Thought from a friend on the Lyndie England mistrial

[WilliamPitt]

My friend has some JAG and infantry experience, and said:

"I think the judge in Lyndie England's case is a professional who knows something smelly happened to get Lyndie to plea bargain her guilt. By throwing the case out of court and insisting they start over, I think he hopes to throw it open to new avenues of investigation to move justice up the ranks to the top."

Thoughts?

[Zuni]

1. That was my first thought

I know something is up myself. Hopefully the facts will come out in trial

[hlthe2b]

9. ditto

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. Wow. Can you imagine? A judge who won't take part in a whitewash.

Could things be changing in America?!

[Throckmorton]

30. He must be one of the commie activist Judges

The freepers will all think that the plea deal was struck down because it is OK to torture brown skinned people.

[dbt]

2. Something stinks higher up the chain somewhere, no?

Since when do privates "go off on their own?" This shit had to come from higher up, or worse yet, outside the chain of command.

[funkybutt]

3. We can only hope

There has been much speculation that that is indeed what's going on. Just no way to tell at this time. I know the judge admonished the defense and he appeared pretty irritated with them.

Will the same judge preside over the next trial?

[htuttle]

4. That was my thought, too

Since it was thrown out right after Graner made his statement to the court, they would seem to be related.

[Darkhawk32]

5. I think that's possible.

I've wondered why someone would plea bargain like she did.

We shall see what happens over the next few weeks and hopefully she'll change her plea.

[EFerrari]

15. Helplessness will usually do it. This little girl has a baby, no

husband and is being pushed around by the military. Not a winning hand.

I hope Will's friend is right. It's certainly the best construction one can put on it. Since the unspoken known is that this behavior has gone on in every detention facility we're running, it's also possible this judge is doing some cya.

[Maestro]

6. Obviously something doesn't seem right

I still am having a hard time excusing Lyndie from culpability but I don't know about her mental state; what pressure if any she was under from others. She still could have said no to the posing in the pictures and reported it but if it came from the top what would be the point? It's hard to say. I am completely unsure of the judge's motives.

[G_j]

7. I heard some military person say

(on some radio news blip) that in all their years, they don't remember a mistrial ever having occurring before. It does seem something unusual is up. ..fingers crossed..

[Protagoras]

24. I just fear the Judge will suddenly have to step down

...that or the theater was part of the plea bargain. They tell her to plead guilty but tha they'll throw it out...that way no one really has to pay for their war crimes...since all the upper brass was let off of course.

Who knows...the only thing that's evident is they intend to let everyone who had actual authority off regardless of what happens to the grunts.

It's like a bizarro Anti-nuremberg around here lately. If it were 1945 we'd be pardoning Hitler because he had plausable deniability. Sick...so sick and wrong. What happened to Never Again?

[HamdenRice]

26. Why do I worry that this judge might "commit suicide"

in some hotel room?

[antigop]

8. You mean he's an activist judge, Will?

<sarcasm>

[Mr_Spock]

10. Yeah, something reeks here - no question about it...

I'm kinda fascinated by the whole thing - let's see what happens...

[bullimiami]

11. from what little I read the boyfriend essentially sabotaged the deal

by providing testimony contrary to the plea.

2 conflicting stories cant both be true, the judge applied the law and tossed out the plea bargain. go figure, a judge applying the law....

[stellanoir]

12. I have no JAG or infantry experience. . .

and had the very same hope.

Don't know how seven can be scapegoated for behaviors that have been known to be rampant in Gitmo and Afghanistan as well.

Rumsfeld and Gonzales are responsible. Not these lackeys.

[northzax]

13. boy, I sure hope that judge likes Alaska

I have a feeling he's about to get transferred.

[immoderate]

14. Agreed, Will.

Some professional jurist was disgusted by the contrivances and contradictions needed to keep the brass off the hook. Lyndie England, may have done some bad things, but she is mostly a victim of a broken system. I don't think these things originated with her.

--IMM

[mopinko]

16. let's hope

like for starters- who thinks lyndie brougth that leash with her when she deployed? maybe she brought the hoods, too.

[fishnfla]

17. I think the judge was following the rule of military law

She testified she knew what she was doing was wrong, but the judge feels that she did not know what she was doing was illegal. I'm too thick to follow the whole thing, is there a distinction b/t morally wrong vs legality? Being in the military especially blurs the lines

Graner sabotaged the whole thing and her lawyer aint no Tom Cruise apparantly he cant handle the truth....a lawyer should never ask a question to which he does not already know the answer

[G_j]

18. a letter demanding an independent counsel can be sent here:

http://www.ProgressiveSecretary.Org .
(the letter below can be found and sent here)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Attorney-General Gonzales:

The apparent involvement of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and many other high military and civilian officials in the widespread use of torture has become so malodorous and so politically charged that it demands appointment of a special counsel with powers to investigate fully and bring charges against any officials who are found to be culpable.

I am sure you will appreciate that only an independent counsel can be considered sufficiently free of connections to the Administration.

I urge you to appoint this special counsel without delay.

Sincerely,

------

Written by PM 3⁄7⁄05

Progressive Secretary increases the impact of your letters by sending them with a variety of subjects. This time the computer has selected "Special counsel needed for torture investigation." You and I will continue to identify this letter by the subject of this letter which is "Gonzales appoint special counsel."

[HamdenRice]

19. Excellent observation -- here's why it is true

First, I think not everyone who responded to your post understood the subtle point you are making. It is not just that we think England was part of a broader conspiracy and that the trial and guilty plea were designed to cover it up. I think we all agree to that.

Your point, or your friend's point, is that the military judge purposely bent over backward to find a mistrial, because he thought that the use of a guilty plea was a nasty cover up by the military.

