Lynndie England DC lecture canceled after threats

[sabra]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON — Organizers have canceled a lecture at the Library of Congress by the woman who became a symbol of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal after threats caused concerns about staff safety.

Former Army reservist Lynndie England had been scheduled to discuss her biography Friday as part of a veterans forum on Capitol Hill. The book by author Gary S. Winkler is called "Tortured: Lynndie England, Abu Ghraib and the Photographs That Shocked the World."

In a notice to members, Angela Kinney, president of the Library of Congress Professional Association, says the event was canceled due to staff safety concerns.

David Moore, a Vietnam War veteran and German acquisitions specialist at the library who organized the event, says he had been receiving threats.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLbEXSuhK82zs-f4MUMepeWn6nRQD9A2NI1G0

[Poll_Blind]

1. OMG, remind me never to be afraid of public speaking again. This torturing piece of filth is...

....doing a book tour?

PB

[No Elephants]

5. Not only a torturing POS, but clearly one who is not too bright. Maybe she and Not Joe the Not

Plumber can team up for a dog and {one trick} pony show.

[atreides1]

2. I'm glad it was canceled

I don't agree with the way that this happened, but I have to question whether this was done because of actual threats to staff, or actual scholars who threatened to boycott the Library.

[KakistocracyHater]

57. I doubt it was threats, it probably was support from some 'white power'

types, but that wouldn't help their image, so they went with lies instead.

[maxsolomon]

3. WTF? who's threatening the library of congress?

she was a pawn and a scapegoat. i think she got absolutely fucked by her superiors in the military, her president, and the media. she paid more of a price for abu graib than any one responsible for the policy that encourage her idiotic actions.

let her rebuild her life.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

6. Before you go any further

with your compassion - decidedly admirable - for England, you should see a film called "Standard Operating Procedure." It's a documentary about Abu Ghraib, done by Errol Morris. It's profoundly disturbing, quite moving, sometimes hard to watch.

But, what you might find most shocking are the remarks by England, who quite blithely dismisses what she did, who excuses herself over and over, and who is regretful only that she was punished.

While I agree about the scapegoating, that in no way negates the reality that England did what she did. And had a damn fine time doing it.

We all know right and wrong, even moral deficients like those people who got nailed.....................................

[Captain Hilts]

10. True. nt

[truth2power]

12. Well said, Tangerine...I couldn't have said it better...

I haven't noticed that England has shown any remorse. Although I do agree that she was thrown under the bus by the likes of Cheney et al, she still seems to have been having a mighty good time in those photos.

I don't think she's the brightest bulb, but she's not so profoundly cognitively disabled that she didn't know that her actions were wrong.

I'm glad the event was cancelled.

* * * * *

edit> Can SOP be viewed on the internet? All I can find are trailers. Got a link where one can purchase it? thanks.

[marshall]

54. I don't think England can understand culturally how the torture impacted those men

Because she wasn't beating the men, water boarding them, or forcing them to sit on blocks of ice she doesn't consider it torture. But from their cultural point of view it was repulsive to be stripped nude and touched by her in any way. It's the same rationale as the playing of Britney Spears music to torture the Guantanomo Bay detainees--to us it seems like nothing, but to them the sound of infidel Spears squawking about her sex life is defiling and horrific.

[No Elephants]

19. + infinity!

[april]

31. I also agree. she looked like she enjoyed it !

[TheMadMonk]

35. Given that a fair few prominent posters here have...

...at least half seriously advocated torture of "certain types of lowlife", and even stated they themselves would do it (or at best be hard pressed not to) for no other reason than revenge it is not difficult to understand Lyndie's belief that she did little/nothing wrong in getting in a few licks on behalf of US forces, particularly when she was encouraged by her superiors to do so.

And when polls show that a solid majority of the population believe that torture is acceptable under certain circumstances, again it is not difficult to understand Lyndie's lack of remorse.

And before anybody tries to jump down my throat, let me say understanding is not agreement. I believe that torture is wrong. I simply understand that a certain percentage will under certain circumstances practice torture for payback, and that a much larger percentage believe that it is appropriate if a case can be made for the greater good even when I myself do not agree with them.

