I think there should be varying levels of punishment as far up COC as can be proven. If someone knew and didn't do something, they need to be punished.

I don't. I think both men and women must take responsibility for our own actions. "I was just following orders" was the theme song at Nuremburg. I don't want to come close to repeating that chapter of history.

I am _not_ equating Abu Ghraib with Auschwitz, nor America at any time past or present with Nazi Germany. We are still only in the Weimar Republic. There is still time to turn back, reverse current trends, restore the Constitutional order of individual freedom and responsibility.

I think this young woman is complicit but not nearly as culpable as those farther up the ladder who allowed this sort of behavior to go on and weren't doing their jobs to manage, supervise and train their troops.

She seems particularly stupid. I'd certainly like to give that sullen face a smack for sure.

No, just following orders does not excuse or justify committing a crime in uniform. She will not be found innocent with that defense and rightly so. Actually, I don't think she was "ordered" to pose for the pictures. She was visiting her "boyfriend" and "just having fun" while giggling at and humiliating the prisoners. She didn't have any official reason to be where the crimes were committed so who "ordered" her to abuse those men?

Half the time officers don't even know what the hell is going on, (look at Gen. Karpinski- she didn't have a friggin clue!!) but someone in her command chain was pushing some buttons whether it was the civilian "interrogators" or people in the 205th MI Bn. Either way, she had to know as did her other fellow Soldiers, that what they did violated the very core of our Army Values. We train nearly as much on values as we do on our tasks, but those Soldiers were definately failing to live up the those values. Hell, she was having an affair with a married man who I think was one of her supervisors.

I certainly don't hold Sec. Rumsfeld, VP Cheney or Pres. Bush responsible for these actions. That is just crazy talk. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if a General Officer in the chain bears some direct responsibility.

Look, they did wrong, they will be punished, and so will some people in the chain of command, but to take it back to Washington, that's a little extreme.

What I see as the 500 lb gorilla is that fact that we sent unprepared reservists and National Guard troops into a shit-storm where they obviously needed a bit more training. Clearly, we needed more troops to deal with the Iraq war (as our Generals stated) but Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney decided against that move. That's where we have the problem, and that's where I hold them responsible.

Tim,

You agree that following orders is a bullshit excuse and those that did the crime should do the time?

Yes, I do. Those Soldiers knew it was wrong and following orders is no excuse.

According to the testimony yesterday, she continually disobeyed orders to stay in her own bunk at night, quit sneaking down to visit Garner, watch her sexual promiscuity(sp?) and so on, so if she could not follow basic orders, why would I believe she would follow oders to abuse a prisoner? I think she is guilty, but I think 37 years is harsh!

Are there any military statutes or violations she is specifically accused of or are we just supposed to dump on her based on media stories and photo's ?

We obviously allocated insufficient resources to the prisons. It was a clear oversight for which the administration should answer. Although the generals and colonels in charge don't have an excuse, it's not acceptable that people under their command should behave so badly.

That said, one thing more people should acknowledge is that it was the military itself that came forward with this story. Not like some secret whistle blower or investigative reporter had to "blow the lid off." As soon as the brass got wind, investigations were launched and preperations for prosecutions begun. Which is exactly the right way to handle it.

Yes, both the military and the administration get a black eye on this but jesus, let's acknowledge that the brass reacted appropriately once they realized what happened.

As for Private England: "Just following orders" is no excuse. She should get a fair trial, of course, and not be prosecuted for anything she didn't actually do, and everything should be looked at in context when it comes to sentencing.

I sure hope so. Private Lynch was used by the military as a cause for the good. Her bio suggests some things happened that she didn't agree with. But she was a good soldier.

Pvt. England is entitled in all due fairness to a fair trial. And I suspect the military also congers up people to use as scapegoats. So I don't think the pictures and the media exposure ought convict her without fair representation.

I think its fair to say, that Pvt. England will not get an OJ Dream-Team defense. In the meantime, I give her the benefit of the doubt until all facts are in. I suspect she is going to really get dumped on. I'm not sure she bears the full brunt of said negative activities.

And Tim is quite right,

" Gen. Karpinski- she didn't have a friggin clue"

Though I feel the chain of command failed miserably and should face serious consequences, I do NOT believe for a minute that Pvt England was following orders. Oh by the way, Soldiers are taught from day one to disobey unlawful orders, it's their duty.

