I'm not sure how to read this, but the judge presiding over the Lynndie England Abu Ghraib trial threw out her guilty plea and entered a not guilty plea in the books.
So, the way the WAPO piece reads it sounds as if the judge thinks that maybe England is a little on the Timmy side? You know, like maybe she's a wee-bit touched? A freaking 'tard?
Is it standard practice for judges to throw out guilty pleas unless they think the defense lawyer is inadequately representing their clients interests because there is a strong likelihood that the accused will be found not-guilty?
Either I'm missing something here or the WAPO story isn't worded quite right.
Whoa. Good for you judge. Good for you.
1
Regardless of how one feels about the war...
Ten to eleven years in prison for this? That's not justice, that's just crazy. A person can kill someone in a robbery and end up with less jail time than this.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 04, 2005 02:26 PM (x+5JB)
2
""You can't have a one-person conspiracy," the judge said before he declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury."
Maybe the judge feels she is innocent because she was following the orders of her superiors.
Posted by: greg at May 04, 2005 02:31 PM (/+dAV)
3
Has anyone ever seen Greg and Lyndie in the same place at the same time?
Posted by: Editor at May 04, 2005 02:37 PM (adpJH)
4
"She didn't know her actions were wrong implies that she's less than competent."
As competent as the patridiot apologists for her actions.
Posted by: actus at May 04, 2005 02:41 PM (CqheE)
5
As I understand there is a couple of counts that she has made previous statements that she did not know that that particilar action was unlawful. Also when pleading guilty you state that you both commited the act and knew the act was a crime at the time you did the deed. After entering this plea her defense argued in sentencing that she did not know it was a crime therefore she should be treated lightly. The judge got miffed at this inconsistancy. The Judge also warned her yesterday that you cannot just please guilty to spare yourself the trial or try and get a light sentence for being so brave and honest about it. I think the judge feels her defense has her pleading guilty to some of the counts just to get it overwith. But what really got him was the argument in sentencing should not be used because that issue was already settled in the plea agreement. He seems to be looking out for the rights of the defendant. He seems to think a couple of counts are lacking in hard evidence.
Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 02:45 PM (D3+20)
6
Howie, I like your explanation, however, I'm wondering, and I'm not a law student by any means, and I'm sure there is precedent someplace regarding this question, but if a Judge has the authority to throw out a defendant's "guilty" plea do they have the authority to throw out an "innocent" plea?
Posted by: Editor at May 04, 2005 02:50 PM (adpJH)
7
I see, so it's not throwing the plea out, it's a mistrial.
Posted by: Editor at May 04, 2005 02:56 PM (adpJH)
8
No law student either just been listening (maybe some experiences with the legal system as well). I don't think the judge can toss out a not guilty or innocent plea. He seems to think she is shortchanging herself to the right to a fair trial on these two counts. He also seems to think her defense team is lacking in her representation. It seems to me more of a slap in the face to her defense than anything. I feel the judge is doing the right thing because it will be too late for her to come back later and appeal. I think the only basis for appeal after a guilty plea would be crappy defense advice (which may be intentional). The judge wants to make sure when it is done it is over (no appeal) and that she doesn't to plead to crimes that she may have a good chance of being aquitted on.
Seems to me like the judge is doing a good job.
Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 03:01 PM (D3+20)
9
Yeah, it absolutely sounds like a no-confidence vote on the competency of the defense lawyers. Agree the judge appears to making a fair judgment.
Posted by: Editor at May 04, 2005 03:04 PM (adpJH)
10
No mistrial trial was waved in plea. plea on two counts was tossed. Back to plead again or trial. I guess it is kind of a mistrial on the sentence phase.
Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 03:05 PM (D3+20)
11
Is it just me or all the accounts of this thing really suckily written?
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 04, 2005 03:07 PM (JQjhA)
Posted by: Brian B at May 04, 2005 03:12 PM (CouWh)
13
Yea probably, especially mine. Hope I got it out OK. Just a general rundown of all the reporting I have heard over that last couple of days. Seems like every story gets in a description of the photos but the actual arguments get about 3 seconds. Got to pay attention to figure out what the hell is going on. I've seen the photos like I need another radio description.
Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 03:13 PM (D3+20)
14
Howie: Ye of Little Faith. I think Rusty means that the actual news reporting coverage is substandard.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 04, 2005 03:16 PM (x+5JB)
15
No Rust, it's not just you.
Brian B,
So According to this over at LlB...
I knew it was not going well on Monday during hearing on the guilty plea when PFC England stated, in so many words, that she did not think what she did was wrong. Such a statement is inconsistent with acceptance of reponsiblity and the requirement that one plead guilty because one is, in fact, guilty. The defense asked for a recess during which the client was no doubt reminded of what she needed to say.
... is she subject to perjury charges?
Posted by: Editor at May 04, 2005 03:16 PM (adpJH)
16
Are any military lawyers covering this? IIRC, the UCMJ is a morass compared to the "normal" legal system in this country. It might lend some better insight into the motivation/precedent here...
Posted by: caltechgirl at May 04, 2005 03:27 PM (EtZVy)
17
Perjury would be lying under oath, being inconsistent is not the same as lying, so the answer is no.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 04, 2005 03:28 PM (JQjhA)
18
Hey there YBP I have a wino update for ya:
Learned two lessons.
#1 make the wine in a place where you an siphon not do not set it on the floor.
#2 Grandpa said stir it a couple times the first two weeks. He meant that.
Yep moved the jug to get a fifth out and stirred it a little. drank half that on Saturday and wan't too impressed. it was cloudy and too sweet. Let bottle sit overnight and it was a lot better on Sunday afternoon. It did bubble again for a day or so after I moved it . This morning the jug was clear about halfway down so by the end of the week it should be good stuff. Yep thars booze in that thar jug. Got a pretty good buzz on a couple glasses Sat. Sunday just enough left to taste. Pretty good stuff for the first try.
Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 03:33 PM (D3+20)
19
Howie: How can I convince you to send some of that elixir my way?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 04, 2005 03:37 PM (x+5JB)
20
Is it lawful to send through the mail??? I doubt that it is. I thought you would be there, hell we waited on you about 3 seconds. Pretty fur piece for a just a drink or two. I intend to age the rest just about as long as I waited on you. If you can find out if it's legal and drop me and address I'll send you a quart. It tastes pretty good I'm a proud little bootlegger. If not next time you are in bumfuct Egypt drop me a line and well have a little nip.
Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 03:54 PM (D3+20)
21
Howie: Yes, it's probably not legal. G-men used to shoot people for this in the 30's. You'd be cutting into the state's little, er, profits.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 04, 2005 04:27 PM (x+5JB)
22
I hope she is aquitted - I don't believe she really did anything wrong.
And not much with the leash and stuff that many rich freaks in Manhattan and at Neverland Ranch wouldn't pay to have occurr...
Posted by: -keith in mtn. view at May 04, 2005 04:37 PM (sE9R7)
23
Well, first of all, I thought ignorance of the law was not a defense. Not knowing the difference between right and wrong is another issue. I think some people are confusing the two. Although, I think the Judge knows what their doing and it would be good to save the taxpayer's money by making sure the first trial is right and fair.
Maybe I should pay more attention to what's happening? Naw. I listen to too much news now.
Posted by: Oyster at May 05, 2005 06:03 AM (YudAC)
24
YBP said: "Ten to eleven years in prison for this? That's not justice, that's just crazy. A person can kill someone in a robbery and end up with less jail time than this."
Am I understanding you correctly that 10-11 years is too long of a jail term? What would be an appropriate jail term?
Are Gander, England et al being scape-goated? i.e. Were they following orders of higher ranking officers?
Could the crimes commited at Abu Ghraib be considered War Crimes?
Posted by: puzzled at May 05, 2005 06:24 AM (moq9v)
25
Puzzled: I don't know what punishment would be appropriate. Maybe nothing. Were they following orders? I have no idea. If it's determined that they were, the punishment should reflect this. Regardless, 10-11 years in prison seems instinctually wacky for having posed in a series of lewd photographs perhaps unbecoming of a U.S. soldier. 1/7 of someone's life, though??? We'll see what happens.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 07:19 AM (x+5JB)
26
Sorry, missed your last point. War crimes? I think of physical torture, killing, and execetion when I hear that term. Not, from what I've seen, England's activities.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 07:21 AM (x+5JB)
27
YBP,
10-11 years is truly outrageous. If I was in charge of
her case I would simply give her an article 15 (which is a non judical
punish, no court marshal). I would probably give her a $200 fine
and 1 month extra duties, and 1 month restriction on base. Since it
made the news, I might also take a stripe from her.
