Monday, August 17, 2009



No Free speech for Lynndie England

We read:
"A Friday lecture at the Library of Congress by Lynndie England, one of the most recognizable figures of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, was scratched over safety concerns after opposition from library employees produced violent threats, the organizer said. In addition, organizer David Moore said he canceled the entire series of lectures on veterans' issues, saying free speech "is pretty well dead" because of the ability of a vocal few to make a public fuss.

Ms. England, a 26-year-old former Army Reservist, had been scheduled to discuss her authorized biography as part of the ongoing lecture series sponsored by the Library of Congress Professional Association, an employee group...

Mr. Moore, a German acquisitions specialist at the library, said he received several "vicious" e-mails and telephone calls threatening violence. After informing police and the library's inspector general of the threats, library President Angela Kinney called him Thursday evening to say the event would be canceled....

Mr. Moore declined to name the protesters, but a posting on the Small Wars Journal blog by a "Morris Davis," who says he is a Library of Congress employee, was particularly critical of Ms. England's scheduled appearance.

Source

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

If Mr. Moore is so anxious to provide England an opportunity to sell her books, why doesn't he provide a private setting, rather than using a government facility, which means at tax payer's expense?

Also, is she the owner of those now infamous photographs, or are they actually govt. property?

Anonymous said...

As a Marine and a West Virginian I can only say I wish this profoundly stupid sack of hair would vanish back up some deep holler trailer park, never to be seen again.The bitch needs a podium like a fish needs a bicycle.

Anonymous said...

OORAH, OORAH!!

Phil In Cow Town said...

"...saying free speech "is pretty well dead" because of the ability of a vocal few to make a public fuss."

Like the people who go to townhall meetings and just yell and scream over the speakers instead of attempting a rational debate?

What was that thing Jesus said about taking a 2x4 out of your eye?

Use the Name, Luke said...

What could someone who did something so obviously wrong have to say?

If it's self justification, I wouldn't want to hear it.

If it's something along the lines of "I committed a crime, and here's how I found myself doing something I never thought I would do", then that's a learning opportunity.

It seems to me that hearing what she had to say, followed by the prosecutor who (justly) put her in prison would be an excellent opportunity to learn how to avoid such horrors in the future. To add to the strength of that combination, I would hope the prosecutor could be there for her talk so he could rebut anything wrong that she might say.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Phil,

Your premise is flawed. Go watch some of the longer videos. What usually happens is the crowd is generally quite as a politician makes a statement, then the crowd reacts to that statement. How is that "shutting down the debate"?

Use the Name, Luke said...

Dang! "Quite" should be "quiet".

Anonymous said...

Free speech IS dying. You may not like what she did, who she is or her hair or clothes ... but in America you should still have the opportunity to speak. If you don't like what she has to say, don't go to her speech.

There is WAY too much of this crap going on. "If I don't agree with what you say, then you can't say it" That isn't right at all.

I would not buy her book or go to a speech by her. I strongly disagree with what she has done. I would not, however, call for violence so that nobody else could listen to her, either.

Anonymous said...

Personally, i don't care about England one way or another. What i believe should have been done was, every time the media showed those pictures of the prisoners at Abu Grab to the American public, they should have also showed the uncensored videos of what the radical muslims did to their prisoners. Perhaps that would have taught the American people something about their "sensitivities", and how badly they need to be adjusted.

Ever hear the saying "war is hell"? Well, it is! If the American people don't have the stomach for war, they shouldn't allow the government to send our brave warriors to fight any.

Of course, it's not the stomach for war that the people lack, it's the brains to understand how they're always manipulated by the leftist, anti-war media.

Anonymous said...

A better response to this gal than making it so she couldn't have the opportunity to speak would have been to quietly organize a boycott of her speech. When you're running around for publicity (as she is) the best counter is not to make a big fuss which brings in reporters and helps her by creating publicity but to give her an empty room to speak to.

Bobby said...

Lynndie England is a hero that gave those dirty terrorist what they deserved. It's a tragedy how she was betrayed by her superiors.

Anonymous said...

Lynndie England is a hero that gave those dirty terrorist what they deserved. It's a tragedy how she was betrayed by her superiors.

Yeah, those dirty rotten superiors that held her accountable to the UCMJ.

How dare they take away her fun!

Bobby, you have the right to say the things that you do, just as the rest of the people have the right to say that you are an idiot.

Anonymous said...

I agree Bobby, but she's not helping by being out there looking for her "15 minutes". There's something i learned on my first tour in Nam. When dealing with the enemy, if there's something that "you need to do", first learn "how to do it". Meaning, don't get caught! It wasn't her actions that got her jammed-up, it was her stupidity. So much for "diversity" in the military.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:49;

We are the only nation on earth that sends it's forces into battle with orders to fight according to "some set of imaginary rules". When you must fight, the "only" objective should be, to win! Imagine two hockey teams on the ice, but only one has to play by the rules. Does it take a genius to see who the winner will be? And does the loser get an award for "playing by the rules"?

Get yourself a GPS. Perhaps that will help you find, the real world!

Bobby said...

"Yeah, those dirty rotten superiors that held her accountable to the UCMJ.
How dare they take away her fun!"

---You don't think it was the media that pressured the administration to try and convict that woman? I've seen the abu ghraib pictures, they are a joke compared to what terrorists do to captured personnel. In fact, the "torture" was really a psychological technique to break those men so they would talk.


"Bobby, you have the right to say the things that you do, just as the rest of the people have the right to say that you are an idiot."

---And I guess you voted for Obama.

