BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot

Subject: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: ard mhacha
Date: 05 May 05 - 06:53 AM

So what happens now, is it possible that this judgement by Cl James Pohl will have Lynndie England`s superiors worried, wouldn`t any fair-minded person like to believe that?, we can but dream.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 05 - 09:58 AM

Judge Throws Out England's Guilty Plea
- By T.A. BADGER, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, May 4, 2005
PDT FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) --

A military judge Wednesday threw out Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea to abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, saying he was not convinced the Army reservist who appeared in some of the most notorious photos in the scandal knew her actions were wrong at the time. The mistrial marks a stunning turn in the case and sends it back to square one.

The case will be reviewed again by Fort Hood's commander, Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, who will decide what charges, if any, England should face. If she is charged, the case would go back to a military equivalent of a grand jury hearing, an Article 32 proceeding, prosecution spokesman Capt. Cullen Sheppard said.

The military judge, Col. James Pohl, entered a plea of not guilty for England on a charge of conspiring with Pvt. Charles Graner Jr. to maltreat detainees at the Baghdad-area prison and a related charge.

The mistrial came after Graner, the reputed ringleader of the abuse, testified as a defense witness at England's sentencing hearing that pictures he took of England holding a naked prisoner on a leash at Abu Ghraib were meant to be used as a legitimate training aid for other guards. Other photos showed England smiling while standing next to nude prisoners stacked in a pyramid and pointing at a prisoner's genitals.

England maintained the same stoic look she has had throughout the proceeding. During a recess before the plea deal was thrown out, England peeked at a sketch artist's drawing of Graner on the stand. "Don't forget the horns and the goatee," she said.

When England pleaded guilty Monday, she told the judge she knew that the pictures were being taken purely for the amusement of the guards.

Pohl said her statement and Graner's could not be reconciled. "You can't have a one-person conspiracy," the judge said before he declared the mistrial and dismissed the sentencing jury.

Under military law, the judge could formally accept her guilty plea only if he was convinced that she knew at the time that what she was doing was illegal.

By rejecting the plea to the conspiracy charge, Pohl canceled the entire plea agreement. The agreement had carried a maximum sentence of 11 years in prison, but the prosecution and defense had a deal that capped the sentence at a lesser punishment; the length was not released.

[snip]

Find the rest at the San Francisco Chronicle.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 May 05 - 10:21 AM

oops. That SFC article was posted by me. No cookie this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 05 - 01:22 PM

With the understanding that I know that strict rules of law, justice and trial procedure override MY feeling, I would like to see a system that addresses stupid, immoral, degrading, asinine, hateful, unthinking, disgusting behavior by ANY military personnel from privates on up to any general who had ANY knowlege of what was going on at that prison.

England and Graner did that stuff, and they were not alone, and lots of folks above them either ordered it, approved it or shrugged at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: robomatic
Date: 05 May 05 - 02:09 PM

As I listened to the story this morning on the radio, I thought the judge handled things very appropriately and with a little bit of guts. It sounds like England was the suggestible sort, and if there had been no photographs all over the internet, she might have escaped all notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: Once Famous
Date: 05 May 05 - 02:44 PM

The judge was a democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: PoppaGator
Date: 05 May 05 - 02:52 PM

Democrat or not, the judge is a career Army officer.

I'm impressed, glad, and more than a little surprised that he seems inclined to assign responsibililty to someone in a position of responsibility, and not to simply use an impressionable young female PFC Reservist as scapegoat while letting her superiors go scot-free.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 May 05 - 06:04 PM

It has always been said that the innnocent are better off in a military court and the guilty worse off. It appears that the military judge wants to give England every chance to show that she is innocent rather than accept a plea of guilty that is clearly in exchange for a shot at a reduced sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: kendall
Date: 05 May 05 - 07:15 PM

Disgusting

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 May 05 - 01:11 PM

Disgusting in what sense, Cap'n?

So far, I'd agree with the praise of Col Pohl. He seems not to have taken the path of least resistance & may just have stuffed his own career (knowing what politics, military or otherwise, is like) by doing so. Pte England so far strikes me as an all-too-typical not-too-bright squaddie who is at the bottom of "downhill" & trying to avoid some of what's flowing her way.

