[aldo_14]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4514839.stm

A military judge has rejected the guilty plea entered by US soldier Lynndie England in her trial over the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The judge said testimony presented to the court suggested that she did not know what she was doing was wrong.

See?  It's not just the highers ups who are exempted from consequences.......

[Flipside]

LOL That is just........

Words cannot even begin to describe.....


W.T.F Mate?

[Unknown Target]

*yawns and ignores*

[karajorma]

So she pleads guilty and they decide she's innocent?

Great job legitimising the cause of every terrorist group in Iraq!

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma
So she pleads guilty and they decide she's innocent?

Great job legitimising the cause of every terrorist group in Iraq!

'she didn't know what she was doing was wrong'

Um.... the mind boggles, really.  Can al-queda suspects at Gitmo use the same defence, then?

[Unknown Target]

No, because they're not fighting for Freedom (tm)

[redmenace]

Originally posted by karajorma
So she pleads guilty and they decide she's innocent?

Great job legitimising the cause of every terrorist group in Iraq!

Agreed it is ****ed up. But how would that legitamize their cause.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
Agreed it is ****ed up. But how would that legitamize their cause.

A Us soldier is photgraphed posing and smiling next to tortured Iraqis.

Said US soldier is indicted, but pleads guilty as part of a plea bargain which guarentees a  - maximum - sentence drastically reduced from the maximum for the crime (i.e. will be sentenced to the max in the plea bargain or the jury recommendation whichever is lower).

After that guilty plea, the court decides to reject it and declare her plea to be 'not guilty'.  It justifies this by saying there is a contradiction with another already convcited (again pleading guilty) soldier than shown 'she did not know what she was doing was wrong'.

To an Iraqi - or Muslim, or just anyone - this looks like an almost tacit approval; no punishment for torturers, no accountability at the top for torture policy.

They're not going to be made any more likely to stop hating the US, are they?  Especially if their hatred is based on a statement that the Us is seeking to oppress Muslims (perhaps by torturing them in jail?)

[Cyker]

WTF are you lot talking about?!

When they say they rejected the Guilty plea, it doesn't mean she's been found not guilty!!

Normally, the ONLY reason to plead Guilty is to get off with a lighter sentence - What's happened here is that they're basically saying, "No F'ing way are you getting off easy *****, we're nailing your ass to the wall for this one!"

With this decision, she's effectively been denied the lenient sentancing and is now going to have to go through a full court-martial. It ain't gonna be pretty...
And I bet all the other scumbags are gonna be using her as a scapegoat to try and get themselves off their own hooks...

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14


A Us soldier is photgraphed posing and smiling next to tortured Iraqis.

Said US soldier is indicted, but pleads guilty as part of a plea bargain which guarentees a  - maximum - sentence drastically reduced from the maximum for the crime (i.e. will be sentenced to the max in the plea bargain or the jury recommendation whichever is lower).

After that guilty plea, the court decides to reject it and declare her plea to be 'not guilty'.  It justifies this by saying there is a contradiction with another already convcited (again pleading guilty) soldier than shown 'she did not know what she was doing was wrong'.

To an Iraqi - or Muslim, or just anyone - this looks like an almost tacit approval; no punishment for torturers, no accountability at the top for torture policy.

They're not going to be made any more likely to stop hating the US, are they?  Especially if their hatred is based on a statement that the Us is seeking to oppress Muslims (perhaps by torturing them in jail?)

In the eyes of a Sunni it might legitimize it. To the rest of the world or to me for an instance. This is a dumb lawyer.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Cyker
Normally, the ONLY reason to plead Guilty is to get off with a lighter sentence - What's happened here is that they're basically saying, "No F'ing way are you getting off easy *****, we're nailing your ass to the wall for this one!"

With this decision, she's effectively been denied the lenient sentancing and is now going to have to go through a full court-martial. It ain't gonna be pretty...
And I bet all the other scumbags are gonna be using her as a scapegoat to try and get themselves off their own hooks...

This was my understanding of it too.  Someone needs to be the scapegoat for this whole thing, and it's probably going to be her.  But for it to be an effective scapegoating, there has to be a full-blown, highly-publicized court-martial resulting in the maximum sentence.

[Flipside]

The problem for me is the 'Didn't know what she was doing was wrong'.

I cannot believe that someone who was raised in a country so heavily based on it's own Moral codes, which is currently in massive flux regarding, for example, the life of a Foetus etc, did not know that torturing, abusing, and humiliating other humans was unaware that it was wrong.

I will wait and see, but I get the feeling we are going to see a token sentence to be honest.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
In the eyes of a Sunni it might legitimize it. To the rest of the world or to me for an instance. This is a dumb lawyer.

Isn't ignoring 'the eyes of a Sunni' and whatnot what leads to these problems of hatred & terrorism in the first place?

[redmenace]

This is about justice and not about politics. She pleaded guilty to the charges, so sentance her a punishment that fits the crime. As I said this is not about politics. The "eye of the Sunni" should be considered when making political decisions just not whether to accept or reject a guilty pleah. A verdict made in court should not be made based of political concerns either. If you break the law, you must pay for it. That said, this judge is a moron. But then again this might be a military court and therefore have different rules.

[WMCoolmon]

I would like to know what the judge is saying.

Are they saying that she did not have a concept of right and wrong, ie she was innocently following orders - a sort of insanity plea? (Hell no)

Or are they saying that she has no concept of right and wrong, and she is simply pleading guilty for a lighter sentence? (Which is also pretty meh. If it is really that beneficial to plead guilty, then the court system is becoming more like the stock market or a freaking casino; take your chances that your lawyer can prove you innocent or get a lighter sentence, or take the sure bet of a lighter sentence via a guilty plea. 'Not guilty' and 'guilty' should actually have some relevance to the actual guilt of the person.)

[Thrilla]

But then again this might be a military court and therefore have different rules.

It is.

She isn't getting off.  This just means she isn't getting off with the bargain.  I'm glad the Judge wouldn't accept it.  Now she is going to be tried with higher penalties, and it is a way for the courts to tell her that she knows this was wrong and that she knew what she was doing was wrong.  And I know she knows what the right thing is ever since the day she joined the Army.  From the first day you get there they try to burn:  "Do the Right thing!" in your head.  Second, I know they've given her mandatory classes on how to treat EPW's and POW's!  So she is obviously lying.

And many people don't know this but military personnel can be tried technically twice.(They've never done it before though.)  I think it's called something like seperate sovergienty or something like that.  It is where I can kill somebody in Florida as a soldier I can be prosecuted under UCMJ and have my trail thrown out or even be proven innocent and then the state of Florida can prosecute me for the same thing.  The state governments and military normaly get together and figure out which has the worse pushinment try them on that, and they could(but I highly doubt) if they really want a conviction.  They could if she is proven innocent or if she gets off lightly try her under Iraqi court system when it is set up.  But like I said I don't think that would ever happen.

[Annorax]

So with the plea bargain out the door, she's realistically looking at a death sentence?

SWEET. If this doesn't show the world that there is accountability, I don't know what will.

[WMCoolmon]

Are you being sarcastic?

[vyper]

My irony meter is going off the scope! *boom*

[Liberator]

You've mischaracterized the whole thing, aldo...

Her direct superior plead took the rap and said that he ordered everything.

The case was dismissed because the Government(who was prosecuting the case) didn't have enough evidence to prove she knew the order was illegal.

The "leash" was a harness that they used to remove uncooperative prisoners without putting themselves into unnecessary danger.  Corrections is a dangerous business.  Would you rather they used a water hose or electrified prod?