Hey 1:58 AM

"I agree Bobby, but she's not helping by being out there looking for her "15 minutes". "

---She has no choice, a lot of people hate her so she can't get a job, no one wants to hire her. The media destroyed her reputation and now she has a chance to sell some books, make some money and perhaps win some friends.

"It wasn't her actions that got her jammed-up, it was her stupidity."

---Well, she shouldn't have taken those pictures, I agree there. But I think political correctness is what screwed her since very few people where willing to defend what she did.


"So much for "diversity" in the military."

---I disagree, that woman was just as capable of doing her job as any man, she's just as patriotic as any man in the military. I won't deny that the strongest woman in the world is not going to be stronger than the strongest man in the world. But that doesn't matter, there are women that can kick ass just as well as a man. Bush should have given her a pardon and sent her back to Iraq, I love my former president, but that's one of his few mistakes in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:05
We are the only nation on earth that sends it's forces into battle with orders to fight according to "some set of imaginary rules".

No, we are not. Most countries with standing armies have rules of conduct for their soldiers.

When you must fight, the "only" objective should be, to win!

If England had been convicted of violating some ambiguous "rule of war," you might have a point. She was not. She was convicted of conduct unbecoming a soldier in the US Army.

Anonymous said...

---You don't think it was the media that pressured the administration to try and convict that woman?

It doesn't matter. You are trying to put the cart before the horse. If England had obaeyed the UCMJ, there would not have been a need for any pressure, any trial, any embarrassment.

I've seen the abu ghraib pictures, they are a joke compared to what terrorists do to captured personnel.

Moral and ethical relativity is not the issue. She ignored rules of conduct.

---And I guess you voted for Obama.

Another nonsensical comment from you.

The media destroyed her reputation

The media didn't destroy her reputation - she did that all on her own. If you had ever hired someone you would know that most employers frown on hiring men and women with dishonorable discharges.

But I think political correctness is what screwed her since very few people where willing to defend what she did.

He counsel defended her at trial. In the end, what she did was indefensible.

Bush should have given her a pardon and sent her back to Iraq,

If you are saying that he should have pardoned her and sent her back to Iraq as a member of the US Military, he can't. He can pardon the sentence, but by law he cannot pardon the terms of military discharge.

Bobby said...

"It doesn't matter. You are trying to put the cart before the horse. If England had obaeyed the UCMJ, there would not have been a need for any pressure, any trial, any embarrassment."

---You weren't there, how do you know England wasn't under pressure from her superiors to "torture" these terrorists? What she did was a joke, piling a bunch of naked men on top of each other is hardly torture, dragging one of them with a dog collar is hardly painful. If you want torture, ask an Israeli soldier what they do to terrorists in their captivity.

"Moral and ethical relativity is not the issue. She ignored rules of conduct. "

---Are you telling me that soldiers never ever make mistakes? Ever seen Saving Private Ryan? There where nazis ready to surrender, with their hands up, and they got shot. You don't think some of our troops at D-day didn't violate the rules of conduct?


"The media didn't destroy her reputation - she did that all on her own. If you had ever hired someone you would know that most employers frown on hiring men and women with dishonorable discharges. "

---The only reason she got a dishonorable discharged is because she lost the trial. But how did everyone find out about her? It was the media, they portrayed her as a monster and never bothered to offer a point of view defending her. George W. Bush is also partially guilty, he should have defended her, but I guess he was willing to use her as a sacrificial cow.


"He counsel defended her at trial. In the end, what she did was indefensible."

---Did her counsel appear on cable news? Did her counsel go to any talk shows? Was the trial covered on television the way the Simpson trial was covered? Remember, the court of public opinion matters just as much as the court of law. Think about Oliver North, the man was responsible for the Iran-Contra, the man did horrible things, yet because he was on TV and was allowed to speak, he won sympathy and eventually received a pardon and today he's a successful talk show host.


"If you are saying that he should have pardoned her and sent her back to Iraq as a member of the US Military, he can't. He can pardon the sentence, but by law he cannot pardon the terms of military discharge."

---He's the commander in chief, is he not? You don't think he can order the military to take her back in? Did you know Truman integrated the military with an executive order? Hell, if tomorrow Obama wants to end don't ask don't tell, all he has to do is issue an executive order.

Anonymous said...

---You weren't there, how do you know England wasn't under pressure from her superiors to "torture" these terrorists?

Because there was no evidence or testimony to that effect. Even if there were, the order would have been illegal and England would have had a moral, ethical, and military duty to refuse the illegal order.

She didn't.

Ever seen Saving Private Ryan?

You are using a fictional movie to say that England was not guilty?

Even so, what other people do does not remove her accountability for her actions.

Also, do not confuse the "rules of war" and conduct contrary to the UCMJ.

---The only reason she got a dishonorable discharged is because she lost the trial.

Guilt or not guilty is the point of a trial. She received a dishonorable discharge because her actions resulted in a guilty verdict.

Remember, the court of public opinion matters just as much as the court of law.

Military trials are not the same as civilian trials and are not broadcast for your approval and your voyeuristic pleasure. The court of public opinion doesn't matter in this case at all. What matters is whether she was guilty of conduct contrary to the UCMJ.

---He's the commander in chief, is he not?

Yes he is.

You don't think he can order the military to take her back in?

As I said, he is precluded from doing so by law.

Did you know Truman integrated the military with an executive order? Hell, if tomorrow Obama wants to end don't ask don't tell, all he has to do is issue an executive order.

