Close Your Eyes and Think of England

Abu Ghraib abuse pinup gal Lynndie England has been "found guilty at Fort Hood court in Texas of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count."

She faces up to nine or 10 years in jail (reports differed). Via Ireland Online:

"The accused knew what she was doing," said Captain Chris Graveline, the lead prosecutor.

"She was laughing and joking….She is enjoying, she is participating, all for her own sick humour," he went on.

Captain Jonathan Crisp, England's lawyer, claimed that she was only trying to please her soldier boyfriend, then-Cpl Charles Graner Jr, who was labelled the abuse ringleader by prosecutors.

"She was a follower, she was an individual who was smitten with Graner," Mr Crisp said, adding: "She just did whatever he wanted her to do."

More here.

Wait, weren't gross-out comedy kings the Farrelly Brothers the root cause of Abu Ghraib?

Reason did the Lynndie Hop a while back.

And in terms of the "just following orders defense," it's worth recalling the Simon Wiesenthal, the legendary Nazi hunter who helped shred such self-serving exculpation, died recently. Tributes here and here.

Comments

[Mr. Nice Guy]

When I close my eyes, I do think of England. Jesus, she is so hot..

I hope the screws are nice to her.

[thoreau]

One need not buy into conspiracy theories to be upset that not a single commissioned officer was disciplined.

Again, I'm not suggesting that anything goes up really high. That's for Tom Crick and rob to flame each other over. But, like, they couldn't even find a young lieutenant to blame? Somebody was in charge of them.

A friend of mine who served in the Army said that several officers will never be promoted, and in the Army that's considered pretty bad. Yeah, well, having to start a new career with a tarnished reputation still isn't as bad as prison.

[Carl]

Fer real, thoreau. Someone's head should be on pike for this. I mean, even if England and her friends were acting on their own, you know what? It's still their immediate overseers fault for being grossly negligent. And being court marshalled gross negligence is the "assuming the best about the officers" outcome. Letting people walk away from this train is just crazy and makes one suspect, rightly or wrongly, that hire ups are protecting the officers for some reason.

[Carl]

grammar and spelling = no today

...train *wreck*... ...*higher* ups...

[Warren]

I can't believe anyone who has ever served a day in the military could believe a couple of "bad apple" enlisted grunts did this on their own. No way the CO isn't directly responsible, at a minimum. Given what we know about similar abuse in Afghanistan and Cuba, I'm convinced it was policy set in the oval office, but it's just un-fucking-believable that they're getting away with hanging this on Lynndie. There's only one possible explanation, she was the only one in the chain of command that didn't (or couldn't) follow CYA procedures.

[thoreau]

Carl-

I won't comment on any theories regarding higher-ups, lest I get caught in the cross-fire between rob and Tom Crick. But yeah, even if it was just a case of "Ugly Girls Gone Wild", shouldn't an officer or two be in court for not keeping them on a leash?

Pun? What pun?

[ralphus]

Come on! It was funny!

Making them act all gay and shit.

That's funny stuff.

Lighten up homos.

[linguist]

maltreating detainees

maltreat: from Old French maltraiter from Latin "bad, evil" plus "treat", English meaning - mistreat, abuse
mistreat: from Old French mestraiter from Latin "wrongly" pluls "treat", English meaning - maltreat, abuse

Normally exact synonmyms don't exist in a language, but I'll be darned if I can find a real difference between these two. (Can't access the OED right now though, so it may just be that one is antiquated.)

Anyone have a gut reaction to these words? Is one stronger or more malevolent than the other?

/end sociolinguistic survey

[Ian]

I hate to be pedantic, but I believe the quote was "Lie back and think of England".

[SR]

"A friend of mine who served in the Army said that several officers will never be promoted, and in the Army that's considered pretty bad. Yeah, well, having to start a new career with a tarnished reputation still isn't as bad as prison."

Yes, the idea that lack of promotion constitutes a real punishment, and that it should assuage Iraqi public opinion, is highly obnoxious. As gaius will be able to attest, during the seige of Syracuse (in about 212 BC), the Roman general Marcellus ordered his troops that the scholar Archimedes (who had designed the city's defenses) was to be taken alive, unharmed. However, when Archimedes refused to stop working on a geometry problem, a Roman soldier killed him. Marcellus had the soldier publicly flayed alive for disobeying orders. Now, I am not advocating flaying England, et al., alive; however, Saddam Hussein's disciplinary techniques for his military had a lot more in common with Marcellus' than the modern Pentagon's, and it would be something more in line with the former disciplinary approach that would have convinced the Iraqis the US government was sincerely sorry for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and deprived the insurgency of some amount of legitimacy.

