« Propaganda Everywhere | Main | Be All the Forger You Can Be »
May 02, 2005
Lynndie England Pleads Guilty; Her Lawyers Conflate Learning Disabilities with Moral Disabilities
Pfc. Lynndie England pled guilty to mistreating prisoners today:
"I had a choice, but I chose to do what my friends wanted me to," she said, entering her pleas a day before the start of her trial.
At least she acknowledged she had a choice. She will get less than two years, but that's still a lot more than anyone with higher rank is getting these days. Which is to say, anything is bigger than zero. Most everyone who was stupid enough to take pictures that became public is getting some sort of sentence, which is a small set:
She is the seventh enlisted soldier to face criminal penalties in the Abu Ghraib case. No commissioned officers at the prison, and no senior officer in the chain of command, has been charged. Six enlisted soldiers have entered guilty pleas in the case.
So, here are some thoughts on bizarre aspects of the trial. First, the judge dragged his feet in accepting the plea.
England responded that the man was refusing to cooperate with the guards and that her supervisor, Spec. Charles A. Graner Jr., told her to go get the strap and put it around the prisoner as a leash. He also instructed her to hold the prisoner because Graner said it would be more degrading to the man.Then Pohl asked England what training she had for prison work. England, who was a records clerk in the military before being assigned to Abu Ghraib, said she had none and told the judge she was unaware of the Geneva Conventions. But she said that Graner had worked as a civilian as a prison guard and she trusted his analysis of the situation.
Pohl then said, "I don't see how it would be illegal to pose for a photograph if you considered it legal." But after a recess, he accepted the plea deal.
In other words, the Judge wanted England to plead not-guilty because if it was a lawful order in her mind, then it is not illegal. I guess Lynndie England's lawyers were smarter than that, because they knew that their highly-visible client would be convicted if for no other reason than being the "poster-woman", so they had to plead guilty in order to bargain for a reduced sentence.
But, pray tell, do you really need to know of the Geneva Conventions in order to know what was done was wrong? I'm really sick of this "lack of training" argument. Is the argument that our military is composed of people who are so devoid of a sense of right and wrong that they can't tell that dragging a hapless naked man around by a leash is wrong?
And here's where it gets more weird. Her defense is going to argue that she suffers from "learning disabilities."
Rick Hernandez [England's civilian lawyer] said it has not been decided whether England will take the stand. He said the defense will present evidence that England has severe learning disabilities and mental health problems.
That is so insulting to people with learning disabilities that I don't know where to begin. Learning disabilities do not mean that one is devoid of moral judgement or capacity. Difficulties with reading material, spelling mistakes, bad handwriting, yes. Torturing and degrading people under your control, no.
Posted by zeynep at May 2, 2005 08:16 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.underthesamesun.org/mt-tb.cgi/454
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lynndie England Pleads Guilty; Her Lawyers Conflate Learning Disabilities with Moral Disabilities:
» Stuffs from A Tiny Revolution
1. I can't read anything by David Brooks and the remora attached to him named John Tierney. This is because my brain is not powerful enough and would melt. However, Tom Tomorrow is stronger than me: Tierney and Brooks aren't... [Read More]
Tracked on May 5, 2005 03:40 PM