lindy england

today i heard that lindy england's court has been ruled a mistrial because she pleaded guilty but said she was ignorant that it was illegal.

well i hate to tell judges how to do their job but he's wrong. ignorance is not a defence in the court of law. it was not a defence at nuremburg, it is not a defence in rape or child molestation, it is not defence in any crime, war or not. i find it totally disgusting that she can be let off on the idea that she didn't know it was illegal. what did she think it was? a happy day out for the kids? she says it was authorized by superiors. sorry but that's not defence either. people hung while using the same excuse at nuremeburg. she is no exception to the law and "i was following orders" is no defence.

and are american soldiers not taught the geneva convention and the UN human rights charter? in my view it should be taught from day 1 until it is fully understood and should be as important as how to fire your weapon. but to not know this is still not an excuse as it is hardly the least obvious of crimes.

and for all the accused the sentences have been too leniant. they are war criminals and should be treated as such. they should not be tried by a court martial but by the hague with the other war criminals. all war criminals should be tried equally, goering, hussein, milosovich (might have splet it wrong) and england.

there is no excuse for what she did. ignorance, orders or juts blind stupidity. she should be brought to the court of law as a accused war criminal be tried and if found guilty be setenced as one.

being american should not be an exception to the law.

surley there is going to be a court martial?

You do understand, I pray, that the actions of Goering, Milosevec, and Houssein are rather different than England's?

Sorry, but I have problems with the idea of equating mass murder with forcing some guy to wear a leash.

he's right though ignorence is never a defence.

redneck lindy england's actions are war crimes just like goering's. different war crimes they may be. but they are still war crimes. they should therefor be treated as such. the war crime court should not just be used for people who are not american (for those who don't know america has opted out of the war crimes court and likes to try it's own soldiers for war crimes). when i get charged i would also like to have my own court which i set up, claiming that other courts don't apply to me.

lindy england should have been tried and concvicted as a war criminal by the hague like all others like her. she should be sentenced as an equal in the same way others guilty off crimes equal to hers are.

orders and ignorance cannot be an excuse in the law. and does this not bring into light how important education on such matters should be? shouldn't all those that participate in a war know the rules of it?

degradation of human life in the way that was carried out in that prison only was one conclusion in the end. we've seen this in the past. when laws are broken, orders obeyed with objection, human live degraded. it is a lesson throughout history and the present and one that is not being learned from.

that is why people like lindy england need to go before a war crimes court and be tried as a war criminal. that is the crime they are accused of and what they should be tried as and sentenced accordingly.

there is a thin line between degrading human life and destroying it. we are on the edge of that line. we need to stand back and try anyone who gets too close as they should be tried.

The problem with the Lindy England case is that this is NOT an isolated incident. This form olf interrogation, humiliation & degredation has been in use by SEVERAL Western Governments for a long long time.
The British were one of it's first users. Famously interrogating IRA suspects excactly the same way. Stripping them, forcing them to to simulate sexual acts while hooded, blindfolding them, putting them in Helicopters, telling them they are in the air while they are actually just hovering above ground & throwing them out. They beat them senseless, murdered, colluded with Loyalist Terrorists to murder. They have done similar in many countries over many years. The US Intelligence's closest allies over the past 50 years or so have been MI6 and they frequently share and exchange interrogation tactics.
If we chose to prosecute only the people that have appeared in Newspapers without going back and prosecuting those in the past, or those who haven't been caught, we are merely pandering to the Hype Appeal of tabloids and not seeking true justice for EVERYONE that has been through this.
Ex-IRA POWs had been saying this happened for years, but no one cared, it was the IRA. Suddenly there is a band wagon to jump on and everyone's there for the ride on their moral soapbox.
These is standard interrogation tactics with a history of about 60 years under their belt. Are they wrong? Maybe. But the most important question is why now suddenly do people care? The answer to that is political not moral.

Quote:

---

redneck lindy england's actions are war crimes just like goering's.