[David]

pinup gal Lynndie England

There's an awful thought.

[poco]

Graner's a damned ugly fucker, too. And looks like he's retarded, to boot.

[Jeff P.]

We need compassion in Gov't
General Zod 2008
http://www.zod2008.com/

[scape]

Root causes? The usual left-right paradigm.

As I read this thread I'm harassed by the violence of Lightning Ju Jitsu and the vanity of The Ultimate Fitness Program on the right while being tempted by a sexy Burbon Street babe and a tipsy Drew Carey on the left. It has me stacking tape dispensers into pyramids and making whips out of twisted paper clips and rubber bands. There's no telling what might happen if I was deployed with the reserves.

[David]

I would vote Zod. At least he comes right out and says what he intends to do. Besides, it's been too long since we've had a bearded president.

[Ira Weatheral]

Linguist, you sure are cunning!

[Tom Crick]

Once again, I encourage everyone who hasn't already read the Schlesinger Report to read through the Executive Summary, which, quite clearly, blames the abuse at Abu Gharib on the policy confusion created in the wake of Donald Rumsfeld's changes to torture/interrogation polices.

...Those changes were made under the advice of the Gonzales Torture Memo.

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/dod/abughraibrpt.pdf

[doctor word]

Is one stronger or more malevolent than the other?

Maltreat sounds worse to me than mistreat because the prefix mal- does imply deliberate wrong, in the sense of malevolence, whereas mis- suggests to me only error, and not only because of the Old French origins. Maltreatment sounds planned, but mistreatment sounds like maybe somebody just wasn't paying attention. But I don't know that most people would feel that way about it, and neither word really captures the essence of the situation. How about "treat like shit"?

[Ruthless]

Jennifer needs to lend England some of that miraculous "blush powder."
I'm thinking maybe a 32 gallon drum would get her through the weekend?

[OPUS]

Come on! It was Animal House brought to life! It was life imitating art! Nothing more!

[joe]

I'd be a lot less skeptical of the claim that the S&M poses and photos were unauthorized behavior, if it weren't for the fact that guards in Gitmo show detainees photographs of inmates being sexually humiliated as part of their interrogation practices.

[Curious]

Thanks for the link to Zod2008. Can we run him on the libertarian line too?

[Rick Barton]

linguist:

Is one stronger or more malevolent than the other?

The answer is contained in your question. The root "mal" connotes evil while "mis" connotes incorrect. "Maltreating" is the more condemning term here. And certainly the more appropriate one for describing these barbarities committed by our government and paid for by us.

[Evan Williams]

Carl & Thoreau:

Let's examine the situation: the military conducts an internal investigation of itself, and gets to decide its own punishment. What's the probable course of action for them? A) find out who's really responsible, and punish everyone involved, so as to make sure that officers pay better attention to their soldiers, or, B) find a scapegoat and punish the hell out of her, make it look to the general public like you're "doing something", but nobody of any importance in your organization gets punished.

Uhhh...

If you wanna know why no higher-ups got punished, just ask yourself, do you think the military protects its own?

[Isaac Bartram]

THOREAU

One need not buy into conspiracy theories to be upset that not a single commissioned officer was disciplined.

Actually one was, though I think most people think she's a patsy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse#Individuals_criticized_by_Taguba

"Brig. General Janis Karpinski, commanding officer at the prison was demoted to colonel on May 5, 2005, which also effectively ends her chances for future career advancement."

[mediageek]

Linguist, you sure are cunning!

I'll bet she's never heard that one before!

:-p

[Tom Crick]

Speaking of the higher ups...

I understand Rumsfeld offered his resignation over Abu Gharib in the run-up to last year's election--twice. Most people think of those kinds of resignations as a ploy, and I suppose they probably are. Still, I'd like to hear the President explain his reasoning, very specifically and in regards to the facts at Abu Gharib.

...I think I know what he'd say, but I want to hear him say it.

[mediageek]

Linguist, you sure are cunning!

I'll bet she's never heard that one before!

:-p

[Isaac Bartram]

thoreau

One need not buy into conspiracy theories to be upset that not a single commissioned officer was disciplined.

Actually one was, though I think most people think she's a patsy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse#Individuals_criticized_by_Taguba

"Brig. General Janis Karpinski, commanding officer at the prison was demoted to colonel on May 5, 2005, which also effectively ends her chances for future career advancement."