Truman integrated the military because there was no law against it. The "don't ask don't tell" policy is not codified either. It is policy - not law.

Once again, you are ignorant of the subject matter.

Anonymous said...

Saving Pvt. Ryan was a fictional movie? Um, ever hear of WWII? Perhaps you read about it somewhere?

Only fools believe wars should be fought by a set of rules.

Correction: Fools, losers, and those who've never fought in one.

Bobby said...

"Because there was no evidence or testimony to that effect. Even if there were, the order would have been illegal and England would have had a moral, ethical, and military duty to refuse the illegal order."

----What evidence could she have presented? The pictures are the only evidence that got out, everything else is hearsay. What her lawyer should have argued is that what she did wasn't torture and thus not in violation of the law.

"You are using a fictional movie to say that England was not guilty? "

---Saving Private Ryan is based on a real family of 10 brothers, all of them serving in world war two, nine of them dying and the government trying to save the one left. D-day veterans who saw that film said the only thing missing was the smell of burning flesh, vomit, smoke, and other other smells of war.


"Also, do not confuse the "rules of war" and conduct contrary to the UCMJ."

---Things change in the heat of battle. Women in the arab world are often seen as second class citizens, you don't know how these prisoners where treating England before, maybe they where spitting at her, throwing feces or urine at her. Prisoners have been known to do that. She had to assert her authority, the UCMJ could not have predicted such a situation.


"Guilt or not guilty is the point of a trial. She received a dishonorable discharge because her actions resulted in a guilty verdict. "

---That's what I said.

"Military trials are not the same as civilian trials and are not broadcast for your approval and your voyeuristic pleasure."

---Yet the media can destroy the soldier on trial without giving the soldier a chance to speak on his behalf. That's more outrageous than my voyeuristic pleasure.

"The court of public opinion doesn't matter in this case at all. What matters is whether she was guilty of conduct contrary to the UCMJ."

---Every lawyer knows that the court of public opinion can affect a trial for it can prejudice a jury against a defendant. In a military trial is worse because the more notorious the trial the more pressure the judges face to render the appropriate verdicts.


"Truman integrated the military because there was no law against it. The "don't ask don't tell" policy is not codified either. It is policy - not law."

---DADT is codified, it was voted into law. As for segregation in the military, it was also the law at the time. Society didn't approve of whites mixing with blacks, it was seen as a bad thing, it's why interracial marriage used to be a crime. Truman used an executive order to integrate the military, you can't deny that, he didn't go to congress, he didn't propose a law, he simply did what he thought was best for the country. Bush could have used his influence to save England. He could have send administration attorneys to negotiate with the military prosecutor and get him to drop or reduce the charges.

My point is that while you rush to condemn England I try to make sense of what happened, look at other possibilities, give a brave warrior the benefit of the doubt. And unlike you, I will be reading that book she wrote. She deserves her vindication.

Anonymous said...

Only fools believe wars should be fought by a set of rules.

England was not convicted of not fighting by the rules. She was convicted of conduct unbecoming a soldier.

Anonymous said...

----What evidence could she have presented?

I have no idea what she could have presented. It doesn't matter. She was found guilty.

---Saving Private Ryan is based on a real family of 10 brothers, all of them serving in world war two, nine of them dying and the government trying to save the one left.

Wrong again.

D-day veterans who saw that film said the only thing missing was the smell of burning flesh, vomit, smoke, and other other smells of war.

So? The movie did a great job of portraying in a capsule form the landing at Normandy. But the characters and events as portrayed in the film are fictional.

She had to assert her authority, the UCMJ could not have predicted such a situation.

Wrong. The UCMJ does cover exactly that situation. England acted outside of the UCMJ and was convicted for her actions.

---Yet the media can destroy the soldier on trial without giving the soldier a chance to speak on his behalf.

England had her chance to speak and put on a defense.

In a military trial is worse because the more notorious the trial the more pressure the judges face to render the appropriate verdicts.

Except there were no "judges." Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

---DADT is codified, it was voted into law. As for segregation in the military, it was also the law at the time.

Sorry, but you are wrong again.

Bush could have used his influence to save England. He could have send administration attorneys to negotiate with the military prosecutor and get him to drop or reduce the charges.

Once again, he could not. To do so would have been a breach of the law and the UCMJ. You cannot have a superior officer trying to influence a trial. That's the law. Those are the rules.

My point is that while you rush to condemn England I try to make sense of what happened, look at other possibilities, give a brave warrior the benefit of the doubt.

There is nothing brave about England or this situation. She knowingly broke the rules and paid for it. That is the cost of what she did.

And unlike you, I will be reading that book she wrote. She deserves her vindication.

She deserves what she got. And what she got was not vindication.

Bobby said...

I have no idea what she could have presented. It doesn't matter. She was found guilty.

---Saving Private Ryan is based on a real family of 10 brothers, all of them serving in world war two, nine of them dying and the government trying to save the one left.

Wrong again.

D-day veterans who saw that film said the only thing missing was the smell of burning flesh, vomit, smoke, and other other smells of war.

So? The movie did a great job of portraying in a capsule form the landing at Normandy. But the characters and events as portrayed in the film are fictional.

She had to assert her authority, the UCMJ could not have predicted such a situation.

Wrong. The UCMJ does cover exactly that situation. England acted outside of the UCMJ and was convicted for her actions.

---Yet the media can destroy the soldier on trial without giving the soldier a chance to speak on his behalf.

England had her chance to speak and put on a defense.

In a military trial is worse because the more notorious the trial the more pressure the judges face to render the appropriate verdicts.

