Lynndie England: Misguided trailer-trash?

from JoeUser Forums

I've been following with interest the furor of reports surrounding the fate of Lynndie England, the female Army Reservist pictures absuing and torturing Iraqi POW's.

It made me wonder how this small-town girl from West Virginia came to such notoriety.  What series of unfortunate events led her to be pictured grinning like a loon, cigarette hanging from her slack-jawed mouth, pointing to the genitals of a naked, hooded man?  How did she come to have her photo taken dragging another naked Iraqi around by a leash? 

I think that a general lack of common sense coupled with a lack of appropriate supervison and poor leadership all contributed to Lynndie's downfall. First of all, she isn't an MP.  She was 'attached' to the 372nd Military Police Company, but her actual training is reportedly as a personnel clerk.  She was just a warm body filling a spot. Secondly, there was an obvious lack of supervision and leadership at that facility.  The mere fact that she's pregnant by one of her superiors speaks volumes. And how did she, a female, come to be allowed into that kind of circumstance in a male facility anyway?  According to the former NCO In Charge of our local military confinement facility, while female officers are permitted to work with male inmates, common sense dictates and military procedure forbids that they put themselves in certain circumstances around male prisoners....because of the risk of both impropriety and the female officer's safety. The fact that a number of the personnel there are both pictured and implicated again, speaks volumes to the quality of the leadership. Thirdly, there was a lack of training and equipment.  SSgt Chip Frederick, another of the people charged, states that they didn't even have a copy of the Geneva Convention's rules regarding the proper treatment of prisoners.

So, we have a veritable litany of errors to fall back on...or do we?  The bottom line is this: no-one coerced Lynndie into behaving that way. No-one put a gun to her head and made her do it.  She did it, she should take responsibility for her actions.  Yes, there were somewhat extenuating circumstances...but there is no excuse for the scenarios depicted in those photgraphs. None.

Lynndie dug her own grave when she posed for those pictures.  And with Rumsfeld taking the heat for her actions, you can be sure it will be a deep, dark one.

 

 

16,773 views 86 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Dharma:


This is the question that I've been trying to answer since this came out.  Senator McCain was pretty tough on Rumsfled asking him precisely what orders were given to these soldiers--were they ordered to "soften" the Iraqis and what did that order mean.  I personally would not want a former Vietnam POW grilling me.


But then, even if she was ordered, she still should have known it was wrong.  Rumsfeld commended the soldier who finally spoke up and brought this to a head.  So, I'm not sure I can buy the "I was ordered" defense even if that was the case. 


The real thing that is bothering me here is why do we know so much about her when we know very little about the other soldiers involved?  The other six have actually been charged, but Lynndie (to the best of my knowledge) has not...the article I read said she was restationed to Fort Bragg because she was pregnant.  There are a lot of people who should be in hot water over this, Lynndie shouldn't be the only one crucified.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

There's a big difference between doing some 'softening' under the orders of MI and CIA and what was depicted. Chip Frederick has, in his journal, given a description of the some of the 'softening' they were asked to do.  Things like keeping inmates in cells with no light or ventilation, denying them their religious freedoms etc. Yes, she should have known it was wrong...common sense should have told her that it was wrong.

I think Lynndie's being crucified in part because she's female and the prisoners were male. Women aren't supposed to have it in them to torture people like that, dig?  We're supposed to be the gentler, fairer sex, the ones who nurture and nurse, not toruture and degrade.

She originally got re-assigned to Ft Bragg because she was pregnant, not because of this shit-storm.  As it is, she was officially charged with assault yesterday and is currently restricted to post.  Whether or not she'll be placed in pre-trial confinement remains to be seen.  Don't think for a second that her pregnancy is what's keeping her out; we've had quite a few pregnant inmates here at this facility, and we're miniscule compared to the brig at Ft Bragg,

 

Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Thanks for the clarifications--the only thing I'm not torn about is the fact that she (and the others) definitely needs to be held accountable for her actions.


An unrelated question:  getting pregnant while in Iraq--that's got to be some sort of violation, no?

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not as far as I know, no.  We've had girls from Dave's squadron go to the desert, turn up preggers (or get knocked up whilst there) and get sent home because the med unit there is expeditionary and doesn't have the facilites to provide adequate medical care.  They're a field clinic/hospital, not an obstetrical unit.