[thoreau]

Isaac-

Demotion is not the same as prison.

[Isaac Bartram]

You did say "disciplined".

Demotion is "disciplined".

There was no evidence that she had ordered the abuse. Just that she had failed in her command.

And as I said, there are probably many others far more deserving of blame, which I think tends to reinforce the spirit of your complaint.

[saw-whet]

SR - "during the seige of Syracuse (in about 212 BC)," surely you mean the blizzard of Syracuse (in 1972).

[thoreau]

I get your point, Isaac. I should have been more precise in my statements. Officers were disciplined, but not nearly as harshly as enlisted people. And I find that a tad bit suspicious.

Again, one need not believe that it goes all the way to the top (that's for Tom Crick and rob to fight over) to wonder why officers got off so easy.

[Isaac Bartram]

I suspect that those who gave the orders covered their tracks (or had them covered) well.

I doubt that regular line army types were involved in those orders. Karpinsky seemed to have not even been in control (thus deserving of discipline). More likely some of the shadowy intel types were responsible. And their orders and policies were set god only knows where. But speculation leads to some pretty obvious conclusions.

Nevertheless these enlisted yahoos seemed awfully enthusiastic about carrying out what were plainly illegal acts. Whether they were "following orders" or not, they got what they deserved.

[Tom Crick]

"Again, one need not believe that it goes all the way to the top (that's for Tom Crick and rob to fight over) to wonder why officers got off so easy."

"Nevertheless these enlisted yahoos seemed awfully enthusiastic about carrying out what were plainly illegal acts. Whether they were "following orders" or not, they got what they deserved.

For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I don't think Rumsfeld or Gonzales (or the President for that matter) should be brought to justice for what happened at Abu Gharib. ...I think there should be political consequences to their incompetent policies and the incompetent way in which those policies were implemented.

...That is, it isn't clear to me that the criminals who abused prisoners at Abu Gharib were following orders or that there were any "higher ups" who specifically ordered these atrocities and, thus, should be criminally charged. ...although that may have been the case.

I don't recall having argued that any "higher ups" should be criminally charged. I do remember suggesting that the photographs of abuse seem to closely resemble the "interrogation methods" detailed in the appendix of the Schlesinger Report (hooding, removal of clothing and exploiting a fear of dogs). To me, however, this has always been evidence of poorly implemented, nay, incompetent policy implementation rather than evidence of criminal intent "all the way to the top."

...I've argued--this last year--that there should be political consequences for Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Bush over this. That this is, once again, evidence of gross incompetence and that, because of blunders like this, the Bush Administration's leadership should not be trusted. ...That's all, nothing more.

[speedwell]

It's not really a choice between "maltreat" and "mistreat." They used "maltreat" in the place of "abuse."

Yes, "mistreat" is too mild. They wouldn't have used that. "Abuse" is really what they meant, but they wanted something more specific. Prison is itself a sort of abuse, objectively speaking; so if they said the prisoners were abused, they'd sound like a bunch of left-wing whiners.

"Maltreat" assumes there is a way to properly treat prisoners (only slightly abusive, perhaps) and a way to improperly treat prisoners (very abusive, and echoing and invoking the word "malice").

[thoreau]

I think extreme interrogation techniques may be warranted in some cases. I mean, what if a terrorist had knowledge of an imminent attack on the Reason server, and the only way to prevent the destruction of the server was to....

OK, never mind.

[Al Cada]

infidel t:

after we destroy the pig server you will be next in our glorious jihad

we know where you live

[Rush Limbaugh]

Come on! It was Animal House brought to life! It was life imitating art! Nothing more!

Yeah, it's no worse that the initiations for Skull & Bones! Not that ever attended Yale. I didn't even pass the first quarter of city college. Hell, I barely passed high school with all my talent on loan from God.

Can anyone tell me where I can score some pain killers?

[rob]

thoreau,

You and I agree on this. Where were the NCOs and company grade officers who are supposed to be responsible for ensuring that this kind of crap doesn't go on? (Technically, I guess Graner was an NCO, but still - the guy who was his immediate supervisor pretty much admitted that he was scared of Graner and let him do whatever he wanted on the night shift...)

Then again, I guess you could say the same thing of the shower areas of any regular old US prison...

[passingthru]

Uh...have we forgotten who the enemy is? I doubt Lynddie England would ever pull a suicide bombing on us.