[keepCAblue]

40. +1

[provis99]

47. Lynndie England was essentially a Nazi concentration camp guard.

why are you excusing Nazis?

[AlphaCentauri]

80. a weak defense of a big bureaucracy involved in torture

it's just absurd to single out a few soldiers for those torture procedures.

[SlowDownFast]

97. Standard Operating Procedure

Here's the movie in it's entirety:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4030426275197703364&ei=Av-KSv2CEMjglQffu5C1Bw&q=Standard+Operating+Procedure&hl=en&client=firefox-a

[Captain Hilts]

7. Yep. No lieutenants, captains or majors were guilty of anything. Nope! Ain't that amazing? nt

[Hubert Flottz]

23. "The Army Takes Care Of It's Own"

Unless you're a lady general...

[Captain Hilts]

30. Who is also not 'regular' Army. nt

[sabrina 1]

82. They were guilty, along with Bush, Cheney

Yoo and the rest of them, and so were those lowlifes who got a kick out of following their illegal orders.

Unless you think the Nazis who tried the same defense 'we were just following orders' were not responsible either.

If criminals like Bush, Cheney, Miller, Sanchez et al and their future counterparts, cannot find anyone immoral enough to carry out their orders, when our military learns that they are required to refuse to carry out illegal orders, there will be no more Abu Ghraibs or Gitmos or secret prisons around the globe.

But if this country coddles anyone, even on the lowest level who engaged in those vile, criminal acts in OUR name, it is one more step closer to legitimizing it.

Let her go home and maybe learn from the disgust of the public that whether she realizes or not what she did was wrong. Even four year olds are capable of learning that. And if she finally manages to feel some remorse and is willing to be a GOOD example, ie, someone who can express regret for what she has done, then maybe the public can be forgiving.

Meantime their victims still have no voice. That's who I'd like to see at the Library of Congress. I would be perfectly happy to never hear those people's names again. Life is too short.

[No Elephants]

8. She was a pawn and a scapegoat, but she was a very willing pawn, indeed a

gleeful one. The photos clearly reveal that she relished what she was doing. And now, she is going arouond saying that what occurred at Abu Ghraib was almost nothing. So, she does not seem like a remorseful pawn either.

Ironic thing about those photos that humiliated and degraded the prisoners in violation of law. She took them.

No one is stopping her from re-building her life, ffs. Why does rebuilding her life require a book tour stop at the Library of Congress to publicize her biographer's book? And if that is what she needs to move on with her life, let her or the biographer or the publisher provide security. No need for the gubbamint to foot the bill to make any of them richer.

[maxsolomon]

11. her continued idiocy does not excuse threats to the library of congress

registering protest, fine.

threats, not fine. the gubbamint foots the bill for expenses i'm seething with rage over - dick cheney's health care, for instance, and i have to swallow it.

she's not the sharpest tool in the shed, so i save my ire for those who set the policy and gave the orders.

[No Elephants]

16. No one said the threats were excused. If I could have prevented the threats, I would

have. But, they happened despite my wishes. So the only question is, do we put the nation's repository at risk for the likes of her? I say no. Should the taxpayer foot the bill so she can publicize her book at the Library of Congress? No. She can foot the bill or she can publicize the book elsewhere.

Dick Cheney's health care is mandated by law, for good reasons not specific to him. Working for the gubbamint is a beotch, which doesnn't pay anything like private employers. The least we can do is offer good medical insurance. None of that is remotely comparable to this situation.

BTW, her sentence was very little, IMO. And just as her actions do not justify the threats, the fact that no one higher up got punished for what she did does not justify her actions. She fully deserved every bit of punishment she go and then some. Others did, too, but that does not exonerate her.

As for her brains, agreed. However, I don't recall anyone at the Nuremberg trials getting an IQ test. However, this is not about whether she should get punished or not. That's moot. It's about whether the taxpayer should foot the bill for her to speak at the Library of Congress in the hope of selling more of her books. I see no reason why I need to pay for that if it's not required by law.

[paulsby]

61. i agree

endland is scum, but it doesn't justify the threats and those people quelling her right to speak is disturbing.

[No Elephants]

62. Let's not conflate issues. Threats of violence are wrong, period, regardless

of the reason or motivation behind the threats. However, no one is quelling her right to speak. Her only right of free speech is against the government. That is not being affected.

