England to plead guilty - GoFuckYourself.com

theking · 04-30-2005, 08:41 AM

Pfc. Lynndie England will plead guilty...which is...I think the 7th one...to have received a Courts Martial in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. None of the 7 thus far have been able to produce evidence that they were ordered..by superiors...to ?soften up? the prisoners for "interrogaters" as was claimed by critics of the military. If my memory serves me well all but one of the 7 have entered guilty pleas.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7683481/

mardigras · 04-30-2005, 09:12 AM

Or they may have scared the hell out of her to accept a possible 11 years rather than the many times more she could have gotten from a trial. We don't know all the evidence, just what has been released and reported.

eroswebmaster · 04-30-2005, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Or they may have scared the hell out of her to accept a possible 11 years rather than the many times more she could have gotten from a trial. We don't know all the evidence, just what has been released and reported.

I would have to agree to this assessment.
It's not like people who are guilty haven't just plead guilty in order to serve reduced terms.
Doesn't mean they never had complicit parties involved either.

theking · 04-30-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Or they may have scared the hell out of her to accept a possible 11 years rather than the many times more she could have gotten from a trial. We don't know all the evidence, just what has been released and reported.

Well...we do know that Graner...her former boy friend...is the only one of the 7 to actually plead not guilty and go to trial...and he could not present evidence that he was only following orders from superiors...but instead he was adjuged to have been the ringleader of the 7 and was sentenced to 10 years.

Corleone · 04-30-2005, 02:02 PM

I hope this bitch will burn in hell

Snake Doctor · 04-30-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Well...we do know that Graner...her former boy friend...is the only one of the 7 to actually plead not guilty and go to trial...and he could not present evidence that he was only following orders from superiors...but instead he was adjuged to have been the ringleader of the 7 and was sentenced to 10 years.

Sure but there's no real way to prove that you were ordered to do something.
Its all hearsay.......orders like that aren't put in writing for obvious reasons.

theking · 04-30-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Sure but there's no real way to prove that you were ordered to do something.
Its all hearsay.......orders like that aren't put in writing for obvious reasons.

His defense attorneys did not even call a single witness that was his superior...that would have been in a position to issue such illegal orders...thus making his story bullshit. He was adjuged to be the ringleader of these fuckups. England herself stated that ?they were joking around, having some fun.?

Michaelious · 04-30-2005, 03:13 PM

It's bad that all this has happened.

Johny Traffic · 04-30-2005, 03:17 PM

You know anytime I see the headline England to plead guitly. I think what the fuck have us English done now to appologise about. All we seem to do is say sorry for something.

Cant you change her name. We cant be held responsable for everything.... Apart from cricket, which we are truly sorry about

theking · 04-30-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johny Traffic

You know anytime I see the headline England to plead guitly. I think what the fuck have us English done now to appologise about. All we seem to do is say sorry for something.

Cant you change her name. We cant be held responsable for everything.... Apart from cricket, which we are truly sorry about

You are forgiven for cricket.

mardigras · 04-30-2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

His defense attorneys did not even call a single witness that was his superior...that would have been in a position to issue such illegal orders...thus making his story bullshit. He was adjuged to be the ringleader of these fuckups. England herself stated that ?they were joking around, having some fun.?

Was this trial televised that I missed? How do you know the reasons for not calling superiors? It's quite possible that successful motions prevented them from calling those witnesses.

I still find it incredulous (and inplausable) that all of the activity (and knowlege of) at Abu Ghraib was strictly on a guard level, but as I said a year ago they are the only ones that will be held accountable.

erehwon · 04-30-2005, 05:56 PM

Well I guess this means we won't be seeing her personally starring in any new hillbilly, midget, MILF, BDSM scenes anytime soon.

crockett · 04-30-2005, 06:06 PM

Kinda hard to proof they were ordered to do it.. No one would be stupid enough yo put something like that in writing. It's been well documented in other places such as our base in Cuba that the CIA was encouraging that kind of behavior.

Top it off with top officials knew of the abuse way before the story ever broke. Hell that was even reported on CNN. However if you really think any of the top dogs will take the fall on this, get real.. That what the enlistees are for.