As I understand the legal issue, from listening to the radio report this morning, England entered a plea of guilty and all the evidence in mitigation had to be consistent with that plea, or the judge had to be able to reconcile the guilty plea with any inconsistent evidence in mitigation. In other words, he could use his own mind to ignore or reconcile evidence in mitigation that pointed to her innocence or having a valid defense. He chose not to reconcile her guilty plea with the rather trivial mitigation evidence from Grainer that he, Grainer, thought that using a leash was not wrongful.

Of course the military judge now gets to posture and blame the defense lawyers for the mistrial. But it looks like he is an activist judge who smells something really bad with the larger plea deal that was worked out between the military and defendants.

[Hamlette]

20. No, the judge was just following the law. . .

sometimes after pleading guilty a defendant will move the court to allow him or her to withdraw the plea. There are tons of appellate cases on this. A trial court judge does not want to be overturned, not necessarily as a result of ego but the unnecessary work of having the case remanded and having to start all over.

Judges are very careful when accepting pleas these days as a result of these cases. When I was a public defender 25+ years ago and my client entered into a plea bargain s/he just answered the charge "guilty", no questions asked. Not so anymore. Now there is a rigorous question and answer process with the judge to determine if the plea is voluntary and knowing. (Defendant is not being pressured and knows the consequences of his/her actions...ie. might go to jail etc.)

What happened here, as I understand it, she entered a guilty plea which in effect says she was acting as a free agent. Then her supervisor/commander (Gardner?) testified that she thought she was making a training film (loose terms here) and hence following orders. If she was following orders, it might not be a crime, or might be a different crime than the one she pled to.

The judge was/is just making sure she doesn't come back and say "I pled guilty to something I was not guilty of as evidenced by the testimony presented by Gardner." Then the plea gets set aside and everyone has to come back and start over.

But the point is well taken in that the judge is military and although the military is trained to obey, they are well aware of Nurenburg.

[HamdenRice]

23. There are a coupl-a different versions in the media ...

The NPR report conflicts with the summary from the Independent, which mentions training films, etc. According to NPR, England entered a guilty plea and admitted that she knew that what she was doing was wrong at the time she was doing it. Also, the charge was a conspiracy charge, so she had to have an agreement with at least one other person to commit the crime.

According to NPR, the crucial part of Grainer's testimony was that he believed that using a leash was not wrongful. Therefore, the conspiracy charge fell apart because England could not be in agreement with some other person (Grainer) to commit a crime. She may have known what she was doing was wrong, but there might not have been another person who did.

Because there were several other low level soldiers involved in this, it seems to me that the judge could reconcile Grainder's testimony with the conspiracy charge. Moreover, it seems unusual to force England to withdraw her plea, after the careful interview process you mention before she entered her guilty plea.

While the judge may be following the law, it also seems that this is an area well within judicial discretion. I don't think he was forced to withdraw her plea; he chose to.

<edited>

[izzie]

21. I am glad they have to re-do it. Why should this girl go to jail ?

The General is not there with her?

[Jack Rabbit]

25. I agree and I hope that is what it is

The cause of justice is not served well by allowing PVT England to plead guilty. While what she did was reprehensible and she should be punished for it, I do not believe for a minute that she did this of her own accord or would have done it if she knew that her commanders in Iraq would be unable to protect her against charges like those she is now facing.

The torture scandals at Abu Ghraib and in other facilities in Mr. Bush's worldwide network of gulags reflect a failure of leadership. It would not be fair to either PVT England or any of the anonymous Iraqi detainees photographed with her if she were to be punished without those in more responsible positions also being brought to justice.

Frankly, if given the choice, I would let Lynndie England go free and prosecute the White House and Pentagon thugs responsible for a policy whose central feature is a gross violation of human rights.

[radwriter0555]

27. Well I believe the judge saw that the simpleton was being scapegoated. I

had never thought about the woman being basically retarded and trotted out as a chick willing to do anything just because she's told to, but it appears possible she really just hadn't much of a clue.

There *are* people who *aren't* as smart as your average bear. There *are* people who seriously aren't able to do more than bag your groceries or gather carts. We're not all equally abled... And I think we tend to forget that.

It appears the judge in this case, didn't forget that.

[TahitiNut]

28. The military "justice" system exists to reinforce command authority ...

... not prosecute it. In a significant sense, it is the inverse of a civilian "justice" system.

As a "rule of thumb," I'm certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that culpability and complicity in the behavior of BOG (boots on the ground) extends vertically up the chain of command at least as much as that behavior extends laterally. It's a 'natural law' of hierarchically authoritarian organizations. As we reliably discover that the abuses at abu Ghraib are essentially identical to abuses at Bagram Air Base and a dozen other detention facilities in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it is clear that the pattern of abusive behavior implicates the command up to and including Rumsfeld, at an absolute minimum.

Unless and until the justice system comprehensively ascertains, prosecutes, judges, and condemns those complicit in these abuses at all levels of the command structure, that justice system is morally illegitimate, and no punishment of only those with the least authority can be legitimized.

[bunny planet]

29. Wonder when that judge's life will start being threatened.

I think that theory sounds about right. I certainly hope it does open up new avenues of investigation, leadership needs to be held accountable. The top 'bad apples' need to be prosecuted.

[Done]

31. Question.

What was the deal with those emails and letters that some of the guards were sending back to the states? The MSM has been silent. I have wondered if some of the guards were trying to get transferred, or perhaps some to the guards were trying to stop what was happening.

[funflower]

32. A lot of these JAG judges and lawyers have been real heroes

standing up for human rights and the constitution and against gigantic human rights violations like Guantanamo.