I can however, only speak for the Air Force side of the house.  It might be a totally different story for the Army.  I should ask Greywar, he'd know.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

wow.  I guess I just thought that it would fall under fratinization (is that spelled right?), but that's only with for different ranks, right?  I'd ask my Dad (an Army guy), but I'll get a seven hour response as opposed to a quick answer! 

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Fraternization as defined in Article 134 of the UCMJ is:

(1) That the accused was a commissioned or warrant officer;

(2) That the accused fraternized on terms of military equality with one or more certain enlisted member(s) in a certain manner;

(3) That the accused then knew the person(s) to be (an) enlisted member(s);

(4) That such fraternization violated the custom of the accused’s service that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted members on terms of military equality; and

(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes!  My husband! 

I'll translate the explanation for you: The Uniformed Code of Military Justice says that in order for a fraternization charge to be validated, the accused has to be an officer or a warrant officer and the other party has to be enlisted.

While it doesn't violate the UCMJ, I think it's just common sense to know it's not good policy to get too involved with your subordinates, not the ones working directly for you anyway.  It can call into question your integrity as a leader.

Unfortunately there didn't seem to be too much integrity or common sense available at Abu Ghraib.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Unfortunately there didn't seem to be too much integrity or common sense available at Abu Ghraib.


well said and thanks for the translation, or should I just thank Dave---is he still hiding out somewhere around here?


I'm a little frightened by Rumsfeld's comment that the worst is yet to come...I can not even begin to imagine what pictures remain that would cause him to say that.  


My guess is that the soldiers in Iraq have got to be outraged right now.  Not only was it stupid, and inhumane, but it's made every soldier's job that much harder, and more dangerous.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, I translated that one for you.  Dave's sleeping, or I'd have asked him to do it. He helped me out with the explanation of operating procedure in military confinement facilities (he used to run the jail, and I thoroughly enjoyed playing the role of 'warden's wife')

The pictures that remain include, so I understand, photos of corpses, of the desecration of corpses, pictures and videotape of prisoners being made to masturbate..and who knows what else.  Nothing that comes out of there is too surprising to me anymore.

Interestingly enough, there's another female who's been implicated as well - Sabrina Harman.  She's not getting as rough a ride as Lynndie...yet.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

the only reaction that I can muster is: WTF were they thinking?


I hadn't heard of Harman, but I'll keep my eyes out for stories on her.


I'm impressed with your military knowledge!  Thanks for all the technical information, makes it easier to understand what's going on.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Thanks! The military knowledge comes from being married to a career cop for 10 years, being 'Key Spouse' for 4 years, and working at the base legal office in the military justice department.  I got a lot of 'hands-on' experience in all aspects of it...I've always believed that the more involved I am with my husband's job, the more I know and therefore the more I'll understand the why's and wherefore's of what he has to do. 

I don't think they were thinking....

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

An unrelated question: getting pregnant while in Iraq--that's got to be some sort of violation, no?

As dharma quite succinctly explain Fraternization is a very narrowly defined issue and can only occur between officers and enlisted. There is however in the Army a regulation governing "improper relationships". These are relationships that undermine order and discipline int he army. For instance I as a SGT would not be allowed to have any sort of personal relationship with my subordinate soldiers. The rule of thumb being that if you can give them an order, you can not sleep with them.

As far as getting pregnant goes, well hell that has been the femal soldiers way out of deployment since there were female soldiers. As soon as the deployment order comes down the birth control stops. Witht his in mind there is also somethign known unofficially as General Order One. Thsi means in combat areas like Iraq things like drinking, being in civilian clothes, and *having sex* are not authorized. The fact of the matter is the army has never wanted to deal with the public relations battle it would have to fight to punish a female soldier for getting pregnant when she is not supposed to be having sex. The feminist lobby would descnd like wolves on this issue as pregancy is regarded as a "sacred" issue for that crowd, unless of course you are talking about abortion politics.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

As far as getting pregnant goes, well hell that has been the femal soldiers way out of deployment since there were female soldiers.

The AF isn't much different.  "I can't go, I'm pregnant", or as I said, getting pregnant whilst there.  Thanks for the input, Greywar.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I live to serve:)
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

My dad (Army guy during Vietnam) and I just talked about this yesterday.  He said they didn't give them a lot of information during the draft but one thing he clearly remembers them saying about orders is that you can most certainly refuse an order that you feel is immoral and goes against laws regarding war time conduct.  Not having a copy of the Genva papers doesn't excuse you from knowing that torturing POWs is wrong in many ways.


