Lynndie England, hillbilly torturer

[shecky]

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=1302907

What's the story here? Is this for real?

[Tony]

Some of the quotes in that article are painful to read. But it highlights a concern of mine that these people are being scapegoated.

[Flame]

Occasionally, when reading a linked article, I frantically start searching the frame for clues leading to the conclusion that it's a 'spoof' site...

This is one of those times :(

That's it for now, I can't even figure out what to bloody say regarding that article so soon after reading it :(

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tony
Some of the quotes in that article are painful to read. But it highlights a concern of mine that these people are being scapegoated.

Are you suggesting the photos of Lynndie are fake?

If not; in what context could you possibly justify her behaviour?

[geni]

Stuff like thats all over google news.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=ascii&q=%22Lynndie+England%22

[Tony]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Are you suggesting the photos of Lynndie are fake?

If not; in what context could you possibly justify her behaviour?

WTF!?! How could you even conclude that from what I wrote?

[subgenius]

Lynndie England, a name that should go down in infamy.

It is also not inconsistent to say she is being scapegoated. It is no defense to say you were following orders, but it should lead the investigators to discover who was giving those orders, and who was turning a blind eye (Rumsfeld still has not read the report, nor has the commander in chief).

Responsibility rests with those who knew, or should have known.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tony


WTF!?! How could you even conclude that from what I wrote?

scapegoat = someone being punished for the crimes of others..


What did you mean?

I'm not intending criticsm of you, just curious about your reasoning...

[hgc]

This quote from the article is not about that poor, dumb hick, Lynndie, but about the general in "command"...The commander of the prison service in Iraq, Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski, 50, has been suspended from duty and is expected to be charged.

Colleagues of the tough, super-fit officer last night described her as a woman with one mission – to raise her own profile. Oops! Her profile sure is high now. Be careful of what you ask for.

I think they should release Lynndie to go home to eat a fine meal of squirrel brains, and then she can marry that squirrel too.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by subgenius
Lynndie England, a name that should go down in infamy.

It is also not inconsistent to say she is being scapegoated. It is no defense to say you were following orders, but it should lead the investigators to discover who was giving those orders, and who was turning a blind eye (Rumsfeld still has not read the report, nor has the commander in chief).

Responsibility rests with those who knew, or should have known.

We can't say she ( and others ) has been scapegoated until her superiors are cleared of any wrong doing...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Diogenes

What did you mean?


I mean that I hope these people aren't going to take the fall for their superiors who might or might not have sanctioned and/or ordered these activities.

[Tony]

Originally posted by subgenius
It is no defense to say you were following orders...

Why not?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tony


I mean that I hope these people aren't going to take the fall for their superiors who might or might not have sanctioned and/or ordered these activities.

Oh ... I missed the ' I hope part '... I heard

" ... a concern of mine that these people are being scapegoated..."

Thanks for clearing that up..:)

[corplinx]

This girl, her superiors? No, no, no. We have to have Rummy arrested instead. Didn't you hear Charles (recipient of shill of the week award) Rangel today?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx
This girl, her superiors? No, no, no. We have to have Rummy arrested instead. Didn't you hear Charles (recipient of shill of the week award) Rangel today?
Her, them, the superiors, and Rummy. Why would anyone think its one or the other?

[subgenius]

We shouldn't start a "shrill of the week" thread should we?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
We shouldn't start a "shrill of the week" thread should we?

No, shill of the week is fine. This week its a tossup between the impeach Rummy crowd and the "war is hell, so sodomizing a prisoner is ok" crowd. However disgusted I am at the latter sentiment, the former sentiment has had more airplay.

I guess I could also give an honorary award to someone on this forum, you game?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


No, shill of the week is fine. This week its a tossup between the impeach Rummy crowd and the "war is hell, so sodomizing a prisoner is ok" crowd. However disgusted I am at the latter sentiment, the former sentiment has had more airplay.

I guess I could also give an honorary award to someone on this forum, you game?
That bliss thing working for you?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius

That bliss thing working for you?

Yet another botched attempt at witty nonchallance. Nice ad hominem slick.

[whim]

I don't think rogue US soldiers are to blame. I think it's much more likely the problem was that the interrogations were being run by mercenaries. (Oh, I'm sorry, we're calling them 'civilian consultants' now, aren't we...)

[Bikewer]

It will be interesting to see how far "up" this goes. The military has a long history of letting the lower ranks take the hit.

Ollie, conducting a secret war in the basement of the White House, for instance.

Anyone remember the term "plausible deniability"?

[hammegk]

My only thought is how could the people involved be so dumb to let someone with a camera in, or out with film still in the camera?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by hammegk
My only thought is how could the people involved be so dumb to let someone with a camera in, or out with film still in the camera? Probably because 'the people involved' were the same as the people with cameras.

Verdict: Incredibly stupid on both counts. :(

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shecky
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=1302907

What's the story here? Is this for real?

Once again



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.




The US army is a place for those who can't get a job or education to get one. The only problem is, sometimes it want's it's pound of flesh.

[subgenius]

"witty nonchallance"...I don't know why for the life of me I can't remember that classic bit of projection....

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by hammegk
My only thought is how could the people involved be so dumb to let someone with a camera in, or out with film still in the camera?

I've often wondered how you arrive at some of the conclusions that you do. You seem to be intelligent. This comment has gone a long way towards answering that question: you aren't stupid, just ill-informed.