Her book is out there. Government is not confiscating it, burning it or banning it. She is not even being jailed or fined for promoting her book. She is perfectly free to promote it at any venue, public or private, that will allow her to do so. She can buy ads. She can provide her own security, etc.

However, NO ONE, including that repulsive toad, has a First Amendment right to promote their books for personal profit at the Library of Congress at taxpayer expense.

[paulsby]

63. her speech was quelled

the threats did quell her speech, since they forced the sponsor to cancel the event. i am well aware the 1st amendment only applies to the government restricting people's speech. it doesn't therefore follow that what i said is false.

the issue is this. she was scheduled to speak, and some scumbags threatened her causing the library of congress to cancel the event.

was that a first amendment violation? of course not, unless it turns out it was govt. agents who made the threats.

was her free speech quelled? yes.

the best response to bad speech is good speech. it is not threatening those with the bad speech, which is what was done. it's wrong.

[No Elephants]

65. Again, threats of violence are wrong. No disagreement there. However,

I don't think promoting her book at the Library of Congress was appropriate to begin with. Speech is quelled all the time for all kinds of reasons. I cannot campaign using a loudspeaker at midnight. I cannot use your home to promote points of view you don't want promoted there. And so on. Nothing is wrong with any of that. It all depends upon the circumstances.

Silencing a point of view entirely is very different from saying we are not going to host you at taxpayer expense at the Library of Congress.

BTW, I never said that her speech in that one venue for that one occasion had not been "quelled" or that you were wrong. I said only "Let's not conflate the issues." I have a big problem with threats of violence. I have no problem with that one event at that one venue being cancelled. IMO, it should not have been booked to begin with.

[atreides1]

22. She may been a pawn

But she was a willing pawn!!!!

[caseymoz]

29. A willing pawn with no apologies. I'm afraid conservatives might have her run for office.

It's unimaginably offensive that this book is called "Tortured."

:nopity:

[saigon68]

26. Actually I would have liked to see Sabrina Harrmann

She used to "Sew them Up"

[saigon68]

27. More

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabrina_Harman

[fascisthunter]

34. that's a pretty big smile from a pawn

she loved every minute of it.

[saigon68]

38. Unfortunately they were USED then THROWN AWAY

[sabrina 1]

85. They did not need to be used, they could have refused

especially in England's case where it was apparently, all fun and games she did to please her brutal, sadistic boyfriend. Forgive me if I reserve my sympathy for their victims.

[Jennicut]

59. Sabrina's story is actually very interesting. She is the one that got the evidence that this man was

tortured to death. She took pictures of him after he was tortured. She is one of the few that seem remorseful.
Lyddie England. though seems like a total idiot.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

4. Which genius at the Library of Congress

thought that vile creature would be a really neat addition to the program?

And who the hell published her biography?

Worse, who BOUGHT it?

Even worse, WHO CARES?

OK, if you want a really good laugh, google "Bad Apple Books," the ostensible "publisher" of this trash. Check its address:

PO Box 274
Keyser, WV 26726

I do believe the subject of this biography is from Keyser, WV.

Looks to me like another exercise in self-publishing, or as it's more accurately known, "printing."

That this "book" is getting any publicity at all is pathetic..........................................

[MountainLaurel]

13. Bad Apple Books is probably code

For something photocopied at the Kinko's, not that Keyser would merit a Kinko's.

[kirby]

15. I didnt know about the book until this thread n/t

[No Elephants]

17. Nice catch. Yup, England was born in KY, but now lives in Keyser, WV.

[sabrina 1]

84. It is an outrage that anyone would allow that

woman into the Library of Congress to do what?

If this is a subject worthy of a Library of Congress event, then let's hear from the heroes who refused to follow illegal orders, people like Kevin Benderman eg, who also went to jail, for refusing to follow illegal orders. It's amazing how we have turned away from those few who stood up against the criminal regime while embracing the filth that made their crimes possible.

Sometimes I think there is no hope for this society. Maybe this moral decay is what happens to every Empire before it finally collapses.