Except there were no "judges." Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

---DADT is codified, it was voted into law. As for segregation in the military, it was also the law at the time.

Sorry, but you are wrong again.

Bush could have used his influence to save England. He could have send administration attorneys to negotiate with the military prosecutor and get him to drop or reduce the charges.

Once again, he could not. To do so would have been a breach of the law and the UCMJ. You cannot have a superior officer trying to influence a trial. That's the law. Those are the rules.

My point is that while you rush to condemn England I try to make sense of what happened, look at other possibilities, give a brave warrior the benefit of the doubt.

There is nothing brave about England or this situation. She knowingly broke the rules and paid for it. That is the cost of what she did.

And unlike you, I will be reading that book she wrote. She deserves her vindication.

She deserves what she got. And what she got was not vindication.

Bobby said...

"So? The movie did a great job of portraying in a capsule form the landing at Normandy. But the characters and events as portrayed in the film are fictional."

---It was fiction based on real people, real events, and real situations.


"England had her chance to speak and put on a defense."

---To the military court, not to the court of public opinion, not to the media. It's only now that she can speak to the media, but guess what? People don't want to hear what she has to say, the damage has already been done.

"Except there were no "judges." Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about."

---IF SOMEONE PASSES JUDGEMENT ON YOU THAT'S A FREAKING JUDGE!

"She deserves what she got. And what she got was not vindication."

---Whatever, you're just gonna disagree with me with everything. You obviously love those Iraqi dogs more Ms. England. That is really sad.

Anonymous said...

---It was fiction based on real people, real events, and real situations.

Like I said.

Fiction.

In the late 1950's, Cornelius Ryan wrote what was, at the time, the best researched and most accurate book on the Normandy landings called "The Longest Day." It was so well researched that families were actually reunited from information in the book. Families that had no idea what had happened to their sons, daughters, fathers and mothers used the book gain the knowledge of what happened to their loved one.

The book was later made into a movie. In the movie, there is a scene were a US soldier shoots surrendering Germans. Ryan protested loudly as there was no evidence to suggest the event happened. Members of the unit being portrayed protested as well as they never saw or witnessed anything like that.

The director admitted that the scene had no basis in reality, but he wanted to use it to bring "realism" to the movie.

With no basis in fact, Spielberg used the same scene of US soldiers shooting surrendering Germans because he saw it in the Longest Day.

You bought into it because it fits what you want to believe.

A lie became truth to you and you tried to use that lie to justify England's behavior.

You saw no problem casting aspersions on the men at Normandy because of a lie in a couple of movies.

---To the military court, not to the court of public opinion, not to the media.

Actually, she did have press conferences and put her view out there before the trial. Either way, it doesn't matter. You want to say that the members of the court were persuaded by the media attention without a scintilla of proof.

You have no problems casting doubts and deriding their honor, but feel it necessary to "defend" the actions of a woman who disgraced the uniform.

---IF SOMEONE PASSES JUDGEMENT ON YOU THAT'S A FREAKING JUDGE!

For a copy writer, you really do have a problem with words. England was not found guilty or not by "judges." She was found guilty by a panel of men and women her rank and above. That is the way the military trials work. You can keep trying to rationalize and say what you want, but all you keep doing is showing your ignorance on the subject.


---Whatever, you're just gonna disagree with me with everything. You obviously love those Iraqi dogs more Ms. England. That is really sad.


I have more love for the men and woman that put on the uniform and wear it proudly and with distinction than England, who chose to disgrace it by her actions.

As usual, you keep trying to move the bar for some moral justification for someone's actions without an iota of proof.

To justify England's illegal and deplorable actions, you have felt it necessary to say that the men that stormed Normandy were of the same ilk as she.

Here's a news flash for you.....

The men that landed in Normandy had people shooting at them with murderous intent. In some ways, even if the events you want to hang your hat on had happened, they were in the spur of the moment, in a dangerous time.

The same cannot be said for England. She was not in danger - mortal or otherwise. To equate her actions to the men of Normandy is despicable on your part.

Unlike you, I will not lie and dishonor the service of millions of men and women to support someone who deliberately and with forethought disgraced the uniform.

It is not about loving "Iraqi dogs," it is about the love of country and the love of the men and women who serve her in uniform.

You feel it necessary to attack them in order to prop up someone unworthy of their honor, respect and sacrifice.

In other words, you are worse than the "Iraqi dogs" you hate. At least they are from another country and were fighting.

You, on the other hand, felt it necessary to hate the men and women of the military - the military that protects you so you can whine, bitch, moan, groan and continue to show your ignorance.

Attacking those men and women borders upon treason in my book.

Bobby said...

"The book was later made into a movie. In the movie, there is a scene were a US soldier shoots surrendering Germans. Ryan protested loudly as there was no evidence to suggest the event happened."

---Just because Ryan didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Horrible things happen during war.

"You have no problems casting doubts and deriding their honor, but feel it necessary to "defend" the actions of a woman who disgraced the uniform."

---I knew a liberal veteran from the war in Iraq, a Bush hater, when I told him about Abu Ghraib he said the soldiers there should have gotten a medal. So even that liberal understood how to deal with terrorists.


"For a copy writer, you really do have a problem with words. England was not found guilty or not by "judges." She was found guilty by a panel of men and women her rank and above. That is the way the military trials work. You can keep trying to rationalize and say what you want, but all you keep doing is showing your ignorance on the subject."

---Fine, so the members of the panel aren't called judges, so what? They still judge people, do they not? They're judging her behavior and the law.