I also find it interestng that Pvt England is a administrative specialist whose job does not entail going into the cellblock areas of a prison.

The military ignored reports of abuse from the Red Cross and Amnesty International for a year.The military hid prisoners.
"A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release" broke the story.

England will be scapegoated along with the others, responsibility certainly goes goes beyond a few enlisted personnel. Military Intelligence ,CID, civilian "contractors" all had their hands in these actions.
There will be no written orders,“Do you really think a group of kids from rural Virginia decided to do this on their own? Decided that the best way to embarrass Arabs and make them talk was to have them walk around nude?

Hey, Tim, I apologize for the snarky comment in an earlier thread, I had gotten the impression from some of your other comments (about many or most enlisted you know not wanting Bush re-elected or something) that you did discuss such things with those under you. But the fact you recognize how the chain of command works, and where the highest levels of responsibility are for the Abu Ghraib abuses, shows a far greater level of discernment, honor, and reason then I had gathered from your previous statements.
So yes, I do apologize for impuning your capabilities as a NCO in our nations forces.

explitive- yes I do think that it is possible for these people to come up with the abuse on their own.

Sgt hook- you are right about the fact that she wasn't supposed to be in the cell block. She is claiming she was just following orders, but her orders were to stay in her bunk at night and to quick sneaking down to the cell block to see Garner. How would she have gotten orders to abuse when she wasn't within her own work area?

John, ok enough said. But let me sat that I have been in units where we have had battalion level meetings where higher ranking officers have strongly urged the lower enlisted to vote republican. In fact just prior to the 2000 election, our S-3 (training and operations officer) a Major, stated to the troops, "do you want a bigger pay raise? Do you want new barracks? Then you better vote for George Bush." I was so sickened by this act that filed a complaint with the Inspector General, and the major had to retract that statement. A company commander once told me to remove my picture of Bill Clinton that I had on my desk (of course I told him to respectfully "forget that noise." While he had one of Ronald Reagan hanging up in his office.

Good thing those weren't people of real responsibility huh?

Rose,

Blackfive has some relevant comments about the situation here.

An especially relevant comment from him:
"everyone is focused on her penchant for exhibitionism, sex, foul language, etc. And the defense is claiming that she was following orders from Military Intelligence to soften up the prisoners.

Newsflash: England is a personnel clerk - a 71L. Not. An. MP. Her position is NOT one where an MI type would direct her to soften anything up unless it was personnel records file. No badge, no credentials, not an MP with authority over any prisoners. Keeping records is an important job, but it is not one that would grant her authority to do anything with regards to an interrogation or intelligence gathering.

This was all done on her own (with her boyfriend and a few other friends)."

Verrryyy Interesting... eh?

I have a question: just who was issuing those orders that England was supposedly following?

But no, "I was following orders" doesnt' cut it. As others (including Tim I believe) have pointed out, American soldiers have the option, and are expected to, refuse to follow unlawful orders.

Want to see something disturbing? Check this out:

http://fourstrings.fanspace.com/photo2.html

Tim - if an officer under my command did what you describe, he would have received a terminal OER.

Catch 22: Last week, new charges were preferred against England, the female soldier famously pictured holding a leash tied to a naked Iraqi prisoner at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The six additional specifications double her maximum possible sentence from about 15 years to 30 years, said spokesman Lt. Col. Billy Buckner of the XVIII Airborne Corps.

Four new specifications are for “indecent acts,” and one is for “the creation and possession of sexually explicit photographs.”

None of the new pictures involve Iraqi detainees or Iraqi nationals, according to a news release from Fort Bragg.

Published reports, quoting anonymous congressmen who were shown Abu Ghraib photos and videos a couple of months ago, said the photos depict American soldiers engaged in graphic sexual acts with other soldiers.

England is pregnant. The father is Spc. Charles Graner, a buddy from the 372nd Military Police Company. In court, she wore a maternity BDU top.

According to the news release, other charges she faces are: posing for the leash photograph; three specifications of assaulting detainees; eight specifications of posing for “numerous wrongful photographs with various Iraqi detainees,” and one of “indecent acts with numerous soldiers and Iraqi detainees.”

