Let's talk about Lynndie England

[Mycroft]

She's in the news again. How did we get along without her?

First, she pleads guilty:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7710828/

FORT HOOD, Texas - Pfc. Lynndie England, who appeared in some of the most notorious and graphic photos from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, pleaded guilty to charges related to her role in the events on Monday.

The 22-year-old Army reservist entered pleas to two counts of conspiracy to maltreat prisoners, four counts of maltreating prisoners and one count of committing an indecent act in a military court in Fort Hood, Texas. In exchange, prosecutors dropped two other counts against her, for committing an indecent act and for dereliction of duty.

The the judge throws out the plea agreement:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/05/05/lynndie/

May 5, 2005 | FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) -- In what military legal experts describe as a "shocker," the judge put the case of former Abu Ghraib prison guard Pfc. Lynndie England back at square one.

Col. James Pohl tossed out the plea agreement that the reservist reached with prosecutors after Pvt. Charles Graner Jr., the reputed ringleader of the abuse, testified Wednesday on her behalf.

Pohl found that Graner's statements contradicted England's previous testimony and declared a mistrial. Pohl's finding sent the case back to Fort Hood's commander, Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, who will decide what charges, if any, England should face.

It turns out that military justice is significantly different from civilian justice. In the military, if you plead guilty, it may not be over. The judge still has to be convinced you're guilty and not just making a plea for a lighter sentence. Also, if your mitigating circumstance presented for leniency are too good, the judge might rule it’s a defense and throw out your plea agreement. In this case, it seems the judge threw out the plea agreement because the testimony of the different parties disagreed. How did they disagree? Let’s see:

During defense questioning, Graner said he looped the leash around a 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.

England said the pictures were taken for amusement, Graner said they were taken for teaching aids. Hmmm.

Then, we learn a bit more about Lynndie England:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=725490

FORT HOOD, Texas May 3, 2005 — Defense lawyers sought leniency for Pfc. Lynndie England at a hearing Tuesday to determine her punishment in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, with a psychologist testifying that the reservist was oxygen-deprived at birth, speech impaired and had trouble learning to read.

West Virginia school psychologist Dr. Thomas Denne the first defense witness said England's learning disabilities were identified when she was a kindergartner and though she made progress in school, she continued needing special help.

"I knew I was going to know Lynndie England for the rest of my life," West Virginia school psychologist Dr. Thomas Denne said.

Learning disabled, oxygen-deprived at birth. That kind of gives credence to the "I was too stupid to know that posing for a picture while laughingly pointing at a naked prisoners woody was wrong." defense.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

None of these news reports mentions whether she lives in a single or double wide.

 

[Beanbag]

You really didn't expect anyone higher up the military chain of command would get blamed for any atrocities, did you?

I'll start by saying I have no proof either way, but I have no doubts personally that such actions couldn't have gone on without the knowlege and tacit approval of the noncommissioned and commissioned officers at the prison. I have no doubts personally that the intelligence agencies knew about it, and probably encouraged such behaviour to make their own workload easier.

When the scandal broke, everyone ran for cover, leaving the lower ranks to take the fall. I think the private took what she thought was the best deal available (lesser of evils). I find it admirable that the judge in question took it upon himself to look at the situation and basically say that something here stinks, and give the private a second chance. You know this isn't helping the judge's career any.

Beanbag

 

[Bjorn]

According to NPR, Charles Graner Jr explained that he thought what he/they did was legal, while Lynndie England had pleaded guilty of (a lot of things, including) conspiracy.

The judge wondered how it could be a conspiracy (to commit the crime) if Graner thought it was legal, and refused to accept her plea on that point - which made the whole deal fall through.

when England's defense called Graner to the stand during sentencing, he implied, in an apparent effort to win leniency for England, that no crime of conspiracy had been committed. In light of this new information, the judge rejected her guilty plea and declared a mistrial

I think his words were "it takes more than one person to make a conspiracy. Who was the other one if not Graner?"

 

[Zep]

Umm, excuse me, but...

FORT HOOD, Texas May 3, 2005 — Defense lawyers sought leniency for Pfc. Lynndie England at a hearing Tuesday to determine her punishment in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, with a psychologist testifying that the reservist was oxygen-deprived at birth, speech impaired and had trouble learning to read.

West Virginia school psychologist Dr. Thomas Denne the first defense witness said England's learning disabilities were identified when she was a kindergartner and though she made progress in school, she continued needing special help.