"The same cannot be said for England. She was not in danger - mortal or otherwise. To equate her actions to the men of Normandy is despicable on your part."

---You think prison guards aren't in danger? You think it's easy for one guard to oversee 50 or even 100 people? Maybe it wasn't Normandy, but it was a stressful situation nonetheless.


"In other words, you are worse than the "Iraqi dogs" you hate. At least they are from another country and were fighting."

---No, I am fighting for the Abu Ghraib guards that did a job nobody wanted to do. I am fighting for the poor soldier that doesn't get any recognition from his superior, that in fact gets betrayed while the man who gave the order gets away with it.

"You, on the other hand, felt it necessary to hate the men and women of the military - the military that protects you so you can whine, bitch, moan, groan and continue to show your ignorance."

---Nonsense, I defend all of them. And yes, I draw a distinction between what you do to your enemy and what you do to a fellow soldier.

You would rather trust a military panel of people disconnected from the day to day in Iraq vs. the people in the fields doing their jobs.

If what England did was a crime then the practice of rendition and waterboarding should end as well. You can't have it both ways, either you give our soldiers the freedom to do their jobs or you regulate them to death. And I'll tell you one thing, being nice to terrorists is not going to prevent terrorism.

Anonymous said...

---Just because Ryan didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Horrible things happen during war.

Excuse me, but what part of "the unit members said the incident never happened" don't you understand? What part of the director's admission that it was fabricated don't you understand?

---Fine, so the members of the panel aren't called judges, so what? They still judge people, do they not? They're judging her behavior and the law.

So now the people you called "judges" aren't "judges" but you want them to be "judges" even though they do not do the work of "judges."

Your ignorance is astounding.

---You think prison guards aren't in danger?

There are different types of guards. If you have some evidence that England was in danger, than post it. Otherwise, you are speculating.

---No, I am fighting for the Abu Ghraib guards that did a job nobody wanted to do.

Another statement without proof. Do you have ANY proof that no one wanted to be a guard at the prison?

I am fighting for the poor soldier that doesn't get any recognition from his superior, that in fact gets betrayed while the man who gave the order gets away with it.

Do you have any proof than an order was given to do what England did? I certainly have proof that ordinary soldiers are given recognition in the form of evaluations, higher ranks, commendations, etc.

I suspect that you have no proof of what you are posting.

---Nonsense, I defend all of them.

Except here.

You said that England's actions were acceptable and understandable based on a fictional incident in a fictional movie that denigrated the actions of the men that landed in Normandy.

You didn't defend them. You attacked them for what you saw in a movie.

You would rather trust a military panel of people disconnected from the day to day in Iraq vs. the people in the fields doing their jobs.

Quick...... how many people on the panel had served in Iraq?

I bet you don't have a clue, do you?

So once again your point is moot but yet you feel like you had to make something up.

If what England did was a crime then the practice of rendition and waterboarding should end as well.

Let's see......

England - doing something that was prohibited.

Others - doing something that was approved.

England - tried to hide her crime.

Others - admitted that waterboarding had been used.

England - a grunt not trained in any type of interrogation techniques.

Others - trained.

England - tried to hide what she had done.

Others - made reports to superiors on the events.

There is no equivalency to the actions.

Once again, you are attacking soldiers by claiming their legal actions are the same actions of the disgraced and convicted England.

Is that what you call "defending the troops?"

You can't have it both ways, either you give our soldiers the freedom to do their jobs or you regulate them to death.

Her "job" was not to do anything like what she did. Her "job" was not to disgrace the uniform. Her "job" was to stand tall, walk a post and follow the UCMJ.

When she failed in her "job," she failed as a soldier and no amount of your lies and false accusations against those who truly served with honor and distinction will ever change that.

Anonymous said...

The best disinfectant is sunlight. Let her speak. If no one comes it means a lot. If she speaks and is a spouting nonsense it demonstrates what some have accused her of (sack of hair). There is a chance that she has another side and if allowed to speak it will be known. Free speech does not only mean speech you like if you believe in freedom. If you think that is wrong be ready they will object to you eventually.

Bobby said...

"So now the people you called "judges" aren't "judges" but you want them to be "judges" even though they do not do the work of "judges.""

---They did sentenced her to jail, didn't they? They did evaluated the evidence or should I say "judged" the evidence and came up with a conviction. But fine, if you don't want to call a man who kills a cow a butcher, fine, let's not call him a butcher.


"There are different types of guards. If you have some evidence that England was in danger, than post it. Otherwise, you are speculating. "

---Maybe I'm speculating, but so is everyone else. Only England and the prisoners know what really happened, those pictures don't tell the whole story.


"Do you have any proof than an order was given to do what England did? I certainly have proof that ordinary soldiers are given recognition in the form of evaluations, higher ranks, commendations, etc. "

---Do you have any proof that no order was given? You see, you don't know yet you refuse to give her the benefit of the doubt. You'd rather be like The New York Times and rush to condemn her. The military panel made a mistake.

You say she disgraced the uniform, I say she gave those Iraqis a lesson.

Anonymous said...

---They did sentenced her to jail, didn't they?

No, "they" did not.

Keep typing though. Your ignorance continues to show through.

But fine, if you don't want to call a man who kills a cow a butcher, fine, let's not call him a butcher.

Actually you just proved my point. The person who kills the cow has a different title than "butcher."

---Maybe I'm speculating, but so is everyone else.

"Everyone else" is not speculating. That is the problem with you. You think that speculation in the face of evidence has the same weight as the tangible evidence. It doesn't.