---

No, they are not at all "just like goering's". While decidedly nasty, England's actions pale in comparison to such people as Goering.

Quote:

---

hey should therefor be treated as such. the war crime court should not just be used for people who are not american (for those who don't know america has opted out of the war crimes court and likes to try it's own soldiers for war crimes).

---

You mean we don't hand our citizens to an anti-American organization for trial? Oh, the SHAME!!!

Quote:

---

when i get charged i would also like to have my own court which i set up, claiming that other courts don't apply to me.

---

This may come as a surprise to you, but Lindy England didn't set up the concept of the military tribunal, which is in most cases significantly harsher than the trials civilians face.

Quote:

---

orders and ignorance cannot be an excuse in the law. and does this not bring into light how important education on such matters should be?

---

The idea that some PFC was being ordered to torture POW's (PFC is the second-from-lowest rank the Army has--make it for 12 months without screwing up badly enough to get kicked out or dropped a rank, and poof, you're a PFC--assuming you don't start as one because of a few college credits or referring a friend to your recruiter or something else) just defies common sense--likewise, the idea that the woman didn't know she wasn't supposed to be leashing naked men. If you need a class in the UN Human Rights Commission (and considering that the UN put Libya at the head of that commission, I'm afraid I grant it considerably less moral authority than you do) to tell you that something like this is wrong, then you have problems that a few seminars ain't gonna fix.

And actually, yes--I was in the Army from '95 to '98, and one of the first things we were taught is what you can't do to prisoners, and what to do if you're ordered to do one of these things. "Do it anyway" is not the correct answer, BTW. I was a 63S--a Heavy Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic--and they took the time in Basic Training to make sure I knew about these things despite the fact that they knew full well there wasn't a chance in a thousand I'd actually be in charge of any prisoners, so it's preposterous to think that someone going to a warzone was actually ignorant of it.

Cuchulainn--
That's a rather long list of serious crimes--do you have some evidence to back those claims up?

Yes. You could find it youself if you wanted to really. From the victims, from ex-intelligence officers who speak out, ex-soldiers etc. etc. But I'm guessing you will instantly discount it.
It IS and has been in use for some time.

the alleged bombbers of guildford and birmingham have spoken openly over their treatment by british intelliegence and police. one of them had gun rattled round his mouth and lost all his teeth. interrogation techbiques used by british intelligence are well documented.

but lets not get side-traked this is a thread about justice not about torture.

the UN is not an anti-american organistaion. just because it refuses to bend to the will of one nation does not make it anti-american.

goering and lindy england are both war criminals. that's the height of it as far as i'm concerned. both committed different crimes with a huge difference in severity but, and this is a big but. there are both war criminals and should see the same justice.

redneck i'm glad to see that you are taught how to treat prisoners. i would be interested to what depth and how thorough this was.

this isn't a solely us problem either it happened with british troops when a commanding officer is confirmed to give the order to "work them (civillian prisoners suspected of looting) hard" this resulted in another court martial for war criminals not a hague tribunal.

the us or uk government should not be allowed to try it's own troops that it orders. that should be left to an inpartial trial where all other crimes of a similar nature are heard.

EDIT: I do apologise if it seems like your thread is being hijacked but I do believe this is an integral part of the wider question which you ask. It also relates greatly to the Abu Ghraib detainees & to Miss England herself.

Firstly regarding the torture by British Intelligence of prisoners,

In the late 1960s the British were faced with renewed opposition in Ireland as a new generation tried to overturn British rule. This time the movement was based in the urban, deprived, working-class ghettoes in the north of Ireland. ‘Intelligence’ about the new movement was needed. The old Special Powers legislation from the 1920s empowered the government to introduce internment. 3,000 people were interned and interrogated to try to gather intelligence about the IRA. A small number of ‘guinea pigs’ were subjected to a new regime, later to be classified as torture and inhumane and degrading treatment by the European Commission on Human Rights. The five techniques of interrogation, developed for the ‘subhumans’ in Kenya, Malaya, Cyprus and Aden, were refined for a select group of internees. These techniques were: hooding; subjecting detainees to high pitched noise; forced standing against a wall for long periods; deprivation of sleep, food and water; sensory deprivation. The detainees were subjected to brutal treatment and threats, including the threat of being thrown out of helicopters.

