 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! May 1, 2009 Abu Ghraib Soldiers Appealing?By GreyhawkThe Washington Post reports that "the recent release of Justice Department memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques" has given soldiers convicted of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib "new reason to argue that they were made scapegoats for policies approved at high levels." However, the simple, unvarnished truth is that the individual conduct of those at Abu Ghraib was clearly in violation of existing criminal statutes, and those accused of abuses at Abu Ghraib had no actual knowledge of the memoranda. Those aren't my quotes - they're from Gary Myers, defense attorney for Abu Ghraib guard (then Staff Sergeant) Ivan Frederick: "The simple, unvarnished truth is that the individual conduct of those at Abu Ghraib was clearly in violation of existing criminal statutes," he says.Frederick entered a guilty plea at the start of his trial. Charles Graner did not. His lawyer argued a slightly different defense than the one he uses today: In opening arguments here at the court-martial for the soldier, Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr., his lawyers insisted that he was simply following orders and using lessons from his civilian life as a prison guard to try to maintain discipline in a war zone. Using naked and hooded detainees to make a human pyramid was much like what cheerleaders "all over America" do at football games, the lawyer, Guy Womack, argued, and putting naked prisoners on leashes was much like what parents in airports do with their toddlers.Among those testifying against him, Ivan Frederick: Still, Private Frederick and other soldiers testified, commanders did not know about the kind of treatment shown in the photographs and would not have sanctioned it.Actually it was Lynndie England's birthday - but that's another story. Posted by Greyhawk / May 1, 2009 9:48 AM | Permalink 8 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Lynndie England did NOT work at the hardsite. Yes, she was visiting Graner, and yes that went against orders, but she did NOT touch or torture anyone at AG. She stepped into the leash picture for Graner who was documenting what "Gus" was doing. Look at the picture, does she look "into it"? No, she simply stepped in, click, click - he took the picture, Gus settled down,and he took him back to his cell.
Yes, the other photos were taken the night of her 21st birthday. She shouldn't have been there, but she was in love with Graner. Both Graner and Frederick were her commanding NCO and they both begged her to get into the genital picture. Look at that picture. It is obvious Lynndie did not want to be there - she is leaning into the picture, she put her cigarette in her mouth (which causes folks to squint making it look like you are smiling). She leaned in, then immediately got out.
I am not condoning what she did, but being in photos that simply documented Bush policy is not a crime. You are wrong when you say they did not know about these procedures or policies. A soldier (can't remember his name) was sent from GITMO to teach the MP guards (Lynndie was a clerk in an MP company)techniques they were using at GITMO. These soldiers did not think this up on their own. The CIA and MI knew what Graner and others were doing and told them they were doing an excellent job of softening these men up for later interrogation.
Lynndie et all did not receive due process at their court martials. They petitioned the court to admit documents, the Taguba Report, that would proove their pleas, but that was denied. Do we have one set of laws for grunts, and one set of laws for their officers and civilian leaders? I've talked with Janis Karpinski about all this and she is adament that this went right up the chain of command. They knew what was going on and supported it.
I thought it was the responsibility of the commander-in-chief to protect his soldiers - not make them take the fall for his decisions....
Karpinski was *in* the chain of command there, wasn't she? Why didn't she stop anything?
I call shenanigans.
"You are wrong when you say they did not know about these procedures or policies."
As I thought I said very carefully, I didn't say it - Ivan Frederick's lawyer did.
And Taguba's report lauded the investigators and slammed your friend Kapinski - long before Mary Mapes ever saw a few Ivan Frederick-selected photos (you must be relieved he chose wisely). And Taguba testified before congress that "We did not find any evidence of a policy or a direct order given to these soldiers to conduct what they did. I believe that they did it on their own volition and I believe that they collaborated with several MI (military intelligence) interrogators at the lower level".
Was that really denied as evidence at England's trial? If so benefit was to the defense, not the prosecution.
And the birthday party crew had zero intel value, they were being abused for rioting in the prison.
I understand your investment in a certain narrative (Katrina's husband is trying to sell a Lynndie England book). And I understand Graner's influence over England and the rest of the crew. But the facts are the facts (and I know more than you'd like).
Really, Katrina, the best possible angle is the truth. England was a girl who married young then met a guy with a lot of Charles Manson qualities who swept her off her feet. (Sheesh, she was home on leave pregnant with Graner's child and seeing a lawyer about divorcing her actual husband while Chuck was stoking up a relationship with his future wife back at AG.) Go with that - it's true and will at least get some sympathy, unlike all this "Rummy had them on speed dial" nonsense.
Or is it Cheney in the current version? I can't keep track.
Have you read the transcripts from Lynndie's trial(s)? In their entirety? Yes, government reports were denied to be entered into her trial. Her lawyer, in fact, asked her to plead guilty at her first trial, and based upon the evidence the judge kept stopping the trial and asking her lawyers why did they enter a guilty plea when all the evidence they were presenting seems to point the opposite direction. In fact, it was when Graner showed up to testify that the judge called a mistrial because he said Lynndie was following his orders.
You are correct regarding my husband writing her authorized biography. I had the same feelings about her prior to his research. Now, after reading what I have read, I know otherwise. Folks will be believe what they want to believe.
Prior to their arrival at AG the company they replaced were doing the same things at the Hard Site. I'm not condoning "torture", but certainly the chain of command did. Karpinski had her own issues to do deal with - read her book "One Woman's Army".
I am tired of how folks who have painted Lynndie like a cartoon figure, but you have the right to interpret information as you want to, you have that right.
I won't have an argument with you over "who knows more" -it is a matter of opinion. Obviously, you have made your mind up, but if I were you, I would do a lot more investigating.
I agree with what you said about her former boyfriend. I do feel sorry for the woman he married. I hope he is a change man when he leaves prison, but I have a bad feeling about it. How will be in solitary all these years change his personality. Just ask his first wife.
We will be happy to send you a copy of your book if you email us at our website will be up next week. My opinions are my own. I believe people will say he has presented a balanced story in which people can make up their own minds about Lynndie. Being the soft female I am, the evidence I have seen, and the crap she must put up with from folks who do want to allow her to put out her story, I am proned to believe her innocense regarding her role in torture. Was she wrong to be there? Yes. Please do not accuse me of not telling the truth. One can take the same info you "may" have and see it differently. Heck, we have been putting up with that for 8 years. Look at Condie - if the president said it, it must be legal!
And I think you and I fundamentally agree on Lynndie England's place in the story. But for clarity, I think you typo'd this: "crap she must put up with from folks who do want to allow her to put out her story" - I believe you meant don't want?