If so affected, how did this woman make it into the US Army in the first place? I realise there's people with a variety of limitations such as spectacles and bad teeth allowed in the Army, but generally I would have thought they would have to be reasonably sane, fit and suitable for service to be accepted.

 

[Mycroft]

Umm, excuse me, but...If so affected, how did this woman make it into the US Army in the first place? I realise there's people with a variety of limitations such as spectacles and bad teeth allowed in the Army, but generally I would have thought they would have to be reasonably sane, fit and suitable for service to be accepted.

I've known some real idiots to come out of the Army. I mean how do they survive on their own? kind of idiots. You don't have to be smart to enlist.

I suspect the oxygen depravation is played up a little for sympathy, but her being not-so-bright fits with the available facts.

 

[Tanja]

So she is not the sharpest pencil in the box. What I find quite interesting is that intelligence testing, something so common nowadays, originated during the WWI for the purpose of (American) army recruit selection. Are there no such tests applied anymore in the recruitment process? Or is is against some sort of inclusion policy?

 

[The Fool]

Umm, excuse me, but...If so affected, how did this woman make it into the US Army in the first place? I realise there's people with a variety of limitations such as spectacles and bad teeth allowed in the Army, but generally I would have thought they would have to be reasonably sane, fit and suitable for service to be accepted.

Many people in front of courts develop these forms of disability.....I'm also pretty sure that turnkeys are not recruited from the top of the list.....

 

[TragicMonkey]

So she is not the sharpest pencil in the box. What I find quite interesting is that intelligence testing, something so common nowadays, originated during the WWI for the purpose of (American) army recruit selection. Are there no such tests applied anymore in the recruitment process? Or is is against some sort of inclusion policy?

Oh, they'll take any number of criminally sadistic insane idiots who delight in war crimes....as long as they're not, you know, gay or anything. That would be disastrous for the cohesiveness of the military, or something.

 

[Zep]

I've known some real idiots to come out of the Army. I mean how do they survive on their own? kind of idiots. You don't have to be smart to enlist.

I suspect the oxygen depravation is played up a little for sympathy, but her being not-so-bright fits with the available facts.

Oh, I do understand that there are some recruits accepted who haven't got two working synapses they can rub together (hardly unusual people - I have to deal with execs every day), but that doesn't exclude them as a reasonably fit recruit who can be trained to run and shoot and respond to command, etc.

This woman's medical description as submitted in her defense seems to suggest she was not physically or mentally fit to be accepted as a soldier at all. Oxygen deprivation at birth can cause such disabilities as blindness (well, sight development problems), and breathing problems, can't it? Not to mention any brain development abnormalities.

Personally I think that's BS. While she may be a mental midget, she doesn't seem to be in any way "special" - I doubt she would have ever been accepted as a recruit if she was. And that suggests that she either acted on a senior officer's command, or worked in conspiracy with fellow soldiers, or took it on herself, to humiliate the Iraqi prisoners, and she knew clearly what she was doing. So the "I'm a special baby" defense doesn't seem applicable, and she should face court martial as a "normal" soldier.

As to the outcome, I have little knowledge of the workings of a US military court, nor the legal requirements of a US soldier operationally. So I cannot really speculate. But it will be interesting though...

 

[Ian Osborne]

It turns out that military justice is significantly different from civilian justice. In the military, if you plead guilty, it may not be over. The judge still has to be convinced you're guilty and not just making a plea for a lighter sentence. [/i] defense.

I don't know how things stand in the States, but in the UK a magistrate (and presumably also a judge) can reject a 'guilty' plea if the defendant offers mitigation that would, if accepted, mean he or she wasn't guilty of the crime in question.

For a brief while I was a court reporter at the local magistrates' court. One case involved an overloaded van. The defendant argued, "I wasn't overloaded, but to make life easier and not take up any more of the court's time, I'll plead guilty". The magistrate didn't accept this as a guilty plea.

 

[SezMe]

You really didn't expect anyone higher up the military chain of command would get blamed for any atrocities, did you?

I'd like to second Beanbag here. I am disgusted with the blame and punishment being placed so heavily on the lowest rung of the ladder. If I understand correctly, 4 or 5 officers who had line authority in Abu Gharab (sp?) have been exonerated and Karpinski may be demoted or reprimanded or some such similar punishment while the slugs at the bottom are getting hard time.