You have no proof of your accusations.

For the last few posts I have asked for proof of what you are asserting and as usual, you can't make the offer.

---Do you have any proof that no order was given?

You want proof of a negative? Go back to school, take a course in logic and then you'll understand that one cannot prove a negative. It is up to the assertion to prove itself. You have asserted there was an order. England herself never made that claim.

Why do you persist in making crap up?

The military panel made a mistake.

They viewed the evidence and the testimony.

You speculate, lie, obfuscate and then say "the panel made a mistake."

Prove it.

You say she disgraced the uniform, I say she gave those Iraqis a lesson.

It wasn't her responsibility to teach them a "lesson." And just what "lesson" did she teach them?

Tell me Bobby, being that Abu Gahrib was a prison for criminals, people picked up in sweeps (both innocent and guilty), some prisoners of war (and yes, they were classified as such) and a few terrorists that she never had contact with, what "lesson" did she teach them?

Maybe she taught them the same lesson that you learned some years ago - that you are a bigot.

You say she didn't disgrace the uniform. I have the verdict, the sentence, and the weight of the world behind my argument.

You have lies, speculation, and a willingness to tarnish the memory of real soldiers on your side.

The fact that you are willing to o that to attempt to "prove" your point shows a lack of intellectual maturity on your part. Be a man. Own up to it and just say that you have no proof of your assertions.

You won't though.

Bobby said...

No, "they" did not.

---Then who did? Or are you saying England went to jail voluntarily?

"Keep typing though. Your ignorance continues to show through."

---Your insults only show your desperation. That's a liberal tactic, insult the person you're debating.


""Everyone else" is not speculating. That is the problem with you. You think that speculation in the face of evidence has the same weight as the tangible evidence. It doesn't."

---I already told you, the pictures don't tell the entire story. For example, say you see a video of cops beating a man, the video may not show that the man tried to assault the officers before, the video might not have audio. You can't take a picture at face value, it's not enough.


"It wasn't her responsibility to teach them a "lesson." And just what "lesson" did she teach them? "

---She taught them that a woman can be just as powerful as a man, she put them in their place. These are the kinds of people that plant IED's, the kind that shoot American soldiers. If they were in prison it wasn't for being saints, and yet you'd rather condemn a woman for piling them naked than the men in jail.


"Maybe she taught them the same lesson that you learned some years ago - that you are a bigot."

---Another example of a liberal calling someone a name. Tell me, when you meet someone that opposes same-sex marriage, do you call him a homophobe? When you meet a pro-lifer, do you call him anti-woman? Or will you call me a racist because I oppose the policies of Barrack Obama? Frankly, how do you know if England was a bigot? If the enemy had been white russians and she had "tortured them," would you call her a bigot?


"You say she didn't disgrace the uniform. I have the verdict, the sentence, and the weight of the world behind my argument."

---Are we the United States of the World? I don't live in France, why should I give a crap what the french think of us?


"The fact that you are willing to o that to attempt to "prove" your point shows a lack of intellectual maturity on your part. Be a man. Own up to it and just say that you have no proof of your assertions."

---I never intended to prove anything, I'm not a lawyer, I'm only offering my opinions based on those pictures (which I have seen) and my own common sense. Piling a bunch of naked men on top of each other is not torture. Torture is using electricity, sodomizing one of the men with a broom handle, cutting fingernails, pushing their heads against a vat of water and releasing them before they drown, waking them up every hour, playing loud music in their cells... I can think of many different tortures, what England did was a little sick, but it wasn't torture.

You remember the movie Full Metal Jacket? You remember the scene where everyone sticks a soap inside a sock, wait for Pvt. Pyle to fall asleep, then cover him with a blanket and proceed to beat the crap out of him? That's torture! And I've spoken to one army officer who said that actually happens during basic training. Yet the people who do the blanket parties get away with it. What England did wasn't even close to a blanket party, if she's guilty of anything, it's poor taste.

Here's another example, the movie Jarhead is based on a book by a real marine. He tells the story of how he was held down by his own platoon while another person took a branding iron and proceeded to brand him against his will. You see? That's torture. That's cruel. Yet England who did way less than that went to prison for it.

Anonymous said...

---Then who did? Or are you saying England went to jail voluntarily?

Once again, this question shows how ignorant you are of the facts surrounding this case. You don't have a clue about military courts.

---Your insults only show your desperation. That's a liberal tactic, insult the person you're debating.

It is not an insult to tell the truth. You are woefully ignorant of this and many other subjects.

---She taught them that a woman can be just as powerful as a man, she put them in their place.

Once again, this was not the "lesson" for her to teach. This was not her assignment. This was not given to her as an order. She didn't teach them anything other than a woman can disgrace the uniform just like a man. For that "lesson" she was convicted like the man she claimed was her lover and partner in this incident.

---Another example of a liberal calling someone a name.

I am not the one that called the Iraqis "dogs." You are. We know that you are homophobic from another discussion and now we learn that you are a bigot against people from other countries.

---Are we the United States of the World? I don't live in France, why should I give a crap what the french think of us?

Well, you don't give a crap about the truth either. The fact of the matter is that if you want the US to lead the world - if you want the world to look to the US as an example of the best a country and people can be - then you'd better care how the US is portrayed and seen. Secondly, I noticed that you ignored the weight of the trial, the verdict and the sentence as lending credibility to my argument. You never address truthful arguments that show the fallacies in your lies and speculations. You just dance around them or ignore them like a 9/11 "Truther" You don't care about the weight of the truth that backs my position. You, on the other hand, still have rampant speculations and lies to offer.

