Log In | Register
In lieu of the controversy over the release of torture memos" drafted by top level officials from the Bush administration, it seems only right that Private Lynndie England's role in the abuse/"torture" of prisoners at Abu Ghraib should be reconsidered. From the moment this story broke years ago this indictment did not sit right with me. It was as if a distant, silent yet wise voice was repeating to me "scape goat-scape goat-scapegoat".
Her actions, which are verifiable through photographs detailing her participation in these questionable events, were undeniably unethical. However, it has now become apparent that these were, in fact, procedures approved by authorities with responsibilities well above those of her and her cohorts.
Anyone who has served in the United States military knows that low ranking enlisted personnel (essentially E-1-E-6) have very little discretionary authority. This is particularly true in terms of adherence too and interpretation of standard operating procedures. That, coupled with the relatively high visibility of the daily routines of personnel at the company level (particularly in forward deployed locations), makes it increasingly difficult to believe that the actions of Ms. England were carried out unbeknownst to her commanding officers.
In fact, a recently separated soldier I interviewed who served in Iraq for the 2nd Squadron 1st Cavalry Regiment Alpha Troop stated that "prison troops are among the most regimented groups in the army". He further informed me that in his experience there is essentially no circumstance ( f'cking impossible being his exact words) with in which a private could behave in such a deviant manner without the knowledge of higher ranking soldiers and officers.
The culture of the military is organized such that responsibility for questionable procedural initiatives can often and will often be filtered through the lower echelon. This process fortifies a shield around higher ranking decision makers and allows lower ranking individuals to become easy/essential targets for scapegoating.
Young enlisted men and women do make mistakes that hurt their military careers and the reputation of their units but this is a case of following cultural norms and the institutionalization of an degenerate system of authority. By rationalizing and even mandating the harsh treatment of Iraqi prisoners the Bush administration and the DoD created an atmosphere that encouraged the relaxation of ethical standards towards the treatment of prisoners.
It is in my opinion that, though Lynndie England is guilty of these crimes, the circumstances with in which she committed them were systematically rationalized by high ranking authorities. Her subjective inclination to participate in these events were influenced by the normalizing effects of rank and file cultural indoctrination, and justifies a review of her conviction. Due to the the blatant and irresponsible disregard for human rights condoned by the highest level of governance it is my belief that her dishonorable discharge should be reduced and her criminal record expunged.
Her actions did violate military code which justifies punishment, but the responsibility for maintaining order was deliberately neglected by top level officials. Again, Lynndie England, though guilty of abuse, was operating in an atmosphere of compliance to directives and initiatives that were informally (and possibly formally) propagated through the chain of command. If such an assertion sounded crazy in 2005 it does not now. This young lady and her cohorts were used as a scapegoats by top level officials to distract from the "legally" mandated acts of torture levied against these prisoners.
EXONERATE LYNNDIE ENGLAND NOW!