Aside from the sexual peccadilloes with her fellow soldiers, she's basically charged with Geneva Violations regarding prisoner treatment.

*If*, and I'm with Hook on this, *if* she was indeed, following orders, those are matters of extenuation and mitigation, not of guilt or innocence.

If she wants to maximize her mitigation - she's been signing like a bird, in confirmable ways.

Reality is - some asswipes may escape unharmed in terms of courts-martial, due to lack of useable, corroborated evidence. Life sucks, but it *is* a basic premise underlying even the military justice system.

I share some other's disquiet that the courts-martial won't reach high enough, and that's too bad - but the evidence has to be there. Or someone like me, sitting on a panel - isn't going to vote to convict.

And yes, a court isn't a guaranteed conviction. I was on panels that acquitted twice.

Oops. Forgot my cite.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-3085029.php

of course I see no voice of real dissent here because it is apparent, that you conservatives and chickenhawks aready have your minds made up without knowing what truely went on or what was said to these soldiers.
Let reality be the cold hard truth that most "grunts" are not the brightest light in the lamp store. They are easily manipulated. As for Sgt. Hook's little statement that "you are taught from day one to not follow orders you feel are unjust" this is absolutley true. One of the first things taught in both basic training for the enlisted as well as OCS is to disobey an order you feel is unjust, HOWEVER, he fails to mention how everything else is drilled into your head the dire consequnces for not following orders. The UCMJ is jammed down your throat from anywhere from corrective custody and articles that will doc pay and strip rank all the way to death under war time circumstances. This is taught in such a manner that you will always think twice about disobeying ANY order whether it be just or unjust.
Is it an excuse - "just follwing orders" - of course not. There is no excuse for what those "soldiers" did. But do I beleive that it was an order? Yes I do, and those who gave the orders are just as vile and disgusting as the soldiers who did it.
As for the statements being made that "England is a administrative specialist whose job does not entail going into the cellblock " then what does that say of the "security" within the prison itself? Isn't it our military's duty and obligation to protect the POW's? Or is that too liberal for you guys?

(with apologies to the Queen).

Oh, Nunya, gfy.

Oh, hecky darn, John. Say out loud! Her Majesty has done so on more than one occasion.

nunya, you a clueless fucking idiot, proven by the fact that you are stone dumb enough to say something like that.

Yes, by all means. I don't stand on ceremony - drop the f-bomb all day long. It's my favorite word!

Well, Nunya is off a bit on one topic in particular. Soldiers and officers are not taught that they should disobey an order that they feel is unjust. They are taught that they have a duty to disobey an order that is unlawful. A soldier may feel that it is unjust to fire on a religious building. If there is a sniper in the bell tower, the order is legal, though, and he is obligated to follow it. If the building has not been shown to house enemy combatants, though, the soldier has an obligation to defy the order.

He does have a point, though, in that it would appear there was some breach of security by having England in the cell block in the first place. Someone should have to answer for that one.

I've been to Abu Ghraib prison. The cell blocks are not a place one can easily access, obviously, so she was escorted in. Equally obviously, there ought to be a log of when she was signed in, so that one should be on trial soon enough.

Um, no. The anonymous coward, nunya, claimed that soldiers are intimidated into following orders due to the penalties of resistance. It never made any distinction between "just" and "legal."

I do see what you are saying, tho, E. I suppose that's because it's easier to define "legal" than "just," alas.

As for England's access, why not ask the general in charge? Oh, that's right, I forgot; she's too busy claiming she didn't know anything.

Sargeant Schultz lives... Heh.

Dean Esmay:
“Yes, both the military and the administration get a black eye on this but jesus, let's acknowledge that the brass reacted appropriately once they realized what happened.”

“The brass” didn’t do much of anything except ignore the Red Cross and investigate itself until damning pictures were being published. Then it found itself innocent of any responsibility for prisoner abuse by numerous soldiers at multiple locations over an extended period of time (England was far from the only soldier pictured abusing prisoners). Now it is prosecuting only the bottom-rungs in the chain of command.

But England should be punished for her conduct. John of Argghhh is right, her claims provide only mitigating circumstances relating to her punishment, not guilt or innocence.