---I never intended to prove anything, I'm not a lawyer, I'm only offering my opinions based on those pictures (which I have seen) and my own common sense.

You have succeeded in your goal of not proving anything. Congratulations on that. You are a success at failure.

Piling a bunch of naked men on top of each other is not torture.

It doesn't matter what torture was. She wasn't convicted of "torturing" any one. She was convicted of conduct unbecoming a soldier in the US Army. She was convicted of disobeying orders. She was convicted of actions contrary to the UCMJ.

It wasn't about "torture," so stop trying to say that it was.

The rest of your post deals with your misconceptions and perceptions.

The one thing that I have learned about you is that the truth has no place within you.

Bobby said...

"It is not an insult to tell the truth. You are woefully ignorant of this and many other subjects."

---That's the difference between you and me, I can debate people without demeaning them. Either way, your insults mean nothing to me, they only affirm my positions.


"I am not the one that called the Iraqis "dogs." You are."

---I'm not debating Iraqis, I am debating you. I didn't call you a dog.

"We know that you are homophobic from another discussion and now we learn that you are a bigot against people from other countries. "

---That's a first, I've never been called a homophobe before. You see how you are?

"Well, you don't give a crap about the truth either. The fact of the matter is that if you want the US to lead the world - if you want the world to look to the US as an example of the best a country and people can be - then you'd better care how the US is portrayed and seen."

---You sound like Obama, you care so much about public relations, I would rather show strength. Bomb Afghanistan, bomb Iraq, kill every terrorist you can find, the world will hate you but they will respect you.


" Secondly, I noticed that you ignored the weight of the trial, the verdict and the sentence as lending credibility to my argument. You never address truthful arguments that show the fallacies in your lies and speculations."

---That's because I don't discuss things when I'm not well informed. Besides, I would rather stay in the realm of opinion than deal with your complicated legalese.


"It doesn't matter what torture was. She wasn't convicted of "torturing" any one. She was convicted of conduct unbecoming a soldier in the US Army. She was convicted of disobeying orders. She was convicted of actions contrary to the UCMJ. "

---That's political correctness on the part of the UCMJ. Even if she made a mistake, that happens in war, we can't be putting people in jail every time they make a mistake.

England will always have friends among people who love America, love our soldiers and hate the enemy. I don't give a rats ass about the panel that convicted her, those men did not represented my views. They bowed down to political correctness, they betrayed a hero. Her conduct wasn't unbecoming, that's a matter of opinion, not fact.

Anonymous said...

---That's the difference between you and me, I can debate people without demeaning them. Either way, your insults mean nothing to me, they only affirm my positions.

It is not demeaning to be ignorant in a subject. I am surprised that you don't know that. So if you want to live in ignorance, that is fine by me. It doesn't change the fact that you are ignorant on this and other subjects where you feel a need to lie and obfuscate. But proclaiming your ignorance only affirms your position is laughable.

---I'm not debating Iraqis, I am debating you. I didn't call you a dog.

But you did call the Iraqis dogs. That's bigotry.


---That's a first, I've never been called a homophobe before. You see how you are?


Accurate and honest?

I'll take being that way.

---You sound like Obama, you care so much about public relations, I would rather show strength.

Actually, it is more like Teddy Roosevelt. You can be a shining light to the world in the way you deal with people, the standards you believe in and the people of your country as well as carrying a big stick. (see: Great White Fleet in 1907 as a great example.) It is a shame that there are those such as yourself who believe that the idea of being tough, fair, and respectable are all mutually exclusive.

---That's because I don't discuss things when I'm not well informed.

That's funny. Really. That's funny.

Just remember that, okay?

---That's political correctness on the part of the UCMJ.

It took you all of one comment to show that your above statement is rhetoric. Have you ever read the UCMJ/ Ever looked at it? Held it in your hands?

If not, then how do you know what it says? How do you know what is "pc" in it? (It isn't, but that didn't stop you from making a statement concerning something with which you are not well informed.)

I don't give a rats ass about the panel that convicted her, those men did not represented my views.

You don't stand for law, order and discipline amongst the men and women in the military? You believe that anarchy should reign in the ranks?

They bowed down to political correctness, they betrayed a hero.

There ya go. The person who says they always defends the soldiers in the military is now defaming a group of people that have served honorably and with distinction.

Atta boy.

Her conduct wasn't unbecoming, that's a matter of opinion, not fact.

You have the right to have an opinion that is contrary to the facts.

Bobby said...

"It is not demeaning to be ignorant in a subject. I am surprised that you don't know that. So if you want to live in ignorance, that is fine by me."

---It is demeaning to call someone ignorant. It's the kind of thing people like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer do to anyone who disagrees with them.


"But you did call the Iraqis dogs. That's bigotry."

---So is calling people "japs" which a lot of people used to do in this country during WW2. I was assuming that those iraqui prisoners where guilty so I called them dogs. I should have known you were politically correct.

"You don't stand for law, order and discipline amongst the men and women in the military? You believe that anarchy should reign in the ranks?"

---Look, men and women having orgies in a military barrack would be anarchy. Pvt. England playing games with prisoners is just that, games.


"There ya go. The person who says they always defends the soldiers in the military is now defaming a group of people that have served honorably and with distinction. "

---I'm not defaming anyone, I'm simply disagreeing with their judgement. It's the same way I feel about don't ask, don't tell. Just because I disagree with a military policy or with how a panel resolves a situation doesn't mean I'm a traitor.

