Abu Ghraib guard Lynndie England says she is not sorry

[steveh_131]

Spot on. War is hell, and I'm not really concerned about complying with some pencil head's idea of "fair." And war should be hell. It should be brutal. It should be vicious. It should be ruthless and severe. Were it so, I suspect there would be a little bit less of it in the world today.

Weakness is provocative. ROE are a form of weakness. I can tolerate a respectable level of chivalry, but only if the opposing sides plays by the same rules. Otherwise, I will default to the meanest, nastiest set of rules being used by any given participant at the time. I would wage war to win. Not make friends. Global reputation be damned.

If you were a guard at this prison, would you feel morally comfortable with torturing these prisoners?

Somehow I don't think what she did (Humiliation), and beheading not only captured prisoners but civilian contractors, are in the "Eye for an Eye boat."

Nobody said they were equivalent.

However, a justification of 'they did it first' was provided to defend these actions, and he was refuting that justification.

I agree with him. 'They started it' is not a convincing moral justification. The justification provided by 88GT is much more convincing, in my opinion.

 

[RockofStrength]

Spot on. War is hell, and I'm not really concerned about complying with some pencil head's idea of "fair." And war should be hell. It should be brutal. It should be vicious. It should be ruthless and severe. Were it so, I suspect there would be a little bit less of it in the world today.

Weakness is provocative. ROE are a form of weakness. I can tolerate a respectable level of chivalry, but only if the opposing sides plays by the same rules. Otherwise, I will default to the meanest, nastiest set of rules being used by any given participant at the time. I would wage war to win. Not make friends. Global reputation be damned.

Telling the enemy that surrender and/or being captured will result in torture, however, is a huge blunder. You WANT people to surrender, and as often as possible. What you do not want is a group of terrorists who are already well known for using explosives strapped to their members coming to the realization that it would be better to be dead than alive in American prison. A man with nothing to lose is like a rabid badger with no way out save through you.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Oh wow, my mom was born in Keyser. I've been there. They tell me it smells bad (pulp mill town) but my nose is kinda funny so it didn't bother me.

I can see the idea that we should wade in and do what we have to, that the information should be kept in, but we're supposed to be better than that. Look what we did in Japan and Germany. Both had committed such atrocities that we could well have justified to ourselves to have ground them to dust, but instead we nurtured them, and each became an economic powerhouse. I don't know that muslims as a group are capable of responding in such a way, but I'm also not sure we belonged over there in the first place.

 

[mike8170]

What I found most intriguing is the comments in the article that state no officer in that command has been charged or convicted of this scandal. Instead this PFC took all the blame.

-Jedi

This is the problem, spot on. I spent 22 years in the Infantry, and I was solely responsible for my subordinates success' and failures. The ONLY thing the lower enlisted Soldiers should have been UCMJ'ed for was taking pictures of EPW's. The team leader, squad leader, platoon leader, platoon sergeant, company commander and first sergeant should have been the ones spending time and drummed out of the service on bad conduct discharges. This soldiers life was ruined on the inability of her leadership to follow the Army Code of Conduct and the Army Standard.

 

[88GT]

If you were a guard at this prison, would you feel morally comfortable with torturing these prisoners?

me? Not personally. But as a matter of policy I would not necessarily be opposed to it even if I were personally opposed to it.

Telling the enemy that surrender and/or being captured will result in torture, however, is a huge blunder. You WANT people to surrender, and as often as possible. What you do not want is a group of terrorists who are already well known for using explosives strapped to their members coming to the realization that it would be better to be dead than alive in American prison. A man with nothing to lose is like a rabid badger with no way out save through you.

Only by today's standards and principles. The notion of quarter is a relatively new one in warfare. The idea of quarter as the default practice is even more so.

No, I don't necessarily want people to surrender. In the interest of full disclosure, I also assume that the U.S. will not be an aggressor nation without just cause. Ergo, the combatants against whom we would be fighting would have necessarily invited whatever means of defense or action in opposition to their offense that we feel is necessary to defend ourselves and defeat them. If the use of torture of captives becomes common knowledge among the enemy, then perhaps they'll rethink their actions. If not...well, you know what they say about fairness in love and war. The total annihilation of the enemy is integral to my philosophy of war. By whatever means necessary. The idea of civilized warfare is laughable to me.