[peachy]

A commander is responsible for the actions of their subordinates, both legally and morally - if Bush and Rummy want to play at being generals, then they should take the rap when their people screw up.

[Jennifer]

"She was a follower, she was an individual who was smitten with Graner," Mr Crisp said, adding: "She just did whatever he wanted her to do."

As far as excuses are concerned, "I was just trying to impress my boyfriend" is even worse than "I was just following orders."

[drf]

did anybody see the American Dad episode where the end of the show was the wife "lyddie-ing" the husband (in that pose)?

that pose is useful for pictures. and it upsets both hawks and doves. perfectly unappropriate

[Tom Crick]

As far as excuses are concerned, "I was just trying to impress my boyfriend" is even worse than "I was just following orders."

I couldn't get away with "I was just following orders" even with my ex-girlfriend--even when it was her orders I was following!

[drf]

And, my dear Tom, therein lies the need for the pseudonym

🙂

[Tom Crick]

"And, my dear Tom, therein lies the need for the pseudonym."

It's not her, really, or the other one. ...It's those freakin' flying monkeys! ; (

[rob]

"For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I don't think Rumsfeld or Gonzales (or the President for that matter) should be brought to justice for what happened at Abu Gharib." - Tom Crick at September 27, 2005 01:30 PM

"I don't know if you looked at my post above John, but after you've read the Executive Summary of the Schlesinger Report, I don't think you'll be so quick to dismiss the idea that the policy confusion caused by Rumsfeld's policy changes was ultimately responsible for the abuse. ...at least, I don't think you'll dismiss it as a ridiculous conspiracy theory." - Comment by: Tom Crick at July 16, 2005 02:11 AM

Uh, I'm confused. Why would a guy who believes this goes to the top wouldn't advocate bringing the folks responsible to justice? Maybe it's because his position has been modified over time? Nah, that couldn't be, because you're not REALLY Ken Schultz posting under a new alias...

"Donald Rumsfeld's policies, based on the advice of Antonio Gonzales, and implementation were a major contributing factor to what happened at Abu Gharib." - Comment by: Ken Shultz at May 29, 2005 02:26 PM

[rob]

"As far as excuses are concerned, 'I was just trying to impress my boyfriend' is even worse than 'I was just following orders.'" - Tom Crick

At last! One tiny island of fact that we can agree on! (Surely the end-times are near...)

[Tom Crick]

"Uh, I'm confused. Why would a guy who believes this goes to the top wouldn't advocate bringing the folks responsible to justice?"

You can't necessarily hold people criminally responsible for what their subordinates do. ...But it is possible--especially when you're setting policy for law enforcement agencies and the armed forces--that an incompetently conceived and/or implemented policy could result in criminal acts.

...In business, it happens all the time. An incompetent administrator does something like put intense pressure on sales people to sell--say--corporate bonds to people whose t-bills are rolling over. ...so some of those sales people when asked by their marks if corporate bonds are insured by the government answer in the affirmative. ...That's criminal fraud.

...Is the incompetent administrator criminally liable? I would say no--he's not the guy that committed the fraud, the salesman did. Is he responsible for the results of his policies? You better believe it! He's incompetent, his judgment is suspect, and his leadership should not be trusted.

...and it wasn't just that his policy was bad, it was poorly implemented. Anyone who's ever overseen anyone else knows that when you change policy, you have to reaffirm--over and over again--what's okay within that policy and what isn't. In the case of the guy overseeing the bond salespeople, at the very least, the administrator should have reaffirmed--over and over again--that fraud was absolutely, positively unacceptable and would be severely punished.

This is what I'm saying about Rumsfeld and Gonzales. Rumsfeld based his policies on--what I believe was--bad advice from Gonzales. Rumsfeld implemented this policy for Guantanamo and it sprouted wings and migrated to Abu Gharib and elsewhere. (The Schlesinger Report--as I recall--names the names of the people who rewrote interrogation policy in line with the policies Rumsfeld changed.)

...I have argued that the policy changes themselves were poorly conceived--hence my problem with Gonzales--but, even so, it was Rumsfeld's responsibility to make sure those policy changes were implemented properly--especially considering that he contributed to the very conception of those changes. He failed in this responsibility--miserably! ...and, considering that, among other similar blunders, we should all question his leadership.

Alberto Gonzales blessed the theory that would split the hair between torture and "cruel and inhuman" interrogation methods. ...I am disgusted by this. It is this hair splitting that made the whole chain of events possible--I think he should have foreseen how difficult a policy written to differentiate tortuous acts from those that are merely inhuman and cruel would be to implement, but, in this, he failed...