That might make her culpable, but it doesn't make her guilty (if you understand the difference), especially in an organisation like the Armed Forces. She strikes me as weak, impressionable & stupid. But if she is all of that, then someone else is currently getting away with taking advantage of it (& I don't think it stops at Spc Graner, either). The difficulty lies in proving who.

So kudos to Col Pohl. Which side were you complaining about kendall?

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 May 05 - 02:24 PM

If you obey an illegal order you are legally liable; if you give one, or collude in illegal behaviour by people under your command of course you are guilty of a more serious offence.

Of course it doesn't work like that does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: beadie
Date: 06 May 05 - 02:39 PM

Even in a military court, knowledge of the illegality of the act is a necessary element of the crime. The claim, under oath, by Pvt. Graner that England didn't know that she was committing a crime was sufficient for the judge to rethink the acceptance of the plea.

This having been said, the old adage remains true: . . . Military justice is to justice as military music is to music.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 05 - 03:00 PM

I disagree with the previous posters for the following reasons:

McGrath:
If you obey an illegal order you are legally liable; if you give one, or collude in illegal behaviour by people under your command of course you are guilty of a more serious offence.

Of course it doesn't work like that does it?

This comes off as garden variety cynicism without attention to the intricacies of this case. The testimony in court was that the guy giving the order (to his subordinate and lover) maintained it was a safety issue. Again, maybe I've missed something, but the only 'crime' Ms. England may have committed was getting her picture took. And her testimony brought out something that gave me pause when it was mentioned a year ago: Graner, the guy in charge, served as a corrections officer in civilian life. That sure gave me pause. And McGrath, your parting quip shows you are missing the point. The ruling on the part of the judge indicates it really does work like that. England may be innocent, and that matters.

Of course, this may all get blown to hell if she is brought to trial, pleads innocent, and gets put away longer than Graner. Then my level of cynicism will make McGrath look like Pollyanna.

Beadie:
This having been said, the old adage remains true: . . . Military justice is to justice as military music is to music.

That's cute, but trite, and not really that cute and more than trite, it's just not true. Many in the military have a keen sense of justice, which they carry from (and back to) civilian life. It is very important to have a sense of procedural jurisprudence in a society where the average man has access to firearms or worse.
As for music, try some John Philip Sousa. Maybe Tchaikovsky's "Overture to the War of 1812" isn't military music. Or maybe you don't like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: Sorcha
Date: 06 May 05 - 03:01 PM

You know what? I wasn't at the prison, I wasn't in the court room, and I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: robomatic
Date: 06 May 05 - 03:04 PM

Sorry folks, the guest at 300 PM was me without me cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: DougR
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:19 PM

Well, Guest (robomatic) it seems to me that you nailed it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: beadie
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:44 PM

Robomatic:
As one who has experienced both military music (I like it as much as most other varieties) and military justice (I'm less enthralled with that), I believe that the lesson that the adage is trying to convey is simply that the things are the same and yet, different. Its like saying that while both a Chevy and a Toyota are automobiles, they are not the same thing.

Military justice, in particular, bears little resemblence to civilian proceedings, despite what Hollywood tells us. It has, admittedly, improved some from the time when I was in the service (the 60s), and a lot since times long gone by, but it has many curiosities of protocol and process that would leave a civilian defendant (or counsel) scratching their head in wonder. I can recall when a verdict in a military court was reviewable only by individual superior officers who may or may not have any legal training or experience whatsoever. In the rare case where a decision was allowed to be appealed to a higher court, it was a higher military court (that is, higher ranking officers on the panel). Until the late sixties, there was no instance of a military court decision being appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Stikll, Pvt. England's case serves a benefit to the public in that it will likely shine a light on the system for that part of the TV audience that has no idea what a court-martial is actually about or how it really works. I only hope that the networks get a current or former JAG officer (a real one, that is, not just some guy who "plays one on TV") to do their analysis. Even this may be flawed based on (gasp) a bias in favor of or opposition to the UCMJ and its application to this situation that has become perhaps more public than the military would have liked.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 May 05 - 05:04 PM

Beadie - Sorry, too much jargon. What do the mnemonics "JAG" & "UCMJ" mean? I'm guessing that UCMJ is United States Court of Military Justice? JAG defeats me...