[Libertas1776]

9. What freaking numbskull

at the Library of Congress, a national depository of history, knowledge and intellectual truth (truly a rarity in today's America), thought it would be a grand idea to have this whack job, "pawn" or not, give a lecture?!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

18. Moore makes an excellent point...

from the blog article I mention below:

“I’m apolitical. I bring in people from the left and right, people who are for and against, you name it,” Moore said in an interview. He said he extended an invitation to England after reading her book. “I was actually intrigued by it. She recognizes what she did was wrong and she apologized for it,” he said, “Quite frankly that’s more than Cheney or Rumsfeld has ever said.”

I question, though, whether she genuinely believes what she did was wrong. She has made statements that imply her actions were justified by the treatment Americans have suffered while in Iraqi captivity.

[No Elephants]

20. I think her biographer got creative with the remmorse bit, probably realizing

that people would not want to enrich her by buying the book unless she expressed remorse. The things she has said outside the book bear no resemblance to remorse.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

14. This article lends a little more insight:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/08/12/at-library-of-congress-vets-clash-over-lynndie-england-appearance/

It sounds as if there was a threat to protest her appearance. The Google article implies there had been threats of violence.

[glowing]

21. I would have attended this. I would love to ask Lyndie England questions.

I would love to ask about orders and directives. I would like to ask her about other's who squirmed away from prosecution.. about "bad apples" seeming to be systemic throughout the military prisons. Why were they told to smile big and hold a thumbs up sign? What were the pictures used for? Why were there so many pictures? AND why would they have allowed themselves to be photographed? Did she know what she did was wrong? Was torture? What incentives did they have to become de-humanized?

I notice that this is a biography about Lyndie. She is the subject. Does she recieve money from the book? Why wouldn't you want to learn about the details unfiltered through the media lens that lied and didn't probe in depth when the story first broke?

[Deja Q]

49. She'd give the 5th amendment or claim she forgot, like Saint Ronnie.

:shrug:

[nolabels]

73. Ronnie probably did forget, as for the rest, pretty sure they were pure liars

The system puts these people in as our leaders and when they don't perform as expected we blame them. That is so simply stupid, having faith in things that are bound to eventually fail in one way or another is in the classic sense (you know the word).

Look to yourself for leadership, it's the only way you will ever understand what you are really up against :shrug:

[No Elephants]

64. Nothing prevents you from asking England questions, though. Thie Library of Congress is not the

world's only venue for England to speak about her book or anything else.

But, if you think the media lens distorted, wait until you hear England's version!

[sabrina 1]

86. She has already answered most of those questions

In one interview she appeared to not believe she did wrong at all. She was asked, she said, by her boyfriend to just hold the leash. She wanted to please him. She was having an affair at the time. If you believe her, it was all great fun and there was no indication from her that she even considered the victims to be human beings at all. She never showed any remorse and no, she didn't think it was torture or de-humanizing.

As for money, the 'publisher' says she will make money, if anyone buys it. The media did not filter her ~ she did several interviews and was asked most of the questions I would have wanted to ask her. I remember the interviewer in one instance trying to get her to show some emotion. I got the impression that she was not capable of understanding what she was involved in and had no capacity to feel sympathy for her victims.

Like most invading armies do it looks we let loose some pretty brutal, immoral people with zero ability to sympathize with people on a human level, on the Iraqi people. Her boyfriend was orignally a prison guard who had been involved in the death of a mentally disturbed prisoner. I try to forget the existence of these people entirely so I may not be remembering right, but I don't believe he suffered any consequences for that death.

[Solly Mack]

24. Gawds

[Turbineguy]

25. People calling up

to advise they are NOT coming?

[HardWorkingDem]

28. Quite odd how some here offer more sympathy towards death row murderers than...

this obviously disabled woman and easily manipulated woman.

Certainly it is no excuse for what she did, but I wish one tenth of the people here who lack little sympathy for easily manipulated people like this woman, would try to place themselves in her shoes and think of how it was possible for her to do the things she did.

Also, again, here it is where the pawn has been more harshly dealt with than those who developed and planned all of these actions.

Lastly, and again it is disturbing how so easily the most terrible acts done again take a back seat to the photographs involving this woman.

[greiner3]

32. Good call;

Some on this post say they are left falling; however, if you were to search some you would find out their true colors.

Just saying.

