Geneva Conventions
Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons
Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories
Art. 32. The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
See also the Nuremburg Code and the Tokyo War Crimes trial, which invalidates "following orders" as a defense. Further, in the Tokyo War Crimes trial, it was decided that
"(A)nyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something about it is a potential criminal under international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent commission of the crimes."
Feeling that there is some small measure of justice in England's conviction doesn't mean that there is not more justice that needs to be served on the higher ups. Arguing that anger towards England's crimes should be re-directed towards guilty parties in the administration and the Pentagon only suggests that there are some people who don't have
enough anger about the whole mess. If you have a limited supply of hate for Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and the dozen secret prisons around the world, take a look at England's photos again. I bet you'll find a bit more.
Finding some satisfaction in England's conviction also doesn't mean that people don't recognize the greater crime of the entire Iraq debacle. Especially on a site like DU, that goes without saying.
Excusing England's war crimes because of her unremarkable economic background is especially ridiculous. England wasn't stealing bread because she was hungry. She wasn't robbing convenience stores to clothe her kids. She was in a notorious prison, where she wasn't supposed to be, committing war crimes. There are hundreds of thousands of National Guardsmen who joined for the same economic reasons England did that have managed not to go out of their way to torture prisoners.
More than once, she was given the opportunity to do the right thing--or at least,
not do the
wrong thing. She didn't have to go to Abu Ghraib. She didn't have to hold the dog leash attached to a prisoner. She didn't have to strike a jaunty pose, cigarette dangling from the corner of her mouth, smiling and pointing at a prisoner's genitals. She could've argued to the bitter end that there were illegal standing orders to torture prisoners. But she failed to do the right thing, each and every time. And in a final act of cowardice, she plea bargained her way into a lighter sentence, remaining mute about those who created the criminal situation she so willingly--eagerly, even--took part in.
England is as deserving of sympathy as Graner, Gonzales, Sanchez, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and the rest.
Don't call her "Lynndie." She's not the girl next door. She's a convicted, unapologetic war criminal. The lowest one on the ladder, to be sure, but one nonetheless.
Call her Lynndie England, willing torturer, war criminal. And hope that she is just one step in prosecuting the rest of the bastards involved in this wide-ranging criminal conspiracy.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