I simply don't believe that what England did was a big deal. Getting shot by friendly fire is a big deal, yet they don't put those people in jail, do they?

Anonymous said...

---It is demeaning to call someone ignorant.

Why? It is the truth. By definition, someone who is lacking in knowledge of a subject is ignorant in that subject. Sorry that you can't or won't handle the truth.

---So is calling people "japs" which a lot of people used to do in this country during WW2.

You mean like "those dirty Japs that we illegally threw into interment camps?" You want to use THAT as the example of being right?

It is amazing that bigots always have excuses for their bigotry.

I was assuming that those iraqui prisoners where guilty so I called them dogs.

They weren't all guilty. That is the point. So you labeled them as "dogs" based on your ignorance and bigotry.

---Look, men and women having orgies in a military barrack would be anarchy. Pvt. England playing games with prisoners is just that, games.

Look, both what England did and "orgies in military barracks" are contrary ro the UCMJ. Once again, the very thing that you want to use to support your argument comes neck to bite you.

Let me repeat.... BOTH are contrary to the UCMJ. That is the same UCMJ that you dismissed and labeled as being "pc."

---I'm not defaming anyone, I'm simply disagreeing with their judgement.

No, you said the men and women on the panel "bowed to the pressure of being pc." That is an assault on their honor.

Just because I disagree with a military policy or with how a panel resolves a situation doesn't mean I'm a traitor.

Funny, I seem to remember some posts of yours labeling those on the left as "traitors" who dared to attack commander in chief Bush and our soldiers in general.

I guess your stance happens to be that if you disagree with the people attacking the soldiers, they are traitors. If you agree with the people attacking soldiers that makes you.....

Well,... that makes you the same thing.

I simply don't believe that what England did was a big deal.

Dishonoring the uniform is a big deal. Acting contrary to the UCMJ is a big deal. Conduct unbecoming a soldier is a big deal.

The idea that you don't think it means that you really don't respect those who wear the uniform with class, distinction and honor.

Getting shot by friendly fire is a big deal, yet they don't put those people in jail, do they?

Depending on the circumstances, as a matter of fact they do.

Why do you continually try to make points either making stuff up or using a thought process that defeats your own premise?

Last post on this subject. Once again, you have been shown to be illogical, ignorant, and a bigot.

Its a pattern with you.

You can change, but I suspect that you won't.

People without honor never do.

Bobby said...

"Why? It is the truth. By definition, someone who is lacking in knowledge of a subject is ignorant in that subject. Sorry that you can't or won't handle the truth."

---By that standard, I should call you a contentious jerk, yet I don't do that. Why? Civility.


"You mean like "those dirty Japs that we illegally threw into interment camps?" You want to use THAT as the example of being right? "

---My point is that in war we often demean our enemy and call him names, it's part of patriotism.

"It is amazing that bigots always have excuses for their bigotry."

---It is amazing how liberals never see any bigotry in anything they say or do. It is amazing how the same people who used to compare Tancredo to Hitler shudder when the patriots at the townhalls do the same.

"They weren't all guilty. That is the point. So you labeled them as "dogs" based on your ignorance and bigotry."

---Whatever, they use similar terms or worse for us.


"No, you said the men and women on the panel "bowed to the pressure of being pc." That is an assault on their honor. "

---No it's not, it is a statement of fact as I see it. When OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a criminal court, the people said horrible things about the jury. I'm being a lot nicer, there are people who will defend England privately, but when you put a microphone on their faces, they change their tune. It would have been a scandal if England had not been found not guilty. Anyone who understands politics knows that sometimes good people are sacrificed so others can be protected.


"Funny, I seem to remember some posts of yours labeling those on the left as "traitors" who dared to attack commander in chief Bush and our soldiers in general."

---There is a difference between disagreeing with the war and calling George W. Bush a terrorists or comparing the victims of 9/11 to little Hitlers.


"The idea that you don't think it means that you really don't respect those who wear the uniform with class, distinction and honor."

---Tell me something, there was a case of two female soldiers who did some mud wrestling in Iraq, someone made a youtube video and the girls got discharged. You think that's fair? Are you saying soldiers have to act honorably 24/7? Are they not allowed to curse? Are they not allowed to party? To have a little fun? It seems to me you'd rather have an army of robots than an army of human beings.


"Depending on the circumstances, as a matter of fact they do."

---But not always, that's my point. If not everyone who shoots a fellow soldier by mistake goes to jail then not everyone who "tortures" Iraqi prisoners should go to jail either. The rules are one thing, the interpretation and enforcement of such rules is something else.

"Why do you continually try to make points either making stuff up or using a thought process that defeats your own premise? "

---I don't make stuff up.

"Last post on this subject. Once again, you have been shown to be illogical, ignorant, and a bigot. "

---You should go into politics, seriously, I love how you insult the people you're trying to convince. You're so much like Obama supporters, "vote for Obama or you're a racist," that's what they're basically saying. "Support Obama or you're a bigot."

"You can change, but I suspect that you won't.
People without honor never do"

---Honor is a funny thing, those who claim to have it often lack it, and those who don't claim to have it often have more than they know. Your insults only demean you, they do not demean me.

I'm proud of my views, I am more compassionate with the people that deserve our compassion, specially with our soldiers that are in a horrible country risking their lives everyday.

You have no respect for England, she makes one mistake and you turn against her. You know, I'm not a member of the military and I suspect you're also not a member either, yet unlike you, I give them a break. How come you can't give them a break? England is an American, she's fighting for you, why can't you honor her service?