With respect to our current enemy, I don't think your supposition that any uptick in tortuous acts on our part would have much of an effect on their mindset. Short of conversion to Islam, nothing we do or could do would satisfy them. And any excuse will do to escalate offensive action against us. It is my opinion that the only reason they have not launched a full scale war effort is that they lack the central planning and coordinated resources. They do what works for now. But the point in time when those limitations no longer hobble them, we are in for some serious hurt.

 

[Effingham]

1. What is a pepper?
2. Wonder what she looks like now...

Didja even click the link to the article?

And for the record:

TORTURE? Hell, I've seen HAZINGS that were worse than what happened at Abu Ghraib.

 

[steveh_131]

me? Not personally. But as a matter of policy I would not necessarily be opposed to it even if I were personally opposed to it.

How do you separate this? If you support something as a matter of policy (either with your words or with your vote) is that not the moral equivalent of doing it yourself?

 

[88GT]

Didja even click the link to the article?

And for the record:

TORTURE? Hell, I've seen HAZINGS that were worse than what happened at Abu Ghraib.

I did. I too am curious about the pepper aspect.

 

[patience0830]

Spot on. War is hell, and I'm not really concerned about complying with some pencil head's idea of "fair." And war should be hell. It should be brutal. It should be vicious. It should be ruthless and severe. Were it so, I suspect there would be a little bit less of it in the world today.

Weakness is provocative. ROE are a form of weakness. I can tolerate a respectable level of chivalry, but only if the opposing sides plays by the same rules. Otherwise, I will default to the meanest, nastiest set of rules being used by any given participant at the time. I would wage war to win. Not make friends. Global reputation be damned.

I think I'm in LOVE!

 

[Paul Gomez]

The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo

Phil Zimbardo wrote very eloquently about the events at Abu Ghraib in his book "The Lucifer Effect". There was a lot more going on than most people realize.

 

[Bill of Rights]

How do you separate this? If you support something as a matter of policy (either with your words or with your vote) is that not the moral equivalent of doing it yourself?

At the risk of derailing the thread, no, it's not. Example: I favor abortion being legal (or at least not illegal.) I do not favor abortion, however. By this I mean that while the decision to have or not have one will never be mine to make, were I through some unforeseen or otherwise weird set of circumstances to be placed in the position of deciding, my answer would default toward "carry the baby to term" unless there was some extenuating circumstance to not do so. Why, then, not simply favor it being illegal? Simple. I don't think some p***s-wrinkle in an office a thousand miles away is better equipped to decide for an individual what is a better way to run their lives than is the person herself.

Back on topic, how to separate being morally uncomfortable with prisoners being "tortured" from supporting doing it yourself, I'm uncomfortable with the civil liberties and natural rights of American gun owners being infringed by our country's laws, but I still have three state-issued permission slips in my wallet allowing me to lawfully carry a handgun in 76% of the states in this country. I comply with the law even though I don't agree with it. Ms. England's actions were her own choice. (Note that this does not mean I think it's right that she was the only one punished for what happened there.)
Was she morally in the right? I don't know. I can't say that everything we now know she did was right, nor can I say it was all wrong. I think perhaps some discretion would have gone a long way... I also think that we don't necessarily have the whole story nor will we ever. My parents' advice seems to hold true yet again: Do nothing you wouldn't want to see on the front page of the newspaper. (This is ironically even more true considering the liberal tactic of twisting things to their worst light when placing them up for public scrutiny.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[steveh_131]

At the risk of derailing the thread, no, it's not. Example: I favor abortion being legal (or at least not illegal.) I do not favor abortion, however. By this I mean that while the decision to have or not have one will never be mine to make, were I through some unforeseen or otherwise weird set of circumstances to be placed in the position of deciding, my answer would default toward "carry the baby to term" unless there was some extenuating circumstance to not do so. Why, then, not simply favor it being illegal? Simple. I don't think some p***s-wrinkle in an office a thousand miles away is better equipped to decide for an individual what is a better way to run their lives than is the person herself.

I agree with this, although I don't agree that it is a fair analogy.

We are not discussing individual liberties at all here, we are discussing proactive government policy. Should it be our policy to torture terror suspects? If you advocate that it should be, then I think you are somewhat morally responsible for that torture.

There is a difference between advocating a certain action and advocating against government interference to stop a certain action.

I believe that getting high is immoral. I am also against imprisoning those who do it. This is not the same as supporting government programs that get people high. Can you see the distinction?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I agree with this, although I don't agree that it is a fair analogy.

We are not discussing individual liberties at all here, we are discussing proactive government policy. Should it be our policy to torture terror suspects? If you advocate that it should be, then I think you are somewhat morally responsible for that torture.