[No Elephants]

67. Since when does being "left" mean you sympathize with troops who joyfully torture their

prisoners in violation of domestic law, international law, and basic decency? To the contrary, I've seen that from posters on the right a lot more than from posters on the left.

[fascisthunter]

36. you sure it's not an issue of being against death row in general?

I've seen that a lot here.... I see no sympathy for murders as you claim.

[HardWorkingDem]

41. Um.......several...

How about Mumia abu Jamal; then the one former gang member executed a year or two ago. Can't recall his name, but a lot of people were commenting about his gang out reach criticism.


Here's the thing and it's my own view - I think this woman is mentally disabled or borderline below the mental levels of the average person. I think she, as well as many others were taken advantage of. But the thing is, how many huge pushes have you seen dealing with prisoners on death row that are borderline mentally disabled (retarded), while so many here want to flush this woman aside in a second. She didn't kill anyone and more sympathy is offered to those that have.


Here's one more thing to think of: how many people have you seen charged for these crimes that have turned out to be intelligent, secure and independent people?

When it is all said and done someday, we are going to find out that the people who committed these abuses were specifically picked by their manipulators.

[EFerrari]

42. They weren't just snap shots. The graphic recording of those acts was the least of it.

[No Elephants]

66. Her defense is basically, "I had the hots for this guy." Why is that a better defense

than "I was only following the orders of Hitler's military" or "I was only protecting my unit from the sneaky Vietnamese women, elderly and children who do9 the bidding of the Vietcong?"

The fact that she was dealt with more harshly than Rumsfeld does not mean that her punishment, for what she did, was not a light one, nor does it mean that she deserved no punishment at all. And this is not about photos. She participated, quite gleefully, in torturing people. And even if she had not participated, which she did, she aided and abetted. And she certainly did not blow the whistle. I am all for punishing her superiors, right up to Commander AWOL, but she deserved her punishment.

We often punish the foot soldier and not the commander, be it the military, the mafia or the war on drugs. That's terribly unjust, but not punishing ANYone would also be terribly unjust, too, to the victims and to the society. And, you will never eliminate the Nuremberg defense if you never punish foot soldiers.

But none of that is what this thread is about, though. It's about her promoting her book at the Library of Congress.

And, I think it too too bad that your response is to attack your fellow posters for what they said, rather than simply to state your own position. The first kind of response is one that seeks to inhibit others. The second kind seeks to fight fire with fire and is, IMO, far preferable.

[sabrina 1]

87. If you sympathize with torturers, that's your business

I reserve my sympathy for their victims. I have no sympathy for murderers either but am against the death penalty even for torturers. It seems like you equate opposing the death penalty (as all other civilized nations do) to sympathy for murderers

Not supporting having this woman make money from her crimes, (and they were crimes, maybe if you spoke to her victims you'd understand that better but we will never hear their side of the story), does not mean approving of those who are responsible for the torture policies being less harshly dealt with. Where did you get that idea? They all need to be dealt harshly with to the degree that they were responsible.

I would not be interested in helping a lower level Nazi guard who also claimed to be just pawns following orders, make money from his crimes either, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want Hitler to spend the rest of his life in a place as close to hell on earth as possible does it?

As for her being easily manipulated, sorry, I teach three, four and five year olds and all of them are capable of knowing right from wrong. She simply didn't care and there are people who are scarred for life as a result of her allowing herself to be manipulated. They are the people I would like to hear from.

[MisterP]

33. the Chris Crocker Brigade must have its hands busy today: England, Vick

why no Fromme? I mean, what sort of "scapegoat" is willing and guilty?
that said, we have to pull on these threads (England, her freak boyfriend Graner, etc.) to unravel the sweater (higher-ups)--but that would be looking into the past, and that's gauche now in the New Politics...

[Deja Q]

50. Oh, Lord. I can hear it now...

"LEAVE LYDDIE ALONE!"

And I can see it on big signs held by her supporters:

"LEAVE ENGLAND ALONE" and unsure if that's the correct spelling or if they're wondering why we're at war with that country or whatever... ironic, for once their spelling would be correct. :D

[dembotoz]

37. She must be allowed to speak

She is a reminder of how Cheney's statemnet about protecting the people involved is just a bunch of bull shit. He sure as hell did nothing to protect her.

