Sentencing Phase for England Set to Begin

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Bustem' Down said:
England is no better than the Iraqi soldiers that abused our POW. They need to throw her in Levenworth and lose the key.
Yeah, murdering POWs and beheading kidnapped persons is exactly like placing a leash around someone's neck or putting panties on their head. NOT.
 

Tinkerbell

Baby blues
Bustem' Down said:
England is no better than the Iraqi soldiers that abused our POW. They need to throw her in Levenworth and lose the key.

:yeahthat: I feel I may be in the minority on this one... but I agree with you!

:boxing: Let the attacks begin.... I can take it!!! :bonk:
 

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
Ken King said:
Yeah, murdering POWs and beheading kidnapped persons is exactly like placing a leash around someone's neck or putting panties on their head. NOT.
Doesn't matter wrong is wrong. What sets us apart from the enemy is that we have laws. She broke them and that makes her no better than them. She's trash and has no honor. You can not treat a some one in your custody that way. There is no excuse.
 
Last edited:

Tinkerbell

Baby blues
Interesting.

I post my opinion and I get completely red karma in no time flat. :lol:

Or was it that I humorously added, "let the attacks begin"?

hmmm.... :ohwell:

Oh... and when you (whoever you are) gave me red - to your little comment - "No You Can't" - Yes I can!! Be brave and sign your name next time!

I still believe that PFC England is responsible for her criminal actions no matter who the victims are. To cause the prisoners harm because they once did the same in the past makes us no better than them.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Tinkerbell said:
I still believe that PFC England is responsible for her criminal actions no matter who the victims are. To cause the prisoners harm because they once did the same in the past makes us no better than them.
Then you're not following the case and the reason the judge declared a mistrial. It seems her superior (the ringleader of the photo escapade) testified that the photos were staged for training purposes and that England was under orders to pose with the leash and in the other photos.

We could debate all day whether she believed that she was following a lawful order or not but as of this moment she is certainly not guilty. Besides, what harm did she cause to these vermin? And we in no way have done anything like what the Iraqis have done to our personnel and others that happen to get in their way.

War is ugly and at times I would speculate that some of our people have been excessive but you don't see them hanging the charred remains of victims, dancing and singing around them, or decapitating hostages like those we are battling.

Pvt. England is a pawn in the game and by all evidence was simply following orders of those appointed over her.
 

Mikeinsmd

New Member
She was wrong and she knew it. O'Reilly raised a good question today, where are all the Captains & Majors that should be charged?? Plus a caller made a good point, Lyndi's kid needs a parent since the loser who knocked her up has married someone else and is doing 10 years. She's a young, dumb kid who screwed up but don't hang her. All she did was harassed & embarassed some terrorists. I hope she gets a light sentence for the kids sake.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Bustem' Down said:
England is no better than the Iraqi soldiers that abused our POW.
Not quite. At least Lynndie's "victim" still had a head to wear panties on. :jet:
 

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
Ken King said:
Then you're not following the case and the reason the judge declared a mistrial. It seems her superior (the ringleader of the photo escapade) testified that the photos were staged for training purposes and that England was under orders to pose with the leash and in the other photos.

I've had many training exercises and this was never part of it. In fact, we were told explicitly that we were not allowed to do this kind of stuff. As a matter of fact, once you have placed a person in custody, you are resposible for thier safety.

Ken King said:
Besides, what harm did she cause to these vermin? And we in no way have done anything like what the Iraqis have done to our personnel and others that happen to get in their way.

It doesn't matter how great or not the harm is. Let's go back to another forum where a skit on the threat of the life of the president was debated. The law said any and you stated that that was Ironclad, any no if ands or but. It's the law right? The US agreed with the Geneva Convention. It is law that we don't treat prisoners of war that way. You can't choose what laws to obey based on whether you like the person or not. Ignorance is not innocence in the military. She can say all she want's (and it's her boyfriend actually saying it) that it was for a training video, but anyone with half a brain can tell you that's a lie.
 

Triggerfish

New Member
vraiblonde said:
:razz:

I think she needs a promotion, but that's just me. My son says I have rocks in my head (he's based at Hood). He says she gave them all a black eye and they hope she gets a big punishment.

I think what she did probably killed some U.S. troops. When those pics went public I am betting that some Iraqis decided that Americans needed to be killed to get revenge.

As for the prisoners not all of them are guilty. Some of them were "suspected." All you need to do to get thrown into that category in Iraq now is anger someone and they pointed their finger at you to get even.

Plus it gives them a reason to be nastier when they get hold of U.S. prisoners.
 
Last edited:

Triggerfish

New Member
Ken King said:
Pvt. England is a pawn in the game and by all evidence was simply following orders of those appointed over her.


I was just following orders...... how many times have we heard that as an excuse for commiting crimes during wars?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Bustem' Down said:
I've had many training exercises and this was never part of it. In fact, we were told explicitly that we were not allowed to do this kind of stuff. As a matter of fact, once you have placed a person in custody, you are resposible for thier safety.