WarChild · 04-30-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Kinda hard to proof they were ordered to do it.. No one would be stupid enough yo put something like that in writing. It's been well documented in other places such as our base in Cuba that the CIA was encouraging that kind of behavior.

Top it off with top officials knew of the abuse way before the story ever broke. Hell that was even reported on CNN. However if you really think any of the top dogs will take the fall on this, get real.. That what the enlistees are for.

Or else, there's no conspiracy and Bush didn't do it.

theking · 04-30-2005, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Was this trial televised that I missed? How do you know the reasons for not calling superiors? It's quite possible that successful motions prevented them from calling those witnesses.

I still find it incredulous (and inplausable) that all of the activity (and knowlege of) at Abu Ghraib was strictly on a guard level, but as I said a year ago they are the only ones that will be held accountable.

The press was present for the trial and reported on the trial quite extensively...and I followed the press reports.

Why would you find it incredulous and inplausable that a man with a history of abuse did not do these things. While serving in the '91 Gulf War...a few fellow soldiers stated that he...as they described it...engaged in what could be considered as minor abuse to POW's that were being held in Suadi Arabia.

He has a court history of spousal abuse and his ex-spouse went to court...on at least two occasions to get court ordered protection from him (even after the divorce)...for physical abuse and harrassment...and the court ordered it done. He...as a County Jail guard...was accused of abusing and harrasing a fellow guard. As a State Correctional Officer he had a rather extensive record of prisoner abuse.

A Leapord does not usually change its spots.

Paul Markham · 05-01-2005, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

The press was present for the trial and reported on the trial quite extensively...and I followed the press reports.

Why would you find it incredulous and inplausable that a man with a history of abuse did not do these things. While serving in the '91 Gulf War...a few fellow soldiers stated that he...as they described it...engaged in what could be considered as minor abuse to POW's that were being held in Suadi Arabia.

He has a court history of spousal abuse and his ex-spouse went to court...on at least two occasions to get court ordered protection from him (even after the divorce)...for physical abuse and harrassment...and the court ordered it done. He...as a County Jail guard...was accused of abusing and harrasing a fellow guard. As a State Correctional Officer he had a rather extensive record of prisoner abuse.

A Leapord does not usually change its spots.

They put a leapord in charge of guarding the sheep.

This in itself makes the superiors guilty of negligence at the very least or are you saying they had no way of knowing this or did not bother to find out?

You see with the evidence you produce I'm led to believe his superiors knew of his history and chose him for the job or they were negligent in doing their duty. Which one do you think is right?

tony286 · 05-01-2005, 12:16 AM

They knew all the way from the top but these are men who secretly see the miltary as fools.Put on a show we love the troops then cut their benefits , do a back door draft. All of them got out of vietnam. That should tell you something.

Johny Traffic · 05-01-2005, 12:24 AM

I wonder how she would have been treated if she would have been captured by Iraqi forces.

theking · 05-01-2005, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charly

They put a leapord in charge of guarding the sheep.

This in itself makes the superiors guilty of negligence at the very least or are you saying they had no way of knowing this or did not bother to find out?

You see with the evidence you produce I'm led to believe his superiors knew of his history and chose him for the job or they were negligent in doing their duty. Which one do you think is right?

Niether of your premises are right. The military checks for a criminal record...and that is all...unless one is going to receive a security clearance then they will look into your background more extensively. He was never convicted of a crime or he would not have been allowed to join and or remain in the Reserves.

Paul Markham · 05-01-2005, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Niether of your premises are right. The military checks for a criminal record...and that is all...unless one is going to receive a security clearance then they will look into your background more extensively. He was never convicted of a crime or he would not have been allowed to join and or remain in the Reserves.

So they said "He's in the army so suitable to guard POWs" and now they throw their hands up in shock when he abused prisoners.

It seems to me you present all the evidence of who he was and then forgive the superiors for not making some basic checks.

but then you thought the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. Go find you 10 or was it 20 reasons why the US inveded Iraq, it's about time I had a good laugh.