This is bassackwards. The people who were in charge displayed no leadership in this matter and, using Rummy as their model, have passed the buck downward. I personally won't be satisfied until Rummy is fired and some generals start doing time. I know, it ain't gonna happen. But it ought to.

 

[dann]

Learning disabled, oxygen-deprived at birth. That kind of gives credence to the "I was too stupid to know that posing for a picture while laughingly pointing at a naked prisoners woody was wrong." defense

but, on the other hand, not to studpid to be hired for this kind of job ...

 

[a_unique_person]

Karpinski has been busted back to colonel, http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/05/abu.ghraib/index.html, but she maintains there were areas of the prison that were out of here control. As the saying goes "No responsibility without authority".

 

[Ladewig]

nevermind

post removed after careful reflection

 

[Tony]

She's a dog.

 

[Mycroft]

Personally I think that's BS. While she may be a mental midget, she doesn't seem to be in any way "special" - I doubt she would have ever been accepted as a recruit if she was. And that suggests that she either acted on a senior officer's command, or worked in conspiracy with fellow soldiers, or took it on herself, to humiliate the Iraqi prisoners, and she knew clearly what she was doing. So the "I'm a special baby" defense doesn't seem applicable, and she should face court martial as a "normal" soldier.

Well, keep in mind this information about her mental defects are specifically not offered as a defense, but only as mitigating circumstances.

 

[Garrette]

Not a legal expert, but have some experience with the military justice system.

I was company commander and brought charges against a soldier for an offense that would not result in jail time but in fines, busting of rank, and other-than-honorable discharge (for the non-military, there are four types of discharges: Honorable Discharge; Discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions; Bad Conduct Discharge; Dishonorable Discharge).

The soldier pled guilty, but the judge rejected it saying the circumstances did not on their face lead a reasonable person to conclude that guilt was likely.

After trial, the soldier was found guilty but avoided discharge. He was fined and busted instead. A victory for the soldier because it allowed him to serve out until retirement and draw pension.

While I didn't care for the individual ruling, I like the system for having it. It protects the soldier.

---

Regarding England herself, I heard an analysis yesterday that the judge did not reject her plea -- he declared a mistrial and did it on the following grounds:

England pled guilty during the trial phase, but during the sentencing phase her attorney presented evidence to indicate that she was Not Guilty. This is, according to the analyst, a Law 101 No-No.

According to this analyst, it goes back to square one with England having to enter a plea again.

---

Regarding Abu Ghraib itself, I have no problem with the soldiers getting hammered; I think they should if they are indeed guilty.

I am mortified, however, that there is not, apparently, accountability at the top. Busting of Karpinski to Colonel is significant but not, imo, sufficient.

 

[crimresearch]

So she is not the sharpest pencil in the box. What I find quite interesting is that intelligence testing, something so common nowadays, originated during the WWI for the purpose of (American) army recruit selection. Are there no such tests applied anymore in the recruitment process? Or is is against some sort of inclusion policy?

There is a whole battery of tests which she presumably passed to enlist.

Originally posted by Mycroft

It turns out that military justice is significantly different from civilian justice. In the military, if you plead guilty, it may not be over. The judge still has to be convinced you're guilty and not just making a plea for a lighter sentence....

That is exactly the SAME as in civilian courts.

A judge can easily reject a plea bargain if they believe it was not properly arrived at.

 

[BPSCG]

A judge can easily reject a plea bargain if they believe it was not properly arrived at.

Viz. Zacarias Massoui - the 20th hijacker. He pled guilty last week, but for a while, there was real doubt that Judge Brinkema here would accept the plea. She went through major hoops to ascertain that he was fully aware of what he was doing, that he was closing the door to any appeals, that once she accepted his plea, it was final, and that the only thing left to do after she accepted his plea would be to determine the penalty, which would in all probability be death. Only when she was satisfied that he understood all of that did she accept his plea.

And then the clown immediately claimed that what he was doing was in no way connected to the September 11 hijacking, but to some other hijack scheme. Sorry, pal, too late.

In short, the criminal justice system bent over backward to make sure even a vicious would-be mass murderer was treated fairly.

Just the way it's supposed to be.

For those who complain that he higher-ups aren't being punished: Is it your contention that those who knew what was going on but didn't do anything about it should be punished more harshly than those who actually did it? Is it your contention that those who did not know what was going on, but should have, should be punished more harshly than those who actually did it?