And, as an irrelevant aside, I'm intrigued by the seeming evidence that the UK refers to a Private by the abbreviation "Pte." whilst America use "Pvt.". Just another case of "tap/faucet", "pavement/sidewalk", or is there more to it?

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 May 05 - 05:10 PM

Knowingly and willingly taking part in the torture and mistreatment of prisoners is a criminal act. Someone who does this because they have been ordered to do so by a superior is still doing something which is criminal. Orders from a superior might be a mitigating factor, but woudl not in themelelves go to disdpriuve crimninal behaviour, except in an extreme cases where it meant that the accused had been coerced into complying against their will.

In this case the situation appears to be that Ms England had claimed that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong. In other words, she had claimed that she was not guilty of a crime. The judge appears to have ruled that in these circumstances it would be impossible to accept a plea of guilty from her, which had been obtained by offering the inducement of a lighter sentence.

Plea bargaining of that sort is a distortion of any system of justice. I have always been unable to understand how it seems to be openly practiced and openly accepted by courts.

If it is true that soldiers do not know that they have an duty to refuse to comply with illegal orders, this would reflect a serious failure on the part of their superiors, and those responsible for army training, which could in itself be criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 May 05 - 05:12 PM

Knowingly and willingly taking part in the torture and mistreatment of prisoners is a criminal act. Someone who does this because they have been ordered to do so by a superior is still doing something which is criminal. Orders from a superior might be a mitigating factor, but would not in themselves go to disprove criminality, except in an extreme cases where it meant that the accused had been coerced into complying against their will.

In this case the situation appears to be that Ms England had claimed that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong. In other words, she had claimed that she was not guilty of a crime. The judge appears to have ruled that in these circumstances it would be impossible to accept a plea of guilty from her, which had been obtained by offering the inducement of a lighter sentence.

Plea bargaining of that sort is a distortion of any system of justice. I have always been unable to understand how it seems to be openly practiced and openly accepted by courts.

If it is true that soldiers do not know that they have a duty to refuse to comply with illegal orders, this would reflect a serious failure on the part of their superiors, and those responsible for army training, which could in itself be criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 May 05 - 05:37 PM

In theory, perhaps, Kevin. But there are many theories that look good on paper & are much less attractive when put to any sort of practice.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy your argument as it relates to this case. The basis of Western legal argument is innocent unless proven guilty, right? The basis of military discipline is "You will effing well obey orders, you effing horrible little effing man"

Given the nature of human, social, & military discipline, the imperative to obey the immediate authority is far stronger than any potential future sanction. The military didn't invent this. They just recognised it & deliberately made use of it. The social conscience (i.e. you! ;-) ) of humanity is still playing catch up.

Lynndie England certainly isn't innocent. But, there again, I'm not sure that she's guilty in any meaningful sense of the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 May 05 - 06:35 PM

Wulfie: the "JAG" is the Judge Advocate General (Corps), which is the branch of the US military where the lawyers hang out. Each of the services (Army, Navy and Air Force) has its own JAG. The "UCMJ" is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, aka Title 10, US Code, Chapter 47. It is the law that governs activities of members of the military, and is actually a set of statutes passed by the US Congress.

It seems to me that one of the major issues is whether or not PFC England (all US Army rank abbreviations below general officer are 3 letters, capitalized) "knowingly" participated in torture or mistreatment of prisoners. It seems that her superior (and boyfriend), former SP4 Grenier told her that what he was asking/telling her to do was normal practice, and she didn't know better. (Former) Brigadier General Karpinsky, the prison commander, had the responsibility for assuring that she and her fellow soldiers were properly trained, and failed to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: robomatic
Date: 06 May 05 - 06:36 PM

beadie, McGrath, Raedwulf:

Thank you for responses that shed more light than heat. General Karpinski has been demoted. I haven't heard the last word regarding Sanchez. There might be a lot of non-judicial sanctions such as reprimands wending their ways into verious official files, perhaps Ms. England will benefit from the mistrial.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 May 05 - 07:16 PM

The defence that you were just obeying orders is not in itself a valid defence against a finding of guilt, unless it can be demonstrated that the coercion involved was such as to mean that the act was not voluntary. It might be possible to argue that you genuinely did not appreciate that an act was illegal, because you had been misinformed by your superiors.   

