it seems other guards have done)...

XLMiguel
May 24, 2005, 09:40 PM
No, not at all harsh, considering. Ms Englund has a track record of being a screw-up since she's been old enough to be a screw-up. I'd have to do a bit of research for the particulars and citations, but AFAIR, she's not a real competent human being, was pretty much a loser before she got into the military. Shame on the recruiter who signed her up.

Fletchette
May 25, 2005, 12:03 AM
No arguement that she should have not been signed up; the military is not for everyone. I just don't think she should get punished as hard as Grainer...

M109A6 Paladin
May 25, 2005, 12:31 PM
I don't think any of them should be found guilty of any abuse UNLESS their commanders are also tried for the same offense.

Same as LT. Calley. He was following orders and/or general practices (for the time) assumed, implied or inferred.

BTW, Calley's CO admitted to killing women and children (while on the stand) and never came up on charges. How's that for military justice?

captain obvious
May 25, 2005, 03:10 PM
Someone please clarify this for me; Didn't those prisoners not fall under the domain of geneva because they didn't wear uniforms/carry weapons openly (and thus violate UCMJ)? I remember after WWII in Germany we executed every insurgent we picked up, sometimes ones [civilians] we didn't (and this isn't counting Soviet actions in any way)? :scrutiny:

Hawkmoon
May 25, 2005, 04:48 PM
Not all of the prisoners we swept up in Iraq were "insurgents." We picked up a lot of people in random sweeps who had nothing to do with any attacks on "coalition" forces.

Aside from that, I believe the Geneva conventions include provisions addressing civilians as well as military personnel.

If you enjoyed reading about "Lynndie England, benevolent imbecile" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!