| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq-Jordan | |
| Lynndie Trial Update | |
| 2004-08-04 | |
| FORT BRAGG, N.C. (AP) - Pfc. Lynndie England was often sloppy at her paperwork job at Abu Ghraib prison because of illicit, late-night visits to the part of the facility where detainees were abused, her supervisor testified Wednesday. The testimony by Spc. Matthew Bolinger at a pretrial hearing continued the government's theme of portraying England as one of a handful of out-of-control Army reservists who took it upon themselves to photograph detainees in humiliating poses at the prison near Baghdad. Bolinger said England was repeatedly disciplined for sneaking into the prison's fortified "hard site" to visit her boyfriend, Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr., who is also charged in the case and is the father of the child England is carrying. "Her performance was not so good," Bolinger said. "She was sneaking out in the middle of the night, going to the hard site." Bolinger said England also was disciplined after being caught in bed several times with Graner beginning in July 2003. He said authorities tried several different punishments to keep her away from Graner and his part of the prison, including restricting her to her quarters and requiring that she be escorted any time she left the unit's headquarters building.
Bolinger, who supervised England in her job processing prison paperwork, testified by phone from Fort Lee, Va., where the 372nd Military Police Company, based on Cresaptown, Md., is stationed since returning from Iraq. On Tuesday, Army investigators testified that the naked detainees shown with England in human pyramids and tethered to a leash were common criminals of little or no value to interrogators - abused "for fun." The prosecution's case has been aimed at rebutting a defense claim that England was acting on orders from higher-ups to break down prisoners for questioning. The hearing, expected to last through the week, will determine whether a court-martial goes forward against England on 13 counts of abusing detainees and six counts stemming from possession of sexually explicit photos. The maximum possible sentence is 38 years in prison. | |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #13 And yes, they have every legit reason to try to link the Executive Branch to this because, lets face it, Rummy is definately a micromanager and he approved the "tougher" means of getting information out of people. The documents that show Rumsfeld approving "more stringent" forms of coercion involve such shocking tactics as shaving someone's beard or only giving them cold lunches. There is zero evidence tying anyone outside of Abu Ghraib to what happened inside Abu Ghraib. And I'll believe liberals are patriotic when they stop whining about it and start ACTING like it. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-08-05 7:51:32 AM |
| #12 Old Spook, do you think she got pregnant on advice of counsel as a ploy for a reduced sentence, or do you thnk that she ran out of whatever birth control she was using? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-08-04 10:31:43 PM |
| #11 Pix show here pulling a train. Multiple times. She was plain enough, but thought what was between her legs was gold plated since enough guys wanted some. So she got carried away. And got busted. Pay the price. As should all her compatriots in the Graner Gang. And the Chain of Command up to the commanding General of the Brigade should be given an Article 15 at a minimum. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2004-08-04 10:24:31 PM |
| #10 Apparently Liberals are gullible too - drink deeply from the kool-aid trough, my patriotic friend lol |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-08-04 8:53:20 PM |
| #9 #5 As far as the LLL press goes, the facts be damned. Their mission is to drag GWB, Rummy, or anybody near the top into it in order to destroy the Bush presidency. They will whip the abu Grabass scandal until it is a dead horse, then the LLL will walk away and look for another horse to whip until IT dies. First off, it's legit to report on it. Yeah, sure, some of the people in the prison are jackasses and deserve it. Some people were actually innocent in there. Would you like it if you were arrested here and tortured like they were? And yes, they have every legit reason to try to link the Executive Branch to this because, lets face it, Rummy is definately a micromanager and he approved the "tougher" means of getting information out of people. Just like the NYT is trying to discredit the Orange alerts in NYC and NJ because the intel is a couple of years old. Buildings don't change that fast, procedures do and need updates from time to time. As for this, post an article that's anti-Orange Alert. I have an article for you here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/politics/02assess.html I read through it, and it doesn't certainly seem anti-Orange Alert to me. The LLL is as dangerous as al Q because they want to destroy our institutions or remake them in their own image. If that is allowed to happen, we become exposed for al Q attacks. And that's the fact, Jack. Just because one questions the leadership, that doesn't mean that they hate our own