She is a reminder of just what bush's policies were.

She is a reminder that only low ranking folks got punnished.

She is a reminder of what people did in our county's name.

She is a reminder of why we are no longer trusted.

We need this reminder, because without reminders such as her, what happened will be forgotten.
The guilty will remain unpunished.
History will be rewritten.

She must be allowed to speak.

[No Elephants]

68. She is allowed to speak. No one is threatening to jail or fine her if she speaks. And her book is

out there. You want to hear her speak? Offer her her expenses to promote her book and/or tell her story at the venue of your choice at no cost to her. I bet she'll agree in a heartbeat. Or demand that the media interview her. Or go to Keyser WV and interview her yourself.

Cancelling this one event does not mean she is not allowed to speak.

[KamaAina]

39. Discuss... her... biography?!

This and Miss Homophobia Carrie Prejean's upcoming tell-all are clearly part of a master Plan to make Sarah Palin look postively literary by comparison. :eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Hopefully these terrorists making threats will be put down like the rabid dogs they are.

Oh wait, that's only when people we disagree with make threats.

[tabasco]

52. What's this "we" shit?

WTF are you doing here if you hate it so much?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. What the hell are you talking about? I love it here.

[No Elephants]

70. I understood the question you ignored. "What do you mean "we?"

(Okay, I re-phrased it bc I try not to use certain words.)

I have not seen one post of yours that suggests you and I share any views or belong to the same group.

I can see why you love it here though. I came here because I was fed up with posting with RWers.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. Aren't you glad we have such a big tent? I sure am.

[No Elephants]

99. Yes, but usually those within the tent can manage one post that sounds as though

they are Democrats.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. And you are the arbiter of all things Democratic. So much for open minded eh?

[No Elephants]

69. I call bs. See Reply 16, among others.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. I would certainly hope so.

My complaint here for several days has been that people have been calling for the RWers who have threatened people to be executed the "put down like rabid dogs" was a specific quote. I have instead called for them to be arrested and tried in keeping with the Constitution and the rule of law. If that makes you and I disagree so be it. I believe everyone should be afforded the rights recognized by our Constitution, not just people I agree with.

David

[No Elephants]

100. Oh, please. Your post called for the putting down like rabid dogs of

those making threats, then claimed you forgot--that's only for people we disagree with. I pointed you to an earlier post of mine upthread, where I said I would have prevented the threats if I could have.

Where on earth do you get from that that I do not respect the Constituion or the rule of law?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

104. Let's try one more time.

At least one post here has called for the protesters legally carrying firearms to be put down like rabid dogs and many posts have referred to them as terrorists. Much like a former Presidents you are with us or against us statements. To point out the hypocrisy of such statements, I posted the statement you referenced. While their actions may be stupid and bothersome to a great many people, they are legal. Personally I don't believe that any citizen should be executed without trial for protesting in a legal manner. I'm not sure what you read but I never claimed to forget anything. We would all prevent all threats if possible but unfortunately the people making threats on both sides are unstable and irrational. I hope that clears it all up.

David

[No Elephants]

106. I understood you perfectly the first time.

Knowledge of the other thread you reference was not necessary to any part of our discussion. So let me try again.

You posted that we only wish bad things on those we don't agree with. I did not need to know about the other thread to realize your post was (a) sarcastic and not literal about the rabid dogs and (b) a condemnation of alleged double standards on the part of DU posters. Knowing about another thread or not, I got your point.

I replied, calling bs and referring you that supported England, in terms of her being a victim of the threats anyway, even though I do not support her behabvior.

You did not acknowledge that you were wrong, or at least overly broad, in saying that DUers wish bad things only on those with whom we disagree. You did not really address my post at all. Instead, you went on about another thread and your love of the rule of law and the Constitution, then said you were sorry if I disagreed.

I replied,

"Oh, please. Your post called for the putting down like rabid dogs of those making threats, then claimed you forgot--that's only for people we disagree with. I pointed you to an earlier post of mine upthread, where I said I would have prevented the threats if I could have.

Where on earth do you get from that that I do not respect the Constituion or the rule of law?"

Again, you did not address what I actually posted (or answer my direct question, but again went on about the other thread. We get it. You loves you some Constitution. So do I.

