Texsox Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Reported in NY Post May 13, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Shocking shots of sexcapades involving Pfc. Lynndie England were among the hundreds of X-rated photos and videos from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shown to lawmakers in a top-secret Capitol conference room yesterday. "She was having sex with numerous partners. It appeared to be consensual," said a lawmaker who saw the photos. And, videos showed the disgraced soldier - made notorious in a photo showing her holding a leash looped around an Iraqi prisoner's neck - engaged in graphic sex acts with other soldiers in front of Iraqi prisoners, Pentagon officials told NBC Nightly News. "Almost everybody was naked all the time," another lawmaker said. Many members of Congress left the 45-minute viewing session early, thereby missing the porno performance by England, but there were enough other images of torture, humiliation and intimidation to sicken anyone. "It was pretty disgusting, not what you'd expect from Americans," said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). "There was lots of sexual stuff - not of the Iraqis, but of our troops." Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who also characterized the photos as "disgusting," agreed, noting, "It's hard to believe that this actually is taking place in a military facility." The shocking photos and videos, provided on computer disks by Pentagon officials, showed attack dogs snarling at cowering prisoners, Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts, and naked prisoners tied together on the floor, senators revealed as they emerged from the heavily guarded conference room. "It was significantly worse than I had anticipated," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore). "Take the worst case and multiply it over several times." "I don't know how these people got into our Army," said Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), who reported seeing "several pictures of Iraqi women who were disrobed or putting their shirts up." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Reported in NY Post What I still dont get about all this is, why the hell were they taking pictures?!? For the family photo album? Are they really that stupid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 What I still dont get about all this is, why the hell were they taking pictures?!? For the family photo album? Are they really that stupid? And 1600 pictures, plus videos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Their parents must be so proud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 I bet that chic's Uncle-Dad is very proud of his lil girl. sheesh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 This unit sounds like something right out of Stripes! I suspect that next week we'll hear about how they stole an armored recreational vehicle and invaded Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 13, 2004 Author Share Posted May 13, 2004 This unit sounds like something right out of Stripes! I suspect that next week we'll hear about how they stole an armored recreational vehicle and invaded Iran. "Yoou're a lean mean fighting machine!"-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 What I still dont get about all this is, why the hell were they taking pictures?!? For the family photo album? Are they really that stupid? YES THEY ARE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 13, 2004 Author Share Posted May 13, 2004 Nuke, I keep hearing reporters here speaking about leadership at the prison, etc. I'm trying to understand what the command would be and where the people in the pictures fit. I'm assuming they are basically the military equivelent of jail guards, yet they seem to also be involved in the intelligence gathering process. Also, how close would their commanding officer be? I assume their CO is also at the prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Of course some on this board will suggest that a Church-going woman would be just as likely to commit such acts. Get a clue! Common sense. If a person is born into or nurtured in such an environment then that environment will become her norm. It doesn't matter if one or two people tell her it's wrong or if it's written in a book somewhere that it's wrong. It's about the how the person is endoctrinated into such a culture. Endoctrination is about creating behavior & attitude in a person. It's important for the military to discover the root causes for her behavior. Of course common sense can pretty much lead us to what those are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Nuke, I keep hearing reporters here speaking about leadership at the prison, etc. I'm trying to understand what the command would be and where the people in the pictures fit. I'm assuming they are basically the military equivelent of jail guards, yet they seem to also be involved in the intelligence gathering process. Also, how close would their commanding officer be? I assume their CO is also at the prison. The unit level commander is always there with his/her troops. That's why I say that the leadership there was either complicit or totally asleep at the switch. Any commander that would allow conduct like that to go on under his/her watch deserves to be relieved of command and sent home. There's just no excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 She's a degenerate endoctrinated from a degenerate lifestyle. I don't need statistics to come to that conclusion. The only mystery is what were the cause & effect relationships that led to that life style. That's what I want to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Correct me if I'm wrong here... but a "church going' woman would never be in the military doing that job.. correct. "Thou shall not kill"... makes sense that a person who lived by that so faithfully would not put themselves in a sitution where they might have to kill someone..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 She's a degenerate endoctrinated from a degenerate lifestyle. I don't need statistics to come to that conclusion. The only mystery is what were the cause & effect relationships that led to that life style. That's what I want to know. Why don't you shoot her an email and ask her. Any speculation on our parts I doubt would satisfy you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 She's a degenerate endoctrinated from a degenerate lifestyle. I don't need statistics to come to that conclusion. The only mystery is what were the cause & effect relationships that led to that life style. That's what I want to know. There is no such thing as a saint, especially in the military. It's up to unit leadership from the squad leader up to the Commanding General to ensure that dicipline is enforced and that the troops conduct falls with the accepted norm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Correct me if I'm wrong here... but a "church going' woman would never be in the military doing that job.. correct. "Thou shall not kill"... makes sense that a person who lived by that so faithfully would not put themselves in a sitution where they might have to kill someone..? That is totally false. There are a great number of deeply religous people in the military services and the potential for having to kill someone is not an issue because they believe its for a good cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 What IS a good cause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 That is totally false. There are a great number of deeply religous people in the military services and the potential for having to kill someone is not an issue because they believe its for a good cause. Nike... did I say there weren't...??? I questioned in "THAT JOB". I dunno... how religious is one who lives by all the commandments but that monster.