There is a difference between advocating a certain action and advocating against government interference to stop a certain action.

I believe that getting high is immoral. I am also against imprisoning those who do it. This is not the same as supporting government programs that get people high. Can you see the distinction?

I do see the distinction you're trying to draw and agree that being against imprisoning pot smokers is not the same as favoring gov't programs to get people stoned. However, I don't see that taking a picture of someone on a leash is equivalent to torture and certainly not to advocating government torture. As was said upthread, I've seen hazings that were worse than what we're told these guys went through.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dsol]

Didja even click the link to the article?

And for the record:

TORTURE? Hell, I've seen HAZINGS that were worse than what happened at Abu Ghraib.

I did, but it was on my stupid phone... checking it now on a real computer.

 

[Effingham]

For those who didn't notice:

In one of the pictures in the article, England is holding a can of Dr. Pepper.

 

[Mackey]

For those who didn't notice:

In one of the pictures in the article, England is holding a can of Dr. Pepper.

But what does it all mean anyway?

Just kidding. Seems like folks were thinking being a pepper was some sort of code or racial slur or something. That was kind of amusing...but I'm pretty bored.

But about not finding a job in West Virginia .... Join the club, not much going on there for regular joes. There's a large number of people there on disability or welfare anyhow.

 

[88GT]

How do you separate this? If you support something as a matter of policy (either with your words or with your vote) is that not the moral equivalent of doing it yourself?

I don't know why I didn't see this before. Sorry.

Let me back up. Do I support the use of torture tactics as a matter of course for the hell of it? No. Do I think a little humiliation and duress is torture? No.

Do I support the use of whatever tactics are necessary to win a war and/or save American lives? Hell, yes.

Is there a point where "the hell of it" becomes tactically beneficial? Possibly.

I do not approve of torture in an of itself. But as a tactical weapon, I will employ it--and any other option available--that will increase the chances of victory. You can call me a hypocrite if you like. No skin off my back. THe world isn't as black and white as you'd like to make it. Would I have done what England did just because? Probably not. Would I have done worse for a different reason? You bet. My loyalty lies to America, not some pie-in-the-sky worship of an ideal that is impossible to implement in the real world.

 

[steveh_131]

I do see the distinction you're trying to draw and agree that being against imprisoning pot smokers is not the same as favoring gov't programs to get people stoned. However, I don't see that taking a picture of someone on a leash is equivalent to torture and certainly not to advocating government torture. As was said upthread, I've seen hazings that were worse than what we're told these guys went through.

Well, here the issue is being confused a bit. There are several justifications being presented for this.

1. It's not really torture, so it's ok for us to do it.
2. They did worse, so it's ok for us to do it.
3. It is necessary for our safety.
4. It's ok for the government to do it, but not for me to do it.

I was mostly arguing about #2 and #4. 1 and 3 are reasonable to me, but would need to be debated more in depth.

I don't know why I didn't see this before. Sorry.

Let me back up. Do I support the use of torture tactics as a matter of course for the hell of it? No. Do I think a little humiliation and duress is torture? No.

Do I support the use of whatever tactics are necessary to win a war and/or save American lives? Hell, yes.

Is there a point where "the hell of it" becomes tactically beneficial? Possibly.

I do not approve of torture in an of itself. But as a tactical weapon, I will employ it--and any other option available--that will increase the chances of victory. You can call me a hypocrite if you like. No skin off my back. THe world isn't as black and white as you'd like to make it. Would I have done what England did just because? Probably not. Would I have done worse for a different reason? You bet. My loyalty lies to America, not some pie-in-the-sky worship of an ideal that is impossible to implement in the real world.

I think this is reasonable and consistent, even if I don't necessarily agree with each part of it.

 

[SSGSAD]

Abu Ghraib guard Lynndie England says of Iraqi prisoners she was convicted of abusing:


It's been 8 years since this happened and she has been dishonorably dishcarged from the Army for 1 year now after servering 500+ days in an Army prison. She is a convicted felon now, single mother who can't even get a job at McDonald's or Burger King.

What I found most intriguing is the comments in the article that state no officer in that command has been charged or convicted of this scandal. Instead this PFC took all the blame.

-Jedi

Sounds like something that happened a LONG time ago, in Viet Nam... Lt. Calley ??? No "higher" officers were charged .... Just a Lt., can't remember if 1st., or 2nd.

 

[D-Ric902]

She did her time
She can have any opinion she wants