That's not an insult. If there was a diplomatic way of saying it, I'd say it. But you obviously haven't heard of the CD that was doing the rounds of Millitary Police, with pictures of people on camels, in front of Iraqi landmarks, etc, along with the torture photos.

These pictures were souvenirs.

So, it isn't as you imply, a case of these people letting their guard down and letting someone take photos of them. These people took these photos because they thought what they were doing was cool. They wanted a memento of the event. Think about the implications of that.

[Mr Manifesto]

I think it's also worth, at this point, to make a comment on the hillbilly angle of this story.

The media seems to be increasingly focussed on the origins of the people in the actual pictures. Where they were from, was there an active chapter of the KKK, do people 'openly' talk about it (who cares if they do? Are we supposed to keep quiet when racist groups operate in our local area?)... all seems geared towards placing the blame solidly on the people in the photos. Maybe with a little back-story about, if we could all get rid of racism and learn to get along, the world would be much nicer.

Another back-story: these are a few bad apples spoiling the barrel.

First, let's look at the racism business. Even if you get college kids from New York in the army, I think you'll always have a certain amount of racism in the military. Or, to put it another way, dehumanisation of the enemy. Now, I admit my knowledge of military training is bugger-all, but it's worth quoting a line from Full Metal Jacket at this point:

"It is your killer instinct which must be harnessed if you expect to survive in combat. Your rifle is only a tool. It is a hard heart that kills. If your killer instincts are not clean and strong you will hesitate at the moment of truth. You will not kill. You will become dead marines. And then you will be in a world of *****. Because marines are not allowed to die without permission!"

Now, how do soldiers get this killer instinct? It isn't by saying, 'remember, your enemy are human beings like you,with feeling, hopes and dreams and a family to go home to at the end of the day'. Therefore, there is never going to be a magic cure for hatred of the enemy. Trying to write the whole issue off as the fault of a few rednecks who were racist anyway is not addressing the problem.

Are these a few bad apples spoiling the bunch? There are plenty of investigations going on at the moment about other incidents- about 35 at last count- and there are rumours (some of which have come from the Brigadier General who ran the prison, but since there is no hard substantiation at this time, a rumour it remains) that these people were following the orders of Military Intelligence. That would certainly explain why they thought it was acceptable to take photos of people in positions of torture.

As Tony says... Hope these people aren't being scapegoated.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shecky
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=1302907

What's the story here? Is this for real?

Trailer park. Say no more.

[Skeptical Greg]

Mr Manifesto,

You made some valid points IMO. You can't prepare people to kill, then have them switch to Mr. Nice Guy at the drop of the hat.

The stupidest thing these people did, was to take the damn pictures.. The next stupidest thing they did was pass them around.. ( or maybe it is the other way around )

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Mr Manifesto,

You made some valid points IMO. You can't prepare people to kill, then have them switch to Mr. Nice Guy at the drop of the hat.

The stupidest thing these people did, was to take the damn pictures.. The next stupidest thing they did was pass them around.. ( or maybe it is the other way around ) I disagree. The stupidest thing, no comparison, was to abuse the prisoners in the first place. :(

Most people, most soldiers, wouldn't.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I disagree. The stupidest thing, no comparison, was to abuse the prisoners in the first place. :(

Most people, most soldiers, wouldn't.

Nope.. Not stupid, just mean.. Some people are like that.. Could be a side effect of having a primary occupation of killer.

[subgenius]

Mr. M, You of course are bending over backward to concede every reasonable point., but you know what, it never gets you anywhere.
I have said she shouldn't be absolved of liability, nor should her claims of following orders not be followed through on.

She is an example of what each and every one of us is capable of given the right circumstances.

And that doesn't absolve liability either.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Nope.. Not stupid, just mean.. Some people are like that.. Could be a side effect of having a primary occupation of killer. Mean maybe, stupid indeed. No thoughts about what could happen to their fellow soldiers because of this. :(

[mummymonkey]

I'm afraid I don't agree with this 'dehumanising the enemy' theory. There are a wide range of people serving in the armed forces, from psychopaths to pastors. They are no more likely to indulge in a spot of dehumanising than your average plumber.
When I served in the Air Force we talked a fair bit about the enemy (at that time it would have been the IRA and the Soviet Bloc in that order). We discussed their tactics, their motivation, and their history. At no time were we taught that they were other than human. Many members of the armed forces that I met, whilst abhorring their methods, were sympathetic to the Provisional's cause.
I have an elderly, relative who fought in North Africa and Italy and his recollections are very vivid. They respected their enemies and had no problems getting chummy with POWs. My sister's Father in Law was a German POW.
In battle, such was the mixture of confusion and outright terror that there simply wasn't time to consider the family life of your targets. You simply fired your weapon in his general direction and got your head down; often at the same time. To this day he thinks about the friends that he lost, and the men he may have killed, with equal sorrow.
I think what we're seeing in those shameful photographs is a mixture of upbringing, peer pressure bravado and outright stupidity. It also indicates a criminal breakdown in discipline and a lack of clear leadership.

[richardm]

"I was only following orders" is no defence


Originally posted by Tony


Why not?

Well, it didn't work at Nuremburg...

"I was only following orders" is an accepted defence so long as what you're doing is not illegal, or if a reasonable person would know that it was illegal - so, if you follow an order knowing or suspecting that you're being told to do something illegal, you are culpable.

There have been threads here in the long-ago about how the US army trains people to recognise an illegal order. I think any reasonable person would know that torture is illegal, so...