Regarding Collusion with Loyalist Terrorists.

The murder of citizens through collusion with Unionist death squads is a British state policy in Ireland. Collusion is the control, resourcing and direction of loyalist death squads by British state agencies. Those who sanctioned the policy of collusion have never been held accountable.

Collusion - a British State Policy
Collusion has been part of the Six County state since its creation. British forces and unionist paramilitaries have routinely shared intelligence, weapons and personnel. But in the 1980's, under the premiership of Margaret Thatcher, collusion became much more controlled and refined. Specific mechanisms were established to control and direct the loyalist death squads.

Brian Nelson
The case of Brian Nelson is illustrative of this British state policy and the levels at which it was sanctioned and protected. Nelson was a British agent placed inside the UDA who rose to the rank of UDA Intelligence Officer. At this level he controlled all intelligence information used in identifying targets for the UDA killer gangs.

Official Cover-Up
The cover up of Nelson's role involved the then British PM John Major, who, prior to Nelson's trial, met the trial Judge Basil Kelly and the head of the British judiciary in the north, Chief Judge Brian Hutton.

Official Policy
The actions of these agents and agencies were not the work of mavericks. If that had been the case the British state would have logically moved to expose and prosecute those involved. On the contrary, the British state went to inordinate lengths to protect their agents and to conceal their activities. The activities of these agents was, without question, official government policy.

Directing the Unionist Death Squads
The British state, through agencies like the British Army intelligence unit, the Force Research Unit, and the Special Branch, rearmed, reorganised and directed loyalist death squads. Hundreds of people were killed as a result of this policy of state orchestrated murder.

Re-Arming the Unionist Death Squads
In late 1987, a number of loyalist paramilitary groups co-operated to import a large consignment of modern weapons into the north of Ireland. Central to this operation were a number of British Intelligence agents working both in South Africa and within the Loyalist groups, including Brian Nelson. British intelligence encouraged, facilitated and was at all times fully aware of the progress of this operation.
The deadly arsenal of weapons imported included:
• 200 modern automatic rifles;
• 90 Browning semi-automatic pistols;
• 500 fragmentation grenades;
• 12 rocket launcher's;
• 30,000 rounds of ammunition.
Supplying unionist paramilitaries with modern weaponry had an immediate and deadly impact on the number of killings in the north of Ireland. Within six years of the arrival of these weapons loyalist murder gangs had increased their capacity to kill by 300%. In the six years prior to the weapons shipment, loyalists killed 71 people. In the subsequent six years loyalist killed 229 people.

Resourcing the Unionist Death Squads
Through a network of agents the British state identified targets, supplied intelligence and provided back up to the killers. For example, through their agent Brian Nelson, British Intelligence up-dated and refined all the UDA's intelligence files to ensure that their targeting, to quote a British intelligence report, was 'more professional'.

British State Assisted Murder
The British Army unit, FRU had the authority to ensure loyalist gunmen had a clear run to and from their target. All Brutish military and police patrols were withdrawn from designated areas, leaving a free run for the assassins.

British State Protection for the Killers
Special Branch ensured that any investigation into the killing did not result in prosecutions, through the exercise of the Walker criteria, allowing them total control over investigations, arrests and prosecution.

The Victims
Directed by British state agencies, loyalist death squads killed:
• Sinn Fein elected representatives;
• Sinn Fein activists and members of their families;
• Civil rights activists;
• Election workers;
• Defence lawyers;
• Irish language activists;
• Catholic civilians.

They killed to cover their agents' tracks. They killed agents who had outlived their usefulness and loyalists who knew too much. And they sacrificed their own soldiers and members of the RUC to retain their agents' cover.

