Defense says Lynndie England easily influenced by lover
Army Pfc. Lynndie England’s attorneys, marshaling their defense for the first time Wednesday, laid blame for her participation in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal on her blind love for and trust of soldier Charles Graner Jr., whom the Army put in charge of part of the dangerous Iraqi facility.
England, who attended special-education classes for much of her childhood, has learned to rely on strong authority figures, her lead attorney said, and that left her vulnerable to Graner in Abu Ghraib, where their unit took dozens of photos and videos of naked prisoners in humiliating positions in late 2003. Graner has already been convicted.
“He’s older than I am. He’s been around. He’s experienced,” her attorney, Capt. Jonathan Crisp, said of England’s feelings. “He’s a corrections officer in the civilian world. He must know what’s going on. I love him; he loves me. Everybody looks up to him.”
England, 22, a reservist from West Virginia, stands accused of two counts of conspiracy, four counts of mistreatment of prisoners and one count of indecent acts in connection with the photos. If convicted of all counts, she could face an 11-year prison sentence.
I doubt strongly that this defense will stand up, as England, like every soldier, was well versed in the Universal Code of Military Justice. Peer pressure or love or stupidity ain’t an out. The poster child for the anti-war left’s (read New York Time’s) Abu Ghraib campaign has to pay her due.
Pelosi willing to give up S.F. funds for recovery
House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said Tuesday she was willing to return to the federal Treasury $70 million designated for San Francisco projects in the new highway and transportation bill and use the money to help pay for Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts.
Well, obviously that portion of federal spending was expendable. If only we could find some other places to cut spending.
Sheehan’s Anti-War Campaign Now in D.C.
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan pledged Wednesday to “force change to happen” during protest speeches outside the White House and Capitol.
Sheehan arrived in Washington after a three-week cross-country bus tour that began near President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. She is expected to participate in an anti-Iraq war rally Saturday that organizers hope could draw tens of thousands of people.
Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed last year in Iraq, wants Bush to explain why he sent the United States to war and say what steps he will take to end the conflict.
“This is where we will force change to happen because we the people of America are the checks and balances on this government,” she said. “And we will end this war.”
[…]
Sheehan’s one-woman protest in Texas this August re-energized the anti-war movement as well as supporters of the U.S.-led invasion and of American troops serving in Iraq. Rallies in opposition to the anti-war protesters also are set for this weekend in the capital.
I’ve already given my thoughts on Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan. I’ll leave it to Confederate Yankee to nail what is missing from WaPo’s story:
The AP, Washington Post, and other news sources gleefully mentioned Cindy Sheehan’s march on the White House this afternoon. With the exception of Reuters, however, they were all more than willing to forego this little tidbit of information:
“Mrs Sheehan was joined by about 30 supporters in her march down Pennsylvania Avenue to deliver a letter to Bush urging him to pull the troops out of Iraq.”
That’s all, folks. I count 29 people. This is her entire protest party. Including Cindy.
Hamas chief hints at compromise
THE militant Islamic group Hamas could one day accept the existence of the state of Israel and negotiate, one of its political leaders said yesterday in an unprecedented sign of compromise.
For years, Hamas has criticised the ruling Fatah movement of the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, for allegedly selling out claims to all of historic Palestine by recognising Israel and confining the Palestinian struggle to the West Bank and Gaza Strip areas occupied in the 1967 Middle East war.
But Mohammed Ghazal, a respected figure within the movement from the West Bank city of Nablus, said yesterday: “The [Hamas] charter is not the Koran.
“Historically, we believe all of Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, but we’re talking now about reality, about political solutions. The realities are different.”
Hamas is about to join the Palestinian Authority’s political system by participating in January’s legislative elections.
Analysts differed over whether Mr Ghazal’s comments suggested Hamas might take a more moderate approach.
The movement has made it clear it will not disarm its military wing, responsible for dozens of suicide bombings against civilian and military targets, even after the election.
Mr Ghazal’s remarks were described as “unusual” and “a new language” by Ziyad Abu Amr, a Palestinian MP who is also an expert on the movement. But they elicited cool reactions from other leading figures within Hamas and from Israel.
The new language is a reaction to a possible line in the sand by Israel about Hamas’ role in upcoming PA elections. Israel, which has already willingly and unilaterally withdrawn from the Gaza Strip, has certainly earned a little cooperation from the Palestinian side, though I have no faith in Hamas actually making any serious steps toward a mutually beneficial future. I expect this development to be little more than a reactive twitch on the face of a terrorist organization that once claimed it was politically ready to rule Palestine but currently sees the Palestinians as ungovernable.