Now, specifically, what part of what I wrote in this post or any of my responses to you strikes you as a mistake?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. I never said you don't respect the Constitution or the rule of law.

You are mistaken in your thought that I support Ms. England in any way other than her right to not be threatened. I'm not sure where you thought I acknowledged being wrong in any way because I have been absolutely correct in my statements. I never referred to all DUers, unless you have been calling for the stripping of Constitutional rights of protesters then I wasn't referring to you in any way. I haven't seen enough of your posts to have formed an opinion about your views on the Constitution. I hope that clears it up.

David

[ProudDad]

77. Right On, Dave!!!

:hi:

[mogster]

44. See also this for context

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/08/torture-at-the-library-of-cong/

Lynndie England will discuss her biography Tortured: Lynndie England, Abu Ghraib and the Photographs That Shocked the World at the Library of Congress Veterans Forum on Friday August 14 at noon in room 139 on the first floor of the James Madison building.

She is a convicted criminal who was dishonorably discharged, but she’s out of prison and on stage at the Library of Congress. You may recall many of the memorable pictures of the glowing Private England during her tour in Iraq, including the one of her standing next to an Iraqi prisoner, a cigarette dangling from her lip, as she points at the Iraqi prisoner’s genitals as he stands there naked with a sack over his head as he’s forced to masturbate in the presence of GI England and several other nude men.
(...)
The event is sponsored by the Library of Congress Professional Association’s Veterans Forum and its leader LOC employee and Vietnam Veteran Bob Moore. Veteran Moore has weathered a wave of criticism in recent days, but he remains steadfast in his hatred for Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and his admiration for Lynndie England’s “guts.”

I am a Library of Congress employee and a veteran.* I retired with an honorable discharge after serving for 25 years in the Air Force. I was the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay for more than two years and I resigned in 2007 in large part because I believe waterboarding is torture and my superiors, Tom Hartmann and Jim Haynes, did not. I believe my views on torture have been clearly expressed, so it should come as no surprised that I am more than a little disappointed that the library that belongs to the United States Congress is hosting one of the most infamous torturers in modern time so she can promote her book.

Interview with England:
http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/latest/lynndie-england-5

In June 2003, a group of about 20 soldiers, including England, Graner, Specialist Sabrina Harman, Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick II, and Specialist Joseph M. Darby, were deployed for duty in Iraq. The first stop: the Hilla camp, 58 miles south of Baghdad, where the army was training new Iraqi police officers. The American forces took up residence in an abandoned date-processing factory, a big, open space, like an airplane hangar, but screaming hot and full of bird shit.

Not long into their stay, two of the soldiers appeared at the base one day with animal carcasses. They'd found a dead goat and a dead cat somewhere and started slicing them up. Someone took a photo of a soldier pretending to have sex with the goat's head. "Then they cut off the cat's head and shoved it on the top of a soda bottle," England says.

For several weeks, the decaying animal heads provided entertainment for the soldiers. "Someone put sunglasses on them, and put the rifle next to the heads and took a picture. Some soldiers put a cigarette in the cat's mouth," she says. The soldiers stashed the severed heads in their rooms.

"It was funny," England says. "So funny."

[Dogmudgeon]

45. I hate these DU trials

The defendants are always guilty, and they always get the maximum punishment.

I'm just glad Lynndie England didn't torture any animals. For her sake.

--d!

[Deja Q]

51. She decided the people she was torturing were animals.

But you do have a point; what led to the torture scenes... were the prisoners being unruly and belligerent and inciting the Americans to respond negatively? I will agree that I am missing out on some details...

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

71. Trials? Maximum punishment? All people here do is express opinions about

people in the news. If you hate that, maybe political message boards are just not your thing. Or maybe you should make greater use of the "ignore" and "hide thread" features, or just stop reading threads that you are not enjoying.

Hate is a strong word, so I won't use it. However, I am getting tired of posts that seek to make other posters feel bad about posting their opinions, when that is the point of posting on a political message board. I always thought we were supposed to post about the topic of the thread, not post to criticize or seek to influence other posts. See also Reply 66.