"The basis of Western legal argument is innocent unless proven guilty". Precisely - and if it can be shown that someone has been coerced or suborned into pleading guilty, that means that plea should not be accepted. That does not mean they are not guilty, it means that whether they are guilty or not is still for a court to find.

I would have thought that, if in this case the court has determined that Ms England had been induced to enter a false plea of guilty, those responsible for doing this must be at risk of some kind of legal sanction, such as contempt of court.

And any army command which does not ensure that soldiers are aware of their duty to refuse to take part in atrocities, even when ordered to do so, carries a significant responsibility for the consequences of that failure.

That's how it is supposed to work. However...

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: Sorcha
Date: 06 May 05 - 10:32 PM

Following orders was not good enough at Nurnburg and it's not good enough now. I still don't really know and don't trust the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: mack/misophist
Date: 07 May 05 - 12:45 AM

Any one who has been in the military will tell you that refusing orders is a very bad idea; something to be done only in extremis. As a reservist, it's also likely that her training wasn't that good.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: dianavan
Date: 07 May 05 - 03:18 AM

Do you really think a private would refuse to obey orders?

As I've said before, soldiers are trained to obey orders - not to think. If they thought about what they were doing, they wouldn't be able to survive in the military. Its all about chain of command and never questioning authority. There are several Mudcatters who adhere to the same philosophy - especially those who voted for Bush, the Commander in Chief.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: robomatic
Date: 07 May 05 - 04:44 AM

The Stanford Prison Experiment was mentioned last year at about this time in regards to the same subject. I resurrect that here:


Stanford Prison Experiment 1


Stanford Prison Experiment 2

The organizer of the experiment, Dr. Philip Zimbardo, has kept the story alive ever since, utilizing much class time. It has spawned at least one movie and one rock group.

The gist of it was that regular human beings like you or me (well, me anyway!) can be induced to act in ways we never expected, and it doesn't take a whole lot of time for that to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: ard mhacha
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:14 AM

Getting down to the simple facts, England is guilty, and deserves to be sentenced to a term in prison, her superiors, and that goes all the way to the top, are also guilty, but the cowardly bastards will as usual worm their way out, and leave the brain-washed to their fate.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: The Walrus
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:56 AM

Wasn't here some talk at the time of the 'sneaky-beakies' from "Intellegence" or one of the alphabet soup of agencies putting the pressure on General Karpinski and breaking into the chain of command?
I'll lay odds that mention of any 'outside' involvement would be supressed.

W

Punishment is often in inverse proportion to the rank of the criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 05 - 01:25 PM

"Any one who has been in the military will tell you that refusing orders is a very bad idea; something to be done only in extremis."

Clearly true - but torturing prisoners is a case of "in extremis". And if soldiers aren't taught that as a basic part of their training, the people in charge of carrying out and organising the training are criminally liable. And the same goes for anything in the structure of a military system that undermines this.
................................

I still cannot understand how it is possible for a court to go along with plea bargaining, which undermines the central principle of any system of a justice system based on open trials where guilt has to be established by evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:14 PM

I was told in basic training that if given an illegal order you must obey. You may complain afterwards. That may have been incorrect and I perhaps should have complained, but how was I to know? I was given no information on what orders were illegal and what were not. I never heard of the Uniform Code of Military Justice until I was out of the Army. Basic Training is composed of physical traiining and intimidation. It is literally brainwashing; attemotinig to break down the old civilian personality and building a new military personality. As one of my company commanders said, "You just a peon, son. You ain't supposed to think."

I believe the judge said that Enggland pleadiing guilty but saying that she was only obeying orders -- Eichmann's Excuse -- amounted to pleading both guilty and not guilty, which is not defined in law, like dividing by zero in mathematics.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:18 PM

"training " and "attempting" and "England," and god knows what else, that is. The eyes, mind and finger coordination are going. The grammar ain't none too good, neither.

ck

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: robomatic
Date: 07 May 05 - 03:02 PM

Clint:

I believe the judge had issued a 'warning' to England (therefore her lawyer) that if she was pleading guilty she couldn't justify her actions by claiming innocence. It's the double edged sword of plea bargaining. The prosecution (and often the judge) want to clear their docket, and save a lot of time and money and perhaps avoid bad public relations. So they make a deal. If the Defendant is honestly 'not guilty' they may be motivated to take a deal anyway. But when you take the deal, part of the deal is that you 'fess up, or in legal terms, 'elocute'. You say "Yessir yerroner, I been bad, I know I been bad, I'm awfulsorree". This has long term repercussions for you are then processed through the system, if you've pled, you are not going to appeal, you are not getting paroled until they are good and ready, because you've already got 'favoritism' in order to plead.