...and President Bush rewarded this incompetence with elevation to Attorney General. ...and now, one of Gonzales' main responsibilities is to interpret law, not for the treatment of foreign prisoners of war but for the treatment of Americans.

That is, Alberto Gonzales and Donald Rumsfeld put together and implemented the policies that led to the confusion that the Schlesinger Report blames for the disgrace at Abu Gharib. ...And President Bush's responsibility is to manage his cabinet. ...and, in this case, I don't think he's done a good job of that.

Do I think any of these people should be charged criminally? ...Of course not. Do I think Gonzales should have been elevated? ...Hell no! I think he should have had to defend his policy advice in public--much more so than he has. I think Donald Rumsfeld should have to answer for his poorly conceived polices in public too. ...and I think he should have to answer in public for his poor implementation of that policy. ...not just offer his resignation behind closed doors. ...and I think the Bush Administration should have to pay a political price for the whole debacle. ...more so than they have.

...and that's why I encourage everyone to read the Schlesinger Report. ...because I think it shows that the Bush Administration is fundamentally incompetent. ...and whether you think we should stay in Iraq or whether you think we should pull out now, I think we can agree that incompetent leadership is going to show us the right way. ...and this Administration doesn't seem to recognize its mistakes much less learn from them. ...So political pressure and the opinion of the American public is all we've got. ...and I still hold out faith that the truth of this matter can influence that.

[Tom Crick]

"As far as excuses are concerned, 'I was just trying to impress my boyfriend' is even worse than 'I was just following orders.'"

I was quoting Jennifer.

[Sgt. Rock]

"She was a follower, she was an individual who was smitten with Graner," Mr Crisp said, adding: "She just did whatever he wanted her to do."

Which "general order" does this follow? The one about not quiting your post until properly relieved or walking my post from flank to flank and not take shit off of any rank?

[Sgt. Rock]

Quiting = Quitting
/ Sorry, Carry on! ?

[rob]

Gee, Tom, when you say it like that it almost sounds reasonable! Except for the fact that there's no substantiation for most of what you wrote.

"I still hold out faith that the truth of this matter can influence that." - Tom Crick

Feh. I think that the truth of the matter is pretty plain, but like many things that have the noxious odor of politics clinging to it, there will continue to be (fairly successful) attempts to paint it as something far more sinister by those with a political axe to grind.

And go figure that I was actually agreeing with Jennifer...

Seriously, I'd buy anyone on this board a beer if I ran into them in the real world. Sure, there are a few folks here that we'd have to agree to leave certain topics alone for the evening, but I do enjoy the conversations! Even the disagreements.

[Tom Crick]

"Sure, there are a few folks here that we'd have to agree to leave certain topics alone for the evening, but I do enjoy the conversations! Even the disagreements."

That's just fucking peachy rob.

"Maybe it's because his position has been modified over time? Nah, that couldn't be, because you're not REALLY Ken Schultz posting under a new alias..."

...you said this as if I hadn't already told most of the regular commenters, friend and foe alike, and the web editor that I'd changed my name and why.

You said this as if my old comments in some way contradicted my comments in this thread. ...but they don't. ...you quoted these comments, but they just show how consistent I've been. ...My take on this hasn't changed since the report came out '04.

[rob]

"That's just fucking peachy rob." - TC

Thanks man!

"...you said this as if I hadn't already told most of the regular commenters, friend and foe alike, and the web editor that I'd changed my name and why." - TC

Sorry man, I guess I never got that memo. Was it with the TPS Reports memo?

"You said this as if my old comments in some way contradicted my comments in this thread. ...but they don't. ...you quoted these comments, but they just show how consistent I've been. ...My take on this hasn't changed since the report came out '04." - TC

If you say so. I certainly think that you probably understand what you mean better than I do.

I only hope that you're having at least HALF as good of a day as I am, bud!

[drf]

oh oh oh!!!!!! that means that your day is TWICE as good!!!!!!

wow. a good detective (ken) and good at math. swoon.

Tom Crick:

can you just say once "Elementary my dear Watson"

ha ha. Watson and Crick. oh boy oh boy. 🙂

and the usual greek play curse wish applies to those to whom it applies.

[rob]

drf - Huh?

Since today was one of the best days I've ever had, I'm hoping all of y'all - even cranky old Tom Crick - have had at least half as good a day. I know that for me, even a day that was half as good as today would be one of the best of my life.

Cheers!