[quakerboy]

46. And yet Bush, Cheney,

rove, etc can all do events at will. Hows that work? Obama gets death threats by the bushel basket, and Palin wanders about who knows where stirring up shit.

What the hell

[No Elephants]

72. Bush got a job that comes with Secret Service protection on the theory that

people are less likely to run for President to serve the nation in that particular way, unlesss the gubbamint protects them from assassination. Cheney, you can take up with Obama. Palin takes her chances, just like England.

Life is not always fair. Indeed, in my experience and observation, life is rarely fair. If it were fair, maybe the Library of Congress would have booked the people England tortured instead of booking England. Or not. Who knows?


See also Reply 66.

[Deja Q]

48. She should be dishonored. Not given a damn dime.

[truthisfreedom]

53. Hey Lynndie, hazing is torture.

That's the point.

And it is, in general, totally illegal.

[HardWorkingDem]

60. What do you consider "hazing".....

Is it "unwanted" behavior? Or rites of passage?

For example, bizarre as it may seem......I cherish my "blood wings"...some people call this "hazing" while I call it a rite of passage...

[No Elephants]

102. "Hazing?" Was Abu Ghraib a sorority house? Silly me. I thought it was an Iraqi prison.

Oh, well, now that I get it was only hazing, I'm cool with it. There are no international treaties or domestic laws that prohibit hazing.

Now that I have clarification, I can smile when I see things like this:





English: United States Army photo from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq showing Pvt. Lynndie England holding a leash attached to a prisoner collapsed on the floor, known to the guards as "Gus."



No, it still looks awful, especially since many Muslims consider dogs unclean, perhaps evil. I'm sure England and her pals knew this or they would have used chains or something more seure than a leather leash. It was not a seurity item.

http://www.islamicconcern.com/dogs.asp and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_animals

[Doctor_J]

58. I am glad that our side is finally starting to show some spine

This woamn has no business making money off of her war crimes.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. Well said.

[No Elephants]

101. Hmm. I wonder why the post you admired got deleted.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. The moderators do a wonderful job though so who am I to question.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

79. What's this "Democrat Party" of which you speak? (n/t)

[ProudDad]

88. The other right-wing of the Corporate Big Business Party (n/t)

[WorseBeforeBetter]

96. Do you find relying on Republican language to be...

a winning strategy for you?

[MisterP]

81. okay, every DUer who tortured Iraqis and participated in a rape squad, raise their hands

come to think of it, the party's bad name comes from giving torturers (at all levels) a free pass, for the most part--not making apparently nonexistent threats

[ProudDad]

90. Democrats, just like Republicans

find it expedient to ignore the systemic torture implicit in the criminal-injustice system...

in order to get votes from the "law and order" crowd...

=========================================

Cute attempt at a Red Herring though...

[MisterP]

93. how many of England's criticizers are simultaneously pro-prison-abuse? n/t

[ProudDad]

94. Irrelevant

Anyone who can applaud this act of censorship...

And condemns the tea baggers and their right-wing handlers for their tactic of censoring and intimidating those who don't believe as they do...

Is a hypocrite.

[MisterP]

98. then why did you write post #90?

here's some more "intimiation" to get yer dander up: this man's job is being threatened, and he hasn't even been convicted!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/17/state/n143920D78.DTL&tsp=1
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/53510587.html

[JI7]

83. people are criticizing this idiot for supporting torture , and you compare that to

people attacking Obama for being black ?

[ProudDad]

89. Where the fuck do you get this from my post?

"and you compare that to people attacking Obama for being black?"

I compare one group of anti-free-speech hypocrites to another...that's all...

[JI7]

92. freedom of speech includes judging what others say and criticizing them

[ProudDad]

95. So in your world "judging" includes censorship

If you don't like someone or what you think they might say you applaud censoring them?


On Edit: I for one would be curious to hear what she has to say. How does she feel now about what she did? Has she recognized it for the evil it was? If not, why not? Is she still just another young person brainwashed by the military?


Anyway, I would take her part, her right to speak against the anonymous terrorists making their threats in order to censor her or those cowards at the Library of Congress for letting the terrorists win.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. It doesn't cover threatening them though.

[subcomhd]

91. Lynndie England lecture?

Lecture?

[sofa king]

107. Are you envisioning the same sort of "lecture" I am?