Lynndie England's Guilty Plea Rejected

[MrBadExample]

Abu Ghraib judge rejects guilty plea

Former boyfriend says she was just following orders

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 Posted: 2:43 PM EDT (1843 GMT)

FORT HOOD, Texas (CNN) -- A military judge on Wednesday threw out the guilty plea for Army Pfc. Lynndie England, a public symbol of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal in Iraq.

Judge Col. James Pohl entered a not guilty plea for England after suspending the proceedings Wednesday morning as Pvt. Charles Graner Jr., England's former boyfriend and supervisor, was testifying.

England had pleaded guilty to seven charges: two counts of conspiracy to mistreat prisoners, four counts of abusing detainees and one count of committing an indecent act.

The maximum punishment for the counts to which England pleaded guilty would be 11 years in prison.

Graner, who was convicted separately in the scandal and sentenced to 10 years in prison, testified England was just following orders by placing a dog leash around an Iraqi prisoner's neck and leading the detainee out of his cell.

The technique was legitimate, Graner said.

Pohl excused the jury and admonished the defense team because Graner's testimony, he said, contradicted England's guilty plea Monday.

In making that plea, she admitted her participation and said she knew it was wrong. If she was just following orders, Pohl said, she should be pleading not guilty.

A military judge must establish guilt before formally accepting a defendant's plea.

Graner, who is said to be the father of England's infant son, Carter England, born in October, is now married to Spec. Megan Ambuhl, one of the four guards to plead guilty in the scandal.

England's mother carried Carter into court Wednesday. In the morning, she removed the baby's hood for photographers; when she left for lunch, he was covered by a blanket.

Graner was also busted from a rank of specialist following his conviction, and is to be dishonorably discharged when he is released from prison. Leaving court on Tuesday, Graner handed out a written statement saying he found England's guilty plea "upsetting" but hopes it will bring her an easier sentence.

England, however, appeared resentful toward Graner. As the courtroom sketch artist, Pat Lopez, was drawing him, England leaned over to her and said, "Don't forget the horns."

CNN's Susan Candiotti and Jim Polk contributed to this report.

link

This could get interesting if they can prove she was just following orders. I wonder how high this will go?

 

[RBM]

She pled guilty to abusing prisoners, because she abused prisoners. However, Judge Pohl believes that she should plead not guilty, because she was ordered to do so?

Pohl is a fan of the Nuremberg Defense!? Fancy that. He would've told Nazi officers in charge of concentration camps that they should've pled not guilty, too.

 

[jlarlee]

There was no kind of legal order that she could have followed. She didn't even work in the prison so since none of the people there were in her chain of command she alone is accountable for her actions. I hope she is put away for a long time her actions over shadowed so many of the good things that are going on over there. Yes I know we hear about all the bad but that is what sells papers not the fact that we are helping folks.

 

[Drocket]

The reason she's not being allowed to plead guilty isn't that she was ordered to perform the actions, but that pleading guilty (in military court) requires that you knew that your actions were wrong when you committed them. The correct plea for 'I did it, but I didn't know it was wrong when I did it' is 'No contest', I believe. Its essentially an admission of having committed the actions you're accused of, but stating that you're going to explain why you're not accountable because of circumstances. She's not being permitted to plead guilty because its quite simply the wrong plea.

 

[RBM]

[quote name='Drocket']The reason she's not being allowed to plead guilty isn't that she was ordered to perform the actions, but that pleading guilty (in military court) requires that you knew that your actions were wrong when you committed them. [/QUOTE]
You're implying that she did not know that her actions were wrong? At the time that she did them? Are you making a joke? Is there something inscrutable or complicated about what happened there, that makes the issue confusing?

*She* didn't even make such a ridiculous claim. Didn't it say that "In making that plea, she admitted her participation and said she knew it was wrong."?

 

[E-Z-B]

[quote name='jlarlee']There was no kind of legal order that she could have followed. She didn't even work in the prison so since none of the people there were in her chain of command she alone is accountable for her actions. I hope she is put away for a long time her actions over shadowed so many of the good things that are going on over there. Yes I know we hear about all the bad but that is what sells papers not the fact that we are helping folks.[/QUOTE]

Never mind this Prisoner Abuse Memo straight from the Pentagon, nor this Executive Order from President Bush authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Nope, nothing to see here, folks.

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='RBM']You're implying that she did not know that her actions were wrong? At the time that she did them? Are you making a joke? Is there something inscrutable or complicated about what happened there, that makes the issue confusing?

*She* didn't even make such a ridiculous claim. Didn't it say that "In making that plea, she admitted her participation and said she knew it was wrong."?[/QUOTE]

Actually, she DID make that ridiculous claim, which is why the trial has been declared a mistrial and will begin again. She started off by claiming that she knew what she was doing was wrong, and then followed that up by presenting witnesses that claimed that they thought that the photos were 'training material' and that what happened was entirely appropriate. Her defense team essentially tried to have their cake and eat it too, and the judge seems quite pissed off at them because of it.

 

[RBM]

[quote name='Drocket']She started off by claiming that she knew what she was doing was wrong, and then followed that up by presenting witnesses that claimed that they thought that the photos were 'training material' and that what happened was entirely appropriate.[/QUOTE]
I see what happened. I misinterpreted the judge's reasons for declaring a mistrial. Going by this thread (not a good way to begin finding out about anything,) I was under the impression that the judge was nettled by inherent incompatability between England's guilty plea and the testimony of her witnesses, which seemed to argue for her outright innocence (as opposed to simply offering mitigating circumstances to call for leniency in sentencing.) ...in other words, that he was throwing out the trial so that she could change her plea to fit the testimony she wanted to introduce on her own behalf...which seemed ridiculous to me, since claims of "just following orders" is a paper shield, at best. However, it would appear that this wasn't the situation at all. Her guilty plea was a negotiated deal, which carried a substantially reduced prison sentence with it...and the judge did throw it out due to incompatability with witness testimonies, but it doesn't really benefit her...because now everything's up in the air again and her negotiated deal is gone.

...thus, the entire rigamarole regarding her awareness of her actions as "wrong" or not has nothing to do with morality...it's only relevant as a detail of legal manuevering.

 

[Quackzilla]

What they NEED to do is find a tall tree...

There is NO excuse for torture, especially against civilians.

 

[jlarlee]

[quote name='Quackzilla']What they NEED to do is find a tall tree...

There is NO excuse for torture, especially against civilians.[/QUOTE]

I don't often agree with you man but I do this time.

 

[jlarlee]

[quote name='E-Z-B']Never mind this Prisoner Abuse Memo straight from the Pentagon, nor this Executive Order from President Bush authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Nope, nothing to see here, folks.[/QUOTE]
Regardless she was not assigned to that jail and had no business in it. I'm thinking one of those knuckleheads were bragging about what they were doing and she wanted a piece of it.