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 13, 2004 Author Share Posted May 13, 2004 The unit level commander is always there with his/her troops. That's why I say that the leadership there was either complicit or totally asleep at the switch. Any commander that would allow conduct like that to go on under his/her watch deserves to be relieved of command and sent home. There's just no excuse. And to follow up, shouldn't that weigh heavy at their trial? If you are 10 yards from your CO, I find it hard to hold the person responsible. I thought there is a very narrow set of circumstances that it is OK to defy an order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 13, 2004 Author Share Posted May 13, 2004 Correct me if I'm wrong here... but a "church going' woman would never be in the military doing that job.. correct. "Thou shall not kill"... makes sense that a person who lived by that so faithfully would not put themselves in a sitution where they might have to kill someone..? There are no athiest in a fox hole. It is within Christian values to defend ones self, family, and country. I would say that as a population, the service people I know are more religious than most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 There are no athiest in a fox hole. It is within Christian values to defend ones self, family, and country. I would say that as a population, the service people I know are more religious than most. I don't ask, so I had no idea. Thanks for the 411. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 She's a degenerate endoctrinated from a degenerate lifestyle. I don't need statistics to come to that conclusion. The only mystery is what were the cause & effect relationships that led to that life style. That's what I want to know. I posted this in another thread and thought it would be applicable here...I am in no way shape or form condeming our military personnel (nor am I condoning what happened), but this is very interesting about "regular" people in similiar situations actually quite the same way. Experiments in 1971 foreshadow abuses Situations drove subjects to do horrible things By John Schwartz New York Times News Service Published May 13, 2004 In 1971, researchers at Stanford University created a simulated prison in the basement of the campus psychology building. They randomly assigned 24 students to be either prison guards or prisoners for two weeks. Within days, the "guards" had become swaggering and sadistic, to the point of placing bags over the prisoners' heads, forcing them to strip naked and encouraging them to perform sexual acts. The landmark Stanford experiment and studies like it give insight into how ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, do horrible things--like the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. What is the distance between "normal" and "monster?" Can anyone become a torturer? Such questions have been explored over the decades by philosophers and social scientists, and they come up anew whenever shocking cases of abuse burst upon the national consciousness--whether in the interrogation room, the police station or the high school locker room. Hannah Arendt coined the phrase "banality of evil" to describe the averageness of Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann. Social psychologists pursued the question more systematically, doing experiments that demonstrated the power of situations to determine human behavior. `Not surprised' Philip Zimbardo, a leader of the Stanford prison study, said that while the rest of the world was shocked by the images from Iraq, "I was not surprised that it happened." "I have exact, parallel pictures of prisoners with bags over their heads," from the 1971 study, he said. At one point, he said, the guards in the fake prison ordered their prisoners to strip and used a rudimentary sex joke to humiliate them. Zimbardo ended the experiment the next day, more than a week earlier than planned. Prisons, where the balance of power is so unequal, tend to be brutal and abusive places unless great effort is made to control the guards' base impulses, he said. At Stanford and in Iraq, he added, "It's not that we put bad apples in a good barrel. We put good apples in a bad barrel. The barrel corrupts anything that it touches." To the extent that the Abu Ghraib guards acted, as some have argued, at the request of intelligence officers, other studies, performed 40 years ago by Stanley Milgram, then a psychology professor at Yale University, can also offer some explanation, researchers said. In a famous series of experiments, Milgram told test subjects that they were taking part in a study about teaching through punishment. The subjects were instructed by a researcher in a white lab coat to deliver electric shocks to another participant, the "student." Every time the student gave an incorrect answer to a question, the subject was ordered to deliver a shock. The shocks started small but got progressively stronger at the researcher's insistence, with labels on the machine indicating jolts of increasing intensity--up to a huge 450 volts. The shock machine was a fake, however, and the victims were actors who moaned and wailed. But to the test subjects, the experience was all too real. Most exhibited great anguish as they carried out the instructions. But a stunning 65 percent of the participants obeyed the commands to administer the electric shocks all the way up to the last, potentially lethal switch, marked "XXX." Emotions of war Charles Strozier, director of the Center on Terrorism and Public Safety at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said the prison guards in Iraq might feel that the emotions of war and the threat of terrorism gave them permission to dehumanize the prisoners. "There has been a serious, seismic change in attitude after 9/11 in the country in its attitude about torture," Strozier said, a shift that is evident in polling and in public debate. In the minds of many Americans, he said, "It's OK to torture now, to get information that will save us from terrorism." Craig Haney, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and one of the lead researchers in the Stanford experiment, said prison abuses can be prevented. "The basic message of the study is that prisons are, basically, destructive environments that have to be guarded against at all times," Haney said. He added that regular training and discipline can keep prisons from degenerating into pits of abuse, but the vigilance must be constant, with outside monitoring as well. Without outsiders watching, Haney said, "what's regarded as appropriate treatment can shift over time" so "they don't realize how badly they're behaving and, as in this case, they take pictures of it. "If anything, the smiling faces in those pictures suggest a total loss of perspective--a drift in the standard of humane treatment." Experiments like those at Stanford and Yale are no longer done, in part because researchers think they involved so much deception and such high levels of stress--four of the Stanford prisoners suffered emotional breakdowns--that the experiments are unethical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moochpuppy Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Is the Army moto not "Be All You Can Be"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Is the Army moto not "Be All You Can Be"? I think they confused that with "ass rape all that you can ass rape" hmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 And to follow up, shouldn't that weigh heavy at their trial? If you are 10 yards from your CO, I find it hard to hold the person responsible. I thought there is a very narrow set of circumstances that it is OK to defy an order. You are supposed to disobey orders from your superiors if someone tells you to commit an unsafe act or if you are ordered to do something that constitutes criminal activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.