The reason I say this is because I receive an a15 for
$25 dollars and 1 week extra duty and 2 restriction days for not shaving while I was off duty. My gunny saw me in town on a weekend
while I was off duty, and by Monday afternoon got the above. The rule I broke was in the Marine Corp, you are suppose to clean shaven 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Posted by: Butch at May 05, 2005 12:55 PM (Gqhi9)
28
Butch: That seems more reasonable. Demote her a little for conduct unbecoming an officer, or whatever she's considered. But to fling her in jail for ten years to show the world that we're mad about this? All for show. I just feel bad that anyone serving his or her country got caught up in the mess. Regardless of her actions, she had guts to be in the military and to over there to begin with.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 01:04 PM (x+5JB)
29
You dont even do that amount of time for murder over here!
You Americans are tough man!
Hope she gets off.
Posted by: sparky at May 05, 2005 06:16 PM (F1nba)
30
YBP said "War crimes? I think of physical torture, killing, and execetion when I hear that term. Not, from what I've seen, England's activities."
Not to split hairs but I asked of all of the crimes at Abu Ghraib, not just England's actions. Her photographed actions were borderline at best but she was part of evil things being done in that prison. By not reporting it, the term "accompliance after the fact" comes to mind.
There was at least one documented homicide in the Abu Ghraib "scandal". Manadel al-Jamadi was beaten to death, the military ruled his death a homicide. You can find a picture of Garner(England's boyfriend at the time) giving a thumbs up over Manadel's corpse at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/23/wirq23.xml
Butch & YBP: If the roles had been reversed; Americans(POWs or civs) being "taunted" by dogs, piled into naked pyramids, car batteries attached to testies, etc at the hands of military prison guards, you would be ok with them just being fined and having an extra month of duties&PT and/or demoted?
Anyone reading this thread: Don't the actions in the Abu Ghraib photographs strike you as just plain evil? Something one just plain doesn't do to another human being simply because it is wrong.
Posted by: puzzled at May 06, 2005 04:18 AM (moq9v)
31
Puzzled: I was commenting on England's activity only. I don't know about anyone having been murdered.I agree that the activities did not serve America's interests in the long run (i.e., they did not help support for the U.S. presence in Iraq).
"If the roles had been reversed; Americans(POWs or civs) being "taunted" by dogs, piled into naked pyramids, car batteries attached to testies, etc at the hands of military prison guards, you would be ok with them just being fined and having an extra month of duties&PT and/or demoted?"
Excellent, thought-provoking question. Regardless of the passions that might well up if the roles were reveresed and these things were done to Americans by Iraqi soldiers, I'd believe that I would still maintain that 10-11 years in prison is unjust for someone guilty of whatever England was doing in the photographs.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 06, 2005 08:18 AM (x+5JB)
32
I agree with YBP. I was commenting on England pointing and leash holding. That does not merit jail time. As far as the dog taunting,
and human pryamids, I feel once again that what I stated above
would be ok, American or other. But once you start physical torture,
(breaking bones, hitting, suppose rapes (I don't know if true or not)
then yes jail time should start then. Basically I feel any mental
torture is okay when trying to get information out. Physical torture
is not okay. The reason I say that is I believe that everyone should
have a strenghth of mind and it is a lot harder to weaken. Physical,
the toughest man can be made to cry like a baby with enough beatings.
Posted by: Butch at May 06, 2005 03:20 PM (Gqhi9)
33
And I add that SOME physical intimidation would be fine--poking in the chest, grabbing a shirt front, etc.--nothing that would leave marks, cause bleeding, bruises, or disfigurement. But because some people may go over the line, perhaps there HAS to be a policy with no physical contact. Scaring them with dogs? Fine, as long as it is 100% safe, if it will save U.S. lives.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 06, 2005 03:55 PM (x+5JB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