Dad is another one that thinks that having women in the forces causes more problems than it is worth.  He is fine with them holding office jobs but not having them in battle situations.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't have a problem with women being in combat situations as long as they can do the job. I'm tired of hearing 'I'm female, and I have a right to be here'...yes, you do, but if you can't perform your duties as well as your male counterparts you don't need to be there.  It's as simple as that.

Lynndie and her compadres have bought shame not only upon themselves, but upon the US military as a whole.  Now every military member is going to have to pay the price for their idiotic actions.

 

 

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
my sardonic assessment of pfc england's irresistable sexual power posted as a comment to muggaz' paen to cheerleaders and schoolgirls in uniform may not be terribly far off the mark afterall. in that event, muggaz' response--speculating she must have been on the powertrip of a lifetime--is even closer.

although i find nothing about bdsm appealing, there are a substantial number of devotees/advocates of what they call " the 'lifestyle". her fiance/fellow mp at abu ghurayb seems to have been one of the more enthusiastic image archivers according to what ive been reading in the la times. while the stereotypical sadistic corrections officer is just that--a stereotype--it doesnt surpise me any more when i learn that someone's new dom or master is in law enforcement. nor did it surpise me to learn lynndie's lover worked as a corrections officer in civilian life.

would it be more awful if she was mixing service with pleasure? i dont think it can be much worse

it would certainly render her big grin a little less egnimatic
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

You bring up a good point, Kingbee.  Look at her background.  She came from nothing, from a poor white-trash family in a small town in West Virginia.  She enlisted in the military to pay for college.  No Pell Grants or community college for Lynndie, no sir, she was going to get the good ol' US of A's military to pay for her ed-ju-ma-cation.  She was going to get the best of both worlds.  She prob'ly never dreamed she'd be required to do that which she swore to do when she took the oath of enlistment.  But, she got activated and deployed.  So, we have a good ol' redneck girl who'd never been anywhere or done anything her entire life..and now she's in a position of authority.  She has no real supervision - she's fucking her supervisor, which must just have added to her feelings of self-importance - and all these men have to do what she tells them to do.  What a power trip.

I too wonder whether she derived sexual pleasure out of her actions.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's almost too obvious that she did.

while the primary speaking parts in most drive-in flicks about helpless women behind bars or domanitrices cracking the whip as commanders of prisons are delivered in thick hick drawls or in commanding teutonic tones, thats also a stereotype. an amusing stereotype to be sure, but i think lynndie could just as easily been the product of soccer parents and a graduate of momandapplepie heights hs. lust of any type including power lust spans all socioeconomic groups

in fact, while i formerly felt that jenna and barbara bush should long ago been forcibly removed from the chichi bars of the east and packed off to the desert encampments of the middle-east, it's probably fortunate for everyone involved (including all those ne'erdowell richboy thugs they seem to draw like flies) no one listens to me. its way too easy to envision them with a bottle in one hand and a scourge in the other eagerly indulging themselves at the expense of heathen evildoers.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
We're going to have to disagree on that point, Kingbee.  I think that her upbringing and background had a whole hell of a lot to do with it, and I don't think that sexual motivation was what was behind the abuse.  I think that they (the 'gang of 6') were probably told by MI to 'soften' the detainees and took that as carte blanche to do whatever they wanted.  The sexual satisfaction (if there was any) was merely an added bonus.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
>> grinning like a loon, cigarette hanging from her slack-jawed mouth, pointing to the genitals of a naked, hooded man?

Wow, what a perfect description. Excellent writing there.

I have to admit, the first couple times I saw that picture, I didn't realize she was a woman. Whoops.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Laa laa laa I can't ear you.

If you think this is the action of one person, you are very very naive. This is going to get much worse as the videos and photos continue to leak out.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy too ?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hey, close your eyes, why don't you read the article again? I never said that Lynndie is totally to blame, in fact I metion numerous times in the article and the thread that there was a lack of leadership and supervision in that facility. The article itself talks about one person in a chain of many, not the scenario as a whole. I also said that there are going to be more photos and video evidence, and that it's going to get worse.

May I politley suggest that you engage your brain before opening your mouth?!