Last week I heard a radio story in which an innocent man was telling how he was the victim of prosecutorial and police incompetence, but had been found guilty. He made the decision to ask for the death penalty. This was 'shooting the moon'. He reckoned that if they sent him up for life he'd be lost forever, but that if he was on death row, there would be a greater chance of activists and volunteer legal students who might pay attention to the facts of his case, and so it occurred.

So I still can't say if the judge has arranged for England to go through the system and be liable to more stringent punishment, or have a chance of the system deciding her role was minor and possibly impossible to establish legally.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 05 - 07:11 PM

I can see why judges might go along with that kind of thing, the same way I can see why people who are short of cash go in for shoplifting.

But I don't see how it can be treated as if it was an appropriate or even a lawful way to conduct a legal system, any more than shoplifting is seen as an appropriate or lawful way to conduct commercial transactions.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: robomatic
Date: 07 May 05 - 07:29 PM

I can see why judges might go along with that kind of thing, the same way I can see why people who are short of cash go in for shoplifting.

But I don't see how it can be treated as if it was an appropriate or even a lawful way to conduct a legal system, any more than shoplifting is seen as an appropriate or lawful way to conduct commercial transactions.


It's called the legal system. You may be sure that someone did it, but you may know enough about the law as practised to be uncertain that you can legally prove it. Prosecutors have to make these calls all the time.

Your analogy should be:

You are a guard in a Walmart. You think someone may have shoplifted, but you didn't quite see it. Your option is to haul 'em in, call the police, and if you don't find anything you may be open to a lawsuit, if you find something, it may be just a $5 scarf. You make a judgement call.

Now, if you are coming back with: We have pictures of Ms. England with a prisoner on a leash, we have pictures of Ms. England pointing at a pile o' Prisoners. But the next question is: Is Ms. England committing a crime? Following orders that may or may not be legal?

You be the judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 07 May 05 - 09:17 PM

Robomatic:
I thought that's what I said. Isn't "pleading both guilty and not guilty, which is not defined in law" the same as "if she was pleading guilty she couldn't justify her actions by claiming innocence." Or am I missing something?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 07 May 05 - 11:06 PM

Clint: I thought I was supplementing you, not disagreeing with you. If I didn't make myself clear, I apologize. If anyone is missing something, it's most likely me.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 08 May 05 - 01:01 AM

Just didn't get it. It's been a hard day. It started out as a hard day, matter of fact. What can you expect of a day that starts with getting up in the morning?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 May 05 - 06:33 PM

Not Guilty + Not Innocent = Naive?

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 May 05 - 06:55 PM

Your comment there, robomatic, seems to imply that plea bargaining - which I referred to as "this sort of thing" - is officially illegal, but that it's hard to prove. But according to this site, in the USA "Nearly 95 percent of felony convictions result from plea bargains rather than trial".

And that is a legal system?

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 09 May 05 - 08:33 PM

McGrath: Your post is unclear. Plea Bargaining is not illegal, viz. this thread. Pleae re-read my post and my analogy versus your analogy, the distinction between your assumption of guilt for the purpose of your argument, and my observation that in the legal (not the real) world, guilt must be proven through accepted legal means.

And if you have problems with the legal system, we yanks inherited from your side of the pond.

I believe Dickens made the observation that "The law is an ass!

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 May 05 - 09:27 PM

I don't know if the concept of the "plea bargain" exists in the UK. It is fairly common in the US, although I doubt the figure of 95% quoted above. It can take several different forms: plea guilty to one charge in return for a second being dropped (and thus be subject to a lesser penalty), plea to a lesser charge (ie, manslaughter rather than murder), or a plea of guilty in exchange for a guaranteed maximum sentence (ie, life rather than the death penalty). This practice speeds a case through the legal process and reduces court costs. It is certainly not required, and everyone retains their right to a trial.