For decades the British government denied that a policy of collusion existed. However, after 14 years, the third enquiry by John Stevens uncovered, in his words, "collusion, the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, and the extreme of agents being involved in murder".

The report also concludes, "nationalists were known to be targeted but were not properly warned or protected".

This "unlawful involvement of agents in murder" he concludes, "implies that the security forces sanction killings".

Conclusion
Hundreds of people were killed, and many more injured and maimed, in a campaign of British state-sponsored murder.
The British government has never accepted its responsibility for the deaths which resulted from this policy.
The politicians who sanctioned this policy have never been called to account for their actions or for their culpability in the murder of citizens.
No member of the Special Branch or British Military Intelligence has been indicted for these crimes.
The policy of collusion has never been reversed. It remains intact today.
The British agencies, which executed this policy, remain in place today.
The policy of employing the loyalist death squads was not the actions of rogue agents or individuals who overstepped their responsibilities. It was a policy endorsed at the highest political level.
The victims of collusion and their families have a right to the truth about collusion and the true role of the British state and its agencies in Ireland over 30 years of conflict.

If you need anything else let me know.

What is all this rubbish?!

it irish "fact" also known as utter bollocks.

Quote:

---

the UN is not an anti-american organistaion. just because it refuses to bend to the will of one nation does not make it anti-american.

---

However, just because it uses American money and American headquarters to consistently badmouth the United States, constantly produces proposals that, if enacted, would cripple the US economy, performs such kicks in the leg as to replace the US on the Civil Rights Committee with such nations as Syria and Libya, and generally serves no other purpose than to be a bully pulpit for two-bit dictators and "real Communism actually works" America-haters, does mean that it is anti-American.

Quote:

---

redneck i'm glad to see that you are taught how to treat prisoners. i would be interested to what depth and how thorough this was.

---

Several days of classes, in my case, in Basic Training. Granted, not as much as with our rifles, but that's because we were training to be soldiers, not politicians. Likewise, a day or so in Advanced Individual Training (Basically, (in the US Army, at least; I don't know how the others do it) you spend a couple months learning the stuff every soldier has to know (although Basic Training is considerably different between Combat and Support MOS's), and then you go on to learn about whatever your specific job is...), and several seminars after training was over. This was as a mechanic, who saw no action and who they knew full well wasn't going to get close enough to any prisoners to torture them even if I wanted to. Someone assigned as a guard to a prison surely had far more than that, so (even if it could be assumed that the woman wouldn't know that leashing prisoners naked is screwed up and probably illegal without specific training....) the excuse she's using that she didn't know it was illegal goes right out the window--she's recieved several hours of training on just that subject, and been tested on it, before she ever got out of training.

Cuchullain--
Sorry, but I'm afraid I have to agree with the other two commentators. Do you have the source for this report--a place where we can see it, and who wrote it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gokufusionss1

it irish "fact" also known as utter bollocks.

---

Excuse me? Before you instantly discount facts with the very intelligent reply like that. Think before you speak & research your argument. You may be happy to believe good old blighty would NEVER do that, it's not my job to open your eyes, but don't sit in your pretentious little bubble and insult the thousands of deaths with nothing more than 'that's bollox' and 'Irish Fact'. You make yourself look like the typical brainless, thoughtless English C18 member, which I'm sure you're not. I haven't even MENTIONED Bloody Sunday yet, where British Paras shot dead 14 Civil Rights Marchers, but I'm sure you believe they all deserved it eh?

To Redneck
A simple browse of Google will spill all. Nevertheless here's a few links to sites

http://www.relativesforjustice.com/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/766926.stm

http://republican-news.org/archive/1...t19/index.html

And Iri, I'm sorry if this all flies over your pretty little head ;)

Two sites set up in support of the terrorists and a news article about a guy who steered the groups into killing each other rather than everyone in sight--and got thrown into jail for it.

Got any real sources?