You have to remember I said Iraq was going to tunr into a shit sandwich for the US, you said it was going to be a good move. Who is right with hind sight?

theking · 05-01-2005, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charly

So they said "He's in the army so suitable to guard POWs" and now they throw their hands up in shock when he abused prisoners.

It seems to me you present all the evidence of who he was and then forgive the superiors for not making some basic checks.

but then you thought the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. Go find you 10 or was it 20 reasons why the US inveded Iraq, it's about time I had a good laugh.

You have to remember I said Iraq was going to tunr into a shit sandwich for the US, you said it was going to be a good move. Who is right with hind sight?

Clueless as ever...aren't you? The Army performed their SOP "basic checks". He was a Reservist...Reservists are not elite troops. Two days a month and two weeks of training per year does not turn out very well trained troops. Reservists are civilians in uniform. Guarding prisoners was within his MOS and his unit was called to active duty thus he was assigned along with his unit to Abu Garade.

I never...made a statement that "it was going to be a good move." I have stated that the goal...if achieved...is a good thing...not only for the US/Western World but for the Mid Eastern countries as well. I have...from the beginning said that to achieve our goal will take one or more decades...and I said from the beginning that I doubt that we will succeed in acheiving our goal as I think the American people will do as they did during the Vietnam era...and demand that our troops be brought home before the mission is completed.

Having said that...Iraq is not a "shit sandwich"...progress has been made...not only in Iraq...but changes in other Mid East countries are in progress...Egypt...Saudi...Libya...Syria...Lebbano n...and Palestine/Israel.

Paul Markham · 05-01-2005, 02:06 AM

[QUOTE=theking]Clueless as ever...aren't you? The Army performed their SOP "basic checks". He was a Reservist...Reservists are not elite troops. Two days a month and two weeks of training per year does not turn out very well trained troops. Reservists are civilians in uniform. Guarding prisoners was within his MOS and his unit was called to active duty thus he was assigned along with his unit to Abu Garade.QUOTE]
Well obviously there basic checks are not good enough, there for negligent. On one hand you bring up all this evidence to show the guys history, then dismiss the fact that the Army did not find it out before.

Would you think the same about "Basic Checks" that missed out a teacher had a record of child abuse?

The checks were not good enough of that only a fool would deny. The previous abuse was easy enough to find when they needed it. should of been found before.

As for Iraq not being a shit sandwich, I guess it depends on where you are standing.

In ten years Iraq will be a country ruled by Mullahs who will be totallly anti the US. Like Vietnam the US leaders should really have thought the whole thing through.

theking · 05-01-2005, 02:30 AM

[QUOTE=charly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Clueless as ever...aren't you? The Army performed their SOP "basic checks". He was a Reservist...Reservists are not elite troops. Two days a month and two weeks of training per year does not turn out very well trained troops. Reservists are civilians in uniform. Guarding prisoners was within his MOS and his unit was called to active duty thus he was assigned along with his unit to Abu Garade.QUOTE]
Well obviously there basic checks are not good enough, there for negligent. On one hand you bring up all this evidence to show the guys history, then dismiss the fact that the Army did not find it out before.

Would you think the same about "Basic Checks" that missed out a teacher had a record of child abuse?

The checks were not good enough of that only a fool would deny. The previous abuse was easy enough to find when they needed it. should of been found before.

As for Iraq not being a shit sandwich, I guess it depends on where you are standing.

In ten years Iraq will be a country ruled by Mullahs who will be totallly anti the US. Like Vietnam the US leaders should really have thought the whole thing through.

No criminal record...high school diploma...meeting physical requirements and passing the AGT's...is pretty much the sum total of "basic checks"...unless your MOS requires a security clearance...then they will investigate your background.

Guarding POW's is not a prestige MOS...at least most military personell would not view it as such.

As for a teacher that had a criminal record...of any kind...they too would not be hired. He did not have a criminal record thus he was employed by the military.

mardigras · 05-01-2005, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

The Army performed their SOP "basic checks". He was a Reservist...Reservists are not elite troops. Two days a month and two weeks of training per year does not turn out very well trained troops. Reservists are civilians in uniform.

