> Leigh Meyers wrote:
>
>> There's a significant difference beteeen Cindy Sheehan and Lyndie
>> England. Cindy Sheehan takes responsibility for her own actions, and
>> my guess is, Lyndie England never has at any point in her life...
>> Just another girl who wanted to be dungeon master but forgot that
>> you aren't supposed to smile quite that broadly while holding the
>> leash.
>>
>> That's what got her convicted, she looked like she was having
>> "too much fun". She was...
>>
>> No sympathy for torturers, no matter what the excuse, social
>> background, or orders... She had a DUTY, personal or Geneva
>> Accords, to refuse illegal orders, and she didn't. TOO BAD!
>
> A slur on dungeon masters, but leave that aside. Lynndie England is
> reportedly "learning disabled" and depressive. I don't mean to argue
> that the dim and troubled shouldn't be held responsible for their
> crimes, but it's unseemly to denounce her with such enthusiasm, while
> her superiors walk free.
I don't want to sound too cynical, or slur the dyslexic and others with diagnosable problems, but we're a nation of "learning disabled" and *maniac-depressives*(when we don't get what we want).
Was a pre-existing diagnosis ever presented into evidence? I believe the Army still uses the MMPI and other psych tests, so they would have known if she was a psych case.
Amadeus:
> Leigh,
> I appreciate your comments, but it seems to me that the differences
> you point out are abstract and subjective. We have no way of know way
> of knowing whether Sheehan was in fact really "responsible" when
> compared to England; nor do we have any way of knowing whether
> Sheehan was also a "dungeon master." In fact, the only indicator in
> making these decisions appears to be the relative privilege of
> Sheehan vs. the poverty of England. In this light we can be well
> assured that those with more privilege in capitalist society ALWAYS
> can afford a higher moral ground, just as Gingrich and other
> conservatives were fond to inadvertently point out in their "personal
> responsibility" speeches in the 90s. (It should be well noted that
> Sheehan pointed out the prisoner abuse in her missive yesterday, in a
> manner timely with England's sentencing.)
I'm intentionally being subjective, but I don't think abstract. Morality itself is "abstract", but as a "christian", which I'm sure England believes herself to be, she should have been able to "throw herself to the lions" for her beliefs.
That means resisting hurtful behavior to others(bare minimum) according to her "godhead". Three years is gonna be a cakewalk compared to her "sentence from up high".
As far as poor.... I believe she or her family own a home, which is an impoverishing experience for someone at working class, or working poor income, but it would be gratuitious to believe she is "poor".
I know literally hundreds of people that go through their day to day existance with little more than the clothes on their back, wondering where the next meal is coming from. That's poor.
Lyndie England is "poor" the way someone might be poor when they have $500 dollars in their pocket when they need 1000 to make a payment on the house... I wouldn't want to mince words here, I call that "strapped", and it's too bad, I empathize, but that's NOT POVERTY.
The middle class can understand(fear) her monetary situation, so it's projected as "poverty" while the truly poor are invisible to them.
>
> We can theorize and argue all day on what was really going through
> the minds of England and Sheehan, and whose actions were morally
> correct, and whose were not. At the end of the day, the material
> realities stand: working class women and men, regardless of their
> relative levels of privilege, regardless of whether they are from the
> rural south or California, are taking the fall for capitalists'
> policies. If England got three years, then her commanding officers
> should have gotten three hundred, and THEIR commanders-- ultimately
> the heads of state bureaucracy like Bush, Rumsfeld, et al., should
> have gotten three thousand-- TOO BAD, right? But by that point we've
> superseded the abstract notion of individual responsibility and duty,
> haven't we?
Absolutely! ...but not "TOO BAD, right?". The big pigs take longer, with more intense perserverance and determination. Usually, the ones at the top are wristslapped, and everyone applauds. That IS a problem that needs to be dealt with(nobody in power pays), but it doesn't ameliorate Lyndie England's complicity in the situation one whit, or mine, or yours.
Taking the responsiblility, but refusing to be blamed is a good start, but Ms England couldn't even do that, she blamed it on her boyfriend Charles Graner... how... unique. It's unlikely she would have gotten off the hook in a civilian criminal court either, with a jury of peers, using that sort of rationale.
>
> And there should be no more or less sympathy for England than the
> millions of soldiers who have, through little real choice of their
> own, fought and died violently for the accumulatory drools of the
> capitalist class. Torture, rape, and pillage, and protest, strike and
> repression have ALWAYS been among the spoils of war, and they will
> continue as long as class society does.
> --adx
In modern times, soldiers refuse illegal orders all the time, but we never hear about it except when soldier support organizations publicize it.
But the bottom line for our "christian nation" is: What would Jesus do?
Christian nation, right?
Here's an example of one kind of christianity *I* understand: Activists convicted in bloody flag case The Associated Press Published 10:36 am PDT Monday, September 26, 2005
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. (AP) - Four peace activists who spilled human blood on an American flag to protest the war in Iraq were convicted Monday of damaging governmental property, but escaped the most serious charge against them. The four members of Catholic Worker, a social justice organization, were acquitted of conspiracy to impede an officer of the United States, said group spokesman Tarik Abdelazim. They also were convicted of entering a military recruiting station for unlawful purposes.
The defendants - Daniel Burns, 45; Peter DeMott, 58; and sisters Teresa Grady, 39; and Clare Grady, 46 - splattered their blood on the windows and walls, posters, pictures and an American flag at an Army and Marine Corps recruiting station near Ithaca, about 65 miles south of Syracuse.
The Ithaca residents were arrested March 17, 2003. Dubbed "the St. Patrick's Four," the group said that under international law they were not guilty of a crime, and compared their actions to those of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Susan B. Anthony.
"That blood was already on the flag," Clare Grady testified. "We just made it visible."
A previous trial in Tompkins County Court ended when the jury deadlocked. The U.S. District Court jury deliberated about eight hours over two days.
#33#
Link: http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/nation/story/2753523p-11349148c.html
Leigh www.leighm.net
Have you seen my newsfeeds?: http://leighmdotnet.blogspot.com/ Got RSS?: http://www.furl.net/members/leighm/rss.xml