Military Judge Rejects England's Plea Deal

FoxNews.com ^ | May 4, 2005 | AP

[cweese]

FORT HOOD, Texas — A military judge on Wednesday rejected Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea agreement in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal after another prisoner's testimony cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Earlier in the day, Pvt. Charles Graner Jr., the reputed ringleader in the scandal, contradicted a key part of England's guilty plea, in which she said she knew she was committing wrongful acts when she took part in the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees. Graner said that the notorious photos taken of England at the prison had a legitimate use, endangering England's guilty plea to seven abuse charges. Under military law, a judge can formally accept England's guilty plea only if she knew at the time that what she was doing was illegal. The judge, Col. James Pohl, planned to question England again Wednesday afternoon to try to clarify her state of mind when the abusive acts occurred. Graner, who is said to be England's ex-boyfriend, was found guilty in January and is serving a 10-year prison term for his role in the scandal. Pohl abruptly stopped England's sentencing hearing after Graner testified for the defense that three pictures he took of England holding a naked prisoner on a leash were meant to be used as a legitimate training aid for other guards.

[Robert_Paulson2]

from the link below...

---

In 1941 Charles Portal of the British Air Staff advocated that entire cities and towns should be bombed. Portal claimed that this would quickly bring about the collapse of civilian morale in Germany. Air Marshall Arthur Harris agreed and when he became head of RAF Bomber Command in February 1942, he introduced a policy of area bombing (known in Germany as terror bombing) where entire cities and towns were targeted.

One tactic used by the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force was the creation of firestorms. This was achieved by dropping incendiary bombs, filled with highly combustible chemicals such as magnesium, phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), in clusters over a specific target. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire.

In 1945, Arthur Harris decided to create a firestorm in the medieval city of Dresden. He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns. The population of the city was now far greater than the normal 650,000 due to the large numbers of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army.

On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 35,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 100,000.

---

... end of snippet.

What we did to dresden and other german cities, was horrific and absolutely necessary to winning the war against nazism. Innocents died.

That is the true nature of war.

link

I also support the historic decision to the nuclear bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. Anything to win the war. War by it's very definition is not a 'moral' proposition.

Only fools would believe otherwise, no matter whose administration they support or work for.

The idea of panties on a few 'innocent's' heads being a war crime is liberal feel-good bulhockey. The picture is a flat car load of dead german civilians, burned beyond recognition. Many MANY flat cars were piled with bodies in dresden. In hiroshima, the nuclear firestorm incinerated much of the carnage... so there are no photos of flatcars piled with bodies, as far as I know.

War is hell.

Panties on the head is NOT an atrocity.

[Nebr FAL owner]

She is the low person on the totem pole & is gonna get burned by the system but you will note that the officers that were in command of the prison's have literally said that yeah discipline of their troops was sh*t but what did the Army want them to do about it? the officers have been cleared. If heads are gonna end up on spikes let some of those heads be those who were supposed to be the adult supervision/leadership of the unit in question.

[Robert_Paulson2]

thank you for helping clarify the 'oh please not the panties' bullcrap fest of the feelgood abugharib angst crowd.

of course, they will refuse to see the wisdom of your comparison... after all, "if we put panties on their heads, we are just as bad as they are...."

unbelievable

[FierceKulak]

For what exactly? Being a stupid disgrace?

[AFPhys]

This is likely to result in her being incarcerated for longer than she would have been if she had not allowed her idiot civilian lawyer to hedge and plead "almost guilty". She will now be fully charged, and is highly unlikely to be given a second chance at such a cushy plea bargain.

[AFPhys]

Instead of her getting her negotiated deal, the boyfriend may end up getting her some serious time.

----

Yup ... but it was her fool civilian lawyer's fault, too.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

What happened to that stupid general...Karpinski? God, was she ever incompetent!

[Lunatic Fringe]

Good, then she can go on trial and serve time... just like the men have to.

[Rome2000]

Karpinski?

The poster child for why you don't let woman serve in any capacity other than Wacs or Waves.

