Tue 18 May, 2004 12:44 pm
May 18, 2004 -- Notorious Abu Ghraib leash girl Lynndie England told investigators that male Iraqi prisoners were forced to wear women's "maxi pads" and crawl on their hands and knees through broken glass.
In a sworn statement, she also said that Cpl. Charles Graner, by whom she is pregnant, would sew up prisoners' wounds with a needle and thread - after inflicting the damage during beatings, The Los Angeles Times reported.
England said "everyone in the company, from the commander down," knew about the abuse, which she described as "basically us fooling around."
"Personnel from MI [military intelligence] . . . would tell us to keep it up, that we were doing a good job," she said. "I was just told we were doing a good job."
My sense of Ms. England is that she was following orders (of some sort) but also that she enjoyed the experience...
Service to her country?
Although, I'm not quite certain what country this might be.
She sounds like a brainwashed idiot. The perfect soldier.
I'd like to know more about her parents. Is it possible she was raised in a moral vacuum? Isn't that the theme here, when does orders supersede moral obligation?
So are you saying since I didn't serve in the forces I can't appreciate disobeying orders on moral grounds? This is a sincere question.
I have a cousin who joined the Marines. After he was done with his service, I talked to him about his views on other countries, and he had a very low opinion of Iraqi people, and really, a lot of citizens of other countries. He felt like they were beneath him, like they were not even really human, and he told me he would have no problem killing any of them.
Since he wasn't like this before he went in the Marines, I assume that this is what they teach you in the army. They teach you to hate your enemies and regard them as less than you, less than human. And I think a lot of people in the armed forces end up with this outlook. It's a good way to make people into hired killers, which is what they are, after all.
In a related vein. I saw a TV program that talked about soldiers and killing. It was found out that many soldiers did not actually fire directly at the enemy. The conclusion was that the target practice was incorrect. The Army decided to change the targets to resemmble the human form. After much practice with those it was concluded that many more soldiers fired directly at the enemey. The point? The human mind can be molded to do just about anything.
The Govt.can stop the investigation into this "abuse"/"Torture" situation with the actual perps or get real and lay out the system that instigated and perpetuated these events.
The notorious Abu Ghraib leash girl Lynndie England is a real piece of work.
Who wants to bet she already has an agent to help her shop her story to book publishers?
Her agent is prolly shoppiong her to S&M Porn companies.
Okay! But aren't her superiors that ordered her just as culpable? The Bushies are trying to make the abuse seem like an abberation, when it was standard policy ordered from high-up.
They're trying these enlisted people before the investigation is complete. They want scapegoats so the higher-ups will get off with a handslap.
Anybody who sets the policy and then won't take the responsibility for it is a liar, a hyptcrite, and a coward. That's what we have running our country.
This administration is so rotten, it stinks.
The administration is upset because the photos got public. The photos were taken to blackmail the prisoners into talking; does anybody think that was the idea of the enlisted people on trial.
And, by the way, the court's matrial is a kangaroo court. It only takes 2/3s majority to convict instead of a unanimity. And the jury are all military officers thinking of their careers. They know what they're supposed to do. So much for a fair trial!
And, Pistoff, you're right about target practice. When I took basic training in the Army in 1961, we had silhouettes called "pop-up Petes" to shoot at. When you hit them, they'd fall over. It was fun, kinda like a video game with live ammo.
There was a university study done that showed that virtually anybody acting under a strong authority figure will torture people. I know we all think we're saints, but I wonder if all of us wouldn't have done the same thing with the right pressure and authority from above and during a war.
Remember, the military works exactly like a communist country; the best don't always rise to the top: the ticket punchers get in the way.
When I was in the Army, eventually they made me an ambulance driver, something outside my field of training. And how much training was I given? Not one second of it. Considering I get lost when I leave my house, that job didn't exactly suit me.
I once went on an emergency run and took a medical technician with me. I guess he was qualified, but I don't know, because the guy we picked up on the parking lot was out cold or dead, and neither the technician nor I did anything to help him on the spot. I never had any medical training, so I didn't know what to do. I don't know what the technician did in the ambulance, if anything, but the guy died. He was a civilian working for NASA in Huntsville, Ala. Later we got complaints that it took us too long to get to the scene and that we dropped the guy—which was true. Then we got a complaint from the Colonel running the hospital that we got back too fast and must have been recklessly speeding.
If you haven't been in the military, you can't understand how absurdly SNAFU it is. It's not a well-oiled machine; it's really like "Catch 22." I was stationed at a base for two years and couldn't get dental care. I tried, but the Colonel in charge of the dental clinic didn't want to help me for some reason. What does an enlisted man do in that case? You don't do sh*t; you take it. Well, maybe I could have lodged a complaint and won, but I didn't feel like sitting in a dentist's chair with a possible borderline and upset Colonel working on me.
A doctor once told me to give a guy an injection, subcutaneous. I didn't know what subcutaneous was, seeing that I had never given anybody a shot. so I just gave it intramuscularly. The patient was a brave sort and didn't complain.
I guess people that haven't been in the military think that soldiers are patriots. BS! If you are to start with patriotism, you soon lose it.
Once again. The superiors who gave the orders to the enlisted people and then let them take the full heat are cowards, liars, hypocrites, and crimminals. And I mean all the way up to the generals, the defence secretary, and maybe the president.
This is just so revolting. But hardly surprising. The "job" of soldiers is war & killing people. I can't see how being in the army would make anyone more ethical or sensitive. That's not what it's all about. Would anyone with real options choose a job like this?
msolga, the US Army has a very strong ethical program. I don't know if these were reserve troops or untrained or they were bullied by the spooks. Maybe a combination.
Then why are we hearing reports that army interrogators were encouraged to use whatever means to demoralize their captives? It is not just the lowly soldiers who are guilty of abuse, it seems to me that it's everyone from Rumsfeld (sp?), down ....
I have a feeling the army wasn't interrogating but the army lost control to the CIA and private security contractors. At least that's my understanding of the Taguba report. In any case it's a stain on the US presence in Iraq.
Yes, it's an indefensible mess. <sigh>
"We thought it looked funny, so pictures were taken"
There must be unicellular organisms at the bottom of septic tanks with more intelligence than this woman. And the US Govt gave
her a fu-king gun!