It doesn't matter how great or not the harm is. Let's go back to another forum where a skit on the threat of the life of the president was debated. The law said any and you stated that that was Ironclad, any no if ands or but. It's the law right? The US agreed with the Geneva Convention. It is law that we don't treat prisoners of war that way. You can't choose what laws to obey based on whether you like the person or not. Ignorance is not innocence in the military. She can say all she want's (and it's her boyfriend actually saying it) that it was for a training video, but anyone with half a brain can tell you that's a lie.
Are they prisoners of war, criminals, terrorists or what? There are rules as to what defines a combatant and if memory serves me correctly most of those taken had abandoned their uniforms to blend in with civilians thus violating those same conventions you want to hold us to while ignoring how they acted which would result in their loss of the protections afforded to legitimate POWs.

And that "boyfriend" was her superior in that unit and he was directing her activities in more ways then one, if you catch my drift. He is the one that disgraced the service and acted criminally. I still maintain that she is nothing but a pawn that he manipulated and coerced into acting the way she did. I'll give you that she isn't the sharpest pencil in the box but there is no way in hell that she should receive punishment for the way she was mentally and physically abused and manipulated by that superior.
 

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
Ken King said:
Are they prisoners of war, criminals, terrorists or what? There are rules as to what defines a combatant and if memory serves me correctly most of those taken had abandoned their uniforms to blend in with civilians thus violating those same conventions you want to hold us to while ignoring how they acted which would result in their loss of the protections afforded to legitimate POWs.

That still does not mean that we can do as we please and treat them as animals. No actually we treat animals better than they were. What makes us better than them is that we follow the laws of our society and in doing this we stoop to thier level. Should we start firebombing civilian neighborhoods because they did it first? If they are not POWs then that means they are civilian prisoners and have even more rights actually. But that's not what this is about. She knew what she was doing. She knew it was not right. If she thought it was, that sickens me.
 

Tinkerbell

Baby blues
Ken King said:
Then you're not following the case and the reason the judge declared a mistrial. It seems her superior (the ringleader of the photo escapade) testified that the photos were staged for training purposes and that England was under orders to pose with the leash and in the other photos.

We could debate all day whether she believed that she was following a lawful order or not but as of this moment she is certainly not guilty. Besides, what harm did she cause to these vermin? And we in no way have done anything like what the Iraqis have done to our personnel and others that happen to get in their way.

War is ugly and at times I would speculate that some of our people have been excessive but you don't see them hanging the charred remains of victims, dancing and singing around them, or decapitating hostages like those we are battling.

Pvt. England is a pawn in the game and by all evidence was simply following orders of those appointed over her.


I do understand why the judge changed her plea. He felt that she may not (or did not) know what she had done was wrong, due to the comment by her superior that she was ordered to take part in this "training excercise."

I was in the military as well, and I know how things work. You are absolutely correct in saying she's a pawn. The military loves a good scapegoat. However, do you really think that she did not realize that what she was doing was wrong? I have a hard time believing that. Maybe she DOES lack common sense. BUt, yes, the young have a propensity for doing dumb things. Lord knows, I did enough of them! :smile: She should not have obeyed that order. I wouldn't have. I would have taken the Captain's Mast and explained myself to them.

I am horrified by what Sadam's/Osama's followers did and are continuing to do. It saddens my heart and I wish those people in Iraq didn't have to suffer like that. They have taken MUCH more of the horror over there than we have. They need us to help them and be a guiding spirit.

Look, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I just dont' think you should treat people that way. It doesn't matter what they did, no one has a right to treat people like crap. Where does that get you?

I do understand what you are saying, and I agree with alot of it. And I'm not saying she should go to prison for life, or be executed, certainly not! But she should be made to understand that she is responsible for her actions. I'm thinking probation for a few years, dishonorable discharge. She certainly shouldn't get off scott free!

I'm sorry if my opinion is not the popular one, but you know the old saying, "Opinions are like a--holes, everyone has one." :smile:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Guffaw!!

mrweb said:
The U.S. Navy today announced that it has released a senior Al Quaida terrorist after questioning him extensively for 27 days while being held aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea.

In a humanitarian gesture, the terrorist was given $50 (U.S.) and a white Ford Fairlane automobile upon being released from custody.

The attached photo shows the terrorist on his way home just after being released by the Navy.


I LOVE IT!
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
mrweb...

...I am in TEARS!

That's the funniest damn thing I've seen in awhile!!!!

Screen saver.

"Today in Congress, Senate Democrats are deploring the Bush adminsitrations use of catpults to send suspected terrorists on there way. So far, everyone else seems to be in favor of the practice..."
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Great point...

Triggerfish said:
I think what she did probably killed some U.S. troops. When those pics went public I am betting that some Iraqis decided that Americans needed to be killed to get revenge.

As for the prisoners not all of them are guilty. Some of them were "suspected." All you need to do to get thrown into that category in Iraq now is anger someone and they pointed their finger at you to get even.

Plus it gives them a reason to be nastier when they get hold of U.S. prisoners.

...saddly, you are correct.
 

Vince

......
Ken King said:
Yeah, murdering POWs and beheading kidnapped persons is exactly like placing a leash around someone's neck or putting panties on their head. NOT.
:yeahthat: People in the US think that was prisoner abuse. Sh!t, I took more abuse than that going through POW school. SERE school. Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. The military brought this training about after Vietnam. And they think a leash and some panties are abuse. :lol: What an effing joke. I'll bet the Iraqi's are laughing their azz of at us punishing our own for this crap.
 
Top