You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
US judge rejects Lynndie's guilty plea
2005-05-04
FORT HOOD, Texas (Reuters) - A military judge on Wednesday rejected a guilty plea by Lynndie England, a key figure in the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, after evidence in her trial indicated she considered herself innocent. Two days after initially accepting England's plea of guilty to seven of nine charges, which was submitted after negotiations with the prosecution, Judge Col. James Pohl told the court: "The plea deal is canceled."
Poor Lynndie, can't even cop a plea correctly.
He had repeatedly interrupted proceedings to warn that testimony by England, 22, and other witnesses speaking on her behalf, which was meant as mitigation to secure a shorter prison term, was verging on a statement of her innocence. "Both sides have indicated to me there is no way to resolve this inconsistency," Pohl told the court after a recess to discuss the issue on Wednesday afternoon.
Goody, goody, now can we try her and lock her up for years?
Pictures of England smiling as she stood with naked and humiliated Iraqis, including one in which she held a detainee on a leash, are the most prominent images of the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.
Posted by:Steve

#9  well he's just protecting the mother of his evil spawn baby
Posted by: Frank G   2005-05-04 22:18  

#8  From the blurb I saw it appeared that Grayner was trying to say that Lyndie's collar technique was an approved method for removing a recalcatrant prisoner from a cell so she was just following orders.

I guess he neglected to specify just who ordered a day-shift file clerk to moonlight on the mid watch cell extraction team.
Posted by: Super Hose   2005-05-04 22:15  

#7  Laurence: Everything varies. Under some circumstances, it would strongly be to an enlisted man's advantage to have enlisted on his board. The biggest one of these is when there is a problem ''because of a breakdown in the NCO chain-of-command'', which is every NCO's nightmare. Officers might not ''get it'', but I have seen a CSM turn pale in such a circumstance. A private might be seen as no more responsible for *anything* that happens under such a condition, any more than you would punish a four year old child for finding a handgun and firing it to some damage. Literally, enlisted personnel on the board could find mitigation in that case for damn near anything, though an officer might just shrug.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-05-04 21:46  

#6  I've also heard that if you are enlisted, never, ever, ask for a jury of enlisted personel, stick with officers. The most hard-ass sergeants that can be found will be gathered to render you into meat judgement.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats   2005-05-04 5:50:10 PM  

#5  I also second what Anonymoose wrote about military courts being the best.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-05-04 16:54  

#4  She reminds me of the 60s era terrorists here in California that copped a plea and said because she would never get a ''fair'' trial. The Judge ordered her back to jail to stand trial for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit against a peace officer after rejecting her plea. She then copt another plea and confessed to each and every one of the charges in open court. This will make it easier to dismiss her request for clemency becuase she did not know what she was pleading to. I'll bet Lyndie was copping a plea in court and professing her innocence outside court. She will go down hard (like before) for playing games with a Military judge.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-05-04 16:50  

#3  Don't be too quick to judge. Military courts are rigorous in their rejection of BS, stuff that civilian courts are too quick to embrace. They want *justice*, not legal smoke and mirrors, and will bluntly beat up on *anybody*, attorneys included, who try to skunk them. They are the very best court to stand in front of if you are innocent, or have a damn good excuse; and yet they are merciless if you are wrong and criminal. It is not unusual, nor is it incorrect, for a court martial judge and his board to prosecute the case better than the JAG prosecutor and defend the case better than the JAG defense counsel. This is what *real* trial by a jury of your peers looks like, and it is head and shoulders over the civilian version.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-05-04 16:13  

#2  Talk about felony couture....I thought they stopped making stuff in that color in the 70ies.
Posted by: Sgt. Mom   2005-05-04 16:11  

#1  nice job, asshats. The budget Johnnie Cochran in the gold lame and spiked heels just cost her years in jail...
Posted by: Frank G   2005-05-04 15:48  

00:00