Then WTF are they doing in charge of a prison with apparently sleeping superiors?

Adultnet · 05-01-2005, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Sure but there's no real way to prove that you were ordered to do something.
Its all hearsay.......orders like that aren't put in writing for obvious reasons.

Its not the orders, its is not even considered to follow orders that validate basic human rights and if some one receive such an order he can deny to complete it and any military court will find him not guilty.

theking · 05-01-2005, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Then WTF are they doing in charge of a prison with apparently sleeping superiors?

None of the 7 were in charge of a prison. Of the 7...I think Graner may have been the highest ranking and he was an E-4...and you enter the military as an E-1. They were low ranking fuckups.

04-30-2005, 08:41 AM	#1
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	England to plead guilty Pfc. Lynndie England will plead guilty...which is...I think the 7th one...to have received a Courts Martial in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. None of the 7 thus far have been able to produce evidence that they were ordered..by superiors...to ?soften up? the prisoners for "interrogaters" as was claimed by critics of the military. If my memory serves me well all but one of the 7 have entered guilty pleas. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7683481/ __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

04-30-2005, 09:12 AM	#2
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Or they may have scared the hell out of her to accept a possible 11 years rather than the many times more she could have gotten from a trial. We don't know all the evidence, just what has been released and reported. __________________ .

04-30-2005, 03:13 PM	#8
Michaelious Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Scotland Posts: 6,720	It's bad that all this has happened. __________________

04-30-2005, 03:17 PM	#9
Johny Traffic Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,461	You know anytime I see the headline England to plead guitly. I think what the fuck have us English done now to appologise about. All we seem to do is say sorry for something. Cant you change her name. We cant be held responsable for everything.... Apart from cricket, which we are truly sorry about __________________ hosted flv's, hosted galleries, morphing rss feeds, free content, free sites, hosted blog

04-30-2005, 05:56 PM	#12
erehwon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: A secure undisclosed location... Posts: 3,759	Well I guess this means we won't be seeing her personally starring in any new hillbilly, midget, MILF, BDSM scenes anytime soon. __________________ Money NEVER $leep$...

04-30-2005, 02:02 PM	#5
Corleone C.R.E.A.M Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 15,262	I hope this bitch will burn in hell

04-30-2005, 06:06 PM	#13
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	Kinda hard to proof they were ordered to do it.. No one would be stupid enough yo put something like that in writing. It's been well documented in other places such as our base in Cuba that the CIA was encouraging that kind of behavior. Top it off with top officials knew of the abuse way before the story ever broke. Hell that was even reported on CNN. However if you really think any of the top dogs will take the fall on this, get real.. That what the enlistees are for. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

05-01-2005, 12:16 AM	#17
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	They knew all the way from the top but these are men who secretly see the miltary as fools.Put on a show we love the troops then cut their benefits , do a back door draft. All of them got out of vietnam. That should tell you something.

05-01-2005, 12:24 AM	#18
Johny Traffic Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,461	I wonder how she would have been treated if she would have been captured by Iraqi forces. __________________ hosted flv's, hosted galleries, morphing rss feeds, free content, free sites, hosted blog

05-01-2005, 02:06 AM	#22
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	[QUOTE=theking]Clueless as ever...aren't you? The Army performed their SOP "basic checks". He was a Reservist...Reservists are not elite troops. Two days a month and two weeks of training per year does not turn out very well trained troops. Reservists are civilians in uniform. Guarding prisoners was within his MOS and his unit was called to active duty thus he was assigned along with his unit to Abu Garade.QUOTE] Well obviously there basic checks are not good enough, there for negligent. On one hand you bring up all this evidence to show the guys history, then dismiss the fact that the Army did not find it out before. Would you think the same about "Basic Checks" that missed out a teacher had a record of child abuse? The checks were not good enough of that only a fool would deny. The previous abuse was easy enough to find when they needed it. should of been found before. As for Iraq not being a shit sandwich, I guess it depends on where you are standing. In ten years Iraq will be a country ruled by Mullahs who will be totallly anti the US. Like Vietnam the US leaders should really have thought the whole thing through. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70