It is not intended to help a guilty party evade just punishment (and let's not get into an argument about what that term means). While it certainly can happen, it is rare that an innocent person is pressured into pleading guilty...and those cases where this has occurred are notable for multi-million dollar liability settlements after the truth comes out.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 05 - 06:43 PM

Any form of plea bargaining which avoids a trial where the evidence is properly examined is a distortion of the legal process.

It might make life easier for the judges, and it might suit some accused people, but it still militates against the fundamental principle that people should only be found guilty where the evidence against them stands up in court, and that courts should make their judgement on the basis of "the whole truth" and not some doctored version that has been cooked up between lawyers.

"...it is rare that an innocent person is pressured into pleading guilty." What is the evidence for that? After all, it is not at all rare for innocent people to be convicted, even where trials occur and evidence has been heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 May 05 - 06:08 AM

Any form of plea bargaining which avoids a trial where the evidence is properly examined is a distortion of the legal process. (McGrath)

Any form? Are you really sure about that?

Let me tell you a recent example from Germany where this procedure is not yet official (despite some attempts) but nevertheless is done sometimes.

A man was accused of sexual abuse of several children. One idea of a defense lawyer could be to get all the children in the witness box and to cross examine them thoroughly: "When was it exactly?" "At the police you have said...Now what is the truth?" "Describe in detail what you claim the defendant did..." It would be easy to make them cry and sound inconsistent.

The defense lawyer in this case had a different idea. The bargain was the defendant admitted the guilt, no child would have to retell and relive the ugly details, and he would get a sentence at the lower end of the possible times for that crime including a quite early referral from prison to closed therapy. It was a very short trial.

And the only two reasons you mention for such a procedure are lazy judges and that it might suit the accused? You'd insist even in such a case that all children should be heard over weeks?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: Charmion
Date: 12 May 05 - 11:38 AM

A few things about private soldiers and their legal responsibilities:

Contrary to common belief, soldiers are indeed trained and expected to think; in fact, because they are expected to face and overcome serious danger without putting their comrades at greater risk than necessary, their obligations in that area are greater than other people's.

In Canada, military people frequently refer to the "unlimited liability" their occupation involves. The scenario of the unlawful command is a case in point: you refuse, and refuse loudly, and take the consequences all the way to the Supreme Court or death's doorstep if that's what you have to do -- at no point do you have permission to give up and give in.

I believe that Specialist Graner controlled Private England every bit as much as he controlled the prisoners in his charge, not least by entering into a sexual relationship with her. But her duty extended beyond obedience; she had an independent duty to the prisoners, and she seems not to have understood that.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 05 - 01:56 PM

"Sanchez was the top U.S. commander in Iraq at the time of the abuses. Last month, he and three other top officers were cleared of any wrongdoing."

"Karpinski is the only general to have been punished in the scandal, although the Army stated her actions had not "contributed specifically" to prisoner abuse."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050511/ts_nm/iraq_abuse_colone_dc"

Seems to me if Karpinski's actions did not contribute specifically to prisoner abuse, that would make her less guilty than Sanchez (who said he was going to "gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib), who faces no consequences whatever. Sounds like a kangaroo court to me, with Karpinski playing the role of scapegoat.

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 May 05 - 02:22 PM

McGrath - It seems to me that you've understood my meaning whilst misunderstanding my words. Have we butted heads because we arrived at the same point from different directions?

Robo - If your original comment, directed partially at me, is true, I would always rather shed light than heat. Light illuminates. Heat distorts. Do you see what I mean?

With respect to all that have made intelligent contributions (which, sorry ard, but that rules you out. England (would your opinion differ if she were called Ireland? *grin*) is not the black & white case you want to see. Humanity never is, especially when institutions, of one sort or another, get involved).

Subject: RE: BS: Lynndie England plea gets the boot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 05 - 02:31 PM

I agree that there are circumstances where it's better if people can avoid the stress of cross examination. But there has to be somethimg over and above a straight admission of guilt before someone should be found guilty - people can plead guilty when they aren't guilty for all kinds of reasons. It's happened all too often.

In the case Wolfgang mentioned there would in fact be other evidence, such as statements by the children, and I would expect a court to insist on seeing that kind of evidence.

The fact that the defendent did not insist of cross-examiming the children could be a factor to take into account when it came to sentencing.