There she is Mac Diva. I must say out of the few posts I have read authored by you this one comes close to being reasonable. At least by your standards.

But there is one small point.

You trot out the Defenders of Bush non-sense. And cite those that believe the photos are fake, or they were staged, and those that deny the events ever happened. All of which you fail to point out are in the extreme minority of opinion and far outside the normal reaction.

But, I will say this, your consistent. In directing people to a place to view "Lynndie England in action" you point out the Democratic Underground. Home of every looney, asshat, moral degenerate, and those that have lost any hold on a moral compass.

I'm also sure your attempts to paint her as the poor little pawn by those in charge will fall on deaf ears. Specially the 100 Senators that viewed her sexcapades with "numerous partners."
Your update fails to mention she will also be charged with adultery.

The ultimate penalty for her I should think is a DNA test. A test that shows her "love child" has Iraqi blood. It would result in a lifetime reminder of her depraved immoral actions.

Considering her "activities" and complete lack of morals that isn't to far outside the realm of possibility.

I don't see how you are reading this as me acting as an advocate for Lynndee English, Marc. Even based on what was known about her when the entry was written a week ago, I said she should be held responsible for her actions. I also believe her superiors should be made accountable. They might not be able to alter her personality, but they did not have to create an environment where abuse is allowed.
Since the Bush adminstration is responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, they are definitely included in the allocation of blame. I don't see how one can remove them from the situation since they are the ultimate authorities in regard to everything occurring in Iraq.

I believe myself to be the reasonable woman that Prosser said he never met. (A law joke.) However, my yardstick for reasonableness would not appeal to a far Right Winger like yourself, obviously.

After yesterday's reading on the prisoner abuse scandal, I am almost speechless. The news that England and the others also participated in filmed orgies in the prison is like an XXX-rated Twilight Zone. I haven't absorbed it enough to write about it. It appears to me that her defense is completely blown. The only way her alibi -- following orders -- makes sense is if the brass told people to masturbate and copulate in front of the detainees. That seems very unlikely.

I directed people to DU to look at photographs I chose not to post to my blog. It is the only link to DU I recall ever making. However, if I read a piece there I thought worthy, I would link to it. Ditto for the InstaPundit, another site I rarely visit.

Again, no sense in letting facts get in the way of your "progressive" points.

"The apparent torture campaign against Iraqi prisoners by American forces may have involved thousands of American military personnel over the months"

In the first place, 99% of these pictures could not reasonably be described as torture.

More significantly "may have involved thousands of American military personnel" is nonsense. That statement is not even vaguely supported by facts. Even the bulk of these abusive acts would appear to be the doing of maybe a dozen people at one facility.

A dozen idiots taking naked pictures of prisoners does not amount to thousands of Americans systematically committing torture.

Are we supposed to be in sackcloth and ashes over this situation? I gotta say I don't look good in sackcloth. Think I'll stick with my street clothes.

Marc,How many times to people have to
tell you that it is "you're" which is a
contraction of "you are" and not "your"
which is an adjective.Used like this it
would be correct: Marc, your command of
the language is piss poor.

Marc, I think my point about some on the Right still trying to rationalize the abuse is proven quite well in Comment 3. I was going to direct you to remarks by RJ Elliott that are the same excuses that Lynndie England herself is trotting out on another thread, but that one suffices.

There's also a news article in which people in England's hometown are interviewed. Some of them say they see nothing wrong with her behavior. And, her family. . . The whole lot is doing nothing positive for the image of West Virginia. You would think they were from Kentucky.

Stately, I've given up on correcting people when it comes to 'dont,' 'there' for 'their' and 'your' for 'you are.' I have a suspicion the bad grammar may actually be the norm on the Internet.

The exact number of Americans involved in torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners is arguable, of course, but Diva is on the right track as to what the issue is.

It was not just a few soldiers taking a few pictures in one prison.

Abuses were brought to the attention of the coalition in June of 2003. And July 2003. And October 2003. And November 2003. And December 2003. And January 2004. And February 2004.

Abuse was found in numerous locations, and continued. That sounds pretty "systemic" to me, and would involve some larger number of participants, as well as pointing higher up the command chain than "a few soldiers acting up in Abu Ghraib."

And Rumsfeld "taking responsibility" with no consequences is ridiculous.

It's disturbing because at least 60% (per Taguba - the ICRC says 70-90%) had nothing to do with fighting and were simply "rounded up." Of the remaining 40%, none - exactly zero - were classified as enemy combatants or terrorists.

So what was Rumsfeld's rationale for Guantanamizing their treatment?

Marc? Al? Anyone?

It is certainly true that I do not know the exact number of abusive Americans serving in Iraq. I said thousands because, according to official sources and the accounts of troops who have been there, the abuse of Iraqis seems to be systemic, both before and after taking them into custody. For that to occur, hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans would have to participate. The fact that less than a dozen U.S. troops have been charged with abusing detainees does not mean only a handful were involved. (Poor reasoning there, but typical of the source.) Less than a dozen people -- enlisted persons at that -- could not have brought about the conditions in even that one prison.

In addition to the material Hal has cited, the Red Cross' reports make it clear that the abuse has been ongoing since the occupation. Many of those who participated have likely been rotated out of the Iraq and replaced by others, possibly two or three times. That suggests the number of participants would have had to be high, rather than low. For the sake of the apologist, let me break it down. The persons involved in the abuse probably were there for a few months and left, only to be replaced by others who were involved in the abuse.

mac diva,
it looks like you were right on concerning the guilt here, considering the latest convictions...definitely more serious than rush limbaugh's comparison to "college fraternity initiations."

What a crime this is against this lady...what did she do. I can't believe that americans would stand back and let this woman go to prison.
At least she did not behead them as they did our prisoners.
I am putting Light around Lynndee and her family.