Oliver Willis: Like Kryptonite To Stupid

Home »

Abu Ghraib Traitor Lynndie England Channels Conservative Spin

9:12 pm EST March 18th, 2008 | News | 18 Comments

She doesn’t blame herself for being part of torture and humilation. Nope, its the media’s fault.

In an interview with the weekly magazine Stern conducted in English and posted on its website Tuesday, England was both remorseful and unrepentant — and conceded that the published photos surely incensed insurgents in Iraq.

“I guess after the picture came out the insurgency picked up and Iraqis attacked the Americans and the British and they attacked in return and they were just killing each other. I felt bad about it … no, I felt pissed off. If the media hadn’t exposed the pictures to that extent, then thousands of lives would have been saved,” she was quoted as saying.

Asked how she could blame the media for the controversy, she said it wasn’t her who leaked the photos.

“Yeah, I took the photos but I didn’t make it worldwide. Yes, I was in five or six pictures and I took some pictures, and those pictures were shameful and degrading to the Iraqis and to our government,” she said, according to the report.

No, England, you ass. Thousands of lives would have been saved if you didn’t participate in ****ing torture.

Topic: Iraq

« It’s Time For The Superdelegates To End This Thing
I’ll Let John Say It »

18 Responses to “Abu Ghraib Traitor Lynndie England Channels Conservative Spin”

jojo says:

March 19, 2008 at 12:01 am

Why not blame both?

It’s kind of like the Imus situation. Yes, he said something stupid and bigoted, but the if the media hadn’t decided to amplify the situation 10,000 percent, most of America still would never have heard the phrase “nappy-headed hos.” Furthermore, it wouldn’t have been the lead story on ESPN or SI or any other site that spawned thousands of racially-insensitive comments.

I’m not saying that ignoring racism (or terrorism in the England case) will make it go away. I am saying that the media is far from blameless for the aftermath of a story when it trumpets the story for billions to hear.
C.S.Strowbridge says:

March 19, 2008 at 12:03 am

“Why not blame both?”

Because the media exposing this makes it less likely that it will happen in the future.

Duh!
jerry says:

March 19, 2008 at 12:03 am

You’re 100% right about England. What needs to be acknowledged though is that by most accounts she is, well, not the sharpest tack. What it really states is how much more culpable the Rumsfelds and Generals and CINC was for sending in young, uneducated kids in, on the cheap, with few resources, in a situation guaranteed to overwhelm them.

And that’s the kind interpretation to Rumsfeld, assuming that he didn’t intend for the shit to occur in the first place.
Glen says:

March 19, 2008 at 12:43 am

She’s beneath contempt.

“It’s not my fault that I’m doing 20 to life for murder! It’s the stupid judge’s and jury’s fault for convicting me!”

“It’s not my fault that the guy died! It’s his fault for being in the way!”

“It’s not my fault I shot him! It’s the ammo and gun makers’ fault! The gun just lept into my hand and the the bullet just lept out of the barrel!”

Personal responsibility is a wonderful thing, especially when it’s never your personal responsibility for anything you do.
lutton says:

March 19, 2008 at 5:51 am

Stanford Experiment, anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
midderpidge says:

March 19, 2008 at 9:12 am

Yet the kind interpretation doesn’t fit for them. They threw out the rules. They chose to not send JAG officers there to make sure things didn’t get out of hand. Everything else flows from that. They didn’t want proper supervision or especially interference.

As bad a black eye as Abu Ghraib has been, they did manage to contain the worst of it while whitewashing it and passing the blame. All the things being done to the male prisoners was being done to the female prisoners, possibly worse things.
Brian says:

March 19, 2008 at 9:54 am

People disgraced publicly often blame the media for it, but this seems like one of those rare moments when actions taken are the responsibility of the person taking them.
Rex Mundane says:

March 19, 2008 at 11:00 am

…if the media hadn’t decided to amplify the situation…

I’m of a mind that news like “we’re torturing people unnecessarily” sort of self-amplify’s. The media can and does make small things bigger than they are, particularly with the Imus thing, and they should be held accountable for it. However, my taxes funding the turture of Iraqi civilians is automatically pretty goddam big on its own. What you’re saying is like arguing: “The news talking about a poor economy is getting people to pull out of the market, driving prices down. Therefore, even though the dollar is falling, commodity prices are rising, investment firms are closing and banks are begging for government cheese, none of those are as bad as the fact that the media is letting us know about it. If they hadn’t told us how badly the economy is actually doing, then it would automatically be doing better!”
Mold says:

March 19, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Lots of girls like her have found it’s never her fault. That requires change or effort. Having said that, we should look at her for what she is: a poor kid with few skills and little education. The mil uses them for cannon fodder. Should we then be surprised that she can’t comprhend her role?
duros62 says:

March 19, 2008 at 7:35 pm

I blame Kelly Clarkson

Because of you
I never stray too far from the sidewalk
Because of you
I learned to play on the safe side
So I don’t get hurt
Because of you
I find it hard to trust
Not only me, but everyone around me
Because of you
I am afraid

I lose my way
And it’s not too long before you point it out
I cannot cry
Because I know that’s weakness in your eyes
I’m forced to fake, a smile, a laugh
Every day of my life
My heart can’t possibly break
When it wasn’t even whole to start with

And, by association, American Idol.
chad says:

March 20, 2008 at 1:16 pm

what a stupid bitch.
=ck
asdf says:

March 20, 2008 at 2:24 pm

I just want to say that although torture is supposed to be wrong, most of the people in custody in situations like abu ghraib or guantanamo bay are there for a reason. I’m not saying torture and mistreatment are acceptable but stop all your bitching about things that are historical constants. People are violent and atrocities happen, this is war whether we like it or not. The idea of limited war and having rules is nice but i feel once a person takes up arms in conflict they give up their civil rights and all those nice protections we get from our constitution and bill of rights. I say let the war be fought with no quarter to the enemy, anything else wastes the resources of the army in order to keep POWs alive. What the hell happened to razing cities and executing military prisoners while parading their leaders through our streets. As we have seen in America lately terror is a powerful tool, why not let the “civilized” armies use that against insurgencies and less than professional opponents. NO MORE R.O.E. and stop victimizing the soldiers for following orders. Unfortunately this wont change anything and as much as humans like to see themselves as righteous and good, war is neither of those things so stop the ignorance and let the unholy slaughter continues as it has since before recorded history.
Duros62 says:

March 20, 2008 at 2:42 pm

What the hell happened to razing cities and executing military prisoners while parading their leaders through our streets.

Yeah, turns out those were war crimes, asshat.

As we have seen in America lately terror is a powerful tool, why not let the “civilized” armies use that against insurgencies and less than professional opponents.

In other words, become just like them. Gotcha.
Sean D. Martin says:

March 20, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Wow. Just wow. So many heinous things in just one paragraph. So I’ll just take the first one.

I just want to say that although torture is supposed to be wrong,…

Supposed to be? Dude, it is wrong. America has said so many times and our laws declare it so. (Yes, they do.)

Now go away and come back when you have the guts to actually sign your name to your comments.
Duros62 says:

March 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I still blame American Idol.
psmarc93 says:

March 20, 2008 at 4:34 pm

ASDF:

Your faith in power and authority seems unshakeable. You do realize that 98% of prisoners at Abu Grahb were not charged, found innocent and SET FREE. In other words, think of 10 family members — your mother, aunt, cousins, your little sister etc. Of those 10 people you love, image 9 of them tortured with electric wires to their gonads, piled into sexual humiliation, hooded and having police dogs snap at their genitals, imagine that 2 of them died in the process. Now imagine that they were just released without an apology, but people like you said “They were there for a reason.”

The reason torture doesn’t work is the simple strength of Christ’s message to love your neighbor as yourself — we will all be judged and treated exactly the way we judge and treat others. Abu Grahb puts our soldiers, all of us, at risk because we behaved like animals we deserve no better treatment, nor shall we receive it from now on.
Aranfell says:

March 20, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Asdr: “most of the people in custody in situations like abu ghraib or guantanamo bay are there for a reason”

Yes. Some were sold there by bounty hunters paid for the “terrorists” they turned in. Some were picked up in random raids. Some were soldiers fighting for their side. And surely some are Really Bad Guys.

There’s a reason why the Constitution says that prisoners are to be considered innocent until proven guilty. It’s because of kings, thugs, corrupt police, and people like YOU who say “they’re bound to be guilty of something” so who cares what happens to them?

The really STUPID part of this (as opposed to the immoral part) is that all experienced interrogators will tell you that torture doesn’t work! It gets them to talk, sure, but sympathy and rapport do a better job at that. Even with the most nasty Nazi officers after WW2 — we didn’t torture them, we interrogated them psychologically. Besides, interrogators need to be able to evaluate what’s true and what’s false, and any kind of physical coercion screws up the physical and verbal cues that let them do that.

But as guilty as England is, those who assigned her are more guilty, all the way to the top. My dream is that we’ll have war crimes trials and put Cheney and Rumsfeld away for life. Hey, I can dream.
Bob says:

September 14, 2008 at 10:36 pm

and why nobody mentions Izraeli contractors, so called “specialists in interroragtions who knew Arabic”, hired by the US Gov to instruct and supervise the captors on how to handle the prisoners? In result, no guilty party can be found among the US soldiers.
On the other hand, I remember the media reporting that “female personnel was purposly sent to handle the Arab prisoners” and women, obviously, can’t wait for such an occasion. Now, who and where is the pervert who had organized all of the above?