country. That's just stupid. I love this country, but I don't support, nor do I believe in the President's views. Just because I call some--or all--of his policies into question means that I am more dangerous than Al Qaeda? I'm not the one flying airplanes into buildings like they are! Do you think I wanted to watch the attacks on September 11, 2001 or October 12, 2000 or August 7, 1998 or February 26, 1993? Do you think that I was celebrating these attacks like people in Palestinian areas or in Afghanistan were? Hell no. These were some of the most (and most certainly the most) despicable acts in the history of the world; how dare anyone imply that just because I'm a liberal I want to see terrorists flying into or blowing up buildings. That's really terrible that anyone would imply such a thing. The 'LLL' wants to destroy our institutions and make them into their image? You've got to be kidding me if you really think that. Why don't you prove it? And if that happens, we expose ourselves to Al Qaeda attacks? How do you prove that one? |
| Posted by: Liberals Are Patriotic Too, You Know 2004-08-04 8:30:15 PM |
| #8 VNP, the doctor said to take your medication EVERY day. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-08-04 7:35:31 PM |
| #7 HERE is what happened. CIA is in a turf war with DOD. They are also in a real war with Muslim Male Murderbots™. Here they saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. They picked this misfit and credibility free loser, as well as a couple of others likewise. They stage the photo's and release them. The "scandal" "embarrasses" Rumsfeld/DOD/Bush and also humiliates the Muslim Male Murderbots™ thus scaring off all but the most motivated dead enders. I think. |
| Posted by: Victory Now Please 2004-08-04 4:25:49 PM |
| #6 Barb, I agree she may have been a willing participant but I have a sneaking suspicion that the as a PFC she was easily swayed. Being away from home and in that situation, she was probably easy prey for the sickos in the prison. Yes I know all about how she is supposed her own women, a ‘big’ girl, and doesn’t need a men. But I have seen MANY females that latched onto losers while stationed far from home. Only when they returned to the ‘real world’ did they realize what they did and whom they were with. I have a nagging feeling about this young women may be one of these types. The fact that she disobeyed a direct order to visit her ‘boyfriend’ tells me a lot about the boyfriend. If he cared about her he would have not allowed her access and what sicko takes pictures like that? Her boyfriend has a history of abuse and he is just the type (Quasi strong, stupid, and abusive) that these young women loved to latch onto. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-08-04 4:14:28 PM |
| #5 As far as the LLL press goes, the facts be damned. Their mission is to drag GWB, Rummy, or anybody near the top into it in order to destroy the Bush presidency. They will whip the abu Grabass scandal until it is a dead horse, then the LLL will walk away and look for another horse to whip until IT dies. Just like the NYT is trying to discredit the Orange alerts in NYC and NJ because the intel is a couple of years old. Buildings don't change that fast, procedures do and need updates from time to time. The LLL is as dangerous as al Q because they want to destroy our institutions or remake them in their own image. If that is allowed to happen, we become exposed for al Q attacks. And that's the fact, Jack. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-08-04 3:10:14 PM |
| #4 I feel sorry for this soldier because I can tell she was used by that guys (and others) as a prop in their sick games. She wasn't "used" -- she volunteered. She was REPEATEDLY ordered not to go into the cellblock, but she kept doing it. She deserves no sympathy at all. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-08-04 3:04:41 PM |
| #3 Amen Frank! It seems as if the LLL press still believes that this was done on orders from President Bush and that the Gis eagerly complied. They are trying damn hard to drag the President into this mess as well. I feel sorry for this soldier because I can tell she was used by that guys (and others) as a prop in their sick games. I would have liked it if they had prosecuted from the top down but maybe she will cop a plea after the Article 32? If can get a plea from the prosecution that might save her some in the sentencing. I noticed that there were two other females indicted in this little ‘pyramid’ scheme, but I have heard or seen them. I care because they need to publicly make it clear that this is NOT SOP in the Military. We need to put these men/women away and closed this chapter |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-08-04 2:54:11 PM |
| #2 except Kobe, Scott Peterson, et al aren't being used as a crude club by the scumsucking NYTimes (and fellow travellers) to delegitimize our servicemen, their mission, their leadership and the C-I-C |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-08-04 2:11:51 PM |
| #1 Don't take this the wrong way, but I give about as much a shit about this as about that Kobe clown and what's-his-name (Peterson?). Which is to say, NONE. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-08-04 1:57:33 PM |