Too bad W hasn't done anything about reversing the degeneration and perversion of the armed forces.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Anything to win the war. War by it's very definition is not a 'moral' proposition.

Only fools would believe otherwise, no matter whose administration they support or work for."

We can only hope you never have anything to do with any military decision in any capacity. What these degenerate felons did at this prison had NOTHING to do with winning the war. It had to do with their inability to control inner perversity when we most needed them to be restrained. They have stained the military. You keep insisting they just put some panties on some people's heads; read the charges, ALL of them. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light served no military purpose, other then to enable these guards to get their kicks. They were US soldiers, not animals, and they had an obligation to follow military rules of engagement. The people they had imprisoned were NOT all terrorists; undoubtedly many were, but a good amount were people rounded up who it turns out were not involved in the insurgency. If we allow our soldiers to disobey any order they wish, because *war is hell* and "anything goes* there will be no disciple; there will only be chaos.

For you, anything goes because to you; "War is not a moral proposition". If that were truly the case, then there could never be a justification for war.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Easy to second guess a fine and distinguished military judge. Fathom for a brief moment that it is you, your son, or daughter. As for me, without the facts known to the judge; I must err on the side of innocence. Others may flame away. The UCMJ has nothing to do with clothing. Unifomity is bequeathed by the simple rule of law, never by emotion nor hysteria. Civvies may only request statements.

[bannie]

Let her child's father go, too.

This whole "trial" thing is obscene.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

I don't agree about women servingand in the limited capacity you suggest. Having said that, there are issues with making the military "co-ed" to some degree that need to be realistically dealt with. There are some very competent and tough women in the military. This female's problems seem to stem more from utter incompetency and stupidity than a gender issue.

[Valpal1]

Graner said that the notorious photos taken of England at the prison had a legitimate use

can anyone explain this?

Yeah, this is his last bit of payback on his former girl friend, screwing up her plea so she faces trial and sentencing just like he did.

[Stump]

A lot of folks are actually of the opinion that these animals will begin to treat our people decent if we do first. Get your heads out of the sand!
She should have done less-severe things like behead them.

[Issaquahking]

The leftist MSM had to much time on their hands and went after something that should have stayed in-house. America, for the most part, doesn't get it. For the idiots screaming for her head here's a clue.

The Jihadists only want us dead!

Think anyone in Iraq's citizenship who wants their country to do good really gives a damn about the panty/sodomy/other bs event? Not likely.

Quit with the press already focusing on things that don't really matter. Let's focus on killing terrorists because they need to be killed, if we don't, the abu prison event won't matter because we'll be fighting terrorists here on home turf in America. What the press should be focusing in on real tight right now is the border to the south, where terrorists walk in unchallenged....but that's another thread.

[ConservativeMind]

She will likely not be punished now, as she is legitimately innocent.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

"She will likely not be punished now, as she is legitimately innocent."
Actually, she is (and was) innocent until PROVEN guilty. Some people still do not grasp the concept. These are the same people that dodge civic duty with respect to serving on a jury. And howl the loudest when sitting in the other side of the jury box. For shame. Fortunate for all of our armed forces that Article 32's and subsequent proceedings provide for adequate representation and judiciary.

[gorio]

There is nothing innocent about her. If you had seen the pics I've seen...she deserves jail for bringing dishonor to the honorable servicemen and women in harm's way! The judge refused the plea bargain so that she can actually get a harsher sentence.

[USNBandit]

...like behead them.

Good plan there. Why do you think we have so many organized enemy forces surrender to us? They do it because they know they will be treated well.

Most of the people on this thread seem to think these idiots are heroes, but they aren't. They are liabilities to the war effort. They turned any lack luster terrorists in that prison into hardened supporters of the effort. They galvanized the efforts of those still operating. They brought those sitting on the fence to sympathize with the enemy.

Did they take any bad guys off the streets? No, as a result many of the prisoners in Abu Grahib were released.

Who took more casualties as a result of their actions? Americans did. The prison scandal was a lightning rod for not only the terrorists in Iraq, but for all entities who oppose our actions in Iraq.

They were the third string on the night shift, screwing off, and they got Americans killed. What medal does that qualify them for?