Just read this online - how many of you agree with this???

Judge Throws Out Guilty Plea From England
Move Follows Testimony of Reputed Ringleader of Abu Ghraib Abuses

By T.A. BADGER, AP


FORT HOOD, Texas (May 4) - A military judge Wednesday threw out Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, saying that he was not convinced that she knew that her actions were wrong at the time.

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

The mistrial for England, a 22-year-old reservist who appeared in some of the most notorious photographs from the 2003 abuse scandal, means the case gets kicked back to the military equivalent of a grand-jury proceeding.

The action came after Graner, the reputed ringleader of the abuse, testified 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.

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 the two statements could not be reconciled.

''You can't have a one-person conspiracy,'' the judge said before he declared a mistrial and dismissed the 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 that plea agreement. The military grand jury proceeding, known as an Article 32, had been conditionally waived in this case as long as the plea agreement was in effect.

Graner was called a defense witness on the second day of England's sentencing hearing.

By Ginny~moderator on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 05:58 pm:

Judges, civil or military, have special responsibilities when a defendant enters a guilty plea (with or without a plea bargain) to make certain the accused knows exactly what s/he is pleading guilty to, and fully understands the charges and the potential penalties. If Lynndie England did not believe or did not know at the time she was doing those things that they were wrong, then clearly she could not truthfully and knowingly plead guilty. A plea of guilty means not only that you did it, but that you knew you were wrong. IMO, the judge was carrying out the responsibilities with which he is charged.

Frankly, I'd much rather see a trial, because it is only through pubic trials that there is any chance of finding and following trails of evidence that may lead to persons in higher authority. Everyone above the non-com ranks has been exonerated by the so-called investigations except for General Janis Karpinski, who got a reprimand in her personnel file.

By Karen~moderator on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 07:44 pm:

I find it VERY hard to believe that Lynndie England either did not believe or know that what she was doing was wrong. That is just bull!

By Colette on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 09:04 pm:

From what I have heard, when you are in the military you are trained to take orders and not think about if you agree or disagree. which is how it needs to be in times of war. If you question orders you could suffer severe consequences. Maybe that has some bearing in this?

By Jann on Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 07:45 am:

Her ex lover/former commander testified that she was told by him that he was shooting a training video. That contradicts the statement that she made that she knew it was torture and it was wrong. That is why the judge threw out the plea bargain.

"The action came after Graner, the reputed ringleader of the abuse, testified 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.

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 the two statements could not be reconciled. "

By Karen~moderator on Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 07:52 am:

Colette, maybe that is true. I just think this is so MORALLY wrong - both her actions, and the charges being dismissed - even if the statements WERE contradictory. I guess I won't get started on the legal system where this particular case is concerned. What was done was wrong, wrong, wrong, and someone should answer for it!

By Vicki on Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 08:35 am:

I agree with Colette 100%. I am sure some of the soilders in Iraq do things on a dialy basis that they would never dream of doing normally all because they are ordered to do so. They are taught not to question, just do. I am sure it saves countless lives that they follow orders they might not agree with. My personal opinion is that the person giving the orders is the only one that should be charged with anything. The ones following the orders were simply doing their jobs as they were trained to do.

By Jann on Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 09:09 am:

Isn't that the defense that the Nazi's used at Nuremburg?

By Ginny~moderator on Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 11:45 pm:

Yes, Jann - "we were just following orders" IS the defense used at Nuremberg. And as a direct result of the Nuremburg trials, all U.S. military personnel are taught very specifically that they not only have the right, they have the duty to refuse to obey unlawful orders that would, among other things, have them violating the Geneva Conventions (to which the U.S. is a signatory), or the sets of rules the U.S. military have in place for a whole lot of situations.

Yes, a soldier must follow orders without question on the battlefield or in a battle setting. But they are specifically instructed that when not in a battle situation they have a duty to question and even disobey orders which are unlawful.

On this same topic, General Karpinski, the national guard General who was in charge of Abu Ghraib while much of this was happening before the photos, was demoted, according to the evening news. The two charges for which she was convicted (of the four against her) were dereliction of duty (Abu Ghraib) and shoplifting a cosmetic item when she was a colonel at a military base in the U.S. The man at the Department of Justice most responsible for writing the memoranda which argued that the U.S. is not obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions with the prisoners taken in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, and that torture isn't torture unless it causes severe harm to a body part or organ, is now Justice Secretary Gonzalez, the head of the Department of Justice, and a member of the President's cabinet.

By Vicki on Friday, May 6, 2005 - 07:41 am:

The man at the Department of Justice most responsible for writing the memoranda which argued that the U.S. is not obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions with the prisoners taken in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, and that torture isn't torture unless it causes severe harm to a body part or organ


I guess maybe it depends on what your thoughts on torture are.

By Karen~moderator on Friday, May 6, 2005 - 07:46 am:

Vicki, I guess that is EXACTLY it!

By Jann on Friday, May 6, 2005 - 08:42 am:

Pretty twisted, but there are lots of people who think that soldiers are not obligated to be morally correct because they are just following orders, and it doesn't help when the ones giving the orders are morally corrupt.

By Emily7 on Friday, May 6, 2005 - 10:00 am:

The soldiers represent our country...of course they need to be morally correct.