Dharma:

This is the question that I've been trying to answer since this came out.  Senator McCain was pretty tough on Rumsfled asking him precisely what orders were given to these soldiers--were they ordered to "soften" the Iraqis and what did that order mean.  I personally would not want a former Vietnam POW grilling me.

But then, even if she was ordered, she still should have known it was wrong.  Rumsfeld commended the soldier who finally spoke up and brought this to a head.  So, I'm not sure I can buy the "I was ordered" defense even if that was the case. 

The real thing that is bothering me here is why do we know so much about her when we know very little about the other soldiers involved?  The other six have actually been charged, but Lynndie (to the best of my knowledge) has not...the article I read said she was restationed to Fort Bragg because she was pregnant.  There are a lot of people who should be in hot water over this, Lynndie shouldn't be the only one crucified.

There's a big difference between doing some 'softening' under the orders of MI and CIA and what was depicted. Chip Frederick has, in his journal, given a description of the some of the 'softening' they were asked to do.  Things like keeping inmates in cells with no light or ventilation, denying them their religious freedoms etc. Yes, she should have known it was wrong...common sense should have told her that it was wrong.

I think Lynndie's being crucified in part because she's female and the prisoners were male. Women aren't supposed to have it in them to torture people like that, dig?  We're supposed to be the gentler, fairer sex, the ones who nurture and nurse, not toruture and degrade.

She originally got re-assigned to Ft Bragg because she was pregnant, not because of this shit-storm.  As it is, she was officially charged with assault yesterday and is currently restricted to post.  Whether or not she'll be placed in pre-trial confinement remains to be seen.  Don't think for a second that her pregnancy is what's keeping her out; we've had quite a few pregnant inmates here at this facility, and we're miniscule compared to the brig at Ft Bragg,

Thanks for the clarifications--the only thing I'm not torn about is the fact that she (and the others) definitely needs to be held accountable for her actions.

An unrelated question:  getting pregnant while in Iraq--that's got to be some sort of violation, no?

Not as far as I know, no.  We've had girls from Dave's squadron go to the desert, turn up preggers (or get knocked up whilst there) and get sent home because the med unit there is expeditionary and doesn't have the facilites to provide adequate medical care.  They're a field clinic/hospital, not an obstetrical unit.

I can however, only speak for the Air Force side of the house.  It might be a totally different story for the Army.  I should ask Greywar, he'd know.

wow.  I guess I just thought that it would fall under fratinization (is that spelled right?), but that's only with for different ranks, right?  I'd ask my Dad (an Army guy), but I'll get a seven hour response as opposed to a quick answer! 

(1) That the accused was a commissioned or warrant officer;

(2) That the accused fraternized on terms of military equality with one or more certain enlisted member(s) in a certain manner;

(3) That the accused then knew the person(s) to be (an) enlisted member(s);

(4) That such fraternization violated the custom of the accused’s service that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted members on terms of military equality; and

(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Yes!  My husband! 

I'll translate the explanation for you: The Uniformed Code of Military Justice says that in order for a fraternization charge to be validated, the accused has to be an officer or a warrant officer and the other party has to be enlisted.

While it doesn't violate the UCMJ, I think it's just common sense to know it's not good policy to get too involved with your subordinates, not the ones working directly for you anyway.  It can call into question your integrity as a leader.

Unfortunately there didn't seem to be too much integrity or common sense available at Abu Ghraib.

well said and thanks for the translation, or should I just thank Dave---is he still hiding out somewhere around here?

I'm a little frightened by Rumsfeld's comment that the worst is yet to come...I can not even begin to imagine what pictures remain that would cause him to say that.  

My guess is that the soldiers in Iraq have got to be outraged right now.  Not only was it stupid, and inhumane, but it's made every soldier's job that much harder, and more dangerous.

No, I translated that one for you.  Dave's sleeping, or I'd have asked him to do it. He helped me out with the explanation of operating procedure in military confinement facilities (he used to run the jail, and I thoroughly enjoyed playing the role of 'warden's wife')

The pictures that remain include, so I understand, photos of corpses, of the desecration of corpses, pictures and videotape of prisoners being made to masturbate..and who knows what else.  Nothing that comes out of there is too surprising to me anymore.

Interestingly enough, there's another female who's been implicated as well - Sabrina Harman.  She's not getting as rough a ride as Lynndie...yet.

the only reaction that I can muster is: WTF were they thinking?

I hadn't heard of Harman, but I'll keep my eyes out for stories on her.

I'm impressed with your military knowledge!  Thanks for all the technical information, makes it easier to understand what's going on.

Thanks! The military knowledge comes from being married to a career cop for 10 years, being 'Key Spouse' for 4 years, and working at the base legal office in the military justice department.  I got a lot of 'hands-on' experience in all aspects of it...I've always believed that the more involved I am with my husband's job, the more I know and therefore the more I'll understand the why's and wherefore's of what he has to do. 

I don't think they were thinking....

As dharma quite succinctly explain Fraternization is a very narrowly defined issue and can only occur between officers and enlisted. There is however in the Army a regulation governing "improper relationships". These are relationships that undermine order and discipline int he army. For instance I as a SGT would not be allowed to have any sort of personal relationship with my subordinate soldiers. The rule of thumb being that if you can give them an order, you can not sleep with them.

As far as getting pregnant goes, well hell that has been the femal soldiers way out of deployment since there were female soldiers. As soon as the deployment order comes down the birth control stops. Witht his in mind there is also somethign known unofficially as General Order One. Thsi means in combat areas like Iraq things like drinking, being in civilian clothes, and *having sex* are not authorized. The fact of the matter is the army has never wanted to deal with the public relations battle it would have to fight to punish a female soldier for getting pregnant when she is not supposed to be having sex. The feminist lobby would descnd like wolves on this issue as pregancy is regarded as a "sacred" issue for that crowd, unless of course you are talking about abortion politics.

The AF isn't much different.  "I can't go, I'm pregnant", or as I said, getting pregnant whilst there.  Thanks for the input, Greywar.