Mistrial
The [activist...?] judge presiding over the Lynndie England trial has declared it a mistrial because of England's own language and statements create a significant doubt that England herself feels she's guilty of the crime. Fascinating...
Is the judge making a statement about the systematic, epidemic of the abuses and saying that these fissures in England's own language have led him to believe that more must be exposed? Or is he solely determining that the legal representation of England has been less than sufficient or qualified; that they persuaded her against her own beliefs to plea bargain? Or that England herself is mentally unable to be anything other than a cipher in her own trial?
Is the judge making a statement about the systematic, epidemic of the abuses and saying that these fissures in England's own language have led him to believe that more must be exposed? Or is he solely determining that the legal representation of England has been less than sufficient or qualified; that they persuaded her against her own beliefs to plea bargain? Or that England herself is mentally unable to be anything other than a cipher in her own trial?
posted by General Stan at 5:27 PM
3 Comments:
I wonder why she feels she's not guilty of a crime? Can it be because she was tacitly encouraged by her superiors in a military that encourages "us vs. them" mentality in order to produce the dispassionate soldiers they need in order to get them to kill without questioning reason or cause?
No, she's probably just one random loony.
oh I don't know. I like to think that she's just very misunderstood...
But then, you never know.
Oh, btw, is following orders a crime..? I've forgotten how this works....
It's only a crime after the results of following orders becomes embarrassing for your superior officers. Actually, I think the crime she committed was leaving photographic evidence. We can't have that. What I'm not sure of is how the chain of command thing operates: isn't your superior officer ultimately responsible for your actions/errors? And his superior is responsible for allowing an officer to shirk his duty in overseeing the soldiers under his command? and so on, and so forth? What I'm saying is, the chain of command is also supposed to be the chain of resposnibility: No one soldier can ultimately be held responsible for their actions in a wartime situation, because they're supposed to be so carefully directed and controlled by the (massively expensive) military hierarchy put in place to prevent mob rule, vigilantism, etc. But what can you do when one soldier inexplicably, without orders, takes it upon herself to torture prisoners with no encouragement whatsoever?
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102416
You certainly can't blame completely unconnected senior military officials:
http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/08/27/abu_ghraib/index.html
Post a Comment
<< Home